Structure and Infrastructure Engineering

Maintenance, Management, Life-Cycle Design and Performance

ISSN: 1573-2479 (Print) 1744-8980 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nsie20

A review of multi-criteria decision-making

methods for infrastructure management

Golam Kabir, Rehan Sadiq & Solomon Tesfamariam

To cite this article: Golam Kabir, Rehan Sadiq & Solomon Tesfamariam (2014) A review of multi-
criteria decision-making methods for infrastructure management, Structure and Infrastructure
Engineering, 10:9, 1176-1210, DOI: 10.1080/15732479.2013.795978

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2013.795978

Published online: 29 May 2013.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2314

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 53 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=nsie20

Download by: [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] Date: 23 October 2017, At: 07:33
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 2014
Vol. 10, No. 9, 1176–1210, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2013.795978

A review of multi-criteria decision-making methods for infrastructure management

Golam Kabir*, Rehan Sadiq1 and Solomon Tesfamariam2
Department of Civil Engineering, School of Engineering, University of British Columbia, Canada
(Received 9 December 2012; final version received 20 March 2013; accepted 27 March 2013)

In infrastructure management, multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) has emerged as a decision support tool to integrate
various technical information and stakeholder values. Different MCDM techniques and tools have been developed. This
paper presents a comprehensive review on the application of MCDM literature in the field of infrastructure management.
Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 07:33 23 October 2017

Approximately 300 published papers were identified that report MCDM applications in the field of infrastructure
management during 1980– 2012. The reviewed papers are classified into application to the type of infrastructure (e.g.
bridges and pipes), and prevalent decision or intervention (e.g. repair and rehabilitate). In addition, the papers were also
classified according to MCDM methods used in the analysis. The paper provides taxonomy of those articles and identifies
trends and new developments in MCDM methods. The results suggest that there is a significant growth in MCDM
applications in infrastructure management applications of MCDM over the last decade. It has also been noted that many
decision support tools based on multiple MCDM methods have been successfully used for infrastructure management.
Keywords: multi-criteria decision-making; infrastructure; asset management; review; decision analysis

1. Introduction decisions are based on multiple and conflicting criteria/

Public and private agencies utilised infrastructure manage-
ment to maintain and manage their ageing and deteriorating
infrastructure assets in good and serviceable condition.
However, the task of maintaining the infrastructure system
is becoming more challenging than ever before due to
the increasing demands, shrinking financial and human
resources, and increasing ageing and deterioration (Flintsch
& Chen, 2004). The increasing deterioration resulted from
increasing usage and exposure to deleterious environmen-
tal action; and often the infrastructure systems have
exceeded the design lives. According to America’s 2009
Infrastructure Report Card, the overall infrastructure grade
has dropped from D þ to D and $2.2 trillion is needed to be
invested over 5 years to bring the condition of the nation’s
infrastructure up to a good condition (ASCE, 2009).
Canadian Infrastructure Report Card (2012) informed
highlighting that a significant amount of municipal
infrastructure ranked between ‘fair’ and ‘very poor’ and
the replacement cost of these assets alone totals $171.8
billion nationally. Under these circumstances, decision-
makers are facing with competing investment demands and
must distribute limited resources so that the infrastructure
systems can be maintained in the best possible condition.
Infrastructure management systems have proven effective
in bridging the gap between user expectations and
infrastructure condition (Flintsch & Chen, 2004).
Applying these tools, however, is becoming increas-
ingly difficult. In many cases, infrastructure management
data that are subject to different levels and types of
uncertainty (e.g. ambiguous and incomplete). Further-
more, these decisions incorporate engineering judgement
and expert opinion. Finally, stakeholders, who may have
vested interest in specific courses of action, are gaining
increased access to all available information and, given the
data uncertainty, can justify often opposing courses of
action (Huang, Keisler, & Linkov, 2011). As such, the
integration of multiple criteria and uncertain information
demands a systematic framework to represent the technical
information and requires expert judgement (Bolar,
Tesfamariam, & Sadiq, 2013; Huang et al., 2011; Sadiq
& Tesfamariam, 2009; Tesfamariam & Sadiq, 2006).
Multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) provides a
systematic approach to combine these inputs with benefit/
cost information and decision-maker or stakeholder views
to rank the alternatives (Kabir, 2012; Sadiq & Tesfamar-
iam, 2009; Tesfamariam & Sadiq, 2006). MCDM is used
to identify and quantify decision-maker and stakeholder
considerations about various (mostly) non-monetary
factors in order to compare alternative courses of action
(Huang et al., 2011). According to many authors (e.g.
Zimmermann, 1996), MCDM can be categorised into
multi-objective decision-making and multi-attribute
decision-making (MADM). Nevertheless, usually
MADM and MCDM are used to refer the same class of
models. MCDM represents methods that are potentially
capable of improving the transparency, analytic rigour and

*Corresponding author. Email: golam.kabir@ubc.ca

q 2013 Taylor & Francis
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering
auditability of these decisions (Dunning, Ross, &
Merkhofer, 2000). The MCDM framework scores or
ranks the performance of alternative decision options
against multiple criteria which are typically measured in
different units (Sadiq & Tesfamariam, 2009).
Numerous review papers have been reported on the use
of MCDM methods in various fields of application.
Romero and Rehman (1987) reviewed MCDM use in 150
natural resource management applications. Romero and
Rehman (1987) found out of fisheries, water, forestry and
land resource applications, most applications of MCDM
occurred in water management. Hayashi (2000) examined
the application of MCDM to agriculture with reference to
Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 07:33 23 October 2017
over 80 studies. Steuer and Na (2003) identified 265
MCDM studies in the field of financial decision-making
which they classified in terms of methodological
approaches. Frangopol and Maute (2003) presented a
review of the life cycle reliability-based optimisation field
with emphasis on civil and aerospace structures. Pohekar
and Ramachandran (2004) reviewed over 90 published
MCDM studies in the field of energy planning. Marler and
Arora (2004) surveyed the current continuous, non-linear,
multi-objective optimisation (MOO) concepts and
methods in engineering applications. Malczewski (2006)
provides a survey of more than 300 articles on
geographical information system (GIS)-based MCDM
approaches from 1990 to 2004. Linkov et al. (2006)
surveyed the application of MCDM in environmental
management focusing on management of contaminated
sites published in 1992 –2002. Hajkowicz and Collins
(2007) reviewed 113 published MCDM studies in the field
of water resource management. Frangopol and Liu
(2007b) presented the recent development of life cycle
maintenance and management planning for deteriorating
civil infrastructure with emphasis on bridges using
optimisation techniques and considering multiple and
often competing criteria in terms of condition, safety and
life cycle cost. Diaz-Balteiro and Romero (2008) provide a
survey of more than 250 articles on MCDM applications to
forestry problems.
Frangopol (2011) highlighted recent accomplishments
in the life cycle performance assessment, maintenance,
monitoring, management and optimisation of structural
systems under uncertainty. Huang et al. (2011) reviewed
over 300 published papers between 2000 and 2009
reporting MCDM applications in the environmental
sciences field. Frangopol and Bocchini (2012) presented
critical review of the state of the art in the field of bridge
network performance analysis, reliability assessment,
maintenance management and optimisation. Herva and
Roca (2012) reviewed the advantages of combining
complementary environmental evaluation tools such as
life cycle assessment, ecological footprint and environ-
mental risk assessment with multi-criteria analysis for
corporate environmental evaluation. Most of the study
1177
concluded that the application of MCDM methods
provides a significant improvement in decision-making
and public acceptance of the suggested remedial planning
and policy.
The goal of this paper is to review the recent literature
and identify current trends in MCDM applications to
infrastructure management, and to discuss the possible
reasons that the various MCDM methods are gaining
attention in different applications. This MCDM review
paper relies on 300 published papers in the field of
infrastructure management. The review is limited to
publications from scientific and professional journals and
reputed conferences. This is a comprehensive but not
necessarily an exhaustive study and no doubt that further
MCDM applications exist, many of which would be in
unpublished reports. The studies reviewed over a wide
range of infrastructure management issues and feature
different MCDM methods.
2. Literature survey methods
The search for relevant publications was performed using
several Web-based scientific search engines, databases and
electronic libraries (Appendix A). The majority of the
scholarly articles collected from the Web of Science
(WOS) database, which accesses articles from over 10,000
journals worldwide (Reuters, 2010). In addition, Journal
of Multicriteria Decision Analysis and International
Journal of Multicriteria Decision Making were searched
separately since they are not part of the Web of Science
database and publish important papers in the field.
The initial search included queries using a combi-
nation of MCDM keywords (Table 1). The results were
refined based on infrastructure-type subject areas provided
by WOS, which included water resources, construction
building technology, bridge, transportation science tech-
nology and transportation, as well as by subject areas
corresponding to decision analysis in general, including
infrastructural management, asset management, bridge
maintenance, water distribution network and pavement
management. Queries in the non-infrastructural subject
areas were further refined by adding infrastructural phrases
to the searches listed in Table 1.
The search was limited to articles published in refereed
journals and reputed conferences over the period of
January 1980 – October 2012. Primarily, any article
containing the search keywords was considered as a
potential candidate for including into the database of the
MCDM publications. A manual search was also done to
supplement the automated search. The manual procedure
involved searching the reference sections of the papers
identified by the automated search by following up any
relevant references within those papers. Abstracts for
papers published in 1980 –2012 were screened by the
authors to avoid irrelevant papers with similar phrasings.
 1178
Table 1. MCDM search key words and phrases used.
MCDM keywords
MCDM or multi-criteria decision-making
MCDA or multi-criteria decision analysis
Weighted sum methods
Weighted product methods
AHP or analytic hierarchy process
ELECTRE
TOPSIS or technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution
PROMETHEE or preference ranking organisation
VIKOR
Compromise programming
ANP or analytic network process
Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 07:33 23 October 2017
Papers identified in the search, but those were clearly
irrelevant, were omitted from further consideration,
leaving 300 items that were reviewed thoroughly.
3. A brief review of the main MCDM approaches
In this section, we have tried to provide some brief
comments explaining the basic ideas on various MCDM
methods. In order to provide for a self-contained paper, the
brief explanation of the several approaches will be
provided with key sources, where readers can consult for
detailed technical presentations. In this discussion, the
main focus will be on the following MCDM methods:
. Weighted sum model (WSM) (Fishburn, 1967),
. Weighted product model (WPM) (Bridgman, 1922;
Miller & Starr, 1969),
. Compromise programming (CP) (Zeleny, 1982),
. Analytical hierarchy process (AHP) (Saaty, 1980),
. ELECTRE (Benayoun, Roy, & Sussman, 1966),
. TOPSIS (Hwang & Yoon, 1981),
. PROMETHEE (Brans & Vincke, 1985) and
. VIKOR (Opricovic, 1998).
The above MCDM approaches share some common
mathematical elements: values for alternatives are assigned
for each criterion, and then multiplied by corresponding
weights and finally combined to produce a total score (Huang
et al., 2011). The approaches differ significantly in the details
of how criteria values are assigned and combined. The
processes have different information or knowledge require-
ments, and the calculated scores have different mathematical
properties and, thus, slightly different values and meanings.
Due to the relative strengths and weaknesses of each method,
users often view one of the various approaches as most
appropriate (e.g. Figueira, Greco, & Ehrgott, 2005; Kabir &
Hasin, 2012a). Brief discussion and the applications of
MCDM methods in the field of infrastructure management
are provided in this section.
G. Kabir et al.
Infrastructural
phrases Subject areas
Drinking water Water resources
Wastewater Construction building technology
Dams Transportation science technology
Building Transportation Infrastructure management
Bridges Asset management
Pavement Water distribution network
Roads Pavement management
Rail
Transit
3.1 WSM and WPM
WSM is probably the most commonly used approach,
especially in single-dimensional problems (Triantaphyllou,
2001). WSM defines the optimal alternative as the one
which corresponds to the ‘best’ value (maximum for all-
benefit-type criteria and minimum for cost-type criteria) of
the weighted sum (Fishburn, 1967). The model is formulated
for problems in which all variables have the same physical
dimensions, being based on the ‘additive utility’ assumption.
Moreover, to apply correctly, all the criteria should be cost
type or all-benefit type. For these reasons, it seems to be not
suitable for problems that generally involve very different
types of criteria and variables (Caterino, Iervolino,
Manfredi, & Cosenza, 2009).
WPM is very similar to the WSM (Triantaphyllou,
2001). The main difference is that weighted parameters are
multiplied instead of summed. Each alternative is compared
with the others by multiplying a number of ratios, one for
each criterion (Bridgman, 1922). Each ratio is raised to the
power equivalent to the relative weight of the corresponding
criterion. WPM is also known as dimensionless analysis
because its structure eliminates any units of measure.
WSM and WPM methods are easy to use and well-
understandable, well-proven technique, applicable when
exact and total information is collected, providing good
performance when compared with more sophisticated
methods (Chang & Yeh, 2001). Normalisation is required
to solve multi-dimensional problems which can be
considered as weakness of the methods. The applications
of WSM and WPM in the field of infrastructure
management are given in Appendix B.
3.2 Compromise programming
CP is a methodology that deals with problems of hierarchical
nature which was first developed by Zeleny (1982) and
later extended by Bardossy, Bogardi, and Duckstein, (1985)
as composite programming. CP belongs to a class of
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering
multi-criteria analytical methods called ‘distance-based’
methods. Distance-based techniques are designed to identify
non-dominated solutions that are closest to an ideal solution
by some distance measure (Elmahdi, Kheireldin, and
Hamdy, 2006). The main advantage of using this method is
its simple conceptual structure. CP can be used in both
mathematical programming (design problem) and decision
analysis (Nachtnebel, 1994).
CP is easy to use and well understandable and gives good
performance when compared with more sophisticated
methods but time consuming. The applications of CP in the
field of infrastructure management are given in Appendix B.
Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 07:33 23 October 2017
3.3 Analytic hierarchy process
AHP was proposed by Saaty (1980) and is based on
obtaining of preferences or weights of importance to the
criteria and alternatives. In this method, both criteria and
alternatives can be structured in a hierarchical way. First
level of the hierarchy corresponds to the general purpose of
the problem, the second level to the criteria and the third
level to the alternatives (Kabir, 2012; Saaty, 1980).
Application of AHP to a decision problem involves four-
step structuring of the decision problem, making pair-wise
comparisons and obtaining the judgmental matrix,
computing local weights and consistency of comparisons
and aggregation of local weights (e.g. Kabir & Hasin, 2013;
Tesfamariam & Sadiq, 2006). In the AHP, each element of
the hierarchy is considered independent of all of the rest, the
decision criteria are considered independents between
them, and alternatives are considered independents of the
decision criteria and of each other.
The main strengths of AHP are as follows:
. Applicable when exact and total parameters is
collected.
. Decision problem can be fragmented into its smallest
elements, making evidence of each criterion applied
(Macharis, Springael, de Brucker, & Verbeke, 2004).
. Applicable for either single or multiple problems,
since it incorporates both qualitative and quantitative
criteria (Pires, Chang, & Martinho, 2011).
. Calculation of consistency ratio to assure decision-
makers (Sadiq & Tesfamariam, 2009).
The limitations of AHP are as follows:
. Loss of information can occur due to potential
compensation between good scores on some criteria
and bad scores on other criteria (Macharis et al.,
2004).
. Implementation is quite inconvenient due to
complexity (Pires et al., 2011).
. Complex and time-consuming computation is
required (Chou, Chang, & Shen, 2008).
1179
The applications of AHP in the field of infrastructure
management are given in Appendix B.
3.4 ELECTRE
The original ELECTRE method (ELimination Et Choix
Traduisant la REalite) is attributed to Benayoun et al.
(1966). It is generally labelled as ‘ELECTRE I’, because
several different versions of the ELECTRE method were
subsequently given: ELECTRE II (Roy & Bertier 1971),
ELECTRE III (Roy, 1978), ELECTRE IV (Hugonnard
& Roy, 1982), ELECTRE IS (Roy & Skalka, 1984),
ELECTRE A (unpublished for confidential reasons; it was
made to solve a specific decision problem of an important
banking company) and ELECTRE TRI (Yu, 1992).
ELECTRE III is the most popular and most used methods
of them. All the versions of ELECTRE are based on the
same fundamental concepts but are operationally somewhat
different. ELECTRE is based on the definition of outranking
relations between alternatives, taken two at a time.
The main strengths of ELECTRE are as follows:
. Applicable even when there is missing information
(Pires et al., 2011),
. Applicable even when there are incomparable
alternatives (Pires et al., 2011),
. Applicable even when incorporation of uncertainties
is required,
. May or may not reach the preferred alternative and
. Applicable for both quantitative and qualitative
attributes.
ELECTRE used indirect method that ranks alternatives by
means of pair-wise comparison, and due to complex
computational procedure, it is time consuming without
using specific software (Cheng, Chan, & Huang, 2002). The
applications of different versions of ELECTRE method in the
field of infrastructure management are given in Appendix B.
3.5 TOPSIS
Technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal
solution (TOPSIS), developed by Hwang and Yoon
(1981), is a value-based compensatory method in
conception and application. TOPSIS method attempts to
choose alternatives that simultaneously have the shortest
distance from the positive ideal solution and the farthest
distance from the negative-ideal solution (Cheng et al.,
2002; Opricovic & Tzeng, 2004). The positive-ideal
solution maximises the benefit criteria and minimises the
cost criteria, whereas the negative-ideal solution maxi-
mises the cost criteria and minimises the benefit criteria
(Kabir & Sumi, 2012a). TOPSIS makes full use of
attribute information, does not require attribute prefer-
ences to be independent and provides a cardinal ranking of
 1180 G. Kabir et al.
alternatives (Chen & Hwang, 1992; Yoon & Hwang,
1995). To apply this method, attribute values must be
numeric, monotonically increasing or decreasing, and
have commensurable units.
The main strengths of TOPSIS are as follows:
. Easy to implement and understandable principle,
. Applicable when exact and total information is
collected (Pires et al., 2011),
. Consideration of both the positive and negative
ideal solutions,
. Provision of a well-structured analytical framework
for alternatives ranking (Kabir & Hasin, 2012b) and
Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 07:33 23 October 2017
. Use of fuzzy number to deal with uncertainty
problems (Kabir & Sumi, 2012a).
Vector normalisation is required to solve multi-
dimensional problems which can be considered as
weakness of the method. The applications of TOPSIS
method in the field of infrastructure management are given
in Appendix B.
3.6 PROMETHEE
The Preference Ranking Organisation METhod for Enrich-
ment Evaluations (PROMETHEE) was first developed by
Brans (1982) and further extended by Brans and Vincke
(1985). PROMETHEE is an outranking method for a finite
set of alternative actions to be ranked and selected among
conflicting criteria. PROMETHEE is applicable even when
simple and efficient information is needed (Brans &
Mareschal, 1992). It is based on the comparison of
alternatives considering the deviations that alternatives
show according to each criterion. PROMETHEE used
positive and negative preference flows for each alternative to
generate ranking in relation to decision weights. PROME-
THEE allows the direct operation on the variables included
in the decision matrix, without requiring any normalisation
and applicable even when there is missing information.
There are different versions of PROMETHEE: PRO-
METHEE I (partial ranking; Brans, 1982), PROMETHEE
II (complete ranking; Brans, 1982), PROMETHEE III
(ranking based on intervals; Brans & Vincke, 1985),
PROMETHEE IV (continuous case; Brans & Vincke,
1985), PROMETHEE GAIA (geometrical analysis
for interactive assistance; Mareschal & Brans, 1988),
PROMETHEE V (MCDA including segmentation con-
straints; Brans & Mareschal, 1992) and PROMETHEE VI
(representation of the human brain, Brans & Mareschal,
1995). All these versions are time consuming without using
specific software and become difficult for decision-maker
to obtain a clear view of the problem when using many
criteria (Macharis et al., 2004). The applications of
different PROMETHEE methods in the field of infrastruc-
ture management are given in Appendix B.
3.7 VIKOR
The VIKOR [the Serbian name is ‘Vlse Kriterijumska
Optimizacija Kompromisno Resenje’ which means multi-
criteria optimisation (MCO) and compromise solution]
method was mainly developed by Opricovic (1998),
Opricovic and Tzeng (2002, 2003). This method is
developed to solve MCDM problems with conflicting and
non-commensurable (attributes with different units) criteria,
assuming that compromise can be acceptable for conflict
resolution, and when the decision-maker wants a solution
that is the closest to the ideal solution, the alternatives can be
evaluated according to all established criteria (Opricovic &
Tzeng, 2004). VIKOR provide maximum group utility of
majority and minimum individual regret of opponent
(Opricovic, 2011). The compromise solution is a feasible
solution, which is the closest to the positive-ideal solution
and farthest from the negative-ideal solution, and a
compromise means an agreement established by mutual
concessions made between the alternatives (Kabir, 2013).
The main strengths of VIKOR are as follows:
. Applicable even when decision-maker is not able, or
does not know to express his/her preference at the
beginning of system design (Kabir, 2013).
. VIKOR algorithm can be performed without
interactive participation of decision-makers.
Linear normalisation is required to solve multi-
dimensional problems which can be considered as
weakness of the method. The applications of VIKOR
method in the field of infrastructure management are given
in Appendix B.
3.8 Hybrid methods
Researchers have tried to combine the use of different
MCDM methods. An appropriate combination of two (or
more) methods could be a very effective strategy. This
kind of integration can make use of the strengths of both
methods. On the other hand, in spite of both methods
having some limitations, their limitations can be
compensated. The applications of combined MCDM
methods in the field of infrastructure management are
given in Appendix B.
4. Types of MCDM applications
Seven types of MCDM applications have been identified
in infrastructure management:
(1) Water resources systems: This involves the
evaluation of policy options and short- and long-
term strategic planning for water resources such as
river basin, watershed and dams. An example of
this application can be drawn from Simonovic and
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering
Nirupama (2005), where CP was employed for
spatial water resources decision-making of the
Red River floodplain near the City of St Adolphe
in Manitoba, Canada.
(2) Water and wastewater mains: These studies use
MCDM specifically for the management of
drinking or fresh water, wastewater or sewerage
distribution. It is illustrated by Carric o, Covas,
Almeida, Leitao, and Alegre (2012) who presented
ELECTRE TRI and ELECTRE III methods for the
prioritisation of rehabilitation interventions of
sanitary sewer system.
(3) Transportation: These studies are concerned with
Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 07:33 23 October 2017
roads, pavement, highways, rail and transit. An
example comes from Ziara, Nigim, Enshassi, and
Ayyub (2002) who used AHP method for strategic
implementation of infrastructure priority projects
in Palestine.
(4) Bridges: These studies are concerned with design,
construction, maintenance, assessment and man-
agement of bridges. An example of this appli-
cation can be drawn from Frangopol and Neves
(2008) where multi-objective genetic algorithm
and Bayesian updating were used for the
performance and maintenance strategies of dete-
riorating bridges under uncertainty.
(5) Buildings: This involves applications of MCDM to
the problems of structures such as high-rise building
and multi-housing projects. An example of this
application can be drawn from Balali, Zahraie,
Hosseini, and Roozbahani (2010) where PROME-
THEE II and PROMETHEE-GAIA methods were
used for the selection of the most appropriate
structural system for multi-housing projects.
(6) Underground infrastructure: This involves the use
of MCDM to manage underground infrastructure
such as gas, petroleum pipelines, tunnels and
subway. It is illustrated by Dawotola, van Gelder,
and Vrijling (2009) who used AHP with fault tree
analysis (FTA) for the evaluation of design,
construction, inspection and maintenance policy
of oil and gas pipelines.
(7) Others: These studied deals with applications in
urban infrastructure, urban drainage systems, off-
shore refinery plants, critical infrastructure, etc. An
example comes from Ebrahimnejad, Mousavi, and
Mojtahedi (2009) who used TOPSIS and fuzzy linear
programming technique for multi-dimensional
analysis of preference (FLINMAP) to identify the
important risks in Iranian onshore gas refinery plants.
Some papers involved elements of two or more
categories. At that case, an attempt was made to place the
application into its dominant category. The number of
papers in seven application areas is presented in Figure 1.
1181
Figure 1. Different types of infrastructure management MCDM
applications.
The majority of applications are in water resource and
in distribution system. These decisions often involve deep
and long-lasting impacts for numerous stakeholders. They
involve a requirement to handle multiple objectives for
which MCDM is potentially well suited. Relatively few
applications have occurred in underground infrastructure.
The 300 articles were first classified by the MCDM
methods and application areas used (Table 2).
5. Summary and discussions
Our goal is to conduct a state-of-the-application review of
MCDM in the infrastructure management field for
identifying trends and approaches to aid future decision-
makers in their applications. The growth of MCDM
applications is studied over the last three decades, while
detailed analysis of applications based on a developed
taxonomy describing MCDM approaches practiced in the
infrastructure field was conducted for papers published in
1980 –2012.
5.1 Growth of MCDM papers in infrastructure
management field
The total number of papers that utilised one of the MCDM
methods increased from single digit numbers in early 1980s
to hundreds towards the late 2000s (Figure 2, Table 3).
Nevertheless, the fraction of MCDM papers within
infrastructure papers is steadily growing. The frequency
distribution by publication year is shown in Figure 2. This
figure shows a relatively slow but steady increase during the
first and second decades. There was a considerable growth
in the number of articles published using MCDM methods
since 2004. This observation clearly confirms the
hypothesis that the number of MCDM papers published
in the infrastructure management field has been growing
significantly over the last decade.
5.2 Trends by MCDM methods
In terms of the total number of papers published, almost half
of the studies (48%) applied more than one MCDM
 1182 G. Kabir et al.

