Application of multi-agent decision-making methods in hydrological ecosystem services management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, a methodology is presented for managing hydrological ecosystem services by taking into account the hierarchy of stakeholders involved in the decision-making process. With this in mind, a water allocation model is first used for allocating water resources to demands. Then, several ecosystem services (ESs)-based criteria are defined to evaluate hydrological ESs of water resources management policies. A set of water and environmental resources management strategies (alternatives) are defined for decision-makers, and several drought management strategies are determined to decrease the area of key crops and water demands of agricultural nodes. To model a multi-agent multi-criteria decision-making problem for managing hydrological ESs, three main steps are considered as follows:•Different ES-based criteria (i.e., economic profit, NPP, and ecological index) are defined, and their grade-based values are estimated.•Several strategies are defined for stakeholders at different levels.•A recursive evidential reasoning (ER) approach, which considers a hierarchical structure for decision-makers and a leader-follower game, is used to select the best strategy for each decision-maker.The applicability and efficiency of the methodology are illustrated by applying it to a real-world case study. The methodology is general and can be easily applied to other study areas.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".