Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Context

In the realm of Smart Firefighting, research on multi-attribute decision modeling has yet to develop a decision-making model for AI-assisted fire rescue plans that integrates both subjective and objective information. Meanwhile, while studies using intuitionistic fuzzy sets provide valuable support for multi-attribute decision-making, they often focus only on data fuzziness and neglect decision-makers’ preferences for alternative plans and attributes.

Objective

The primary objective of this study is to develop a sophisticated multi-attribute decision-making model tailored specifically for urban fire emergency decision-making scenarios that integrates both subjective and objective information.

Method

To overcome the limitations of previous research, we develop a multi-attribute decision-making model for firefighting that integrates entropy weights and preference weights with intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Specifically, we first preprocess the decision attributes and experts’ preferences, transforming real-valued attributes into intuitionistic fuzzy numbers and determining the attribute weights based on expert preferences. We then introduce an overall framework for multi-attribute decision-making, comprising two models: the Fuzzy Entropy Weighted Multi-Attribute Decision-Making model, FEW-MADM and the Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets based Integrated Entropy-Weighted and Preference-Weighted Multi-Attribute Decision-Making model IFPS-EWMADM, which realize the harmonious balance between data-driven insights and human expertise.

Results

We demonstrate an illustrative example in urban firefighting to evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed models. The results show that the FEW-MADM model is suitable for situations where the plan dataset contains no unexpected values, while the IFPS-EWMADM model is appropriate for scenarios involving complex and uncertain data. In addition, we conducted a sensitivity analysis, focusing on the conditions under which the original optimal solution would remain effective when key data in the case fluctuated within different ranges.

Conclusion

The proposed models calculate optimal solutions for various fire area sizes, which not only aid emergency management personnel in devising effective dispatching plans but also enable the analysis and summarization of historical cases. This dual functionality significantly propels the development of “smart firefighting” and markedly enhances the overall efficiency and effectiveness of fire emergency management.

Keywords

intuitionistic fuzzy set information entropy preference multiple attribute decision-making urban fire smart firefighting

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Almulhim

T. S.

Barahona

(2020). An integrated approach for fuzzy-dynamic multi-attribute group decision making with application in renewable energy. IEEE Access, 8, 145092–145106. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3014897

Arya

Kumar

(2021). A picture fuzzy multiple criteria decision-making approach based on the combined TODIM-VIKOR and entropy weighted method. Cognitive Computation, 13(5), 1172–1188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12559-021-09892-z

Atanassov

(1986). Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets & Systems, 20(1), 87–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-0114(86)80034-3

Cao

Dong

Singh

Kumar

(2020). Hybrid microgrid many-objective sizing optimization with fuzzy decision. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 28(11), 2702–2710. https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2020.3026140

Chen

Wang

Dong

(2020). Emergency rescue capability evaluation on urban fire stations in China. Process Safety & Environmental Protection, 135, 59–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2019.12.028

Chen

S. M.

Cheng

S. H.

Chiou

C. H.

(2016). Fuzzy multi-attribute group decision making based on intuitionistic fuzzy sets and evidential reasoning methodology. Information Fusion, 27, 215–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2015.03.002

Cheng

Yang

(2021). Multi-Attribute decision-making method based on a novel distance measure of linguistic intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 40(1), 1147–1160. https://doi.org/10.3233/JIFS-201429

Dai

(2008). A new scale for linguistic information evaluation and its application. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 76(2), 145–149.

Ding

Wang

Y.-M.

(2019). Intuitionistic fuzzy TOPSIS multi-attribute decision-making method based on revised scoring function and entropy weight method. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 36(1), 625–635. https://doi.org/10.3233/jifs-18963

10.

Dombi

(1982). A general class of fuzzy operators, the DeMorgan class of fuzzy operators and fuzziness measures induced by fuzzy operators. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 8(2), 149–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-0114(82)90005-7

11.

Feng

Fujita

Ali

M. I.

Yager

R. R.

Liu

(2019). Another view on generalized intuitionistic fuzzy soft sets and related multi-attribute decision-making methods. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 27(3), 474–488. https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2018.2860967

12.

Guan

H. J.

Guan

Zhao

A. W.

(2016). Intuitionistic fuzzy linguistic soft sets and their application in multi-attribute decision-making. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 31(6), 2869–2879. https://doi.org/10.3233/JIFS-16916

13.

Hao

Zhao

Fujita

(2018). A dynamic weight determination approach based on the intuitionistic fuzzy Bayesian network and its application to emergency decision making. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 26(4), 1893–1907. https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2017.2755001

14.

(2018). Typhoon disaster assessment based on Dombi hesitant fuzzy information aggregation operators. Natural Hazards, 90(3), 1153–1175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-017-3091-0

15.

Chen

(2015). Intuitionistic fuzzy interaction Bonferroni means and its application to multiple attribute decision making. IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics, 45(1), 116–128. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCYB.2014.2320910

16.

Y. R.

Meng

X. R.

Luo

W. K.

(2016). Evaluation of coal mine safety emergency management based on coupling coordination. China Safety Science and Technology, 12(08), 115–119.

17.

