World Applied Programming, Vol (2), No (2), February 2012.

81-87
ISSN: 2222-2510
2011 WAP journal. www.waprogramming.com

Multicriteria Decision Making Based on TOPSIS Method in

Drought Zoning: A Case Study of Gilan Province
L. Kazemi Rad

M. Ghamgosar

M. Haghyghy

Academic Center for Education

Cultural & Research
Rasht, Iran
L_kazemi@erijd.ir

Academic Center for Education

Cultural & Research
Rasht, Iran
ghamgodarmohammad@gmail.com

Academic Center for Education

Cultural & Research
Rasht, Iran
mhaghighi@yahoo.com

Abstract: Drought as a complex natural hazard is best characterized by multiple climatological and hydrological
parameters and the assessment of it is important for planning and managing water resources. So understanding the
history of drought in the area is essential like investigatingthe effects of drought. In this research, by using
TOPSIS method and nine climatic factors, droughts were identified and ranked in the province of Gilan. For
validation, output data were compared with SIAP method and finally, the study area has been classified with
proposed method.
Keywords: Drought; Zoning; TOPSIS; SIAP; Gilan.
I.

INTRODUCTION

Droughts are recognized as an environmental disaster and have attracted the attention of environmentalists, ecologists,
hydrologists, meteorologists, geologists and agricultural scientists. Droughts occur in virtually all climatic zones, such
as high as well as low rainfall areas and are mostly related to the reduction in the amount of precipitation received over
an extended period of time, such as a season or a year. Temperatures; high winds; low relative humidity; timing and
characteristics of rains, including distribution of rainy days during crop growing seasons, intensity and duration of
rain, and onset and termination, play a significant role in the occurrence of droughts. In contrast to aridity, which is a
permanent feature of climate and is restricted to low rainfall areas [6].
Droughts impact both surface and groundwater resources and can lead to reduced water supply, deteriorated water
quality, crop failure, reduced range productivity, diminished power generation, disturbed riparian habitats, and
suspended recreation activities, as well as affect a host of economic and social activities [25]. Droughts also affect
water quality, as moderate climate fluctuations alter hydrologic regimes that have substantial effects on the lake
chemistry [10].
Generally, drought is a phenomenon which occurs in every area or country, with either arid or humid climate and in
our country. it is not a new or unknown phenomenon, In fact, Irans natural conditions and its geographical location
are so that we have always witnessed droughts and it can be said that some of the regions are often faced with the
phenomenon [16].
Iran is a dry and semi dry country. Even in northern of Iran that has wet climate, this phenomena has observed and
exists many damages in agricultural economics and environmental landscapes [1].
Due to the growth of population and expansion of agricultural, energy and industrial sectors, the demand for water has
increased manyfold and even water scarcity has been occurring almost every year in many parts of the world. Owing
to the rise in water demand and looming climate change, recent years have witnessed much focus on global drought
scenarios. Drought as a complex natural hazard is best characterized by multiple climatological and hydrological
parameters and the assessment of it is important for planning and managing water resources. So understanding the
history of drought in the area is essential like investigating the effects of drought.
A number of different indices have been developed to quantify a drought, each with its own strengths and weaknesses.
They include the Palmer drought severity index (PDSI) [23], rainfall anomaly index (RAI) [15], deciles [26], crop
moisture index (CMI) [24], Bhalme and Mooly drought index (BMDI) [7], surface water supply index (SWSI) [3],
national rainfall index (NRI) [17], standardized precipitation index (SPI) [20, 21], and reclamation drought index
(RDI) [11]. The soil moisture drought index (SMDI) [18] and crop-specific drought index (CSDI) [19] appeared after
CMI. Furthermore, CSDI is divided into a corn drought index (CDI) [9] and soybean drought index (SDI) [19], and
vegetation condition index (VCI) [27].

