Çoklu Karar Kriterlerini Dikkate Alarak ANP, AHP ve TOPSIS Yöntemleriyle İdari Kayıp Yönetimi Bileşenlerinin Önceliklendirilmesi

Abstract

Su kayıpları su idarelerinde işletme maliyetlerini artırmakta ve gelirlerin azalmasına neden olmaktadır. Su kayıplarının etkin bir şekilde kontrol altına alınması ve azaltma stratejilerinin uygulanması su idareleri için oldukça önemli bir konu haline gelmiştir. Su idarelerinde doğrudan gelir kaybına neden olan idari kayıpların etkin ve sürdürülebilir bir şekilde yönetilmesi planlanmalıdır. Bu çalışma, idari kayıp bileşenlerini etkin bir şekilde yönetmek ve önceliklendirmek için Analitik Hiyerarşi Süreci (AHP), Analitik Ağ Süreci (ANP) ve İdeal Çözüme Benzerliğe Göre Tercih Sıralaması Tekniği (TOPSIS) olan çok kriterli karar verme analizi yöntemlerinden yararlanan bir metodoloji önermektedir. İdari Kayıp Yönetimi (ALM) için altı ana başlık altında toplam 72 bileşen belirlenmiş ve bu bileşenleri değerlendirmek için toplam 10 değerlendirme kriteri tanımlanmıştır. Değerlendirme kriterlerinin ağırlıkları AHP ve ANP yöntemleri ile hesaplanmıştır. ALM bileşenleri arasında en iyi alternatifler, değerlendirme kriterleri ve ağırlıkları dikkate alınarak TOPSIS yöntemi ile önceliklendirilmiştir. Sonuçlar, kriter ağırlıklarının elde edilmesinde daha karmaşık analizlerin yapılmasına olanak tanıyan ANP yönteminin daha kararlı olduğunu ve daha iyi sonuçlar verdiğini göstermektedir. TOPSIS sonuçlarına göre 14 bileşenin öncelik sırasının benzer olduğu görülmüştür. Sonuçlar, ALM'nin planlama ve strateji geliştirme aşamalarında karar alma sürecine katkıda bulunacaktır.

Keywords

• İdari kayıplar
• çok kriterli karar analizi
• önceliklendirme
• su kayıpları
• strateji geliştirme

Supporting Institution

İnönü Üniversitesi

Project Number

FDK-2024/3596, 122M577

Ethical Statement

Etik onay gerekmez

Thanks

Yazarlar, İnönü Üniversitesi Bilimsel Araştırma Projeleri Fonu'na (FDK-2024/3596) finansal destekleri için teşekkürlerini sunarlar. Bu araştırma, TÜBİTAK (Türkiye Bilimsel ve Teknolojik Araştırma Kurumu) tarafından desteklenmiştir (Proje Numarası: 122M577).

PRIORITIZATION OF APPARENT LOSS MANAGEMENT COMPONENTS WITH ANP, AHP AND TOPSIS METHODS BY CONSIDERING THE MULTI-DECISION CRITERIA

Abstract

Water losses increase operational costs for utilities and lead to significant revenue reductions; therefore, effective control and sustainable management of apparent losses are critical for utilities. This study proposes a methodological framework for the efficient management and prioritization of apparent loss components using multi‐criteria decision‐making (MCDM) methods, including the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), Analytic Network Process (ANP), and the Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS). A total of 72 components were identified under six main headings for apparent loss management (ALM), and 10 evaluation criteria were defined to assess these components. The weights of the criteria were calculated with AHP and ANP, while TOPSIS was applied to prioritize the ALM components based on these weights. The results indicate that the ANP method, which accounts for complex interdependencies among criteria, provides more stable and reliable weighting results. According to the TOPSIS analysis, 14 components showed similar priority rankings. Overall, the findings offer a valuable contribution to decision‐making processes in the planning and strategy development stages of apparent loss management.

Keywords

• Apparent Losses
• MCDA
• Prioritization
• Strategy Development
• Water Losses

Supporting Institution

Inonu University

Project Number

FDK-2024/3596, 122M577

Ethical Statement

Ethics Approval Not applicable

Thanks

The authors thank Inonu University, Scientific Research Project Funding for their financial support (FDK-2024/3596). This research was supported by TUBITAK (Turkish National Science Foundation) (Project Number: 122M577).

