Application of Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets in Evaluating the Forest Fire Prevention Service with TOPSIS Method

doi:10.13466/j.cnki.lyzygl.2017.03.013

Abstract

Abstract:

In this paper,the fire prevention service scheme of different forest fire conditions was taken as the research object. From the four aspects of the personnel,the equipment,the logistical support and the fire fighting ability and by using the intuitionistic fuzzy sets and the TOPSIS method,firstly the evaluation index system of forest fire prevention service scheme is established. Secondly,the analytic hierarchy process(AHP) and Delphi method are used to calculate the weight of the index,then the intuitionistic fuzzy evaluation matrix constructed,the positive and negative ideal solutions established and the distance of the alternatives to the positive and negative ideal solutions calculated. Finally,the comprehensive evaluation indexes are calculated,and the ranking of the fire service program effectiveness obtained. The Baritu Forest Farm at Hulunbeir of Inner Mongolia has been taken as an example for verification.

Key words: the forest fire prevention service, the intuitionistic fuzzy sets, the TOPSIS method, Delphi method, the analytic hierarchy process

CLC Number:

S762

LIU Shaohai, ZHAO Tianzhong, LI Saibo. Application of Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets in Evaluating the Forest Fire Prevention Service with TOPSIS Method[J]. FOREST RESOURCES WANAGEMENT, 2017, 0(3): 62-68.

Figures/Tables 6

Tab.1

Tab.2

Tab.3

The results of each scheme

评价指标	P₁	P₂	P₃	P₄	P₅	P₆
$U 1 1$	(0.82,0.02,0.16)	(0.78,0.04,0.18)	(0.22,0.32,0.46)	(0.66,0.06,0.28)	(0.66,0.06,0.28)	(0.84,0.04,0.12)
$U 1 2$	(0.8,0.06,0.14)	(0.88,0.04,0.08)	(0.76,0.04,0.2)	(0.86,0.02,0.12)	(0.88,0.02,0.1)	(0.8,0.04,0.16)
$U 1 3$	(0.68,0.08,0.24)	(0.78,0.06,0.16)	(0.36,0.18,0.46)	(0.58,0.1,0.32)	(0.3,0.24,0.46)	(0.84,0.02,0.14)
$U 1 4$	(0.6,0.06,0.34)	(0.76,0.06,0.18)	(0.3,0.24,0.46)	(0.8,0.1,0.1)	(0.68,0.06,0.26)	(0.06,0.66,0.28)
U₂₁	(0.7,0.12,0.18)	(0.8,0.02,0.18)	(0.18,0.2,0.62)	(0.82,0.08,0.1)	(0.06,0.72,0.22)	(0.02,0.82,0.16)
$U 2 2$	(0.62,0.12,0.26)	(0.74,0.02,0.24)	(0.16,0.68,0.16)	(0.86,0.06,0.08)	(0.12,0.66,0.22)	(0,0.76,0.24)
$U 2 3$	(0.32,0.24,0.44)	(0.7,0.02,0.28)	(0.24,0.58,0.18)	(0.8,0.04,0.16)	(0.78,0.06,0.16)	(0.2,0.26,0.54)
U₂₄	(0.62,0.06,0.32)	(0.76,0.04,0.2)	(0.8,0.02,0.18)	(0.02,0.86,0.12)	(0.86,0.02,0.12)	(0.86,0,0.14)
$U 3 1$	(0.16,0.22,0.62)	(0.74,0.04,0.22)	(0.7,0.02,0.28)	(0.72,0.08,0.2)	(0.74,0.06,0.2)	(0.3,0.16,0.54)
$U 3 2$	(0.66,0.06,0.28)	(0.78,0.06,0.16)	(0.74,0.04,0.22)	(0.82,0.02,0.16)	(0.64,0.1,0.26)	(0.84,0.06,0.1)
$U 3 3$	(0.08,0.84,0.08)	(0.02,0.74,0.24)	(0.78,0.08,0.14)	(0.02,0.88,0.1)	(0.76,0.06,0.18)	(0.08,0.74,0.18)
$U 3 4$	(0.82,0.06,0.12)	(0.72,0.1,0.18)	(0.32,0.3,0.38)	(0.68,0.1,0.22)	(0.68,0.04,0.28)	(0.76,0.08,0.16)
$U 4 1$	(0.74,0.02,0.24)	(0.88,0.04,0.08)	(0.7,0.04,0.26)	(0.68,0.04,0.28)	(0.74,0.02,0.24)	(0.94,0.02,0.04)
$U 4 2$	(0.72,0.06,0.22)	(0.84,0.02,0.14)	(0.8,0.06,0.14)	(0.02,0.78,0.2)	(0.48,0.12,0.4)	(0,0.74,0.26)
$U 4 3$	(0.82,0.02,0.16)	(0.88,0,0.12)	(0.62,0.1,0.28)	(0.04,0.72,0.24)	(0.8,0.08,0.12)	(0.88,0.02,0.1)
$U 4 4$	(0.28,0.16,0.56)	(0.9,0.02,0.08)	(0.18,0.58,0.24)	(0.94,0.02,0.04)	(0.12,0.72,0.16)	(0.04,0.8,0.16)