81

L. Kazemi Rad, M. Ghamgosar, M. Haghyghy, World Applied Programming, Vol (2), No (2),February 2012.

However there are definitions and models for measuring the qualitative and quantitative of this phenomenon but there
is no real comprehensive model to have all climatic, hydrological, agricultural, social and so on conditions and be
responsive to the needs.
The TOPSIS method was initially presented by Hwang and Yoon (1981). Although MADM is a practical tool for
selection and ranking of a number of alternatives, its applications are numerous. In recent years, TOPSIS has been
successfully applied to the areas of human resources management [13], transportation [14], product design [5],
manufacturing [2], water management [4], quality control [22], and location analysis [12]. In addition, the concept of
TOPSIS has also been connected to multi-objective decision making [28] and group decision making [8]. The high
flexibility of this concept is able to accommodate further extension to make better choices in various situations. This is
the motivation of our study.
II.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

TOPSIS method is used for determining and ranking of drought in the study area. 9 Climatic Parameters consisting
Temperature records highest and lowest in 0C, Average of maximum and minimum temperature in 0C, Monthly total
of precipitation in mm, Number of days with precipitation, Greatest daily of precipitation in mm and Average of
maximum and minimum relative humidity in percent that are influencing on drought are used. Missing data are
estimated by regression method and Homogeneity of data is determined by Run-Test method. By using TOPSIS
method and Matlab software, droughts are identified and ranked in the study area. Then output data were compared
with SIAP method and finally, the study area is classified with proposed method for 3 periods.
Steps of operations can be expressed as followed:
(1) Obtain performance data for 20 alternatives (Number of statistical years) over 9 criteria (Climatic Parameters).
Raw measurements are usually standardized,

( )

X = X ij n m
(2) Develop a set of importance weights wj, for each of the criteria.
m

= 1,

j = 1, 2 , K , m .

j =1

Doing this section has 4 steps:

Step1: Determining distribution of each climatic parameter.

p ij =

rij
m

: i, j

i =1

Step 2: Calculating Anthropy for expressing amount of uncertainty in this distribution.

[p .Ln( p )]:
m

E j = k

ij

ij

k=

i =1

1
Ln

Step3: Calculating uncertainty for each climatic parameter.

d = 1 E j : j
Step4: Calculating weight of climatic parameters.

Wj =

dj
n

:j

j =1

82

L. Kazemi Rad, M. Ghamgosar, M. Haghyghy, World Applied Programming, Vol (2), No (2),February 2012.

(3) Multiplying matrix X (consisting 9 climatic parameters and 20 years) in the vector Wj (weight of each climatic
parameter).
(4) Assimilating climatic parameters: Increasing in 4 Climatic Parameters consisting Temperature records highest and
lowest, Average of maximum and minimum temperature and decreasing in 5 other factors consisting Monthly total of
precipitation, Number of days with precipitation, Greatest daily of precipitation and Average of maximum and
minimum relative humidity are causing drought. They are respectively negative and positive index. In positive
indexes, data of each year is divided on maximum amount of parameter and in negative indexes, they are divided on
minimum amount of parameter.
(5) Identify the ideal and nadir alternative A + , A :

{ }

{ }

{ }

{ }

A + = v1+ , v 2+ , K , v n+ = max vij j B , min vij j C ,

i
i

A = v1 , v 2 , K , v n = min vij j B , max vij j C .

i

(6) Develop a distance measure over each criterion to both ideal ( S i + ) and nadir ( S i ).

S i+

(v
m

ij

j =1

2
v +j

0 .5

i = 1, K , n ,

0 .5

m
2

=
v ij v j ;
i = 1, K , n
j =1

(7) For each alternative, determine a ratio Ti equal to the distance to the nadir divided by the sum of the distance to the
nadir and the distance to the ideal,

S i

Ti =

(S

+
i

S i

+ S i

);

i = 1, K , n.

(8) Rank order alternatives by maximizing the ratio in Step 7. Ti =1 is shown maximum rank and Ti = 0 is shown
minimum rank. Higher Ti represents more humid conditions and lower Ti represents less humid conditions.
(9) Using Standard Index Annual precipitation (SIAP) method for comparison.
P P
SIAP = i
SD
Where SIAP is drought index, Pi is annual precipitation, P is mean of precipitation in period, and SD is standard
deviation index of period.
III.