Table 2. Distribution of MCDM papers by methods and applications.

Combined
Application area WSM AHP ELECTRE PROMETHEE CP TOPSIS VIKOR methods Total
Water resources systems 3 5 3 9 8 1 3 36 68
Water and wastewater main 2 15 8 7 4 1 1 15 53
Transportation 2 30 5 1 0 4 0 14 56
Bridges 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 51 58
Buildings 1 5 2 1 1 5 2 16 33
Underground infrastructure 1 4 1 1 1 0 0 3 11
Others 1 6 0 0 0 5 0 9 21
Total 10 72 19 19 14 16 6 144 330

infrastructure sections, combined methods were used more

Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 07:33 23 October 2017

widely than any other methods. Though a distant second in

Figure 2. Infrastructure management studies published since
1980.
methods. A total of 144 out of 300 attempted to apply several
MCDM methods to the same decision problem (Table 3).
This means the total number of method applications exceeds
the total number of studies reviewed. Table 3 and Figure 3
show that other than the combined methods, the most
commonly applied methods were AHP (24%).
The percentage distribution of MCDM methods per
application area is shown in Table 4 and Figures 4 and 5.
AHP has its highest penetration, at 53.6%, in transpor-
tation papers. Except transportation and underground
terms of papers published, AHP is evenly distributed
across all the application areas except water resources
systems. Except for VIKOR and WSM, each of which
appear in seven application areas due to the limited
number of papers published, the remaining MCDM
methods are well distributed across most of the categories.
The chronological distribution of MCDM methods
between 1980 and 2012 are also presented in Table 3 and
Figure 6. The annual increase of papers in most of the
methods is fairly steady over the last decade except for
VIKOR which only appears after 2002. We observed that
the percentage of AHP papers increased from about 22%
in 2004– 2006 to over 45% in 2007 – 2009 and 44% in
2010 –2012, and has dominated as single MCDM methods
ever since.
5.3 Trends by MCDM application areas
The percentage distribution of MCDM application areas
by method is shown in Table 5 and Figures 7 and 8. Most
of the MCDM methods are evenly distributed across the
seven application areas. In terms of the total number of
papers published, our observations from the previous

Table 3. Distribution of MCDM papers by methods between 1980 and 2012.

Years WSM AHP ELECTRE PROMETHEE CP TOPSIS VIKOR Combined methods

1980– 1982 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
1983– 1985 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
1986– 1988 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1
1989– 1991 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 4
1992– 1994 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 6
1995– 1997 1 2 4 4 1 0 0 8
1998– 1900 0 4 2 1 0 0 0 12
2001– 2003 3 9 1 2 2 2 1 5
2004– 2006 1 11 3 4 4 2 34
2007– 2009 3 16 2 3 3 3 4 31
2010– 2012 2 23 7 4 2 9 1 41
Total 10 72 19 19 14 16 6 144
Percentage 3.3 24.0 6.3 6.3 4.7 5.3 2.0 48.0
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering 1183

5.4 MCDM components

Based on the generic elements of MCDM, one can
distinguish two contrasts: individual versus group
decision-making and decisions under certainty versus
decision under uncertainty (e.g. probabilistic, fuzzy). This
classification is shown in Figure 9.

5.4.1 Individual and group decision-making

The MCDM approaches can be further categorised into two
Figure 3. Pie chart of infrastructure management applications categories depending on the goal preference structure of the
using MCDM methods. decision-maker. For a single goal preference structure,
Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 07:33 23 October 2017

the problem is referred to as a single decision-maker’s

section also hold, with water resources systems, water and
wastewater main stakeholders, and structural infrastruc-
ture penetrating PROMETHEE, ELECTRE and TOPSIS
papers, respectively.
The chronological trend in the number of MCDM
papers published by application area is summarised in
Table 6. Slow but steady growth of each MCDM
application area appears to be evenly distributed across
the decade. In terms of proportions, only the water resources
systems appear to have a slight edge over the other
application areas followed by bridges, transportation, and
water and wastewater main.
problem, regardless of the number of individuals actually
involved. On the other hand, if individuals or interest groups
are characterised by different goal-preference structures,
then the problem becomes that of group decision-making
(Figure 9). The group decision-making category includes
the participatory decision-making approaches (Mal-
czewski, 2006). A majority of the MCDM articles adopted
the individual decision-maker’s approaches (Figure 9 and
Table 7). These approaches were found in 166 (55.3%)
articles of the MCDM articles (e.g. Fattahi & Fayyaz, 2010;
Masami, 1995; Moura, Baptista, & Barraud, 2006; Sidek,
Basri, & Zalaluddin, 2008; Yazdani, Alidoosti, & Basiri,
2012) and group/participatory approaches were presented

Table 4. Percentage distribution of MCDM methods per application area.

Combined
Application area WSM AHP ELECTRE PROMETHEE CP TOPSIS VIKOR methods Total
Water resources systems (%) 4.4 7.4 4.4 13.2 11.8 1.5 4.4 52.9 100
Water and wastewater main (%) 3.8 28.3 15.1 13.2 7.5 1.9 1.9 28.3 100
Transportation (%) 3.6 53.6 8.9 1.8 0 7.1 0 25.0 100
Bridges (%) 0 12.1 0 0 0 0 0 87.9 100
Buildings (%) 3.0 15.2 6.1 3.0 3.0 15.2 6.1 48.5 100
Underground infrastructure (%) 9.1 36.4 9.1 9.1 9.1 0.0 0 27.3 100
Others (%) 4.8 28.6 0 0 0 23.8 0 42.9 100

Figure 4. Percentage distribution of MCDM methods by application areas.

 1184 G. Kabir et al.

(a)
100
Combined methods
90
VIKOR
80
TOPSIS
70

No. of papers
CP
60 PROMETHEE
50 ELECTRE
40 AHP
30 WSM

20
10
0
9 82 98
5
98
8
99
1
99
4
99
7
00
0
00
3
00
6
00
9
01
2
–1 –1 –1 –1 –1 –1 –2 –2 –2 –2 –2
Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 07:33 23 October 2017

0 3 6 9 2 5 8 1 4 7 0
1 98 1 98 1 98 1 98 1 99 1 99 1 99 2 00 2 00 2 00 2 01

(b)
100%
90% Combined methods

80% VIKOR
Percentage of papers

70% TOPSIS
CP
60%
PROMETHEE
50%
ELECTRE
40%
AHP
30%
WSM
20%
10%
0%
82 85 88 91 94 97 00 03 06 09 12
– 19 – 19 – 19 – 19 – 19 – 19 – 20 – 20 – 20 – 20 – 20
80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10
19 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 20

Figure 5. (a) Distribution of MCDM papers by methods between 1980 and 2012. (b) Percentage distribution of MCDM papers by
methods between 1980 and 2012.

in 134 (44.7%) (e.g. Bobylev, 2007; Brito, Almeida, & maker/analyst, decision problems can be categorised into
Mota, 2010; Hsu, 1999; Kabir & Hasin, 2012a, Marlow, decisions under certainty and decisions under uncertainty.
Beale, & Mashford, 2012; Martin, Ruperd, & Legret, 2007). If the decision-maker has sound knowledge of the decision
environment, then the decision is made under conditions
of certainty which is known as deterministic decision-
5.4.2 Decisions under certainty (deterministic) and making. But most of the real-world decisions involve some
uncertainty aspects that are unknowable or very difficult to predict
Based on the amount of information (knowledge) about which is referred as decisions under conditions of
the decision situation that is available to the decision- uncertainty (Tesfamariam & Sadiq, 2006; Tesfamariam
& Sanchez-Silva, 2011). However, that uncertainty may
come from various sources. There are two basic types of
uncertainty that can be present in a decision situation: (1)
uncertainty associated with limited information about the
decision situation and (2) uncertainty associated with
fuzziness (imprecision or vagueness) concerning the
description of the semantic meaning of the events,
phenomena or statements themselves. Multi-criteria
problems under uncertainty can be further subdivided
into: probabilistic (stochastic) and fuzzy decision-making
problems depending on the type of uncertainty involved
(Malczewski, 2006).
Figure 6. Distribution and growth of MCDM papers by The majority of the MCDM articles fall into the
methods between 1980 and 2012. deterministic category. The deterministic approaches were
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering 1185

Table 5. Percentage distribution of MCDM application areas by method.

Combined
Application area WSM AHP ELECTRE PROMETHEE CP TOPSIS VIKOR methods
Water resources systems (%) 30.0 6.9 15.8 47.4 57.1 6.3 50.0 25.0
Water and wastewater main (%) 20.0 20.8 42.1 36.8 28.6 6.3 16.7 10.4
Transportation (%) 20.0 41.7 26.3 5.3 0.0 25.0 0 9.7
Bridges (%) 0 9.7 0 0 0 0 0 35.4
Buildings (%) 10.0 6.9 10.5 5.3 7.1 31.3 33.3 11.1
Underground infrastructure (%) 10.0 5.6 5.3 5.3 7.1 0 0 2.1
Others (%) 10.0 8.3 0 0 0 31.3 0 6.3
Total (%) 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 07:33 23 October 2017

considered in 210 papers or approximately 70% of the
total (e.g. Jaber & Mohsen, 2001; Saito, 1987; Trojan &
Morais, 2012; Youssef, Anumba, & Thorpe, 2005). A vast
majority of these articles (127 or 42.3%) belonged to the
individual decision-making category (Figure 9 and Table
7). The articles presenting the research on the MCDM
under condition of uncertainty accounted for almost 30%
of the total (e.g. Banai, 2006; Su, Cheng, & Lin, 2006; Sun
& Gu, 2011; Tille & Dumont, 2003). Out of the 90 articles
on decision problems under condition of uncertainty,
35.6% fall into the probabilistic decision analysis category
(e.g. Hyde & Maier, 2006; Iniestra & Gutierrez, 2009;
Ozelkan & Duckstein, 1996; Xie, 2008) and 64.4% of the
articles were found to represent the fuzzy decision-making
(e.g. Gomez-Lopez, Bayo, Garcia-Cascales, & Angosto,
2009; Kabir & Hasin, 2012a; Ning & Wang, 2011;
Shahriar, Sadiq, & Tesfamariam, 2012). On the other
hand, Figure 10 shows how the numbers of fuzzy MCDM
papers is increasing and their growth rate is really
significant. Decision-makers often provide uncertain
answers rather than precise values and the transformation
of qualitative preferences to point estimates may not be
sensible (Tesfamariam, Sadiq, & Najjaran, 2010). Due to
the unquantifiable, incomplete, unobtainable information
and partial ignorance, the application of fuzzy techniques
in decision-making is increasing rapidly (Sadiq &
Tesfamariam, 2008).
5.5 Geographic analysis of MCDM papers
We also analysed the distribution of MCDM papers by
geographic region. Based on the primary author’s place of
employment at the time of publication, each paper was
assigned a country and continent. The result of this
analysis is summarised in Table 8, where the distribution
of MCDM methods is organised by continent. A total of 39
unique countries and 26 different US states were
examined. Continents are listed in decreasing number of
paper frequency. North America and Asia dominated the
publication of MCDM papers in the infrastructure
management field with 32.7% and 32.3%, respectively.
North America dominated all the other continents across
most of the MCDM methods in terms of the number of
papers published. However, Figure 11 shows a few
significant exceptions. For example, in North America and
Asia, the majority of the field is dominated by AHP. In
contrast, ELECTRE, VIKOR, PROMETHEE and TOPSIS
appear to have a slight edge over in Europe.
5.6 Distribution by journals
The diffusion of the MCDM research is indicated by the
large number and diversity of refereed journals serving as
outlets for the MCDM articles. Over the years, the articles
have appeared in 137 different journals. The list of

Figure 7. Percentage distribution of MCDM application areas by method.

 1186 G. Kabir et al.

(a)
100
Others
90
Underground Infrastructure
80
Buildings
70

No. of papers
Bridges
60
Transportation
50
Water and wastewater main
40
Water resources systems
30
20
10
0
2
2

9
01
98

98

98

99

99

99

00

00

00

00
–2

–2
–1

–1

–1

–1

–1

–1

–2

–2

–2
0

07
01
80

83

86

89

92

95

98

01

04
Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 07:33 23 October 2017

20
2
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20
(b)
100%
90% Others
Underground Infrastructure
80%
Percentage of papers

Buildings
70%
Bridges
60% Transportation
50% Water and wastewater main

40% Water resources systems

30%
20%
10%
0%
2
2

01
98

98

98

99

99

99

00

00

00

00

–2
–1

–1

–1

–1

–1

–1

–2

–2

–2

–2

0
80

83

86

89

92

95

98

01

04

07

01
20
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

Figure 8. (a) Distribution of MCDM papers by application area between 1980 and 2012. (b) Percentage distribution of MCDM papers
by application area between 1980 and 2012.

refereed journals known to have published MCDM articles with 15 publications (5.0%). Both European Journal of
in infrastructure management gives credence to MCDM’s Operational Research and Water Resources Management
vitality and acceptance (Table 9). It also shows that come up third and fourth with 13 (4.33%) publications.
MCDM in infrastructure management is a significant and Thus, the top four among 137 journals have published
relevant approach for a wide variety of fields. Journal of almost 19% of the MCDM articles in infrastructure
Structural Engineering lead with 16 publications (5.33%), management field. The top six journals account for more
followed by Structure and Infrastructure Engineering than 25% of all papers published, while the top 15 account

Table 6. Distribution of MCDM papers by application area (1980 – 2012).

Water resources Water and Underground

Years systems wastewater main Transportation Bridges Buildings infrastructure Others Total
1980– 1882 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
1983– 1885 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
1986– 1888 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 3
1989– 1891 1 1 3 2 1 0 0 8
1992– 1894 3 3 2 2 0 0 0 10
1995– 1897 9 4 4 2 1 0 0 20
1998– 2000 5 2 5 3 3 1 0 19
2001– 2003 10 1 9 1 3 1 0 25
2004– 2006 12 9 7 18 8 1 3 58
2007– 2009 11 13 12 11 11 5 2 65
2010– 2012 13 20 14 18 6 3 16 90
Total 68 53 56 58 33 11 21 300
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering 1187

MCDM (300)

maker (s)
Decision
Individual (166) Group (134)
Deterministic (127)

Deterministic (83)
Probabilistic (15)

Probabilistic (17)

Uncertainties
Fuzzy (24)

Fuzzy (34)
Figure 9. Classification of MCDM articles based on decision-
makers and uncertainties.
Figure 11. Geographic distribution of MCDM methods by
Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 07:33 23 October 2017

continent.