Joshi

Kumar

(2019). A novel fuzzy decision-making method using entropy weights-based correlation coefficients under intuitionistic fuzzy environment. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 21(1), 232–242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40815-018-0538-8

18.

Liu

Liang

(2013). Research on Multi-Attribute Collaborative Emergency Decision-Making and Its Application in Urban Fires. The 8th Annual Conference of Chinese Management, 11, 176–186.

19.

Meena

Ponnappen

(2018). An application of intuitionistic fuzzy sets in choice of discipline of study. Global Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, 14(6), 867–871.

20.

Rani

Jain

Hooda

D. S.

(2019). Extension of intuitionistic fuzzy TODIM technique for multi-criteria decision making method based on Shapley weighted divergence measure. Granular Computing, 4(3), 407–420. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41066-018-0101-x

21.

Russell

Norvig

(2022). Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. People's Posts and Telecommunications Press.

22.

Sarkar

Moslem

Esztergár-Kiss

(2023). A hybrid approach based on dual hesitant q-rung Orthopair fuzzy frank power partitioned Heronian mean aggregation operators for estimating sustainable urban transport solutions. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 127, 124–106505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2023.106505

23.

Seikh

M. R.

Chatterjee

(2024). Identifying sustainable strategies for electronic waste management utilizing confidence-based group decision-making method in interval-valued Fermatean fuzzy environment. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 135, 108701. https://doi.org/10.16652/j.issn.1004-373x.2023.09.018

24.

Seikh

M. R.

Mandal

(2021). Intuitionistic fuzzy Dombi aggregation operators and their application to multiple attribute decision-making. Granular Computing, 6(3), 473–488. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41066-019-00209-y

25.

Seikh

M. R.

Mandal

(2023). Interval-valued Fermatean fuzzy Dombi aggregation operators and SWARA-based PROMETHEE II method to bio-medical waste management. Expert Systems with Applications, 226, 120082. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2023.120082

26.

Thao

X. N.

(2018). A new correlation coefficient of intuitionistic fuzzy sets and its application. Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems, 35(2), 1959–1968. https://doi.org/10.3233/JIFS-171589

27.

Tugrul

Gezercan

Citil

(2017). Application of intuitionistic fuzzy sets in high school determination via normalized Euclidean distance method. Notes on Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets, 23(1), 42–47.

28.

Wang

Nady slam

Zhang

(2023). City high-rise fire rescue plan recommendation combining information entropy and scheme preference. Modern Electronics Technology, 46(9), 91–96. https://doi.org/10.16652/j.issn.1004-373x.2023.09.018

29.

Ren

(2009). Research on urban fire risk comprehensive evaluation and its applications in China. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 15(4), 778–788. https://doi.org/10.1080/10807030903051226

30.

Xia

(2016). Optimal method for firefighting rescue plan selection based on entropy weight decision making. Journal of People's Armed Police Force Academy, 32(4), 31–34.

31.

Peng

(2021). Research on the fire safety assessment of high building with intuitionistic fuzzy TOPSIS method. International Journal of Knowledge-Based Intelligent Engineering Systems, 25(4), 405–411. https://doi.org/10.3233/KES-210084

32.

(2019). Research on Multi-Attribute Decision Making Method Based on Intuitionistic Fuzzy Entropy. Journal of Southwest Jiaotong University(2), 151–155. https://doi.org/10.27414/d.cnki.gxnju.2019.001494

33.

(2004). Uncertain Multi-attribute Decision Making Methods and Applications. Tsinghua University Press.

34.

(2007). Intuitionistic fuzzy preference information-based approach to multi-attribute decision making. Systems Engineering Theory and Practice, 27(11), 62–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1874-8651(08)60069-1

35.

(2012). Intuitionistic fuzzy mult-attribute decision making: An interactive method. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 20(3), 514–525. https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2011.2177466

36.

Ren

. (2020). Research progress and prospects of hesitant fuzzy preference decision making. Systems Engineering Theory and Practice, 40(8), 2193–2202. https://doi.org/10.12011/1000-6788-2019-0030-10

37.

Z. S.

(2007). Intuitionistic fuzzy aggregation operators. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 15(6), 1179–1187. https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2006.890678

38.

Z. S.

(2012). Intuitionistic Fuzzy Aggregation and Clustering, Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing. Springer.

39.

Zadeh

L. A.

(1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8(3), 338–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X

40.

Zadeh

L. A.

(1968). Probability measures of fuzzy events. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, 23(2), 421–427. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-247X(68)90078-4

41.

Zeshu

(2009). Entropy-Based procedures for intuitionistic fuzzy multiple attribute decision making. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, 20(5), 1001–1011.

42.

Zheng

Chen

H. Z.

(2020). TOPSIS-Based Entropy measure for intuitionistic trapezoidal fuzzy sets and application to multi-attribute decision making. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 17(5), 5604–5617. https://doi.org/10.3934/mbe.2020301

43.

Zhou

, et al. (2018). An extended intuitionistic fuzzy choquet integral correlation coefficient based on Shapley Index in multicriteria decision making. Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems, 35(2), 2051–2062.

A Multiple Attribute Decision-Making Model for Firefighting Integrating Entropy Weights and Preferences with Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets

Abstract

Context

Objective

Method

Results

Conclusion

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References