References

1. A. O. Lambert, “International report: Water losses management and techniques,” Water Science and Technology: Water Supply, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 1–20, 2002, doi:10.2166/ws.2002.0115.
2. J. Baader, P. Fallis, K. Hübschen, P. Klingel, A. L. Knobloch, C. Laures, E. Oertlé, R. Trujillo, and D. Ziegler, Guidelines for Water Loss Reduction: A Focus on Pressure Management. Eschborn, Germany: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH, 2011.
3. A. Lambert, “Accounting for losses: The bursts and background concept,” Water and Environment Journal, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 205–214, 1994, doi:10.1111/j.1747-6593.1994.tb00913.x.
4. F. Arregui, E. Cabrera, R. Cobacho, and J. García-Serra, “Reducing apparent losses caused by meters inaccuracies,” Water Practice and Technology, vol. 1, no. 4, 2006, doi:10.2166/wpt.2006.093.
5. R. S. McKenzie, A. Lambert, and South African Water Research Commission, ECONOLEAK: Economic Model for Leakage Management for Water Suppliers in South Africa – User Guide, WRC Report No. TT 169/02, 2002.
6. H. E. Mutikanga, S. K. Sharma, and K. Vairavamoorthy, “Assessment of apparent losses in urban water systems,” Water and Environment Journal, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 327–335, 2011, doi:10.1111/j.1747-6593.2010.00225.x.
7. C. A. Chimene, “Strategies and methods for apparent water loss management in developing countries: A case study of Mozambique,” MSc Thesis, UNESCO IHE Institute for Water Education, Delft, The Netherlands, 2013.
8. V. Kanakoudis, S. Tsitsifli, P. Samaras, and A. Zouboulis, “Assessing the performance of urban water networks across the EU Mediterranean area: The paradox of high NRW levels and absence of respective reduction measures,” Water Science and Technology: Water Supply, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 939–950, 2013, doi:10.2166/ws.2013.044.