Table 7. Classification of MCDM papers according to the type of decision-maker and uncertainty.

Types of uncertainty
Decision-makers Deterministic Probabilistic Fuzzy Total
Individual (%) 127 (42.3%) 15 (5.0%) 24 (8.0%) 166 (55.3%)
Group (%) 83 (27.7%) 17 (5.7%) 34 (11.3%) 134 (44.7%)
Total 210 (70.0%) 32 (10.7%) 58 (19.3%) 300 (100%)
Note: Percentages of the total are given in brackets.

Table 8. Distribution of MCDM methods by continent.

MCDM methods North America Asia Europe South America Australia Africa Total
WSM 4 4 1 0 0 1 10
AHP 17 31 19 2 2 1 72
ELECTRE 2 2 9 5 1 0 19
PROMETHEE 3 5 6 3 2 0 19
CP 3 9 2 0 0 0 14
TOPSIS 2 7 7 0 0 0 16
VIKOR 0 1 5 0 0 0 6
Combined methods 67 38 35 2 2 0 144
Total 98 97 84 12 7 2 300

for almost 43%. Alternately stated, less than 5% of the

journals have published more than a quarter of the papers,
while about 11% of the journals account for almost half of
all the MCDM articles.

6. Conclusions
This paper has presented an extensive review of the
literature on applications of MCDM methods in infra-
structure management consisting of 300 papers from 137
scholarly publications into seven application areas. For
this purpose, a classification scheme was developed to
Figure 10. Distribution of MCDM papers by fuzzy uncertainty organise each paper into several categories. All application
between 1980 and 2012. areas within the infrastructure management field show a
 1188 G. Kabir et al.
Table 9. List of refereed journals that have published three or more articles on MCDM methods.
Rank Journal
1 Journal of Structural Engineering
2 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering: Maintenance, Management,
Life Cycle Design and Performance
3–4 European Journal of Operational Research
3–4 Water Resources Management
5–6 Journal of Infrastructure Systems
5–6 Journal of Environmental Management
7 Engineering Structures
8 Journal of Transportation Engineering
9 – 11 Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management
9 – 11 Transportation Research Record
Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 07:33 23 October 2017
9 – 11 Water International
12 – 13 Expert Systems with Applications
12 – 13 Water Science & Technology
14 – 15 Applied Mechanics and Materials
14 – 15 Water SA
Others
Total
significant increase in the number of published papers.
Applications in resource management, strategy or plan-
ning development and stakeholder engagement are more
dominant, which is natural due to the interdisciplinary
nature of infrastructure management problems. Decision
analysis using MCDM methods allows the users to solve
complex problems in a technically valid and practically
convenient manner. Therefore, the increasing number of
infrastructure management applications using MCDM
methods can be considered as a promising development.
Different prioritisation of management alternatives could
result to the same problem through application of different
MCDM methods, it has been found that, in general, the top
few alternatives were the same no matter which MCDM
methods is used. In a few cases where the top alternative
was different, we still observe significant overlaps in their
top two or three alternatives. It is also observed that this
overlap decreases as the number of alternatives increases.
Researchers adopted MCDM methods over alternative
decision-making frameworks for its potential capability of
improving the transparency, analytic rigour, auditability
and conflict resolution of decision-makers. MCDM
methods were found to provide accountability and
transparency to decision procedures, which may otherwise
have unclear rationale and motives (Brown et al., 2001).
Transparency in MCDM can be achieved by explicitly
stating and weighting decision criteria. The reasons for the
choice are made explicit and past decisions can easily be
audited (Hajkowicz & Collins, 2007). Multi-stakeholder
engagement and community participation are increasingly
recognised as an essential element of successful
infrastructure management decision-making. Stakeholder
involvement was also seen as reasons for adopting MCDM
methods in infrastructure management decisions (Greiner,
No. of
articles Article (%)
16 5.33
15 5.00
13 4.33
13 4.33
10 3.33
10 3.33
8 2.67
7 2.33
6 2.00
6 2.00
6 2.00
5 1.67
5 1.67
4 1.33
4 1.33
172 57.35
300 100
Herr, Brodie, & Haynes, 2005). The challenge of capturing
and organising that involvement as structured inputs to
decision-making alongside the results of engineering and
scientific studies and cost analysis can be performed
through application of the MCDM methods. Conflict
resolution is an imperative reason for adopting MCDM. It
becomes a vital issue when multiple perspectives are
applied to a single infrastructure management decision
(Cai, Lasdon, & Michelsen, 2004; Mustajoki, Hamalainen,
& Marttunen, 2004). The MCDM visualises trade-offs
among multiple conflicting criteria and quantifies the
uncertainties necessary for comparison of available
abatement and remedial alternatives. This process helps
decision-makers and stakeholders to systematically
consider and apply value judgements to derive a most
favourable management alternative (Kiker, Bridges,
Varghese, Seager, & Linkov, 2005).
However, despite the fact that MCDM has been widely
applied in infrastructure management field, Lai, Lundie,
and Ashbolt (2008) addressed some generic shortcomings
of MCDM methods like preference for criteria is assumed
to be independent of each other, complex MCDM methods
can be perceived by non-expert as ‘black-box’ approaches
and overestimate or underestimate certain aspects when
the chosen criteria are either redundant or not compre-
hensive. Despite of some limitations, MCDM offers
demonstrable advantages and choosing among MCDM
methods is a complex task. Each method has strengths and
weaknesses; while some methods are better grounded in
mathematical theory, others may be easier to implement
(Kiker et al., 2005). For the selection of a particular
MCDM approach, it is important to consider the
complexity of the decision in terms of scientific, technical
and social factors, as well as understanding the process
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering
needs and the availability of information or knowledge
about the problem space (Huang et al., 2011).
However, we tried our best to provide this state-of-the-
application review, there are multiple caveats that should be
taken into consideration during the interpretation of the
results presented in this paper. First, there are several other
notable areas in infrastructure management that are not
considered in this study. Second, we have not attempted to
classify papers by quality or sophistication of the analysis
and real-life applications or hypothetical case studies.
Some of the studies attempted advanced probabilistic
methods with uncertainty and sensitivity analysis, while
others did not. Third, WOS cover some of the journals only
Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 07:33 23 October 2017
partially like the version of the database that we used did not
include first 5 years of Decision Analysis, a major journal in
the field. Fourth is that most of the findings were
concentrated on English journals; hence the journals in
the other languages were not concerned. This means that the
review is not exhaustive, but the authors believe that it
provides a comprehensive review and includes the majority
of papers that were published by scholarly journals. We
aimed to incorporate sound sampling practices in identify-
ing articles, so that this range of applications should to be a
good representation of the current state of practice and its
evolution. Therefore, this paper would be able to provide
useful insights into the anatomy of the MCDM methods,
and suggest a road map and framework for future attempts
to academic researchers and practitioners.
Acknowledgement
The financial support from the Natural Sciences and Engineering
Research Council of Canada (NSERC) under the Discovery
Grant Program is acknowledged.
Notes
1. Email: rehan.sadiq@ubc.ca
2. Email: solomon.tesfamariam@ubc.ca
References
Abrishamchi, A., Ebrahimian, A., Tajrishi, M., & Marino, M.A.
(2005). Case study: Application of multicriteria decision
making to urban water supply. Journal of Water Resources
Planning and Management, 131(4), 326– 335.
Abu-Taleb, M.F., & Mareschal, B. (1995). Water resources
planning in the middle East: Application of the PROME-
THEE V multicriteria method. European Journal of
Operational Research, 81(3), 500– 511.
Afshar, A., Marino, M.A., Saadatpour, M., & Afshar, A. (2011).
Fuzzy TOPSIS multicriteria decision analysis applied to
Karun reservoirs system. Water Resources Management, 25
(2), 545– 563.
Aghdaie, M.H., Zolfani, S.H., & Zavadskas, E.K. (2012).
Prioritizing constructing projects of municipalities based on
AHP and COPRAS-G: A case study about footbridges in
1189
Iran. The Baltic Journal of Road and Bridge Engineering, VII
(2), 145–153.
Ahlawat, A.S., & Ramaswamy, A. (2001). Multiobjective
optimal structural vibration control using fuzzy logic control
system. Journal of Structural Engineering, 127(11),
1330– 1337.
Al-Barqawi, H., & Zayed, T. (2006). Assessment model of water
main conditions. Conference proceedings on pipeline
division specialty. Chicago, USA.
Al-Barqawi, H., & Zayed, T. (2008). Infrastructure management:
Integrated AHP/ANN model to evaluate municipal water
mains performance. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 14(4),
305– 318.
Ali, N.B.H., Sellami, M., Cutting-Decelle, A.F., & Mangin, J.C.
(2009). Multi-stage production cost optimization of semi-
rigid steel frames using genetic algorithms. Engineering
Structures, 31(11), 2766– 2778.
Al-Kloub, B., & Abu-Taleb, M.F. (1988). Application of
multicriteria decision aid to rank the Jordan– Yarmouk
basin co-riparians according to the Helsinki and ILC rules.
Water International, 23(3), 164– 173.
Al-Kloub, B., Al-Shemmeri, T., & Pearman, A. (1997). The role
of weights in multi-criteria decision aid, and the ranking of
water projects in Jordan. European Journal of Operational
Research, 99(2), 278– 288.
Al-Rashdan, D., Al-Kloub, B., Dean, A., & Al-Shemmeri, T.
(1999). Environmental impact assessment and ranking the
environmental projects in Jordan. European Journal of
Operational Research, 118(1), 30 – 45.
Al-Shemmeri, T., Al-Kloub, B., & Pearman, A. (1997). Model
choice in multicriteria decision aid. European Journal of
Operational Research, 97(3), 550– 560.
Al-Zubi, Y.A., & Al-Kharabsheh, A. (2003). Multicriteria
analysis for water productivity in the Jordan valley. Water
International, 28(4), 501– 511.
Al-Zubi, Y., Shatanawi, M., Al-Jayoussi, O., & Al-Kharabsheh,
A. (2002). Application of decision support system for
sustainable management of water resources in the Azraq
basin-Jordan. Water International, 27(4), 532– 541.
Anagnostopoulos, K.P., Gratziou, M., & Vavatsikos, A.P. (2007).
Using the fuzzy hierarchy process for selecting wastewater
facilities at prefecture level. European Water, 19(20), 15 – 24.
Anagnostopoulos, K.P., Petalas, C., & Pisinaras, V. (2005).
Water resources planning using the AHP and PROMETHEE
multi criteria methods: The case of NESTOS River-
GREECE. Proceedings of 7th Balkan conference on
operational research (BACOR). Constanta, Romania.
Anand Raj, P.A. (1995). Multicriteria methods in river basin
planning – A case study. Water Science & Technology, 31(8),
261– 272.
Anand Raj, P.A., & Kumar, D.N. (1996). Ranking of river basin
alternatives using ELECTRE. Hydrological Sciences, 41(5),
697– 713.
Anton, J.M., & Grau, J.B. (2004). Madrid-Valencia high-speed
rail line: A route selection, Proceedings of the Institution of
Civil Engineers. Transport, 157(3), 153– 161.
Antucheviciene, J., & Zavadskas, E.K. (2003). The indicator
model for sustainable revitalisation of rural property.
Environmental Research, Engineering and Management,
26(4), 38– 44.
Antucheviciene, J., & Zavadskas, E.K. (2008). Modelling
multidimensional redevelopment of derelict buildings.
International Journal of Environment and Pollution, 35
(2/3/4), 331–344.
 1190 G. Kabir et al.
Antucheviciene, J., Zavadskas, E.K., & Zakarevicius, A. (2010).
Multiple criteria construction management decisions con-
sidering relations between criteria. Technological and
Economic Development of Economy, 16(1), 109– 125.
Aragones-Beltran, P., Mendoza-Roca, J.A., Bes-Pia, A., Garcia-
Melon, M., & Parra-Ruiz, E. (2009). Application of
multicriteria decision analysis to jar-test results for chemicals
selection in the physical – chemical treatment of textile
wastewater. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 164(1),
288– 295.
Ares, J., & Serra, J. (2008). Selection of sustainable projects for
floodplain restoration and urban wastewater management at
the lower Chubut River valley (Argentina). Landscape and
Urban Planning, 85(3 –4), 215– 227.
ASCE (2009). Report card for America’s infrastructure, 2009
Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 07:33 23 October 2017
progress report. http://www.asce.org/reportcard
Augusti, G., Ciampoli, M., & Frangopol, D.M. (1998). Optimal
planning of retrofitting interventions on bridges in a highway
network. Engineering Structures, 20(11), 933– 939.
Awasthi, A., Chauhan, S.S., & Omrani, H. (2011). Application of
fuzzy TOPSIS in evaluating sustainable transportation
systems. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(10),
12270– 12280.
Awasthi, A., & Omrani, H. (2009). A hybrid approach based on
AHP and belief theory for evaluating sustainable transpor-
tation solutions. International Journal of Global Environ-
mental Issues, 9(3), 212– 226.
Azis, I.J. (1990). Analytic hierarchy process in benefit-cost
framework: A post evaluation of the Trans-Sumatra highway
project. European Journal of Operational Research, 48(1),
38 – 48.
Balali, V., Zahraie, B., Hosseini, A., & Roozbahani, A. (2010).
Selecting the appropriate structural system by application of
PROMETHEE decision making method. Proceedings of 2nd
IEE international conference on system engineering and
application, Sharjah, UAE, 1 – 6.
Balali, V., Zahraie, B., & Roozbahani, A. (2012). Integration of
ELECTRE III and PROMETHEEII decision making
methods with interval approach: Application in selection of
appropriate structural systems. Journal of Computing in Civil
Engineering, Advance online publication. doi: 10.1061/
(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000254
Banai, R. (2006). Public transportation decision-making: A case
analysis of the Memphis light rail corridor and route
selection with analytic hierarchy process. Journal of Public
Transportation, 9(2), 1 – 24.
Banias, G., Achillas, C., Vlachokostas, C., Moussiopoulos, N., &
Tarsenis, S. (2010). Assessing multiple criteria for the
optimal location of a construction and demolition waste
management facility. Building and Environment, 45(10),
2317– 2326.
Bardossy, A., Bogardi, I., & Duckstein, L. (1985). Composite
programming as an extension of compromise programming.
Mathematics of Multi Objective Optimization
(pp. 375– 408). Wien: Springer Verlag.
Bella, A., Duckstein, L., & Szidarovszky, F. (1996). A
multicriterion analysis of the water allocation conflict in
the Upper Rio Grande basin. Applied Mathematics and
Computation, 77(2 – 3), 245– 265.
Bellehumeur, C., Vasseur, L., Ansseau, C., & Marcos, B. (1997).
Implementation of a multicriteria sewage sludge manage-
ment model in the Southern Québec Municipality of Lac-
Mégantic, Canada. Journal of Environmental Management,
50(1), 51 – 66.
Benayoun, R., Roy, B., & Sussman, N. (1966). Manual de
Reference du programme electre, Mote de Synthese et
Formaton, No. 25, Direction Scientifique SEMA, Paris,
France.
Bender, M.J., & Simonovic, S.P. (1997). Consensus as the
measure of sustainability. Hydrological Sciences, 42(4),
493– 500.
Bender, M.J., & Simonovic, S.P. (2000). A fuzzy compromise
approach to water resource systems planning under
uncertainty. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 115(1), 35 – 44.
Benzerra, A., Cherrared, M., Chocat, B., Cherqui, F., & Zekiouk,
T. (2012). Decision support for sustainable urban drainage
system management: A case study of Jijel, Algeria. Journal
of Environmental Management, 101(30), 46 – 53.
Bobylev, N. (2007). Sustainability and vulnerability analysis of
critical underground infrastructure. In I. Linkov, R.J.
Wenning & G.A. Kiker (Eds.), Managing critical infra-
structure risks: Decision tools and applications for port
security (pp. 445– 469). Venice, Italy: Springer.
Bocchini, P., & Frangopol, D.M. (2011). A probabilistic
computational framework for bridge network optimal
maintenance scheduling. Reliability Engineering & System
Safety, 96(2), 332– 349.
Bocchini, P., & Frangopol, D.M. (2012). Optimal resilience- and
cost-based post-disaster intervention prioritization for
bridges along a highway segment. Journal of Bridge
Engineering, 17(1), 117– 129.
Boix, M., Montastruc, L., Pibouleau, L., Azzaro-Pantel, C., &
Domenech, S. (2011). A multiobjective optimization frame-
work for multi contaminant industrial water network design.
Journal of Environmental Management, 92(7), 1802– 1808.
Bolar, A., Tesfamariam, S., & Sadiq, R. (2013). Condition
assessment for bridges: A hierarchical evidential reasoning
(HER) framework. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering,
9(7), 648–666.
Bottero, M., Comino, E., & Riggio, V. (2011). Application of the
analytic hierarchy process and the analytic network process
for the assessment of different wastewater treatment systems.
Environmental Modelling and Software, 26(10), 1211– 1224.
Bouchard, C., Abi-Zeid, I., Beauchamp, N., Lamontagne, L.,
Desrosiers, J., & Rodriguez, M. (2010). Multicriteria
decision analysis for the selection of a small drinking water
treatment system. Journal of Water Supply: Research and
Technology, 59(4), 230– 242.
Brans, J.P. (1982). Lingenierie de la decision. Elaboration
dinstruments daide a la decision. Methode PROMETHEE.
Laide a la Decision: Nature, Instruments et Perspectives
Davenir (pp. 183 – 214). Quebec, Canada: Presses de
Universite Laval.
Brans, J.P., & Mareschal, B. (1992). PROMETHEE V-MCDM
problems with segmentation constraints. INFOR, 30(2),
85 – 96.
Brans, J.P., & Mareschal, B. (1995). The PROMETHEE VI
procedure. How to differentiate hard from soft multicriteria
problems. Journal of Decision Systems, 4(3), 213– 223.
Brans, J.P., & Vincke, P. (1985). A preference ranking
organization method (The PROMETHEE method for
multiple criteria decision making). Management Science,
31(6), 647– 656.
Bridgman, P.W. (1922). Dimensional analysis. New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press.
Brito, A.J., Almeida, A.T., & Mota, C.M.M. (2010). A
multicriteria model for risk sorting of natural gas pipelines
based on ELECTRE TRI integrating utility theory. European
Journal of Operational Research, 200(3), 812– 821.
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering
Brown, B., Neil-Adger, W., Tompkins, E., Bacon, P., Shim, D.,
& Young, K. (2001). Trade-off analysis for marine protected
area management. Ecological Economics, 37(3), 417– 434.
Brownlee, T.J., Finnie, S., & Wightman, D. (2007). Identification
of potential highways maintenance schemes. Proceedings of
the ICE-Transport, 160(3), 139– 146.
Brunner, I.M., Kim, K., & Yamashita, E. (2012). Identifying
optimal transit alignments using analytic hierarchy process
and geographic information systems. TRB annual meeting.
Washington, DC.
Bucher, C., & Frangopol, D.M. (2006). Optimization of lifetime
maintenance strategies for deteriorating structures consider-
ing probabilities of violating safety, condition, and cost
thresholds. Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics, 21(1),
1 – 8.
Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 07:33 23 October 2017
Cafiso, S., Graziano, A.D., Kerali, H.R., & Odoki, J.B. (2002).
Multicriteria analysis method for pavement maintenance
management. Transportation Research Record, 1816,
73 – 86.
Cagno, E., Caron, F., Mancini, M., & Ruggeri, F. (2000). Using
AHP in determining the prior distributions on gas pipeline
failures in a robust Bayesian approach. Reliability Engin-
eering and System Safety, 67(3), 275– 284.
Cai, X., Lasdon, L., & Michelsen, A.M. (2004). Group decision
making in water resources planning using multiple objective
analysis. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Manage-
ment, 130(1), 4 – 14.