RESULTS

The contribution of each climatic parameter in drought is different. So at first, it needs to determine weights for each
of the criteria. Sum of the climatic parameters weight is equal 1. Results have shown in Table I:
TABLE I: Weight of climatic parameters in stations of study area
Station

precipitation

Greatest
precipitation

Days with
precipitation

Maximum
temperature

Minimum
temperature

Astara
Anzali
Lahijan
Manjil
Rasht
Pilambara
Pasikhan

0/1789
0/2354
0/2827
0/3448
0/1204
0/2708
0/2015

0/6437
0/5238
0/4710
0/4559
0/6362
0/3905
0/5221

0/0534
0/0780
0/1132
0/1253
0/0526
0/0459
0/0800

0/0025
0/0042
0/0016
0/0019
0/0012
0/0037
0/0012

0/0023
0/0035
0/0068
0/0014
0/0010
0/0380
0/0014

83

Temperature
records
highest
0/0032
0/0050
0/0064
0/0075
0/0029
0/0021
0/0031

Temperature
records
lowest
0/1106
0/1459
0/0948
0/0435
0/1826
0/2424
0/1487

Maximum
relative
humidity
0/0009
0/0006
0/0114
0/0030
0/0002
0/0023
0/0008

Minimum
relative
humidity
0/0045
0/0035
0/0120
0/0167
0/0030
0/0043
0/0411

L. Kazemi Rad, M. Ghamgosar, M. Haghyghy, World Applied Programming, Vol (2), No (2),February 2012.

According to table II, distance of each year from ideal and nadir are determined.
TABLE II: Distance measure over each criterion to both ideal ( S i + ) and nadir ( S i )
Astara

Si+ , Si1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010

Si+
0/1439
0/1669
0/0675
0/1416
0/1261
0/1165
0/1299
0/0102
0/1460
0/1422
0/1773
0/0974
0/1867
0/1195
0/1893
0/1195
0/1163
0/0356

Si0/1867
0/1195
0/1893
0/1195
0/1163
0/0356
0/0463
0/0246
0/1233
0/0482
0/0640
0/0746
0/0602
0/1890
0/0455
0/0480
0/0161
0/0929

Anzali

Si+
0/1001
0/0994
0/0849
0/0532
0/0640
0/0406
0/1054
0/0785
0/0110
0/1129
0/0945
0/0463
0/1083
0/0657
0/0735
0/0945
0/0784
0/0952

Lahijan

Si0/0214
0/0163
0/0299
0/0627
0/0526
0/0746
0/0091
0/0403
0/1124
0/0061
0/0250
0/0705
0/0117
0/0508
0/0422
0/0301
0/0361
0/0195

Si+
0/0610
0/0337
0/0572
0/0535
0/0797
0/0549
0/0854
0/0308
0/0574
0/0427
0/0542
0/1018
0/0545
0/0771
0/0724
0/0684
0/0925
0/0771

Si0/0689
0/0903
0/0991
0/0718
0/0352
0/0686
0/0294
0/0986
0/0610
0/0876
0/0607
0/0354
0/0625
0/0401
0/0435
0/0507
0/0242
0/0464

Manjil

Si+
0/0662
0/0157
0/1080
0/1089
0/1303
0/1169
0/1715
0/1111
0/0651
0/1270
0/0917
0/0951
0/1110
0/1350
0/0879
0/1344
0/1236
0/0510

Si0/1180
0/1647
0/0690
0/0651
0/0483
0/0556
0/0017
0/0611
0/1173
0/0481
0/0881
0/0841
0/0630
0/0413
0/0873
0/0402
0/0573
0/1232

Rasht

Si+
0/1355
0/1283
0/0376
0/2146
0/1696
0/1952
0/2055
0/1852
0/0371
0/1946
0/1951
0/1686
0/0718
0/0797
0/1672
0/1189
0/1598
0/2127

Pilambara

Si0/0843
0/0888
0/2122
0/0120
0/0476
0/0256
0/0126
0/0339
0/1822
0/0229
0/0250
0/0500
0/1459
0/1390
0/0498
0/1015
0/0571
0/0044

Si+
0/0377
0/0873
0/0608
0/0760
0/0629
0/0749
0/0954
0/1243
0/0654
0/0901
0/0894
0/0861
0/1037
0/1063
0/1272
0/1268
0/1231
0/1299

Si0/1140
0/0510
0/1040
0/0636
0/0751
0/0636
0/0458
0/0169
0/0972
0/0656
0/0508
0/0567
0/0364
0/0314
0/0140
0/0195
0/0185
0/0089

Pasikhan

Si+
0/0788
0/0745
0/0979
01333
0/0903
0/0209
0/0717
0/858
0/908
0/1146
0/1509
0/0280
0/1426
0/1038
0/1474
0/1067
0/0161
0/1539

Si0/0839
0/0814
0/0606
0/0286
0/0655
0/1400
0/0858
0/0700
0/0670
0/0412
0/0224
0/1506
0/0157
0/0533
0/0116
0/0556
0/1518
0/0061

Results of calculating ratio Ti are shown in table III.