9. A. Criminisi, C. M. Fontanazza, G. Freni, and G. La Loggia, “Evaluation of the apparent losses caused by water meter under registration in intermittent water supply,” Water Science and Technology, vol. 60, no. 9, pp. 2373–2382, 2009, doi:10.2166/wst.2009.423.
10. M. Ncube and A. E. Taigbenu, “Assessment of apparent losses due to meter inaccuracy using an alternative, validated methodology,” Water Science and Technology: Water Supply, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 1212–1220, 2019, doi:10.2166/ws.2018.178.
11. N. Carriço, D. Covas, and M. do C. Almeida, “Multi criteria decision analysis in urban water asset management,” Urban Water Journal, vol. 18, no. 7, pp. 558–569, 2021, doi:10.1080/1573062X.2021.1913613.
12. D. C. Morais and A. T. Almeida, “Water supply system decision making using multicriteria analysis,” Water SA, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 229–235, 2006, doi:10.4314/wsa.v32i2.5247.
13. H. E. Mutikanga, S. K. Sharma, and K. Vairavamoorthy, “Multi criteria Decision Analysis: A Strategic Planning Tool for Water Loss Management,” Water Resources Management, vol. 25, no. 14, pp. 3947–3969, 2011, doi:10.1007/s11269 011 9896 9.
14. L. Scholten, N. Schuwirth, P. Reichert, and J. Lienert, “Tackling uncertainty in multi criteria decision analysis – An application to water supply infrastructure planning,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 242, no. 1, pp. 243–260, 2015, doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2014.09.044.
15. I. Aşchilean and I. Giurca, “Choosing a water distribution pipe rehabilitation solution using the Analytical Network Process method,” Water (Switzerland), vol. 10, no. 4, p. 484, 2018, doi:10.3390/w10040484.
16. A. Pagano, R. Giordano, and M. Vurro, “A Decision Support System Based on AHP for Ranking Strategies to Manage Emergencies on Drinking Water Supply Systems,” Water Resources Management, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 613–628, 2021, doi:10.1007/s11269-020-02741-y.
17. M. Macchiaroli, L. Dolores, and G. De Mare, “Multicriteria Decision Making and Water Infrastructure: An Application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process for a Sustainable Ranking of Investments,” Applied Sciences, vol. 13, no. 14, p. 8284, 2023.
18. S. H. Zyoud, H. Shaheen, S. Samhan, A. Rabi, F. Al Wadi, and D. Fuchs Hanusch, “Utilizing Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) for decision making in water loss management of intermittent water supply systems,” Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 534–546, 2016, doi:10.2166/washdev.2016.123.
19. M. Grimaldi, V. Pellecchia, and I. Fasolino, “Urban plan and water infrastructures planning: A methodology based on spatial ANP,” Sustainability (Switzerland), vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 1–23, 2017.
20. S. H. Zyoud, L. G. Kaufmann, H. Shaheen, S. Samhan, and D. Fuchs Hanusch, “A framework for water loss management in developing countries under fuzzy environment: Integration of Fuzzy AHP with Fuzzy TOPSIS,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 61, pp. 86–105, 2016, doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2016.05.016.
21. M. Tabesh, A. Roozbahani, B. Roghani, S. Salehi, N. Rasi Faghihi, and R. Heydarzadeh, “Prioritization of non revenue water reduction scenarios using a risk based group decision making approach,” Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, vol. 34, no. 11, pp. 1713–1724, 2020, doi:10.1007/s00477 020 01858 1. H. Taherdoost and M. Madanchian, “A comprehensive survey and literature review on TOPSIS,” International Journal of Service Science, Management, Engineering, and Technology (IJSSMET), vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 1–65, 2024.
22. F. Han, R. N. Alkhawaji, and M. M. Shafieezadeh, “Evaluating sustainable water management strategies using TOPSIS and fuzzy TOPSIS methods,” Applied Water Science, vol. 15, no. 1, p. 4, 2025.
23. D. Prieto-Jiménez, E. R. Oviedo-Ocaña, S. Gómez-Isidro, and I. C. Domínguez, “A multicriteria decision analysis for selecting rainwater harvesting systems in rural areas: a tool for developing countries,” Environmental Science and Pollution Research, vol. 31, no. 29, pp. 42476–42491, 2024.
24. K. Mkhitaryan, A. Karakhanyan, A. Sanamyan, E. Kirakosyan, and G. Manukyan, “An Integrative Decision-Making Framework for Sustainable Urban Water Governance: The Case of Yerevan City,” Urban Science, vol. 9, no. 12, p. 531, 2025, doi:10.3390/urbansci9120531.
25. C. M. Silva, V. L. de Pádua, and J. M. Borges, “Contribution to the study of measures for the reduction of apparent water loss in urban areas,” Ambiente & Sociedade, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 253–274, 2016.
26. Y.-C. Chou, Y.-Y. Hsu, and H.-Y. Yen, “Human resources for science and technology: Analyzing competitiveness using the Analytic Hierarchy Process,” Technology in Society, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 141–153, 2008, doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2007.12.007.
27. T. L. Saaty, “Relative measurement and its generalization in decision making: Why pairwise comparisons are central in mathematics for the measurement of intangible factors — The Analytic Hierarchy/Network Process,” Revista de la Real Academia de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales. Serie A. Matemáticas, vol. 102, no. 2, pp. 251–318, 2008, doi:10.1007/BF03191825.
28. R. W. Saaty, “The analytic hierarchy process — what it is and how it is used,” Mathematical Modelling, vol. 9, no. 3–5, pp. 161–176, 1987, doi:10.1016/0270 0255(87)90473 8.
29. T. L. Saaty, “Decision making with the Analytic Hierarchy Process,” Scientia Iranica, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 215–229, 2002.
30. M. Dağdeviren, E. Erslan, M. Kurt, and E. N. Dizdar, “Tedarikçi seçimi problemine Analitik Ağ Süreci ile alternatif bir yaklaşım,” Teknoloji, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 115–122, 2005.
31. O. Bayazit, “Use of Analytic Network Process in Vendor Selection Decisions,” Benchmarking: An International Journal, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 566–579, 2006, doi:10.1108/14635770610690410.
32. N. Ömürbek and A. Şimşek, “Analitik Hiyerarşi Süreci ve Analitik Ağ Süreci yöntemleri ile online alışveriş site seçimi,” Yönetim ve Ekonomi Araştırmaları Dergisi, vol. 22, pp. 306–327, 2014.
33. M. L. M. Kiah, A. Haiqi, B. B. Zaidan, and A. A. Zaidan, “Open source EMR software: Profiling, insights and hands-on analysis,” Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 360–382, 2014.
34. M. Migdadi, “Knowledge management enablers and outcomes in the small and medium sized enterprises,” Industrial Management & Data Systems, vol. 109, no. 6, pp. 840–858, 2009.
35. S. J. Chen and C. L. Hwang, Fuzzy Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications, Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, vol. 375, Springer, 1992.
36. A. A. Zaidan, B. B. Zaidan, A. Al Haiqi, M. L. M. Kiah, M. Hussain, and M. Abdulnabi, “Evaluation and selection of open source EMR software packages based on integrated AHP and TOPSIS,” Journal of Biomedical Informatics, vol. 53, pp. 390–404, 2015, doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2014.11.012.
37. F. Acar, C. Bozkurt, and M. Fırat, “İdari Kayıp Yönetiminde Karar Verme Süreçlerinin ve Etki Düzeylerinin Analitik Hiyerarşi Süreç (AHP) ve Bulanık AHP ile Değerlendirilmesi,” Doğal Afetler ve Çevre Dergisi, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 393–405, 2025.
38. H. Eren, C. Bozkurt, and M. Fırat, “İçme Suyu Dağıtım Sistemlerinde Depo Sızıntı Yönetimi Bileşenlerinin Analitik Hiyerarşi Süreci (AHP) ve Bulanık AHP ile Değerlendirilmesi,” Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi Fen Ve Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi, vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 1416–1426, 2025.