Caiko, J., Kunicina, N., Patlins, A., Pelnikis, A., & Ribickis, L.
(2008). Development of decision-making procedure of
choice of the equipment for railway crossing at stations.
Proceedings of the 12th international conference on
transport means (pp. 151– 154). Kaunass, Lithuania.
Calizaya, A., Meixner, O., Bengtsson, L., & Berndtsson, R.
(2010). Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) for
integrated water resources management (IWRM) in the
Lake Poopo Basin, Bolivia. Water Resources Management,
24(10), 2267– 2289.
Canadian Infrastructure Report Card (2012). http://www.
canadainfrastructure.ca/en/report
Carric o, N., Covas, D.I.C., Almeida, C.M., Leitao, J.P., &
Alegre, H. (2012). Prioritization of rehabilitation interven-
tions for urban water assets using multiple criteria decision-
aid methods. Water Science & Technology, 66(5),
1007– 1014.
Caterino, N., Iervolino, I., Manfredi, G., & Cosenza, E. (2006).
Multi-criteria decision making for seismic retrofitting of an
underdesigned RC structure. Proceedings of first European
conference on earthquake engineering and seismology.
Geneva, Switzerland.
Caterino, N., Iervolino, I., Manfredi, G., & Cosenza, E. (2008).
Multi-criteria decision making for seismic retrofitting of RC
structures. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 12(4),
555– 583.
Caterino, N., Iervolino, I., Manfredi, G., & Cosenza, E. (2009).
Comparative analysis of multi-criteria decision-making
methods for seismic structural retrofitting. Computer-Aided
Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 24(6), 432– 445.
Chang, C.L., Chiueh, P.T., & Liou, Y.T. (2008). Applying
VIKOR to determine the land-use restraint strategies in a
watershed. Environmental Engineering Science, 25(9),
1317– 1323.
Chang, Y.H., & Yeh, C.H. (2001). Evaluating airline competi-
tiveness using multiattribute decision making. Omega, 29(5),
405– 415.
1191
Cheng, C.T., Zhao, M.Y., Chau, K.W., & Wu, X.Y. (2006).
Using genetic algorithm and TOPSIS for Xinanjiang model
calibration with a single procedure. Journal of Hydrology,
316(1 – 4), 129– 140.
Chen, S.J., & Hwang, C.L. (1992). Fuzzy multiple attribute
decision making, methods and application. Berlin: Springer-
Verlag.
Cheng, S., Chan, C.W., & Huang, G.H. (2002). Using multiple
criteria decision analysis for supporting decision of solid
waste management. Journal of Environmental Science and
Health, 37(6), 975– 990.
Choi, D.J., & Park, H. (2001). Analysis of water privatization
scenarios in Korea with multi-criteria decision-making
techniques. Journal of Water Supply Research and
Technology – Aqua, 50(6), 335– 352.
Chou, S.Y., Chang, Y.H., & Shen, C.Y. (2008). A fuzzy simple
additive weighting system under group decision-making for
facility location selection with objective/subjective attri-
butes. European Journal of Operational Research, 189(1),
132– 145.
Chou, T.Y., Lin, W.T., Lin, C.Y., & Chou, W.C. (2007).
Application of fuzzy theory and PROMETHEE technique to
evaluate suitable ecotechnology method: A case study in
Shihmen Reservoir Watershed, Taiwan. Ecological Engin-
eering, 31(4), 269– 280.
Chung, E.S., & Lee, K.S. (2009). Prioritization of water
management for sustainability using hydrologic simulation
model and multicriteria decision making techniques. Journal
of Environmental Management, 90(3), 1502– 1511.
Coutinho-Rodrigues, J., Simao, A., & Antunes, C.H. (2011). A
GIS-based multicriteria spatial decision support system for
planning urban infrastructures. Decision Support Systems, 51
(3), 720–726.
Dabous, S.A., & Alkass, S. (2010). A multi-attribute ranking
method for bridge management. Engineering, Construction
and Architectural Management, 17(3), 282– 291.
Dai, J., Qi, J., Chi, J., Chen, S., Yang, J., Ju, L., & Chen, B.
(2010). Integrated water resource security evaluation of
Beijing based on GRA and TOPSIS. Frontiers of Earth
Science in China, 4(3), 357– 362.
Dawotola, A.W., van Gelder, P.H.A.J.M., & Vrijling, J.K.
(2009). Risk assessment of petroleum pipelines using a
combined analytical hierarchy process – Fault tree analysis
(AHP-FTA). Proceedings of the 7th international probabil-
istic workshop. Delft, Netherlands.
Delgado-Galvan, X., Perez-Garcia, R., Izquierdo, J., &
Mora-Rodriguez, J. (2010). An analytic hierarchy process
for assessing externalities in water leakage management.
Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 52(7 – 8),
1194– 1202.
Deng, J., Li, J., & Fang, X. (2011). Condition evaluation of
existing long-span bridges using fuzzy based analytic
hierarchy process. Advanced Materials Research, 163-167,
3328– 3331.
Diaz-Balteiro, L., & Romero, C. (2008). Making forestry
decisions with multiple criteria: A review and an assessment.
Forest Ecology and Management, 255(8 – 9), 3222– 3241.
Djenaliev, A. (2007). Multicriteria decision making and GIS for
railroad planning in Kyrgyzstan (MSc dissertation), Royal
Institute of Technology, Sweden.
Duckstein, L., Treichel, W., & El Magnouni, S. (1994). Ranking
ground-water management alternatives by multicriterion
analysis. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Manage-
ment, 12(4), 546– 565.
 1192 G. Kabir et al.
Duckstein, L., Gershon, M., & McAniff, R. (1982). Model
selection in multiobjective decision making for river basin
planning. Advances in Water Resources, 5(3), 178–184.
Dunning, D.J., Ross, Q.E., & Merkhofer, M.W. (2000).
Multiattribute utility analysis; best technology available;
adverse environmental impact; Clean Water Act; Section 316
(b). Environmental Science and Policy, 3(1), 7 – 14.
Eberhard, R., & Joubert, A. (2001). An evaluation of alternative
water supply augmentation and water demand management
options for the City of Cape Town using multi-criteria
decision analysis (Report No: 3216/9026). Cape Town, South
Africa: University of Cape Town.
Ebrahimnejad, S., Mousavi, S.M., & Mojtahedi, S.M.H. (2009).
A fuzzy decision-making model for risk ranking with an
application to an onshore gas refinery. International Journal
Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 07:33 23 October 2017
of Business Continuity and Risk Management, 1(1), 38 – 66.
Ebrahimnejad, S., Mousavi, S.M., Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, R.,
Hashemi, H., & Vahdani, B. (2012). A novel two-phase
group decision making approach for construction project
selection in a fuzzy environment. Applied Mathematical
Modelling, 36(9), 4197– 4217.
Ellis, K.V., & Tang, S.L. (1991). Wastewater treatment
optimization model for developing world. I: Model
development. Journal of Environmental Engineering Div-
ision, 117(4), 501– 581.
Ellis, K.V., & Tang, S.L. (1994). Wastewater treatment
optimization model for development world. II: Model
testing. Journal of Environmental Engineering Division,
120(3), 610– 624.
Elmahdi, A., Kheireldin, K., & Hamdy, A. (2006). GIS and
multi-criteria evaluation: Robust tools for integrated water
resources management. Water International, 31(4),
440– 447.
Elshorbagy, A. (2006). Multicriterion decision analysis approach
to assess the utility of watershed modeling for management
decisions. Water Resources Research, 42, 1– 14.
Farhan, J., & Fwa, T.F. (2009). Pavement maintenance
prioritization using analytic hierarchy process. Transpor-
tation Research Record, 2093, 12 – 24.
Fattahi, P., & Fayyaz, S. (2010). A compromise programming
model to integrated urban water management. Water
Resources Management, 24(6), 1211– 1227.
Figueira, J., Greco, S., & Ehrgott, M. (2005). Multiple criteria
decision analysis: State of the art surveys. New York:
Springer.
Fishburn, P.C. (1967). Additive utilities with incomplete product
set: Applications to priorities and assignments. Baltimore,
MD: Operations Research Society of America (ORSA).
Flintsch, G., & Chen, C. (2004). Soft computing applications in
infrastructure management. Journal of Infrastructure System,
10(4), 157– 166.
Frangopol, D.M. (1995). Reliability-based optimum structural
design. Probabilistic structural mechanics handbook
(pp. 352– 387). New York: Chapman & Hall.
Frangopol, D.M. (1998). Probabilistic structural optimization.
Progress in Structural Engineering and Materials, 1(2),
223– 230.
Frangopol, D.M. (2011). Life-cycle performance, management,
and optimization of structural systems under uncertainty:
Accomplishments and challenges. Structure and Infrastruc-
ture Engineering, 7(6), 389–413.
Frangopol, D.M., & Bocchini, P. (2012). Bridge network
performance, maintenance, and optimization under uncer-
tainty: Accomplishments and challenges. Structure and
Infrastructure Engineering, 8(4), 341– 356.
Frangopol, D.M., Enright, M.P., Gharaibeh, E., & Estes, A.C.
(1999). Towards optimal reliability-based bridge mainten-
ance planning. Case studies in optimal design and
maintenance planning of civil infrastructure systems
(pp. 73 – 88). Reston, VA: ASCE.
Frangopol, D.M., & Maute, K. (2003). Life-cycle reliability-
based optimization of civil and aerospace structures.
Computers & Structures, 81(7), 397– 410.
Frangopol, D.M., & Maute, K. (2005). Reliability-based
optimization of civil and aerospace structural systems.
Engineering design reliability handbook (pp. 24 – 32). Boca
Raton: CRC Press.
Frangopol, D.M., Maute, K., & Liu, M. (2007). Design
optimization with uncertainty, life-cycle performance and
cost considerations. Optimization of structural and mechan-
ical systems (pp. 291 – 329). Hackensack, NJ: World
Scientific Publishing Co. Ptc. Ltd.
Frangopol, D.M., & Messervey, T.B. (2011). Risk assessment for
bridge decision-making. Quantitative risk assessment (QRA)
for natural hazards (pp. 52 –64). Monograph No. 5. Reston,
VA: ASCE.
Frangopol, D.M., Miyake, M., Kong, J.S., Gharaibeh, E.S., &
Estes, A.C. (2002). Reliability- and cost-oriented optimal
bridge maintenance planning. Recent advances in optimal
structural design (pp. 257– 270). Reston, VA: ASCE.
Frangopol, D.M., & Neves, L.C. (2004). Probabilistic mainten-
ance and optimization strategies for deteriorating civil
infrastructures. Progress in computational structures tech-
nology (pp. 353– 377). Stirling: Saxe-Coburg Publications.
Frangopol, D.M., & Neves, L.C. (2006). Life-cycle maintenance
of structures by condition, reliability and cost oriented
probabilistic optimization. Innovation in computational
structures technology (pp. 95 – 110). Stirling: Saxe-Coburg
Publications.
Frangopol, D.M., & Neves, L.C. (2008). Optimization of life-
cycle maintenance strategies under uncertainties: Role of
inspections. Trends in computational structures technology
(pp. 55 – 74). Stirling: Saxe-Coburg Publications.
Frangopol, D.M., & Okasha, N.M. (2009a). Multi-criteria
optimization of life-cycle maintenance programs using
advanced modeling and computational tools. Trends in
civil and structural computing (pp. 1 – 26). Stirlingshire:
Saxe-Coburg Publications.
Frangopol, D.M., & Okasha, N.M. (2009b). Multi-criteria
optimization of life-cycle performance of structural systems
under uncertainty. Risk and decision analysis in maintenance
optimization and flood management (pp. 99 – 112). Amster-
dam: IOS Press.
Frangopol, D.M., & Liu, M. (2006). Multiobjective optimization
of risk-based maintenance and lifecycle cost of civil
infrastructure. System modeling and optimization
(pp. 123– 136). Boston, MA: Springer.
Frangopol, D.M., & Liu, M. (2007a). Bridge network
maintenance optimization using stochastic dynamic pro-
gramming. Journal of Structural Engineering, 133(12),
1772– 1782.
Frangopol, D.M., & Liu, M. (2007b). Maintenance and
management of civil infrastructure based on condition,
safety, optimization, and life-cycle cost. Structure and
Infrastructure Engineering, 3(1), 29 – 41.
Frangopol, D.M., Lin, K.Y., & Estes, A.C. (1997). Life-cycle
cost design of deteriorating structures. Journal of Structural
Engineering, 123(10), 1390– 1401.
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering
Fu, G., & Frangopol, D.M. (1990a). Reliability-based vector
optimization of structural systems. Journal of Structural
Engineering, 116(8), 2143– 2161.
Fu, G., & Frangopol, D.M. (1990b). Balancing weight, system
reliability and redundancy in a multiobjective optimization
framework. Structural Safety, 7(2 – 4), 165–175.
Furuta, H., Frangopol, D.M., & Nakatsu, K. (2011). Life-cycle
cost of civil infrastructure with emphasis on balancing
structural performance and seismic risk of road network.
Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 7(1– 2), 65 – 74.
Furuta, H., Kameda, T., Nakahara, K., Takahashi, Y., &
Frangopol, D.M. (2006). Optimal bridge maintenance
planning using improved multi-objective genetic algorithm.
Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 2(1), 33 – 41.
Ganoulis, J., Skoulikaris, H., & Monget, J.M. (2008). Involving
Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 07:33 23 October 2017
stakeholders in transboundary water resource management:
The Mesta/Nestos ‘HELP’ basin. Water SA, 34(4), 461–467.
Gao, J., Zhao, R., Zou, Z., Xu, W., & Yu, B. (2007). Study on
multi level blur comprehensive evaluation methods of
highway traffic based on AHP. Journal of Wuhan University
of Technology (Transportation Science & Engineering), 31
(2), 243– 246.
Gauffre, P.L., Haidar, H., Poinard, D., Laffrechine, K., Baur, R.,
& Schiatti, M. (2007). A multicriteria decision support
methodology for annual rehabilitation programs of water
networks. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engin-
eering, 22(7), 478– 488.
Gercek, H., Karpak, B., & Kilncaslan, T. (2004). A multiple
criteria approach for the evaluation of the rail transit
networks in Istanbul. Transportation, 31(2), 203– 228.
Gershon, M., & Duckstein, L. (1983). Multiobjective approaches
to river basin planning. Journal of Water Resources Planning
and Management, 109(1), 13 – 28.
Gervasio, H., & Simões da Silva, L. (2012). A probabilistic
decision-making approach for the sustainable assessment of
infrastructures. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(7),
7121– 7131.
Gololov, I., & Yezioro, A. (2007). A computer system for multi-
criteria comparative evaluation of building envelopes.
Proceedings of Building Simulation, Beijing, China, 1895–
1902.
Gomez-Lopez, M.D., Bayo, J., Garcia-Cascales, M.S., &
Angosto, J.M. (2009). Decision support in disinfection
technologies for treated wastewater reuse. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 17(16), 1504–1511.
Greiner, R., Herr, A., Brodie, J., & Haynes, D. (2005). A multi-
criteria approach to great barrier reef catchment (Queens-
land, Australia) diffuse-source pollution problem. Marine
Pollution Bulletin, 51(1– 4), 128– 137.
Guangming, Z., Jiang, R., Huang, G., Xu, M., & Li, J. (2007).
Optimization of wastewater treatment alternative selection
by hierarchy grey relational analysis. Journal of Environ-
mental Management, 82(2), 250– 259.
Haghigh, F. (2011). Application of a multi-criteria approach to
road safety evaluation in the Bushehr province. Iran. Traffic
& Transportation, 23(5), 341– 352.
Hajeeh, M., & Al-Othman, A. (2005). Application of the
analytical hierarchy process in the selection of desalination
plants. Desalination, 174(1), 97 – 108.
Hajkowicz, S., & Collins, K. (2007). A review of multiple criteria
analysis for water resource planning and management. Water
Resource Management, 21(9), 1553– 1566.
Hajkowicz, S., & Higgins, A. (2008). A comparison of multiple
criteria analysis techniques for water resource management.
1193
European Journal of Operational Research, 184(1),
255– 265.
Hamouda, M.A., Anderson, W.B., & Huck, P.M. (2012).
Employing multi-criteria decision analysis to select sustain-
able point-of-use and point-of-entry water treatment systems.
Water Science & Technology: Water Supply, 12(5), 637– 647.
Harboe, R. (1992). Multiobjective decision making techniques
for reservoir operation. Journal of the American Water
Resources Association, 28(1), 103– 110.
Hayashi, K. (2000). Multicriteria analysis for agricultural
resource management: A critical survey and future
perspectives. European Journal of Operational Research,
122(2), 486– 500.
Herath, G. (2004). Incorporating community objectives in
improved wetland management: The use of the analytic
hierarchy process. Journal of Environmental Management,
70(3), 263– 273.
Hermans, C.M., & Erickson, J.D. (2007). Multicriteria decision
analysis: Overview and implications for environmental
decision making. Advances in the Economics of Environ-
mental Resources, 7, 213– 228.
Herva, M., & Roca, E. (2012). Review of combined approaches
and multi-criteria analysis for corporate environmental
evaluation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 39, 355–371.
Hobbs, B., Chankong, V., Hamadeh, W., & Stakhiv, E. (1992).
Does choice of multicriteria method matter – An experiment
in water-resources planning. Water Resources Research, 28
(7), 1767–1779.
Hokkanen, J., & Salminen, P. (1997). Choosing a solid waste
management system using multicriteria decision analysis.
European Journal of Operational Research, 98(1), 19 – 36.
Holguin-Veras, J. (1995). Comparative assessment of AHP and
MAV in highway planning: Case study. Journal of
Transportation Engineering, 121(2), 191– 200.
Hongyan, L., & Yan, T. (2007). Bidding-evaluation of
construction projects based on VIKOR method. Proceedings
of the IEEE International Conference on Automation and
Logistics, Jinan, China, 1778– 1782.
Hsu, T.H. (1999). Public transport system project evaluation
using the analytic hierarchy process: A fuzzy Delphi
approach. Transportation Planning and Technology, 22(4),
229– 246.
Hu, T.J., Chen, W.P., Zeng, G.M., Chen, X.C., Yang, S.F., & Xie,
Z. (2000). The optimal scheme selection of the Xiawan,
Zhuzhou municipal wastewater treatment plant using the
analytic hierarchy process. Environmental Engineering, 1,
61 – 63.
Huang, I.B., Keisler, J., & Linkov, I. (2011). Multi-criteria
decision analysis in environmental sciences: Ten years of
applications and trends. Science of the Total Environment,
409(19), 3578– 3594.
Hugonnard, J., & Roy, B. (1982). Le plan dextension dumetro en
banlieue parisienne, uncas type d application delanalyse
multicritere. Les Cahiers Scientifiques de la Revue Trans-
ports, 6, 77– 108.
Hwang, C.L., & Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple attribute decision
making, in lecture notes in economics and mathematical
systems 186. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Hyde, K.M., & Maier, H.R. (2006). Distance-based and
stochastic uncertainty analysis for multi-criteria decision
analysis in Excel using Visual Basic for applications.
Environmental Modelling & Software, 21(12), 1695– 1710.
Iniestra, J.G., & Gutierrez, J.G. (2009). Multicriteria decisions on
interdependent infrastructure transportation projects using an
 1194 G. Kabir et al.
evolutionary-based framework. Applied Soft Computing, 9
(2), 512– 526.
Jaber, J.O., & Mohsen, M.S. (2001). Evaluation of non-
conventional water resources supply in Jordan. Desalination,
136(1 – 3), 83 –92.
Jakimavicius, M., & Burinskiene, M. (2009a). Assessment of
Vilnius city development scenarios based on transport
system modelling and multicriteria analysis. Journal of Civil
Engineering and Management, 15(4), 361– 368.
Jakimavicius, M., & Burinskiene, M. (2009b). A GIS and multi-
criteria-based analysis and ranking of transportation zones of
Vilnius city. Technological and Economic Development of
Economy, 15(1), 39 –48.
Janic, M. (2003). Multicriteria evaluation of high-speed rail,
transrapid maglev and air passenger transport in Europe.
Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 07:33 23 October 2017
Transportation Planning and Technology, 26(6), 491– 512.
Jia, R., Ou, D., Zhang, J., & Shibiao, F. (2011). The construction
and application of green residential community water-saving
evaluation system. Applied Mechanics and Materials,
71 – 78, 393– 398.
Joubert, A., Leiman, A., de Klerk, H., Katua, S., & Aggenbach, J.
(1997). Fynbos (fine bush) vegetation and the supply of
water: A comparison of multi-criteria decision analysis and
cost – benefit analysis. Ecological Economics, 22(2),
123– 140.
Jutila, A., & Sundquist, H. (2007). Bridge life cycle optimisation
– ETSI project (Stage 1). Helsinki University of Technology
Publications in Bridge Engineering, TKK-SRT-37, 1 – 167.
Kabir, G. (2012). Multiple criteria inventory classification under
fuzzy environment. International Journal of Fuzzy System
Applications, 2(4), 76 – 92.
Kabir, G. (2013). Consultant selection for quality management