TABLE III: ratio Ti for each alternative
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010

Astara

Anzali

Lahijan

Manjil

Rasht

Pilambara

Pasikhan

0/2435
0/1283
0/6462
0/2540
0/3367
0/3903
0/3168
0/9489
0/2377
0/2524
0/0831
0/4883
0/0282
0/3698
0/0194
0/3738
0/3869
0/8182

0/1760
0/1412
0/2602
0/5409
0/4513
0/6473
0/0791
0/3393
0/9110
0/0511
0/2091
0/6035
0/0978
0/4360
0/3650
0/2414
0/3155
0/1702

0/5304
0/7280
0/6338
0/5731
0/3064
0/5553
0/2560
0/7618
0/5152
0/6719
0/5281
0/2583
0/5343
0/3424
0/3751
0/4259
0/2072
0/3759

0/6404
0/9132
0/3899
0/3743
0/2704
0/3222
0/0100
0/3548
0/6432
0/2747
0/4899
0/4693
0/3621
0/2345
0/4983
0/2301
0/3166
0/7070

0/3835
0/4091
0/8495
0/0528
0/2192
0/1158
0/0576
0/1547
0/8307
0/1052
0/1136
0/2289
0/6704
0/6356
0/2296
0/4603
0/2633
0/0202

0/7516
0/3688
0/6310
0/4558
0/5442
0/4590
0/3245
0/1200
0/5978
0/4212
0/3623
0/3971
0/2599
0/2280
0/0989
0/1335
0/1303
0/0641

0/5156
0/5221
0/3825
0/1769
0/4203
0/8701
0/5449
0/4494
0/4247
0/2664
0/1294
0/8433
0/0994
0/3393
0/0728
0/3425
0/9044
0/0383

IV.

CUNCLUSION

After all calculations, by t-test, the results of TOPSIS methods are compared with Standard Index Annual precipitation
(SIAP) method. Results show there is no significant differences between these two methods (p0/05). In the proposed
method, systematic relationship between amounts of climatic parameters in different years is influence to determine
drought and ranking it. In this method, we apply 9 climatic parameters, so it is more effective than other simple
methods that only use one or two variables. Other ability of this method is ranking the drought. This method has more
advantages than the SIAP and other methods. It minimizes the distance to the ideal alternative while maximizing the
distance to the nadir. A relative advantage of this method is the ability to identify the best alternative quickly. It was
found to perform almost as well as multiplicative additive weights and better than analytic hierarchy process in
matching a base prediction model.
As shown in Figures 1 to 3, during three periods in study area, extent of normal conditions has been reduced and added
on extent and severity of drought.

84

L. Kazemi Rad, M. Ghamgosar, M. Haghyghy, World Applied Programming, Vol (2), No (2),February 2012.

FIGURE I: Zoning drought in Gilan province for the first 6 years

FIGURE II: Zoning drought in Gilan province for the second 6 years

85

L. Kazemi Rad, M. Ghamgosar, M. Haghyghy, World Applied Programming, Vol (2), No (2),February 2012.

FIGURE III: Zoning drought in Gilan province for the third 6 years
REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]