Tab.3

Tab.4

The positive and negative solution of fire prevention service evaluation indexes with the fire risk of Ⅴ

理想解	$U 1 1$	$U 1 2$	$U 1 3$	$U 1 4$
P⁺	(0.84,0.02,0.14)	(0.88,0.02,0.1)	(0.84,0.02,0.14)	(0.8,0.06,0.14)
P^-	(0.22,0.32,0.46)	(0.76,0.04,0.2)	(0.3,0.24,0.46)	(0.06,0.66,0.28)
理想解	U₂₁	U₂₂	U₂₃	U₂₄
P⁺	(0.82,0.02,0.16)	(0.86,0.02,0.12)	(0.8,0.02,0.18)	(0.86,0,0.14)
P^-	(0.02,0.82,0.16)	(0,0.76,0.24)	(0.2,0.58,0.22)	(0.02,0.86,0.12)
理想解	U₃₁	U₃₂	U₃₃	U₃₄
P⁺	(0.74,0.02,0.24)	(0.84,0.02,0.14)	(0.78,0.08,0.14)	(0.82,0.04,0.14)
P^-	(0.16,0.22,0.62)	(0.64,0.1,0.26)	(0.02,0.88,0.1)	(0.32,0.3,0.38)
理想解	U₄₁	U₄₂	U₄₃	U₄₄
P⁺	(0.94,0.02,0.04)	(0.84,0.02,0.14)	(0.88,0,0.12)	(0.94,0.02,0.04)
P^-	(0.68,0.04,0.28)	(0,0.78,0.22)	(0.04,0.72,0.24)	(0.04,0.8,0.16)

Tab.4

Tab.5

The distance of each service scheme to the ideal solution and its comprehensive evaluation indexes

方案	$D i +$	$D i -$	C_i
P₁	0.057178	0.097793	0.631041
P₂	0.030202	0.113224	0.789427
P₃	0.075181	0.078816	0.511801
P₄	0.086904	0.080767	0.48170
P₅	0.066973	0.088127	0.568196
P₆	0.086608	0.083689	0.491429