using VIKOR method under fuzzy environment. Inter-
national Journal of Multicriteria Decision Making, Advance
online publication.
Kabir, G., & Hasin, M.A.A. (2012a). Integrating modified Delphi
method with Fuzzy AHP for optimal power substation
location selection. International Journal of Multicriteria
Decision Making, Advance online publication.
Kabir, G., & Hasin, M.A.A. (2012b). Integrating fuzzy AHP with
TOPSIS method for optimal power substation location
selection. International Journal of Enterprise Network
Management, Advance online publication.
Kabir, G., & Hasin, M.A.A. (2013). Multi-criteria inventory
classification through integration of fuzzy analytic hierarchy
process and artificial neural network. International Journal
of Industrial and System Engineering, 14(1), 74 – 103.
Kabir, G., & Sumi, R.S. (2012a). Selection of concrete
production facility location integrating fuzzy AHP with
TOPSIS method. International Journal of Productivity
Management and Assessment Technologies, 1(1), 40 – 59.
Kabir, G., & Sumi, R.S. (2012b). Integrating modified Delphi
with fuzzy AHP for concrete production facility location
selection. International Journal of Fuzzy System Appli-
cations, Advance online publication.
Kang, S., & Lee, S.M. (2007). AHP-based decision-making
process for median barrier installation. International Work-
shop on Computing in Civil Engineering. Pittsburgh, PA.
Karimi, A.R., Mehrdadi, N., Hashemian, S.J., Nabi Bidhendi, G.
R., & Tvakkoli-Moghaddam, R. (2011). Selection of
wastewater treatment process based on the analytical
hierarchy process and fuzzy analytical hierarchy process
methods. International Journal of Environmental Science
and Technology, 8(2), 267– 280.
Kassab, M., Hipel, K., & Hegazy, T. (2011). Multi-criteria
decision analysis for infrastructure privatisation using
conflict resolution. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering,
7(9), 661–671.
Katsuki, S., Frangopol, D.M., & Ishikawa, N. (1993a).
Holonomic elastoplastic reliability analysis of truss systems.
I: Theory. Journal of Structural Engineering, 119(6),
1778– 1791.
Katsuki, S., Frangopol, D.M., & Ishikawa, N. (1993b).
Holonomic elastoplastic reliability analysis of truss systems.
II: Applications. Journal of Structural Engineering, 119(6),
1792– 1806.
Kaya, T., & Kahraman, C. (2011). Fuzzy multiple criteria
forestry decision making based on an integrated VIKOR and
AHP approach. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(6),
7326– 7333.
Khalil, W.A., Shanableh, A., Rigby, P., & Kokot, S. (2005).
Selection of hydrothermal pretreatment conditions of waste
sludge destruction using multicriteria decision making.
Journal of Environmental Management, 75(1), 53 – 64.
Khasnabis, S., Alsaidi, E., Liu, L., & Darin, R. (2002).
Comparative study of two techniques of transit performance
assessment: AHP and GAT. Journal of Transportation
Engineering, 128(6), 499– 508.
Khasnabis, S., & Chaudry, B.B. (1994). Prioritising transit
markets using analytic hierarchy process. Journal of
Transportation Engineering, 120(1), 74 – 93.
Khatri, K.B., Vairavamoorthy, K., & Akinyemi, E. (2011).
Framework for computing a performance index for urban
infrastructure systems using a fuzzy set approach. Journal of
Infrastructure Systems, 17(4), 163– 175.
Kheireldin, K., & Fahmy, H. (2001). Multicriteria approach for
evaluating long term water strategies. Water International,
26(4), 527– 535.
Khelifi, O., Lodolo, A., Vranes, S., Centi, G., & Miertus, S.
(2006). A web-based decision support tool for groundwater
remediation technologies selection. Journal of Hydroinfor-
matics, 8(2), 91 – 100.
Kiker, G.A., Bridges, T.S., Varghese, A., Seager, P.T., & Linkov,
I. (2005). Application of multicriteria decision analysis in
environmental decision making. Integrated Environmental
Assessment and Management, 1(2), 95 – 108.
Kim, K., & Bernardin, V. (2002). Application of an analytical
hierarchy process at the Indiana department of transportation
for prioritizing major highway capital investments. Proceed-
ings of 7th transportation research board conference on the
application of transportation planning methods
(pp. 266– 278). Boston, MA.
Kim, S., & Frangopol, D.M. (2012). Probabilistic bi-objective
optimum inspection/monitoring planning: Applications to
naval ships and bridges under fatigue. Structure and
Infrastructure Engineering, 8(10), 912– 927.
Kim, S., Frangopol, D.M., & Zhu, B. (2011). Probabilistic
optimum inspection/repair planning of deteriorating struc-
tures. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 25
(6), 534–544.
Kim, Y.M., Kim, C.H., & Hong, S.G. (2006). Fuzzy based state
assessment for reinforced concrete building structures.
Engineering Structures, 28(9), 1286– 1297.
Klauer, B., Drechsler, M., & Messner, F. (2002). Multi-criteria
analysis more under uncertainty with IANUS-method and
empirical results. Leipzig, Germany: UFZ Centre for
Environmental Research.
Kong, J.S., & Frangopol, D.M. (2004). Cost-reliability
interaction in life-cycle cost optimization of deteriorating
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering
structures. Journal of Structural Engineering, 130(11),
1704– 1712.
Kong, J.S., & Frangopol, D.M. (2005). Probabilistic optimization
of aging structures considering maintenance and failure
costs. Journal of Structural Engineering, 131(4), 600– 616.
Koo, D.H., & Ariaratnam, S.T. (2008). Application of a
sustainability model for assessing water main replacement
options. Journal of Construction Engineering and Manage-
ment, 134(8), 563– 574.
Lai, E., Lundie, S., & Ashbolt, N.J. (2008). Review of multi-
criteria decision aid for integrated sustainability assessment
of urban water systems. Urban Water Journal, 5(4),
315– 327.
Lambert, J.H., Wu, Y.J., You, H., Clarens, A., & Brian Smith, B.
(2012). Climate change influence on priority setting for
Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 07:33 23 October 2017
transportation infrastructure assets. Journal of Infrastructure
Systems, 19(1), 36– 46.
Lamy, F., Bolte, J., Santelmann, M., & Smith, C. (2002).
Development and evaluation of multiple-objective decision-
making methods for watershed management planning.
Journal of American Water Resources Association, 38(2),
517– 529.
Larson, C.D., & Forman, E.H. (2007). Application of analytic
hierarchy process to select project scope for videologging
and pavement condition data collection. Transportation
Research Record, 1990, 0 – 47.
Lee, S.Y., Park, W., Ok, S.Y., & Koh, H.M. (2011). Preference-
based maintenance planning for deteriorating bridges under
multi-objective optimisation framework. Structure and
Infrastructure Engineering, 7(7 –8), 633– 644.
Leviakangas, P., & Lahesmaa, J. (2002). Profitability evaluation
of intelligent transport system, investments. Journal of
Transportation Engineering, 128(3), 276– 286.
Liang, R., & Pensomboon, G. (2010). Multicriteria decision-
making approach for highway slope hazard management.
Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 16(1), 50 – 57.
Liaudanskiene, R., Ustinovicius, L., & Bogdanovicius, A.
(2009). Evaluation of construction process safety solutions
using the TOPSIS method. Inzinerine Ekonomika-Engineer-
ing Economics, 64(4), 32 – 40.
Lin, C.C., Wang, W.C., & Yu, W.D. (2008). Improving AHP for
construction with an adaptive AHP approach (A 3).
Automation in Construction, 17(2), 180– 187.
Linkov, I., Satterstrom, F.K., Kiker, G., Batchelor, C., Bridges,
T., & Ferguson, E. (2006). From comparative risk assessment
to multi-criteria decision analysis and adaptive management:
Recent developments and applications. Environment Inter-
national, 32(8), 1072–1093.
Liu, Z., Fei, W., Wu, P., & Chen, F. (2011). The research on
building up the hierarchy process and fuzzy evaluation model
and evaluation system about the cement concrete pavement
on the basis of the fuzzy mathematics theory. Advanced
Materials Research, 255-260, 3228– 3233.
Liu, M., & Frangopol, D.M. (2004). Optimal bridge maintenance
planning based on probabilistic performance prediction.
Engineering Structures, 26(7), 991– 1002.
Liu, M., & Frangopol, D.M. (2005a). Maintenance planning of
deteriorating bridges by using multiobjective optimization.
Transportation Research Record, Journal of the Transpor-
tation Research Board, CD 11-S, Transportation Research
Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC
491– 500.
Liu, M., & Frangopol, D.M. (2005b). Balancing connectivity
of deteriorating bridge networks and long-term maintenance
1195
cost through optimization. Journal of Bridge Engineering,
10(4), 468–481.
Liu, M., & Frangopol, D.M. (2005c). Bridge annual maintenance
prioritization under uncertainty by multiobjective combina-
torial optimization. Computer Aided Civil and Infrastructure
Engineering, 20(5), 343– 353.
Liu, M., & Frangopol, D.M. (2005d). Multiobjective mainten-
ance planning optimization for deteriorating bridges
considering condition, safety and life-cycle cost. Journal of
Structural Engineering, 131(5), 833– 842.
Liu, M., & Frangopol, D.M. (2006). Optimizing bridge network
maintenance management under uncertainty with conflicting
criteria: Life-cycle maintenance, failure, and user costs.
Journal of Structural Engineering, 132(11), 1835– 1845.
Macary, F., Ombredane, D., & Uny, D. (2010). A multicriteria
spatial analysis of erosion risk into small watersheds in the
low Normandy bocage (France) by ELECTRE III method
coupled with a GIS. International Journal of Multicriteria
Decision Making, 1(1), 25 –48.
Macharis, C., Springael, J., de Brucker, K., & Verbeke, A.
(2004). PROMETHEE and AHP: The design of operational
synergies in multicriteria analysis: Strengthening PROME-
THEE with ideas of AHP. European Journal of Operational
Research, 153(2), 307– 317.
Macharis, C., Witte, A.D., & Ampe, J. (2008). The multi-actor,
multi-criteria analysis methodology (MAMCA) for the
evaluation of transport projects: Theory and practice. Journal
of Advanced Transportation, 43(2), 183– 202.
Machiwal, D., Jha, M.K., & Mal, B.C. (2011). Assessment of
groundwater potential in a semi-arid region of India using
remote sensing, GIS and MCDM techniques. Water
Resources Management, 25(5), 1359– 1386.
Mahmoud, M.R., & Garcia, L.A. (2000). Comparison of different
multicriteria evaluation methods for the Red Bluff diversion
dam. Environmental Modelling and Software, 15(5),
471– 478.
Malczewski, J. (2006). GIS-based multicriteria decision analysis:
A survey of the literature. International Journal of
Geographical Information Science, 20(7), 703– 726.
Malekly, H., Mousavi, S.M., & Hashemi, H. (2010). A fuzzy
integrated methodology for evaluating conceptual bridge
design. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(7), 4910– 4920.
Mareschal, B., & Brans, J.P. (1988). Geometrical representations
for MCDA. The GAIA module. European Journal of
Operational Research, 34(1), 69 –77.
Marler, R.T., & Arora, J.S. (2004). Survey of multi-objective
optimization methods for engineering. Structural and
Multidisciplinary Optimization, 26(6), 369– 395.
Marlow, D.R., Beale, D.J., & Mashford, J.S. (2012). Risk-based
prioritization and its application to inspection of valves in the
water sector. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 100,
67 – 74.
Martin, C., Ruperd, Y., & Legret, M. (2007). Urban stormwater
drainage management: The development of a multicriteria
decision aid approach for best management practices.
European Journal of Operational Research, 181(1),
338– 349.
Marzouk, M., & Omar, M. (2012). Multiobjective optimisation
algorithm for sewer network rehabilitation. Structure and
Infrastructure Engineering, Advance online publication. doi:
10.1080/15732479.2012.666254
Masami, S. (1995). Analytic hierarchy process (AHP)-based
multi-attribute benefit structure analysis of road network
systems in mountainous rural areas of Japan. International
Journal of Forest Engineering, 7(1), 41 – 50.
 1196 G. Kabir et al.
Maskeliunaite, L., & Sivilevicius, H. (2011). Applying AHP
technique to the assessment of railway trip quality (RTQ).
Proceedings of 8th international conference on environmen-
tal engineering (pp. 1133– 1141). Vilnius, Lithuania.
Michaud, D., & Apostolakis, G.E. (2006). Methodology for
ranking the elements of water-supply networks. Journal of
Infrastructure Systems, 12(4), 230– 242.
Miller, D.W., & Starr, M.K. (1969). Executive Decisions and
Operation Research. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall,
Inc.
Milojkovic, I., & Andric, S. (2009). VIKOR method for asset
management in Serbian Belgrade wastewater services.
Proceedings of the tenth international conference on
computing and control for the water industry (CCWI)
(pp. 741– 747). Sheffield, UK.
Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 07:33 23 October 2017
Moghaddam, M.R.S., Yavari, A., Ghariblu, F., & Anbari, Y.
(2011). Ranking of strategic management indicators in
improvement of urban management by using multiple
attribute decision method of TOPSIS. Applied Mechanics
and Materials, 99 – 100, 524– 530.
Morais, D.C., & Almeida, A.T. (2006). Water supply system
decision making using multicriteria analysis. Water SA, 32(2),
229– 235.
Morais, D.C., Cavalcante, C.A.V., & Almeida, A.T. (2010).
Water network rehabilitation: A group decision-making
approach. Water SA, 36(4), 487– 493.
Morais, D.C., & De Almeida, A.T. (2007). Group decision-
making for leakage management strategy of water network.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 52(2), 441– 459.
Moura, P.M., Baptista, M.B., & Barraud, S. (2006). Comparison
between two methodologies for urban drinage decision aid.
Water Science & Technology, 54(6– 7), 493– 499.
Mustajoki, J., Hamalainen, R.P., & Marttunen, M. (2004).
Participatory multicriteria decision analysis with Web-
HIPRE: A case of lake regulation policy. Environmental
Modelling & Software, 19(6), 537– 547.
Nachtnebel, H.P. (1994). Comparison of multi-criterion model-
ling techniques and guidelines for selection. Multicriteria
decision analysis in water resources management
(pp. 203– 234). Paris, France: IHP of UNESCO.
Netto, O.C., Parent, E., & Duckstein, L. (1996). Multicriterion
design of long-term water supply in Southern France.
Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 122
(6), 403– 413.
Neves, L.A.C., Frangopol, D.M., & Cruz, P.J.S. (2006).
Probabilistic lifetime-oriented multiobjective optimization
of bridge maintenance: Single maintenance type. Journal of
Structural Engineering, 132(6), 991– 1005.
Neves, L.A.C., Frangopol, D.M., & Petcherdchoo, A. (2006).
Probabilistic lifetime-oriented multi-objective optimization
of bridge maintenance: Combination of maintenance types.
Journal of Structural Engineering, 132(11), 1821– 1834.
Ning, X., & Wang, L. (2011). Construction site layout evaluation
by intuitionistic fuzzy TOPSIS model. Applied Mechanics
and Materials, 71 – 78, 583– 588.
Novacko, L., Cavar, I., & Dubravka, H. (2008). Selection of LRT
system track gauge using multi-criteria decision-making
(City of Zagreb). Urban transport XIV: Urban transport and
the environment in the 21st Century (pp. 167– 173). Ashurst,
Southampton: WIT Press.
Nystrom, B., & Soderholm, P. (2010). Selection of maintenance
actions using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP):
Decision-making in railway infrastructure. Structure and
Infrastructure Engineering, 6(4), 467– 479.
Okeola, O.G., & Sule, B.F. (2012). Evaluation of management
alternatives for urban water supply system using multicriteria
decision analysis. Journal of King Saud University –
Engineering Sciences, 24(1), 19 – 24.
Onta, P., Gupta, A., & Harboe, R. (1991). Multistep planning
model for conjunctive use of surface- and ground-water
resources. Journal of Water Resources Planning and
Management, 117(6), 662–678.
Opricovic, S. (2009). A compromise solution in water resources
planning. Water Resources Management, 23(8), 1549– 1561.
Opricovic, S. (2011). Fuzzy VIKOR with an application to water
resources planning. Expert Systems with Applications, 38
(10), 12983– 12990.
Opricovic, S., & Tzeng, G.H. (2002). Multicriteria planning of
post-earthquake sustainable reconstruction. Computer-Aided
Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 17(3), 211– 220.
Opricovic, S., & Tzeng, G.H. (2007). Extended VIKOR method
in comparison with outranking methods. European Journal
of Operational Research, 178(2), 514– 529.
Okasha, N.M., & Frangopol, D.M. (2009). Lifetime-oriented
multi-objective optimization of structural maintenance,
considering system reliability, redundancy, and life-cycle
cost using GA. Structural Safety, 31(6), 460– 474.
Okasha, N.M., & Frangopol, D.M. (2010). Novel approach for
multi-criteria optimization of life-cycle preventive and
essential maintenance of deteriorating structures. Journal of
Structural Engineering, 136(8), 1009– 1022.
Okasha, N.M., Frangopol, D.M., & Deco, A. (2010). Integration
of structural health monitoring in life-cycle performance
assessment of ship structures under uncertainty. Marine
Structures, 23(3), 303– 321.
Opricovic, S. (1998). Multicriteria optimization of civil
engineering systems. Faculty of Civil Engineering, Belgrade.
Opricovic, S., & Tzeng, G.H. (2002). Multicriteria planning of
post-earthquake sustainable reconstruction. Computer-Aided
Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 17(3), 211– 220.
Opricovic, S., & Tzeng, G.H. (2003). Fuzzy multicriteria model
for post-earthquake land-use planning. Natural Hazards
Review, 4(2), 59 – 64.
Opricovic, S., & Tzeng, G.H. (2004). Compromise solution by
MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and
TOPSIS. European Journal of Operational Research, 156(2),
445– 455.
Orcesi, A.D., & Frangopol, D.M. (2011a). Probability-based
multiple-criteria optimization of bridge maintenance using
monitoring and expected error in the decision process.
Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 44(1),
137– 148.
Orcesi, A.D., & Frangopol, D.M. (2011b). Optimization of
bridge maintenance strategies based on structural health
monitoring information. Structural Safety, 33(1), 26– 41.
Orcesi, A.D., Frangopol, D.M., & Kim, S. (2010). Optimization
of bridge maintenance strategies based on multiple limit
states and monitoring. Engineering Structures, 32(3),
627– 640.
Oswald, M., Li, Q., McNeil, S., & Trimbath, S. (2011).
Measuring infrastructure performance: Development of a
national infrastructure index. Public Works Managament and
Policy, 16(4), 373– 394.
Ozbek, M.E., de la Garza, J.M., & Konstantinos Triantis, K.
(2010). Data and modeling issues faced during the efficiency
measurement of road maintenance using data envelopment
analysis. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 16(1), 21 – 30.
Ozelkan, E.C., & Duckstein, L. (1996). Analysing water
resources alternatives and handling criteria by multi criterion
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering
decision techniques. Journal of Environmental Management,
48(1), 69 – 96.
Pan, H., Zhang, Z., & Yang, L. (2011). A Study on risk of
durability failure for construction projects of tunnels and
underground projects. Advanced Materials Research, 163-
167, 3280– 3284.
Patidar, V., Labi, S., Sinha, K.C., & Thompson, P. (2007). Multi-
objective optimization for bridge management systems.
National Cooperative Highway Research Program, NCHRP
Report 590, Transportation Research Board, Washington,
DC.
Petcherdchoo, A., Neves, L.A.C., & Frangopol, D.M. (2008).
Optimizing lifetime condition and reliability of deteriorating
structures with emphasis on bridges. Journal of Structural
Engineering, 134(4), 544– 552.
Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 07:33 23 October 2017
Pires, A., Chang, N.B., & Martinho, G. (2011). An AHP-based
fuzzy interval TOPSIS assessment for sustainable expansion
of the solid waste management system in Setubal Peninsula,
Portuga. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 56(1),
7 – 21.
Pohekar, S.D., & Ramachandran, M. (2004). Application of
multi-criteria decision making to sustainable energy plan-
ning – A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, 8(4), 365– 381.
Pourzeynali, S., Lavasani, H.H., & Modarayi, A.H. (2007).
Active control of high rise building structures using fuzzy
logic and genetic Algorithms. Engineering Structures, 29(3),
346– 357.
Pudenz, S., Bruggemann, R., Voigt, K., & Welzl, G. (2002).
Multi-criteria evaluation and decision-support instruments