A. Beikdaly and S. Vadaty, Drought limit and DRI estimation in Western of Gilan, national conference of drought, IAU, Rasht branch, pp: 20,
2009.
A.S. Milani, A. Shanian, R. Madoliat, The effect of normalization norms in multiple attribute decision making models: A case study in gear
material selection, Structural Multidisciplinary Optimization 29 (4) 312318, 2005.
B.A. Shafer and L.E. Dezman, Development of a Surface Water Supply Index (SWSI) to Assess the Severity of Drought Conditions in
Snowpack Runoff Areas. In: Preprints, Western SnowConf., Reno, NV, Colorado State University, pp. 164 175, 1982.
B. Srdjevic, Y.D.P. Medeiros and A.S. Faria, An objective multi-criteria evaluation of water management scenarios,Water Resources
Management 18 3554, 2004.
C.K. Kwong and S.M. Tam, Case-based reasoning approach to concurrent design of low power transformers, Journal of Materials Processing
Technology 128 136141, 2002.
D.A.Wilhite, Preparing for Drought: A Guidebook for Developing Countries, Climate Unit, United Nations Environment Program, Nairobi,
Kenya, 1992.
H.N. Bhalme and D.A. Mooley, Large-scale droughts/floods and monsoon circulation. Mon. Weather Rev. 108, 11971211, 1980.
H.S. Shih, W.Y. Lin and E.S. Lee, Group decision making for TOPSIS, in: Joint 9th IFSA World Congress and 20th NAFIPS International
Conference, IFSA/NAFIPS 2001, 2528 July, Vancouver, Canada, pp. 27122717, 2001.
J.L. Meyer and W.M. Pulliam, Modification of terrestrial-aquatic interactions by a changing climate. In: Firth, P., Fisher, S.G. (Eds.), Global
Climate Change and Freshwater Ecosystems. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 177191, 1992.
K.E.Webster, T.M.Kratz, C.J. Bowser and J.J. Adagnuson, The influence of landscape position on lake chemical responses to drought in
NorthernWisconsin. Limnol. Oceanogr. 41 (5), 977984, 1996.
K.M. Weghorst, The Reclamation Drought Index: Guidelines and Practical Applications. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, CO, p. 6, 1996.
K. Yoon, C.L. Hwang, Manufacturing plant location analysis by multiple attribute decision making: Part Isingle-plant strategy, International
Journal of Production Research 23, 345359, 1985.
M.F. Chen and G.H. Tzeng, Combining gray relation and TOPSIS concepts for selecting an expatriate host country, Mathematical and
Computer Modelling 40 14731490, 2004.
M. Janic, Multicriteria evaluation of high-speed rail, transrapid maglev, and air passenger transport in Europe, Transportation Planning and
Technology 26 (6) 491512, 2003.
M.P. Van Rooy, A rainfall anomaly index independent of time and space. Notos 14, 43, 1965.
P.Kardavani, Drought and the Ways to consecutive and comprehensive wet/dry-years periods of Confront It in Iran, Tehran University
publications, the stations were determined by the DRI and its pp: 5-23, 2001.
R. Gommes and F. Petrassi, Rainfall Variability and Drought in Sub-Saharan Africa Since 1960. Agro-meteorology Series Working Paper 9,
Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy, 1994.

86

L. Kazemi Rad, M. Ghamgosar, M. Haghyghy, World Applied Programming, Vol (2), No (2),February 2012.

[18] S.E. Hollinger, S.A. Isard and M.R. Welford, A New Soil Moisture Drought Index for Predicting Crop Yields. In: Preprints, Eighth Conf. on
Applied Climatology, Anaheim, CA, Amer. Meteor. Soc., pp. 187190, 1993.
[19] S.J. Meyer and K.G. Hubbard, Extending the Crop-specific Drought Index to Soybean. In: Preprints, Ninth Conf. on Applied Climatology,
Dallas, TX, Amer. Meteor. Soc., pp. 258259, 1995.
[20] T.B. McKee, N.J. Doesken and J. Kleist, The Relationship of Drought Frequency and Duration to Time Scales, Paper Presented at 8th
Conference on Applied Climatology. American Meteorological Society, Anaheim, CA, 1993.
[21] T.B. McKee, N.J. Doesken and J. Kleist, Drought Monitoring with Multiple Time Scales, Paper Presented at 9th Conference on Applied
Climatology. American Meteorological Society, Dallas, Texas, 1995.
[22] T. Yang, P. Chou, Solving a multiresponse simulationoptimization problem with discrete variables using a multi-attribute decision-making
method, Mathematics and Computers in Simulation 68 921, 2005.
[23] W.C. Palmer, Meteorologic Drought. US Department of Commerce, Weather Bureau, Research Paper No. 45, p. 58, 1965.
[24] W.C. Palmer, Keeping track of crop moisture conditions, nationwide: the new crop moisture index. Weatherwise 21, 156161, 1968.
[25] W.E. Riebsame, S.A. Changnon and T.R. Karl, Drought and Natural Resource Management in the United States: Impacts and Implications of
the 19871989 Drought. Westview Press, Boulder, CO, p. 174,1991.
[26] W.J. Gibbs and J.V. Maher, Rainfall Deciles as Drought Indicators. Bureau of Meteorology Bull. 48. Commonwealth of Australia, Melbourne,
Australia, 1967.
[27] W.T. Liu and F.N. Kogan, Monitoring regional drought using the vegetation condition index. Int. J. Remote Sens. 17, 27612782, 1996.
[28] Y.J. Lai, TOPSIS for MODM, European Journal of Operational Research 76, 486500, 1994.

87