Tab.5

Tab.6

References 20

[1]	张昕. 森林部队的五种主要防火勤务[J]. 内蒙古林业, 2001(7):22-22.
[2]	苏立娟, 何友均, 陈绍志. 1950—2010年中国森林火灾时空特征及风险分析[J]. 林业科学, 2015,51(1):88-96. doi: 10.11707/j.1001-7488.20150110
[3]	王阿川. 森林火灾防治决策专家系统的研究与实现[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2005,15(2):96-100.
[4]	黄儒乐. 移动通信技术WAP与SMS在县级森林火险预报系统中的应用研究[D]. 北京:北京林业大学, 2005.
[5]	Khan V M. Long-range forecasting of forest fire danger based on the SLAV model seasonal ensemble forecasts[J]. Russian Meteorology and Hydrology, 2012,37(8):505-513. doi: 10.3103/S1068373912080018
[6]	陶佰睿, 张艺弛, 苗凤娟, 等. 基于物联网技术森林火灾防控系统设计[J]. 东北林业大学学报, 2014(8):141-144.
[7]	胡海清, 陆昕, 孙龙, 等. 大兴安岭典型林分地表死可燃物含水率动态变化及预测模型[J]. 应用生态学报, 2016,27(7):2212-2224.
[8]	Mark A F. Calculation of Fire Spread Rates Across Random landscapes[J]. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 2003,12:213-226.
[9]	曹姗姗. 小尺度森林火险等级预报模型研究[D]. 北京:中国林业科学研究院, 2014.
[10]	Wotton B M. Interpreting and using outputs from the Canadian forest fire danger rating system in research applications[J]. Environ Ecol Stat, 2009,16:107-131. doi: 10.1007/s10651-007-0084-2
[11]	梁慧玲, 林玉蕊, 杨光, 等. 基于气象因子的随机森林算法在塔河地区林火预测中的应用[J]. 林业科学, 2016,52(1):89-98. doi: 10.11707/j.1001-7488.20160111
[12]	覃先林, 陈小中, 钟祥清, 等. 我国森林火灾预警监测技术体系发展思考[J]. 林业资源管理, 2015(6):45-48.
[13]	姜艳萍, 樊治平, 袁娜. 基于相似度计算的森林火灾应急响应方案选择方法[J]. 系统工程, 2010(11):104-109.
[14]	万鲁河, 王继富, 臧淑英, 等. 基于空间数据挖掘技术的森林防火智能决策支持系统研究[J]. 地理科学, 2009,29(3):433-438.
[15]	郭志强. 森林防火勤务组织实施要点[J]. 内蒙古林业, 2013(7):16-17.
[16]	徐泽水. 直觉模糊信息集成理论及应用[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2008.
[17]	王毅, 雷英杰, 路艳丽. 基于直觉模糊集的多属性模糊决策方法[J]. 系统工程与电子技术, 2007,29(12):2060-2063.
[18]	Szmidt E, Kacprzyk J. Distances between intuitionistic fuzzy sets[J]. Fuzzy Sets & Systems, 2000,114(3):505-518.
[19]	Hwang C L, Yoon K. Multiple Attribute Decision Making[M]. Berlin Heidelberg:Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1981.
[20]	崔亮, 张继权, 刘兴朋, 等. 基于Logistic回归模型的呼伦贝尔草原火险预测研究[J]. 安全与环境学报, 2010,10(1):173-177.

U₁	U₁₁	U₁₂	U₁₃		U₁₄	Wi
U₁₁	1	3	4		4	0.5417
U₁₂	1/3	1	2		1	0.1833
U₁₃	1/4	1/2	1		1/2	0.1028
U₁₄	1/4	1	2		1	0.1722
λ_max=4.0458				CR=0.0172<0.1

准则层	指标层	权重
人员数质量U₁	人员数量U₁₁	0.1414
	战勤训练水平U₁₂	0.0478
	士气情况U₁₃	0.0268
	指挥决心U₁₄	0.0449
机具效能U₂	机具种类U₂₁	0.0179
	灭火杀伤效能U₂₂	0.0478
	战备完好性U₂₃	0.0276
	防火安全性U₂₄	0.0756
后勤保障U₃	生活保障U₃₁	0.0146
	通信效能U₃₂	0.0270
	人力物力损耗U₃₃	0.0504
	运输能力U₃₄	0.0270
火源扑救能力U₄	目标分配质量U₄₁	0.0644
	预测着火点意图U₄₂	0.0535
	人为因素干扰U₄₃	0.1808
	可燃物干扰U₄₄	0.1525

森林火险等级	防火勤务有效性优劣排序
一级	P₆>P₄>P₃>P₅>P₁>P₂
二级	P₄>P₆>P₃>P₅>P₁>P₂
三级	P₃>P₆>P₄>P₅>P₁>P₂
四级	P₁>P₂>P₅>P₃>P₆>P₄
五级	P₂>P₁>P₅>P₃>P₆>P₄