for the long-term development of management strategies.
Umweltwissenschaften und Schadstoff-Forschung, 14(1),
52 – 57.
Rahman, S.M. (2005). Sustainability appraisal of urban
transportation: Application of analytical hierarchy process
(AHP). Conference proceedings of Environmentally Sustain-
able Development. Abbottabad, Pakistan.
Raju, K.S., Duckstein, L., & Arondel, C. (2000). Multicriterion
analysis for sustainable water resources planning: A case
study in Spain. Water Resources Management, 14(6),
435– 456.
Raju, K.S., & Kumar, D.N. (1998). MCDMGSS: A group
decision support system for multicriterion analysis. Proceed-
ings of international conference on system dynamics
(pp. 67 – 73). Kharagpur, India.
Raju, K.S., & Kumar, D.N. (2006). Ranking irrigation planning
alternatives using data envelopment analysis. Water
Resources Management, 20(4), 553– 566.
Raju, K.S., & Pillai, C.R.S. (1999). Multicriterion decision
making in river basin planning and development. European
Journal of Operational Research, 112(2), 249–257.
Reuters, T. (2010)., Web of science. Accessed January 1, 2011.
Available online http://thomsonreuters.com/products_
services/science/science_products/a-z/web_of_science/
Revadigar, S., & Mau, S.T. (1999). Automated multicriterion
building damage assessment from seismic data. Journal of
Structural Engineering, 125(2), 211– 217.
Rogers, M. (2000). Using Electre III to aid the choice of housing
construction process within structural engineering. Con-
struction Management and Economics, 18(3), 333– 342.
Rogers, M., & Bruen, M. (2000). Using ELECTRE III to choose
route for Dublin port motorway. Journal of Transportation
Engineering, 126(4), 313– 323.
1197
Rogers, P.D., & Grigg, N.S. (2009). Failure assessment modeling
to prioritize water pipe renewal: Two case studies. Journal of
Infrastructure Systems, 15(3), 162– 171.
Romero, C., & Rehman, T. (1987). Natural resource management
and the use of multiple criteria decision making techniques:
A review. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 14
(1), 61– 89.
Roy, B. (1978). ELECTRE III: un algorithme de classements
fonde sur une representation floue des preferences en
presence de criteres multiples. Cahiers du CERO, 20(1),
3 – 24.
Roy, B., & Bertier, P. (1971). La methode ELECTRE II. Paris,
France: Note de travail 142, SEMA-METRA, Metra
International.
Roy, B., & Skalka, J. (1984). ELECTRE IS: Aspects
methodologiques et guide dutilisation, Document du LAM-
SADE 30, University Paris-Dauphine.
Saaty, T.L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process. New York:
McGraw Hill.
Sadiq, R., & Tesfamariam, S. (2008). Developing environmental
indices using fuzzy numbers ordered weighted averaging
(FN-OWA) operators. Stochastic Environmental Research
and Risk Assessment, 22(5), 495– 505.
Sadiq, R., & Tesfamariam, S. (2009). Multi-criteria decision-
making (MCDM) using intuitionistic fuzzy analytic hier-
archy process (IF-AHP). Stochastic Environmental Research
and Risk Assessment, 23(1), 75 – 91.
Saito, M. (1987). Application of the analytic hierarchy method to
setting priorities on bridge replacement projects. Transpor-
tation Research Record, 1124, 26 – 35.
Saleh, A.E., Yavari, A., Maleki, M., & Alamouti, S.M. (2012).
Ranking of efficient approaches to urban infrastructures
management by using TOPSIS method: Case study of Iran.
Recent Researches in Engineering Mechanics, Urban &
Naval Transportation and Tourism (pp. 252–257). Cam-
bridge, UK.
Salem, O.M., Miller, R.A., Deshpande, A.S., & Arurkar, T.P.
(2013). Multi-criteria decision-making system for selecting
an effective plan for bridge rehabilitation. Structure and
Infrastructure Engineering, 9(8), 806– 816.
Salokangas, L. (2009). Bridge life cycle optimisation-ETSI
project (Stage 2) (pp. 1 – 140): Helsinki University of
Technology Publications in Bridge Engineering, TKK-R-
BE3.
Saparauskas, J., & Turskis, Z. (2006). Evaluation of construction
sustainability by multiple criteria methods. Technological
and Economic Development of Economy, 12(4), 321– 326.
Sarma, K.C., & Adeli, H. (2000). Fuzzy discrete multicriteria
cost optimization of steel structures. Journal of Structural
Engineering, 126(11), 1339– 1347.
Sasmal, S., Ramanjaneyulu, K., & Lakshmanan, N. (2007).
Priority ranking towards condition assessment of existing
reinforced concrete bridges. Structure and Infrastructure
Engineering, 3(1), 75 –89.
Sawicki, P., Zak, J., & Redmer, A. (1999). The comparison of
ELECTRE, ORESTE and MAPPAC methods applied to the
quality evaluation of transportation systems. Papers of the
International Conference on Modelling and Management in
Transportation, Poznan, Krakow, 223-229.
Selih, J., Kne, A., Srdic, A., & Zura, M. (2008). Multiple-criteria
decision support system in highway infrastructure manage-
ment. Transport, 23(4), 299– 305.
Semaan, N., & Zayed, T. (2009). Subway station diagnosis index
condition assessment model. Journal of Infrastructure
Systems, 15(3), 222– 231.
 1198 G. Kabir et al.
Semaan, N., & Zayed, T. (2010). A stochastic diagnostic model
for subway stations. Tunnelling and Underground Space
Technology, 25(1), 32 –41.
Shafike, N.G., Duckstein, L., & Maddock, T. (1992). Multi-
criterion analysis of groundwater contamination manage-
ment. Water Resources Bulletin, 28(1), 33 – 43.
Shahriar, A., Sadiq, R., & Tesfamariam, S. (2012). Risk analysis
for oil & gas pipelines: A sustainability assessment approach
using fuzzy based bow-tie analysis. Journal of Loss
Prevention in the Process Industries, 25(3), 505– 523.
Shang, J.S., Tjader, Y., & Ding, Y. (2004). A unified framework
for multicriteria evaluation of transportation projects. IEEE
Transactions on Engineering Management, 51(3), 300–313.
Shapira, A., & Goldenberg, M. (2005). AHP-based equipment
selection model for construction projects. Journal of
Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 07:33 23 October 2017
Construction Engineering and Management, 131(12),
1263– 1273.
Sharifi, M.A., & Rodriguez, E. (2002). Design and development
of a planning support system for policy formulation in water
resources rehabilitation; the case of Alcazar De San Juan
District in Aquifer 23, La Mancha, Spain. Journal of
Hydroinformatics, 4(3), 157– 175.
Sharma, V., Al-Hussein, M., Safouhi, H., & Bouferguene, A.
(2008). Municipal infrastructure asset levels of service
assessment for investment decisions using analytic hierarchy
process. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 14(3), 193– 200.
Shelton, J., & Medina, M. (2010). Integrated multiple-criteria
decision-making method to prioritize transportation projects.
Transportation Research Record, 2174, 51– 57.
Shiau, J.T., & Lee, H.C. (2005). Derivation of optimal hedging
rules for a water-supply reservoir through compromise
programming. Water Resources Management, 19(2),
111– 132.
Shook, D.A., Roschke, P.N., Lin, P.Y., & Loh, C.H. (2008). GA-
optimized fuzzy logic control of a large-scale building for
seismic loads. Engineering Structures, 30(2), 436– 449.
Shu-Kuang, N., & Chang, N.B. (2005). Screening the relocation
strategies of water quality monitoring stations by compro-
mise programming. Journal of the American Water
Resources Association, 41(5), 1039 –1052.
Sidek, L.M., Basri, H., & Zalaluddin, Z. (2008). Development of
decision support tools for urban storm drainage. Proceedings
of international conference on construction and building
technology (pp. 349–362). Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Silva, V.B.S., Morais, D.C., & Almeida, A.T. (2010). A
multicriteria group decision model to support watershed
committees in Brazil. Water Resources Management, 24(14),
4075– 4091.
Simon, U., Bruggemann, R., Behrendt, H., Shulenberger, E., &
Pudenz, S. (2006). METEOR: A step-by-step procedure to
explore effects of indicator aggregation in multi criteria
decision aiding-application to water management in Berlin,
Germany. Acta Hydrochim Hydrobiol, 34(1– 2), 126– 136.
Simon, U., Bruggemann, R., Mey, S., & Pudenz, S. (2005).
METEOR – Application of a decision support tool based on
discrete mathematics. Match-Communications in Mathemat-
ical and in Computer Chemistry, 54(3), 623– 642.
Simon, U., Bruggemann, R., & Pudenz, S. (2004). Aspects of
decision support in water management-example Berlin and
Potsdam (Germany) I – Spatially differentiated evaluation.
Water Research, 38(7), 1809– 1816.
Simonovic, S.P., & Nirupama, A. (2005). spatial multi-objective
decision-making under uncertainty for water resources
management. Journal of Hydroinformatics, 7(2), 117– 133.
Skibniewski, M., & Chao, L. (1992). Evaluation of advanced
construction technology with AHP method. Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, 118(3),
577– 593.
Srdjevic, B. (2007). Linking analytic hierarchy process and social
choice methods to support group decision-making in water
management. Decision Support Systems, 42(4), 2261– 2273.
Srdjevic, Z., Bajcetic, R., & Srdjevic, B. (2012). Identifying the
criteria set for multicriteria decision making based on
SWOT/PESTLE analysis: A case study of reconstructing a
water intake structure. Water Resources Management, 26
(12), 3379– 3393.
Srdjevic, B., Medeiros, Y.D.P., & Faria, A.S. (2004). An
objective multi-criteria evaluation of water management
scenarios. Water Resources Management, 18(1), 35 –54.
Steuer, R.E., & Na, P. (2003). Multiple criteria decision making
combined with finance: A categorized bibliographic study.
European Journal of Operational Research, 150(3),
496– 515.
Su, C.W., Cheng, M.Y., & Lin, K.S. (2002). Data preprocessing
for ranking of projects-a case study of rail transportation
investment. Proceedings of the 17th conference of transpor-
tation association (pp. 1015– 1026). Chiayi, Taiwan.
Su, C.W., Cheng, M.Y., & Lin, F.B. (2006). Simulation-
enhanced approach for ranking major transport projects.
Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 12(4),
285– 291.
Sun, L., & Gu, W. (2011). Pavement condition assessment using
fuzzy logic theory and analytic hierarchy process. Journal of
Transportation Engineering, 137(9), 648– 655.
Tabucanon, M.T., & Lee, H. (1995). Multiple criteria evaluation
of transportation system improvement projects: The case of
Korea. Journal of Advanced Transportation, 29(1),
127– 134.
Tam, C.M., Tong, T.K.L., & Chiu, G.W.C. (2006). Comparing
non-structural fuzzy decision support system and analytical
hierarchy process in decision making for construction
problems. European Journal of Operational Research, 174
(2), 1317–1324.
Tecle, A. (1992). Selecting a multicriterion decision making
technique for watershed resources management. Water
Resources Bulletin, 28(1), 129– 140.
Tecle, A., Fogel, M., & Duckstein, L. (1988). Multicriterion
selection of wastewater management alternatives. Journal of
Water Resources Planning and Management, 114(4),
383– 398.
Tesfamariam, S., & Sadiq, R. (2006). Risk-based environmental
decision-making using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process
(F-AHP). Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk
Assessment, 21(1), 35 – 50.
Tesfamariam, S., Sadiq, R., & Najjaran, H. (2010). Decision-
making under uncertainty – An example for seismic risk
management. Risk Analysis, 30(1), 78 – 94.
Tesfamariam, S., & Sanchez-Silva, M. (2011). Fuzzy model of
the life-cycle analysis of building in seismic regions. Civil
Engineering and Environmental Systems, 28(3), 261– 278.
Thiel, T. (2006). A proposal of defining participant preferences in
a decision aiding process with the participant representing a
collective body. Technological and Economic Development
of Economy, 12(3), 257– 262.
Thomaidis, F., & Mavrakis, D. (2006). Optimum route of the
south transcontinental gas pipeline in SE Europe using AHP.
Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 14(1 – 3),
77 – 88.
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering
Tille, M., & Dumont, A.G. (2003). The multicriteria decision
making methods: A practical tool for design a sustainability
road infrastructure. Proceedings of the XXIInd PIARC World
Road Congress, Durban, South Africa.
Tkach, R.J., & Simonovic, S.P. (1997). A new approach to multi-
criteria decision making in water resources. Journal of
Geographic Information and Decision Analysis, 1(1), 25 –43.
Tracz, M., & Wawrzynkiewicz, B. (1993). Knowledge
acquisition from multiple experts: A case of transport
planning in Poland. Expert system in environmental
planning (pp. 261 – 274). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-
Verlag.
Triantaphyllou, E. (2001). Multi-criteria decision making
methods: A comparative study. Brussels: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 07:33 23 October 2017
Trojan, F., & Morais, D.C. (2012). Prioritising alternatives for
maintenance of water distribution networks: A group
decision approach. Water Research Commission, 38(4),
555– 564.
Tsamboulas, D., Yiotis, G.S., & Panou, K.D. (1999). Use of
multicriteria methods for assessment of transport projects.
Journal of Transportation Engineering, 125(5), 407– 414.
Ugwu, O.O., Kumaraswamy, M.M., Wong, A., & Ng, S.T.
(2006). Sustainability appraisal in infrastructure projects
(SUSAIP). Part 1: Development of indicators and compu-
tational methods. Automation in Construction, 15(2),
239– 251.
Ulengin, F., Ilker Topcu, Y., & Sahin, S.O. (2001). An integrated
decision aid system for Bosphorus water-crossing problem.
European Journal of Operational Research, 134(1),
179– 192.
Wang, N. (2011). Multi-criteria decision-making model for
whole life costing design. Structure and Infrastructure
Engineering, 7(6), 441– 452.
Wang, F., Kang, S., Du, T., Li, F., & Qiu, R. (2011b).
Determination of comprehensive quality index for tomato
and its response to different irrigation treatments. Agricul-
tural Water Management, 98(8), 1228– 1238.
Wei-zhuo, S., Bing-sheng, L., & Li, L. (2010). Bid evaluation
model design for construction project based on fuzzy-
TOPSIS. Proceedings of International Conference on
E-Product E-Service and E-Entertainment (ICEEE)
(pp. 1 – 4). Guangzhou, China.
Won, J. (1990). Multicriteria evaluation approaches to urban
transportation projects. Urban Studies, 27(1), 119– 138.
Wong, J., Li, H., & Lai, J. (2008). Evaluating the system
intelligence of the intelligent building systems. Part 1:
Development of key intelligent indicators and conceptual
analytical framework. Automation in Construction, 17(3),
284– 302.
Xie, P. (2008). Development ranking in real estate strategy
management in China based on TOPSIS method. ISECS
International Colloquium on Computing, Communication,
Control, and Management Guangzhou, China (Vol. 3)
(pp. 254– 258).
Yadollahi, M., & Zin, R.M. (2012). Multi-strategy
budget allocation decision support system for seismic
rehabilitation of road infrastructure. Structure and Infra-
structure Engineering, Advance online publication. doi:
10.1080/15732479.2012.737810
Yan, J.M., & Vairavamoorthy, K. (2003). Fuzzy approach for
pipe condition assessment. Proceedings of International
Conference on Pipeline Engineering and Construction ,
Baltimore, MD, USA (pp. 466– 476).
1199
Yang, S.I., Frangopol, D.M., Kawakami, Y., & Neves, L.C.
(2006a). The use of lifetime functions in the optimization of
interventions on existing bridges considering maintenance
and failure costs. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 96
(6), 698–705.
Yang, S.I., Frangopol, D.M., & Neves, L.C. (2006b). Optimum
maintenance strategy for deteriorating bridge structures
based on lifetime functions. Engineering Structures, 28(2),
196– 206.
Yazdani, M., Alidoosti, A., & Basiri, M.H. (2012). Risk analysis
for critical infrastructures using fuzzy TOPSIS. Journal of
Management Research, 4(1), 1 – 19.
Yedla, S., & Shrestha, P.M. (2003). Multi-criteria approach for
the selection of alternative options for environmentally
sustainable transport system in Delphi. Transportation
Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 37(8), 717– 729.
Yilmaz, B., & Harmancioglu, N.B. (2010). Multi-criteria
decision making for water resource management: A case
study of the Gediz River Basin, Turkey. Water SA, 36(5),
563– 576.
Yoon, K.P., & Hwang, C.L. (1995). Multiple attribute decision
making. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication.
Young, K.D., Younos, T., & Randel, L. (2010). Application of
the analytic hierarchy process for selecting and modeling
stormwater best management practices. Journal of Con-
temporary Water Research & Education, 146(1), 50 – 63.
Youssef, M.A., Anumba, C.J., & Thorpe, T. (2005). Intelligent
selection of concrete bridge construction methods in Egypt.
International Conference on Computing in Civil Engineer-
ing, Cancun, Mexico.
Yu, W. (1992). ELECTRE TRI: Aspects methodologiques et
manuel dutilisation, Document du LAMSADE 74, Univer-
sity Paris-Dauphine.
Zak, J. (2011). The methodology of multiple criteria decision
making/aiding in public transportation. Journal of Advanced
Transportation, 45(1), 1 – 20.
Zak, J., Bozek, M., & Cieslik, R. (1997). Multiple criteria method
for the selection of the means of transport for the mass transit
system. Proceedings of the scientific conference: Transpor-
tation problems in metropolitan areas under congestion
(pp. 84 – 90). Poznan.
Zandi, F., & Tavana, M. (2011). An optimal investment
scheduling framework for intelligent transportation systems
architecture. Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems,
15(3), 115– 132.
Zardari, N.H., Cordery, I., & Sharma, A. (2010). An objective
multiattribute analysis approach for allocation of scarce
irrigation water resources. Journal of the American Water
Resources Association, 46(2), 412– 428.
Zarghami, M. (2010). Urban water management using fuzzy-
probabilistic multi-objective programming with dynamic
efficiency. Water Resources Management, 24(15),
4491– 4504.
Zarghami, M., Abrishamchi, A., & Ardakanian, R. (2008). Multi-
criteria decision making for integrated urban water manage-
ment. Water Resources Management, 22(8), 1017– 1029.
Zarghaami, M., Ardakanian, R., & Memariani, A. (2007). Fuzzy
multiple attribute decision making on water resources
projects case study: Ranking water transfers to Zayanderud
basin in Iran. Water International, 32(2), 280– 293.
Zarghami, M., & Szidarovszky, F. (2009). Stochastic-fuzzy multi
criteria decision making for robust water resources manage-
ment. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assess-
ment, 23(3), 329– 339.
 1200 G. Kabir et al.
Zarghami, M., & Szidarovszky, F. (2010). On the relation
between compromise programming and ordered weighted
averaging operator. Information Sciences, 180(11),
2239– 2248.
Zavadskas, E.K., & Antucheviciene, J. (2004). Evaluation of
buildings’ redevelopment alternatives with an emphasis on
the multipartite sustainability. International Journal of
Strategic Property Management, 8(2), 121– 128.
Zavadskas, E.K., & Antucheviciene, J. (2006). Development of
an indicator model and ranking of sustainable revitalization
alternatives of derelict property: A Lithuanian case study.
Sustainable Development, 14(5), 287– 299.
Zeng, G., Jiang, R., Huang, G., Xu, M., & Li, J. (2006).
Optimization of wastewater treatment alternatives by
hierarchy grey relational analysis. Journal of Environmental
Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 07:33 23 October 2017
Management, 82(2), 250– 259.
Zeleny, M. (1982). Multiple criteria decision making. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Zhang, C., & Wang, S. (2011). Comprehensive evaluation based
on AHP-Fuzzy about the conception of underground
container transportation lines in Shanghai. Applied Mech-
anics and Materials, 71-78, 175– 181.
Zhao, H., Wu, H., Duan, T., & Li, J. (2012). Application-oriented
implementation effect evaluation system of pedestrian
reconstructing plans and case analysis. Procedia – Social
and Behavioral Sciences, 43, 512– 520.
Zhou, Y., Vairavamoorthy, K., & Grimshaw, F. (2009).
Development of a Fuzzy based pipe condition assessment
model using PROMETHEE. World environmental and water
resources congress (pp. 4809– 4818). Kansas City, Missouri,
USA.
Ziara, M., Nigim, K., Enshassi, A., & Ayyub, B.M. (2002).
Strategic implementation of infrastructure priority projects:
Case study in Palestine. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 8
(1), 2– 11.
Zimmermann, H. (1996). Fuzzy sets, decision making and expert
systems. New York: McGraw-Hill.
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering 1201

Appendix A
The following Web-based electronic libraries and databases were searched for relevant articles:

Web of Science (http://apps.webofknowledge.com)

Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)1099-1360)
International Journal of Multicriteria Decision Making (http://www.inderscience.com/jhome.php?jcode¼ijmcdm)
IEEE XploreH (http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore)
ISI Web of Knowledge (http://isi10.isiknowledge.com)
ProQuestH (http://proquest.umi.com)
Research Index (http://www.researchindex.com)
Science Direct (http://www.sciencedirect.com)
Scirus (http://www.scirus.com)
Scopus (http://www.scopus.com/scopus/home.url)
Springer Link (http://www.springerlink.com)
Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 07:33 23 October 2017

Appendix B
Applications of different MCDM methods in the field of infrastructure management.

Table B1. Applications of MCDM methods in the field of water resources systems.

Authors MCDM method(s) Application area

Afshar, Marino, Saadatpour, and Afshar TOPSIS Ranking projects in the Karun river basin
(2011)
Kaya and Kahraman (2011) VIKOR with AHP To evaluate the alternative watershed forestation
districts of Istanbul
Machiwal, Jha, and Mal (2011) AHP with GIS Assessment of groundwater potential in a
semi-arid region of India
Opricovic (2011) VIKOR To evaluate alternative water resource systems of
Mlava River
Wang, Kang, Du, Li, and Qiu (2011b) TOPSIS with AHP Determination of comprehensive quality index for
irrigation scheduling
Calizaya, Meixner, Bengtsson, and AHP To support stakeholders to manage water
Berndtsson (2010) resources in the Lake Poopo Basin, Bolivia
Dai et al. (2010) TOPSIS with GRAa Water resource security evaluation
Macary, Ombredane, and Uny (2010) ELECTRE III with GIS To determine erosion risk of small watersheds in
the low Normandy bocage, France
Silva, Morais, and Almeida (2010) PROMETHEE II To rank the alternatives for the management of the
watersheds
Yilmaz and Harmancioglu (2010) WSM, CP and TOPSIS Water resource management of the Gediz River
Basin, Turkey
Zardari, Cordery, and Sharma (2010) ELECTRE I and ELECTRE II For allocation of scarce irrigation water resources
Chung and Lee (2009) CP, ELECTRE, Regime, Prioritisation of alternatives for sustainability of
EVAMIX Anyangcheon watershed
Opricovic (2009) VIKOR To develop reservoir system for the storage of
Mlava River
Zarghami and Szidarovszky (2009) DEAb, AHP, TOPSIS, To rank discrete set of alternatives in the Central
PROMETHEE, CP, WPM Tisza River in Hungary
Chang, Chiueh, and Liou (2008) VIKOR To determine the priority strategies on the
restraint of land-use activities in the Fei-tsui
reservoir watershed in Northern Taiwan
Ganoulis, Skoulikaris, and Monget (2008) CP For integrated modelling of water resources
management at the basin scale
Hajkowicz and Higgins (2008) WSM, Range of value, CP, Six water management decision problems
Evamix, PROMTHEE II
Chou, Lin, Lin, and Chou (2007) PROMETHEE with GIS Ranking embankment types (eco-technology
models) located in Shihmen reservoir
watershed
Hermans and Erickson (2007) PROMETHEE II Ranking river management alternatives
Opricovic and Tzeng (2007) TOPSIS, PROMETHEE, To evaluate alternative hydropower systems on
VIKOR and ELECTRE the Drina River
Srdjevic (2007) AHP with SCMc To support group decision-making in water
management
Zarghaami, Ardakanian, and Memariani TOPSIS with WSM Ranking water transfers to the Zayanderud basin
(2007) in Iran
 1202 G. Kabir et al.

Table B1 – continued

Authors MCDM method(s) Application area

Elmahdi et al. (2006) CP with GIS For integrated water resource management of a
cropped area
Elshorbagy (2006) AVFd, ELECTRE To assess the utility of watershed modelling for
management decisions
Hyde and Maier (2006) PROMETHEE Sustainable water resource development problem
Raju and Kumar (2006) PROMETHEE with DEA To select the suitable irrigation planning
alternatives
Simon, Bruggemann, Behrendt, PROMETHEE II with METEORe To evaluate eco-hydrological effects of water
Shulenberger, and Pudenz (2006) management strategies
Anagnostopoulos, Petalas, and Pisinaras AHP and PROMETHEE To evaluate alternative irrigation projects for the
(2005) East Macedonia Thrace District
Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 07:33 23 October 2017

Shu-Kuang and Chang (2005)
Simon, Bruggemann, Mey, and Pudenz
(2005)
Simonovic and Nirupama (2005)
Shiau and Lee (2005)
Herath (2004)
Simon, Bruggemann, and Pudenz (2004)
Srdjevic, Medeiros, and Faria (2004)
Al-Zubi and Al-Kharabsheh (2003)
Al-Zubi, Shatanawi, Al-Jayoussi, and
Al-Kharabsheh (2002)
Lamy. Bolte, Santelmann, and Smith
(2002)
Pudenz, Bruggemann, Voigt, and Welzl
(2002)
Sharifi and Rodriguez (2002)
Choi and Park (2001)
Eberhard and Joubert (2001)
Jaber and Mohsen (2001)
Kheireldin and Fahmy (2001)
Ulengin, Ilker Topcu, and Sahin (2001)
Bender and Simonovic (2000)
Mahmud and Garcia (2000)
Raju, Duckstein, and Arondel (2000)
Raju and Pillai (1999)
Raju and Kumar (1998)
Al-Shemmeri, Al-Kloub, and Pearman
(1997)
Bender and Simonovic (1997)
Tkach and Simonovic (1997)
Bella, Duckstein, and Szidarovszky (1996)
Ozelkan and Duckstein (1996)
CP To select water quality site monitoring network
PROMETHEE II with METEOR The evaluation of water management strategies
CP Spatial water resources decision-making of the
Red River floodplain near the City of St
Adolphe in Manitoba, Canada
CP For optimal hedging rules of water-supply
reservoir
AHP Developing better management strategies for the
Wonga Wetlands on the Murray River,
Australia
PROMETHEE II The evaluation of water management strategies
TOPSIS with Entropy method Ranking water management scenarios
AHP Prioritisation of water use for management in the
Jordan Valley
AHP Prioritisation of sustainable water policies for
management in the Azraq Basin
WPM Watershed restoration planning
PROMETHEE with AHP Evaluating strategies of sustainable water
management
WSM with ELECTRE II Evaluation of policies for aquifer management
WSM Analysis of water privatisation scenarios in Korea
WSM Alternative water supply and demand
management options in Cape Town area
AHP Selection of potential non-convectional water
resources supply in Jordan
CP Selection of long-term national water strategies
PROMETHEE I and To select most suitable remedy for water-crossing
PROMETHEE II problem
CP and ELECTRE To describe water resource systems planning
under uncertainty
WSM, ELECTRE II, AHP, Management alternatives for the operation of a
PROMETHEE II, CP diversion dam
PROMETHEE II, CP, FlumenMonegros irrigation area in the Huesca
EXPROM-2, ELECTRE III, Province of Spain
ELECTRE IV
ELECTRE II, PROMETHEE II, Selection of reservoir configuration in India
AHP, EXPROM-2, CP
PROMETHEE II, EXPROM-2, Selection of reservoir configuration in India
CP
PROMETHEE Ranking of water development projects
CP Alternative water resources development
solutions
CP with GIS Selection of floodplain management strategies
CP and ELECTRE III Water allocation in the upper Rio Grande basin
PROMETHEE I/II, GIAI, Ground water resource management problems
MCQAf I/II/III, CP, CGTg
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering 1203

Table B1 – continued

Authors MCDM method(s) Application area

Ozelkan and Duckstein (1996)
Abu-Taleb and Mareschal (1995)
Anand Raj (1995)
Anand Raj and Kumar (1996)
Harboe (1992)
Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 07:33 23 October 2017
PROMETHEE II and GAIA
PROMETHEE V
ELECTRE I and ELECTRE II
ELECTRE I and ELECTRE II
CMh, CP, Tchebycheff approach,
GPi, Consensus and ELE-
CTRE I/II.
Ranking water resources projects (hydropower
plants
To rank and select water resources development
options
Most suitable planning of the reservoirs for
development of the Krishna river basin
Most suitable planning of the reservoirs for
development of the river basin
For choosing the optimal operating rule for a
system of water reservoirs

Hobbs, Chankong, Hamadeh, and Stakhiv ELECTRE I, AHP, GP, MUFj, Comparison of alternative plans for long range
(1992) AVF water supply
Tecle (1992) AHP, CTPk, CP, CGT, DISIDl, Selection of watershed resources management
ELECTRE, MAUTm, MCQA, alternatives management
PROMETHEE, SWTn
Tecle (1992) CP Selection of watershed resources management
Onta, Gupta, and Harboe (1991) CP Conjunctive use of surface water and ground
water
Al-Kloub and Abu-Taleb (1988) PROMETHEE V To rank the water rights and water sharing
Tecle, Fogel, and Duckstein (1988) CP, ELECTRE I and CGT Wastewater management options
Gershon and Duckstein, 1983 ELECTRE, MAUT, CGT and CP Planning of Santa Cruz river basin
Duckstein, Gershon, and McAniff (1982) ELECTRE, MAUT and CP River basin planning
a
GRA: Grey relational analysis.
b
DEA: Data envelopment analysis.
c
SCM: Social choice methods.
d
AVF: Additive value functions.
e
METEOR: Method of evaluation by order.
f
MCQA: Multi-criterion Q analysis.
g
CGT: Cooperative game theory.
h
CM: Constraint method.
i
GP: Goal programming.
j
MUF: Multiplicative utility functions.
k
CTP: Composite programming.
l
DISID: Displaced ideal.
m
MAUT: Multi-attribute utility theory.
n
SWT: Surrogate worth trade-off.

Table B2. Applications of MCDM methods in the field of water and wastewater mains.

Authors MCDM method(s) Application area

Carric o et al. (2012) ELECTRE TRI and For prioritisation of rehabilitation interventions of sanitary
ELECTRE III sewer system
Gervasio and Simões da Silva (2012) PROMETHEE and For sustainable construction system and comparison of
AHP alternative bridge designs
Hamouda, Anderson, and Huck (2012) AHP To select sustainable point-of-use and point-of-entry water
treatment systems
Marlow et al. (2012) AHP Prioritisation of isolation valves water supply network
Marzouk and Omar (2012) MOGAa Life cycle maintenance planning of deteriorating sewer
network
Okeola and Sule (2012) AHP Evaluation of management alternatives for urban water supply
system for Offa, in Kwara State, Nigeria
Srdjevic, Bajcetic, and Srdjevic (2012) AHP To identify the criteria set for reconstructing technical solutions
to improve the water intake structure in Bezdan, Serbia
Trojan and Morais (2012) ELECTRE II To prioritise alternatives for maintenance of water distribution
networks
Boix, Montastruc, Pibouleau, Azzaro-Pantel, TOPSIS with MINPb Evaluating multi-contaminant industrial water networks
and Domenech (2011)
Bottero, Comino, and Riggio (2011) AHP and ANPc Assessment of different wastewater treatment systems
 1204 G. Kabir et al.

Table B2 – continued

Authors MCDM method(s) Application area

Coutinho-Rodrigues, Simao, and Antunes
(2011)
Jia, Ou, Zhang, and Shibiao (2011)
Karimi, Mehrdadi, Hashemian, Nabi
Bidhendi, and Tvakkoli-Moghaddam
(2011)
Bouchard, Abi-Zeid, Beauchamp,
Lamontagne, Desrosiers, and Rodriguez
(2010)
Delgado-Galvan, Perez-Garcia, Izquierdo, and
Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 07:33 23 October 2017
SAWd, TOPSIS, Selection of water supply system investment option for urban
ELECTRE I development/expansion project
AHP For the construction of green residential community water
saving evaluation index system
AHP Selection of wastewater treatment process
ELECTRE II Selection of a small drinking water treatment system for a
hydro-electrical plant
AHP Externalities assessment of water leakage management

Mora-Rodriguez (2010)
Fattahi and Fayyaz (2010)
Morais, Cavalcante, and Almeida (2010)
Young, Younos, and Randel (2010)
Zarghami (2010)
Zarghami and Szidarovszky (2010)
Aragones-Beltran, Mendoza-Roca, Bes-Pia,
Garcia-Melon, and Parra-Ruiz (2009)
Gomez-Lopez et al. (2009)
Milojkovic and Andric (2009)
Al-Barqawi and Zayed (2008)
Ares and Serra (2008)
Koo and Ariaratnam (2008)
Sidek et al. (2008)
Zarghami, Abrishamchi, and Ardakanian
(2008)
Anagnostopoulos, Gratziou, and Vavatsikos
(2007)
Gauffre et al. (2007)
Guangming, Jiang, Huang, Xu, and Li (2007)
Martin et al. (2007)
Morais and De Almeida (2007)
Al-barqawi and Zayed (2006)
Khelifi, Lodolo, Vranes, Centi, and Miertus
(2006)
Michaud and Apostolakis (2006)
Morais and Almeida (2006)
Moura et al. (2006)
Zeng, Jiang, Huang, Xu, and Li (2006)
Abrishamchi, Ebrahimian, Tajrishi, and
Marino (2005)
Hajeeh and Al-Othman (2005)
Khalil, Shanableh, Rigby, and Kokot (2005)
Klauer, Drechsler, and Messner (2002)
Hu et al. (2000)
Al-Rashdan, Al-Kloub, Dean, and
Al-Shemmeri (1999)
Al-Kloub, Al-Shemmeri, and Pearman (1997)
Bellehumeur, Vasseur, Ansseau, and Marcos
(1997)
CP To present effective solutions for urban water
management
PROMETHEE I To rank the critical areas of losses and allocate resources in the
Brazilian water supply system
AHP Selection of best management practices for storm water
CP For integrated urban water management of Tabriz city in Iran
CP with OWAe Ranking of inter-basin water transfer projects
PROMETHEE and Selection of coagulant and its concentration in the
AHP physical –chemical wastewater treatment
TOPSIS Selecting the best disinfection technique for treated wastewater
VIKOR Performance indicators evaluation of sewerage systems in
Belgrade, Serbia
AHP with ANNf Performance prediction of municipal water mains
AHP Selection of sustainable projects for floodplain
restoration and urban waste water management at the lower
Chubut River valley, Argentina
AHP and WSM To determine most sustainable project alternative for water
main replacement project
WPM To assess the relative sustainability of storm water systems and
projects of Malaysian water industry
CP To derive optimum long-term plans for implementation of
water transfer project for Zahedan city
AHP Selection of wastewater facilities at prefecture level
ELECTRE TRI For annual rehabilitation programmes of water networks
AHP with GRA Optimal selection of wastewater treatment alternatives
ELECTRE III To evaluate urban storm water drainage management
PROMETHEE V Ranking alternative strategies of municipal water distribution
systems to reduce leakage
AHP Performance evaluation of water mains
PROMETHEE II To select groundwater remediation technologies
MAUT Ranking of the elements of a water supply network
ELECTRE I Prioritisation of city to receive a water supply system
ELECTRE III To evaluate urban storm water systems
AHP with GRA Selection of wastewater treatment alternatives
CP Selection of best possible alternatives for urban water
management
AHP Selection of appropriate desalination technology for seawater
PROMETHEE and Selection of waste water treatment plant
GAIA
PROMETHEE Choosing the extent of groundwater protection in an area of
Elbe River in Germany
AHP Selection of municipal wastewater treatment plant
PROMETHEE Selecting wastewater projects (PROMETHEE)
PROMETHEE To rank water projects in Jordan
WSM and ELE- Evaluation of sewage sludge management in municipalities
CTRE
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering 1205

Table B2 – continued

Authors MCDM method(s) Application area

Joubert, Leiman, de Klerk, Katua, and WSM Expansion of the water provision to the greater Cape Town area
Aggenbach (1997)
Netto, Parent. and Duckstein (1996) ELECTRE III Design a long-term water supply systems
Duckstein, Treichel, and El Magnouni (1994) CP, ELECTRE III, Ground water resource management problems
MAUT and UTAg
Ellis and Tang (1994) AHP Wastewater treatment optimisation model for the developing
world
Shafike, Duckstein, and Maddock (1992) CP, ELECTRE II, Groundwater contamination management
MCQA II
Ellis and Tang (1991) AHP Wastewater treatment optimisation model for the development
world
Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 07:33 23 October 2017

a
MOGA: Multi-objective genetic algorithm.
b
MINP: Mixed-integer nonlinear programming.
c
17 ANP: Analytic network process.
d
18 SAW: Simple additive weighting.
e
OWA: Ordered weighted averaging.
f
ANN: Artificial neural network.
g
UTA: Utility additive.

Table B3. Applications of MCDM methods in the field of transportation.

Authors MCDM method(s) Application area

Lambert, Wu, You, Clarens, and Brian WSM Priority setting for transportation infrastructure assets
Smith (2012)
Yadollahi and Zin (2012) GA For seismic rehabilitation of road infrastructure
Zhao, Wu, Duan, and Li (2012) AHP with entropy method Evaluation of pedestrian reconstructing plans in Danling
Street in Zhongguancun West Area
Awasthi, Chauhan, and Omrani (2011) TOPSIS To evaluate and select sustainable transportation systems
Brunner, Kim, and Yamashita (2012) AHP To determine optimal transit alignment between Salt Lake
Boulevard 9 and Airport in Honolulu
Haghigh (2011) AHP and TOPSIS To determine the safety position of the roads of Bushehr
Province, Iran
Liu, Fei, Wu, and Chen (2011) AHP Evaluation model about the cement concrete pavement
Maskeliunaite and Sivilevicius (2011) AHP To improve the quality of passenger transportation by
railway
Sun and Gu (2011) AHP For pavement condition assessment and project
prioritisation
Zak (2011) ELECTRE III In public transportation
Zandi and Tavana (2011) TOPSIS For intelligent transportation systems scheduling
Liang and Pensomboon (2010) Fuzzy logic For highway slope hazard management
Ozbek, de la Garza, and Konstantinos DEA Efficiency measurement of road maintenance
Triantis (2010)
Shelton and Medina (2010) AHP and TOPSIS For prioritising transportation projects
Awasthi and Omrani (2009) AHP To evaluate sustainable transportation solutions
Farhan and Fwa (2009) AHP For the prioritisation of pavement maintenance activities
Iniestra and Gutierrez (2009) ELECTRE III and To evaluate interdependent transportation infrastructure
PROMETHEE projects
Jakimavicius and Burinskiene (2009a) WSM Assessment of transport system modelling of Vilnius city
development
Jakimavicius and Burinskiene (2009b) TOPSIS and SAW Ranking of urban transportation zones of Vilnius city
Caiko, Kunicina, Patlins, Pelnikis, and PROMETHEE Selection of equipment for railway crossing at stations
Ribickis (2008) railway transportation
Novacko, Cavar, and Dubravka (2008) AHP To select light rail transit system track gauge for City of
Zagreb
Selih, Kne, Srdic, and Zura (2008) AHP To determine the priority ranking of highway infrastructure
asset rehabilitation projects
Brownlee, Finnie, and Wightman TOPSIS To identify and rank potential pavement maintenance
(2007) schemes
Djenaliev (2007) AHP For railroad planning and station location processes of
China –Kyrgyzstan – Uzbekistan railway
 1206 G. Kabir et al.

Table B3 – continued

Authors MCDM method(s) Application area

Gao, Zhao, Zou, Xu, and Yu (2007) AHP Evaluation of multi-level blur of Highway Traffic of
Jianghan Plain
Kang and Lee (2007) AHP To decide priorities for median barrier installation project
for the four-lane or wider national highways
Larson and Forman (2007) AHP To select project scope for video logging and pavement
condition data
Banai (2006) AHP To assess light rail transit corridor and route alternatives
Su et al. (2006) AHP To select a rational variant of the design documentation for a
large transportation system
Thiel (2006) ELECTRE To determine preferences when selecting a public transport
expansion scenario
Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 07:33 23 October 2017

Rahman (2005) AHP To rank the potential sustainability urban transportation

with the help of local and global expert opinion
Anton and Grau (2004) ELECTRE-I and AHP Route selection of high-speed train for the Madrid- Valencia
high-speed line
Gercek, Karpak, and Kilncaslan (2004) AHP To evaluate three alternatives of rail transit networks in
Istanbul
Shang, Tjader, and Ding (2004) AHP To evaluate transportation projects in Ningbo, China
Janic (2003) TOPSIS For evaluation of high-speed rail, trans-rapid maglev and air
passenger transport in Europe
Tille and Dumont (2003) ELECTRE III For design a sustainability road infrastructure
Yedla and Shrestha (2003) AHP For the selection of alternative options for environmentally
sustainable transport system
Cafiso, Graziano, Kerali, and Odoki AHP For pavement maintenance management in highway
(2002) development and management tools
Khasnabis, Alsaidi, Liu, and Darin AHP and GATa For conducting transit performance assessment
(2002)
Kim and Bernardin (2002) AHP For prioritising major highway capital investments at the
Indiana department of transportation
Leviakangas and Lahesmaa (2002) AHP For evaluation of intelligent transport system investment
Su, Cheng, and Lin (2002) AHP To determine the funding priorities of major transport
projects
Ziara et al. (2002) AHP Strategic implementation of infrastructure priority projects
in Palestine
Rogers and Bruen (2000) ELECTRE III For environmental appraisal of the Port Access and Eastern
Relief Route (PAERR) for Dublin City
Hsu (1999) AHP To evaluate mass transit system in Kaohsiung
Macharis, Witte, and Ampe (2008) AHP For the evaluation of transport projects
Sawicki, Zak, and Redmer (1999) ELECTRE, ORESTEb and For quality evaluation of transportation systems
MAPPACc
Tsamboulas, Yiotis, and Panou (1999) Regime, ELECTRE, For complex and multi-dimensional evaluation of
AHP, MAUT, ADAM transportation projects
Zak et al. (1997) ELECTRE Selection of the transportation means for the mass transit
system
Holguin-Veras (1995) AHP and MAVd To evaluate transportation projects
Masami (1995) AHP To identify the benefit structure of road network and
development strategy in mountainous areas
Tabucanon and Lee (1995) AHP To evaluate rural highway improvement projects in Korea
Khasnabis and Chaudry (1994) AHP To rank transit privatisation projects in the Detroit
metropolitan area
Tracz and Wawrzynkiewicz (1993) AHP For the selection of alternative public transport system
Azis (1990) AHP To determine intangible and complex impacts of the
Trans-Sumatra highway projects
Won (1990) CAe, GAMf, CP For evaluation of automobile restraint types of
transportation projects
a
GAT: Goal achievement technique.
b
ORESTE: Organisation Rangement Et Synthesede donneesrelarionnelles.
c
MAPPAC: Multi-criterion analysis of preferences by means of pairwise actions and criterion comparisons.
d
MAV: Multi-attribute value.
e
CA: Concordance analysis.
f
GAM: Goals achievement matrix.
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering 1207

Table B4. Applications of MCDM methods in the field of bridges.

Authors Methods Specific area

Aghdaie, Zolfani, and Zavadskas (2012) AHP Selection an area for constructing new footbridges
alternatives
Bocchini and Frangopol (2012) GAa Optimal resilience and cost-based prioritisation of
interventions on bridges
Bolar et al. (2013) HERb Condition assessment of bridges
Kim and Frangopol (2012) Bicriteria optimisation Inspection/monitoring planning for fatigue-sensitive
structures
Bocchini and Frangopol (2011) MOGA Preventive maintenance applications to bridges of a
highway transportation network
Deng, Li, and Fang (2011) AHP Condition evaluation of existing long-span bridges
Frangopol and Messervey (2011) Reliability-based Inclusion of risk in design, assessment and management of
LCCc and BAd bridge structure
Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 07:33 23 October 2017

Furuta, Frangopol, and Nakatsu (2011) MOGA Life cycle cost analysis of bridges and road networks
Kim, Frangopol, and Zhu (2011) Bi-objective Inspection/repair planning for deteriorating reinforced
optimisation concrete structures
Lee, Park, Ok, and Koh (2011) MOGA Maintenance planning of deteriorating bridges
Orcesi and Frangopol (2011a) Probabilistic Bridge maintenance strategies based on structural health
optimisation monitoring
Orcesi and Frangopol (2011b) LCC and BA Bridge maintenance strategies based on monitoring
information
Salem, Miller, Deshpande, and Arurkar AHP Construction plan for rehabilitation/reconstruction of a
(2013) bridge
Dabous and Alkass (2010) AHP Bridge condition rating
Malekly, Mousavi, and Hashemi (2010) QFDe and TOPSIS Selection of suitable superstructure of a small- to
medium-span highway bridge design
Okasha, Frangopol, and Deco (2010) BA Structural health monitoring of ship structures
Orcesi, Frangopol, and Kim (2010) Bi-objective Optimal maintenance strategies with bridge limit states
optimisation
Okasha and Frangopol (2010) GA Life cycle preventive and essential maintenance of
deteriorating structures
Frangopol and Okasha (2009a) MOGA Optimum maintenance strategies for deteriorating civil
infrastructure systems
Frangopol and Okasha (2009b) MOGA Life cycle performance of bridge structure systems under
uncertainty
Okasha and Frangopol (2009) GA Structural maintenance considering system reliability,
redundancy and life cycle cost
Salokangas (2009) LCC and LCAf To estimate the environmental impacts and life cycle cost of
a new bridge
Frangopol and Neves (2008) MOGA with BA Performance and maintenance strategies for deteriorating
bridges under uncertainty
Petcherdchoo, Neves, and Frangopol Probabilistic Time and performance-based maintenance strategies of
(2008) optimisation deteriorating bridge in Colorado
Frangopol, Maute, and Liu (2007) RBDOg Optimal reliability-based bridge maintenance planning
under uncertainty
Frangopol and Liu (2007a) DPh Bridge network maintenance planning
Jutila and Sundquist (2007) LCC and LCA Life cycle costing and analysis of road bridges
Patidar, Labi, Sinha, and Thompson (2007) MOOi Bridge management systems
Sasmal, Ramanjaneyulu, and Lakshmanan AHP with Fuzzy Logic Condition ranking of reinforced concrete (RC) bridges
(2007)
Bucher and Frangopol (2006) Probabilistic Optimisation of lifetime maintenance strategies for
optimisation deteriorating structures
Frangopol and Neves (2006) MOGA Optimum maintenance strategies for deteriorating bridges
Frangopol and Liu (2006) MOGA Risk-based life cycle maintenance management of
deteriorating bridges
Furuta, Kameda, Nakahara, Takahashi, and MOGA Bridge management system
Frangopol (2006)
Liu and Frangopol (2006) MOGA For network-level bridge maintenance Management
Neves, Frangopol, and Petcherdchoo MOGA and LHSj Performance of deteriorating bridges
(2006)
Neves, Frangopol, and Cruz (2006) MOGA and LHS For bridge maintenance considering single maintenance
types
 1208 G. Kabir et al.

Table B4 – continued

Authors Methods Specific area

Yang, Frangopol, Kawakami, and Neves Probabilistic For predicting the reliability of deteriorating bridges under
(2006) optimisation maintenance
Yang, Frangopol, and Neves (2006) Probabilistic Interventions on existing bridges considering maintenance
optimisation and failure costs
Kong and Frangopol (2005) Probabilistic For probabilistic maintenance optimisation of ageing
optimisation structures
Liu and Frangopol (2005a) MOGA Life cycle maintenance planning of deteriorating bridges
Liu and Frangopol (2005b) GA Network-level bridge maintenance planning
Liu and Frangopol (2005c) MOGA To prioritise maintenance efforts for deteriorating
reinforced concrete bridge
Liu and Frangopol (2005d) MOGA Life cycle maintenance planning of deteriorating bridges
Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 07:33 23 October 2017

Youssef et al. (2005) AHP To evaluate alternative construction methods of concrete

bridges in Egypt
Frangopol and Neves (2004) MOO Probabilistic maintenance and optimisation strategies for
deteriorating bridges
Kong and Frangopol (2004) LCC optimisation Optimum maintenance for a deteriorating structure
Liu and Frangopol (2004) MOGA Optimal bridge maintenance planningfor deteriorating
bridges
Frangopol, Miyake, Kong, Gharaibeh, and MOGA Reliability and cost oriented optimal bridge maintenance
Estes (2002) planning
Frangopol, Enright, Gharaibeh, and Estes MOO Optimal reliability-based bridge maintenance planning
(1999)
Augusti, Ciampoli, and Frangopol (1998) DP Planning of retrofitting interventions on bridges
Frangopol (1998) PSOk Life cycle cost of design selection for new structural
systems
Frangopol, Lin, and Estes (1997) LCC optimisation Life cycle cost design of deteriorating concrete structures
Frangopol (1995) RBSOl Reliability-based bridge maintenance strategies and
planning
Katsuki, Frangopol, and Ishikawa (1993a) Mathematical Holonomicelastoplastic reliability analysis of truss system
programming
Katsuki, Frangopol, and Ishikawa (1993b) LPm Holonomicelastoplastic reliability analysis of truss system
Fu and Frangopol (1990a) Vector-optimisation System reliability with respect to only the ultimate limit
state
Fu and Frangopol (1990b) MOO Measurement of system reliability and structural
redundancy
Saito (1987) AHP To evaluate bridge improvement programs
a
GA: Genetic algorithm.
b
HER: Hierarchical evidential reasoning.
c
LCC: Life cycle costing.
d
BA: Bayesian analysis.
e
QFD: Quality function deployment.
f
LCA: Life cycle assessment.
g
RBDO: Reliability-based design optimisation.
h
DP: Dynamic programming.
i
MOO: Multi-objective optimisation.
j
LHS: Latin hypercube sampling.
k
PSO: Probabilistic structural optimisation.
l
RBSO: Reliability-based structural optimisation.
m
LP: Linear programming.
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering 1209

Table B5. Applications of MCDM methods in the field of buildings.

Authors MCDM method(s) Application area

Balali, Zahraie, and Roozbahani (2012) ELECTRE III and For ranking of low-rise multi-housing structural systems
PROMETHEEII in Iran
Ebrahimnejad, Mousavi, Tavakkoli-Moghad- VIKOR with ANP For construction project selection
dam, Hashemi, & Vahdani (2012)
Pan, Zhang, Yang (2011) AHP with FTA Evaluation of risk factors of large underground concrete
structures
Balali et al. (2010) PROMETHEE II and Selection of the most appropriate structural system for multi-
PROMETHEE- housing projects
GAIA
Banias, Achillas, Vlachokostas, ELECTRE III For optimal location of units of alternative construction and
Moussiopoulos, Tarsenis (2010) demolition waste management
Wei-zhuo, Bing-sheng, and Li (2010) TOPSIS For bid evaluation model design of construction project
Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 07:33 23 October 2017

Ali, Sellami, Cutting-Decelle, and Mangin GA Production cost optimisation of semi-rigid steel frames
(2009)
Caterino et al. (2009) WSM, VIKOR, ELE- Selection of a strategy to seismically upgrade an existing
CTRE, MAUT, building
PROMETHEE,
WPM
Antucheviciene and Zavadskas (2008) VIKOR For ranking the alternatives to derelict buildings in Lithuanian
rural areas
Caterino, Iervolino, Manfredi, and Cosenza AHP and TOPSIS For seismic retrofitting of RC structures
(2008)
Lin, Wang, and Yu (2008) AHP For decision-making in construction management
Wong, Li, and Lai (2008) AHP To evaluate the intelligence level of the intelligent building
systems
Xie (2008) TOPSIS To evaluate and rank the development of real estate in main
cities of China
Gololov and Yezioro (2007) CP To select different building technologies for the building’s
envelope
Hongyan and Yan (2007) AHP and VIKOR Bidding evaluation of construction project
Pourzeynali, Lavasani, and Modarayi (2007) Fuzzy logic and GA Active control of high-rise building structures
Shook, Roschke, Lin, and Loh (2008) Fuzzy logic and GA For mitigation of seismic loads of large-scale building
Caterino, Iervolino, Manfredi, and Cosenza AHP and TOPSIS For seismic retrofitting of an under-designed RC structure
(2006)
Kim, Kim, and Hong (2006) WAM with Fuzzy State assessment of reinforced concrete building structures
logic
Saparauskas and Turskis (2006) TOPSIS, SAW Assessment of sustainable construction
Tam, Tong, and Chiu (2006) AHP To compare high-rise commercial building project in Hong
Kong
Zavadskas and Antucheviciene (2006) TOPSIS For determining revitalisation priorities of abandoned rural
buildings in Lithuania
Shapira and Goldenberg (2005) AHP Selection of equipment for construction projects
Liaudanskiene, Ustinovicius, and TOPSIS Selecting construction process safety solutions
Bogdanovicius (2009)
Zavadskas and Antucheviciene (2004) VIKOR and TOPSIS To rank derelict buildings’ redevelopment alternatives
Antucheviciene and Zavadskas (2003) TOPSIS For the establishment of rational redevelopment priorities of
derelict property
Opricovic and Tzeng (2002) VIKOR For post-earthquake reconstruction problem in Central Taiwan
AhlawatandRamaswamy (2001) Fuzzy logic and GA Structural vibration control for seismically excited building
structures
Rogers (2000) ELECTRE III Appraisal of complex civil/structural engineering projects
Sarma and Adeli (2000) Fuzzy logic and GA For design of space steel structures
Revadigar and Mau (1999) Fuzzy logic Damage assessment method for buildings
Hokkanen and Salminen (1997) ELECTRE and For choosing solid waste management system in the Oulu
PROMETHEE Region
Skibniewski and Chao (1992) AHP To quantify the intangible benefits and risks of advanced
construction technologies
 1210 G. Kabir et al.

Table B6. Applications of MCDM methods in the field of underground infrastructure.

Authors MCDM method(s) Application area

Shahriar et al. (2012) Fuzzy Logic Risk analysis for oil and gas pipelines
Zhang and Wang (2011) AHP Evaluation of underground container transportation
lines in Shanghai
Brito et al. (2010) ELECTRE For sorting natural gas pipeline sections into risk
categories
Dawotola et al. (2009) AHP with FTA Evaluation of design, construction, inspection and
maintenance policy of oil and gas pipeline
Rogers and Grigg (2009) WAMa Failure assessment modelling to prioritise
pipe renewal
Semaan and Zayed (2009) PROMETHEE and MAUT Condition assessment of subway station
Zhou, Vairavamoorthy, and Grimshaw (2009) PROMETHEE II Pipe condition assessment
Bobylev (2007) AHP For sustainability and vulnerability analysis
Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 07:33 23 October 2017

of critical underground infrastructure

Thomaidis and Mavrakis (2006)
Yan and Vairavamoorthy (2003)
Cagno, Caron F., Mancini and
Ruggeri (2000)
a
WAM: Weighted average method.
AHP To define the most preferred route of the
transcontinental gas pipeline
CP For assessing the condition of pipe
AHP To support the replacement policy of low-pressure
cast-iron pipelines in metropolitan gas
distribution network

Table B7. Applications of MCDM methods in the field of others infrastructure.

Authors MCDM method(s) Application area

Benzerra, Cherrared, Chocat, Cherqui, and AHP To support the sustainable management of urban
Zekiouk (2012) drainage systems in Jijel, Algeria
Kabir and Hasin (2012a) AHP For optimal power substation location selection
Kabir and Hasin (2012b) Fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS For optimal power substation location selection
Kabir and Sumi (2012a) Fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS Selection of concrete production facility location
Kabir and Sumi (2012b) Fuzzy AHP For concrete production facility location selection
Saleh, Yavari, Maleki, and Alamouti TOPSIS To rank efficient approaches of urban infrastructures
(2012) management
Yazdani et al. (2012) TOPSIS For risk analysis for critical infrastructures
Kassab, Hipel, and Hegazy (2011) WSM Privatisation schemes for infrastructure facilities
Khatri, Vairavamoorthy, and Akinyemi AHP For characterising, analysing and computing the
(2011) performance of urban infrastructure system
Moghaddam, Yavari, Ghariblu, and Anbari TOPSIS Ranking of strategic management indicators for urban
(2011) management improvement
Ning and Wang (2011) TOPSIS To evaluate and select the best site layout from site
layout alternatives
Oswald, Li, McNeil, and Trimbath (2011) AHP To develop national infrastructure index
Wang (2011) AHP with Fuzzy Logic Whole life costing of floor finishing of commercial office
reception
Antucheviciene, Zavadskas, and TOPSIS For building redevelopment in Lithuanian rural areas
Zakarevicius (2010)
Nystrom and Soderholm (2010) AHP Selection of maintenance actions in railway infrastruc-
ture
Semaan and Zayed (2010) PROMETHEE with MAUT To develop global station diagnosis model
Ebrahimnejad et al. (2009) TOPSIS and FLINMAP To identify the important risks in Iranian onshore gas
refinery plants
Sharma, Al-Hussein, Safouhi, and AHP Determination asset level of service of municipal
Bouferguene (2008) infrastructure
Cheng, Zhao, Chau, and Wu (2006) TOPSIS with GA Evaluating real-time flood forecasting and flood
simulation
Ugwu, Kumaraswamy, Wong, and Ng WSM and AHP For sustainability appraisal in infrastructure projects
(2006)
Frangopol and Maute (2005) MOGA Reliability-based optimisation of civil and aerospace
structural systems