Technical Papers
Jul 11, 2014

Application of Multicriteria Decision Analysis with A Priori Knowledge to Identify Optimal Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Plans

Publication: Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management
Volume 141, Issue 2

Abstract

Control of agricultural nonpoint sources of pollution is achievable through implementation of conservation practices at the farm or field level. There are several approaches to achieve a targeted implementation of conservation practices at the watershed scale. Recent studies have shown that optimization methods hold great promise for optimal allocation of nonpoint source pollution control measures. However, the use of optimization is a computationally intensive task and ultimately depends upon availability of automated optimization tools and expertise to analyze the results. In this study, a novel multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) framework is proposed to identify a near-optimal suite of conservation practices at the watershed scale using a priori knowledge about the system. The proposed framework requires: (1) selecting a set of criteria, depending upon the objectives of the study, that should be considered in ranking the alternatives; (2) constructing an evaluation matrix; and (3) using a computational MCDA method to aggregate the scores based upon the various criteria and rank the alternatives. The framework was used to identify optimal placement of four types of conservation practices for nutrient and pesticide load control at minimum cost in the Eagle Creek Watershed, Indiana, United States. Results were compared with optimal solutions obtained from an optimization framework coupled with the soil and water assessment tool (SWAT). The results of this study showed that the proposed framework can be an effective and efficient approach in identifying near-optimal solutions for nonpoint source pollution control. The MCDA framework outperformed the optimization method by identifying similar solutions with more diversity without any need for iterative search algorithms. For highly complex problems or for a poorly established evaluation matrix, the MCDA framework may fail to identify near-optimal solutions; however, the results can effectively serve as a good initial population in a hybrid MCDA and optimization framework. A hybrid framework substantially improved efficiency of the search algorithm, optimality of the Pareto-front, and diversity of the solutions. This study also highlighted importance of the defining proper decision variables and accurate scoring of the conservation practices for successful implementation of conservation plans at the watershed scale.

Get full access to this article

View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.

References

Ahmadi, M., Arabi, M., Hoag, D. L., and Engel, B. A. (2013). “A mixed discrete-continuous variable multiobjective genetic algorithm for targeted implementation of nonpoint source pollution control practices.” Water Resour. Res., 49(12), 8344–8356.
Ahmadi, M., Records, R., and Arabi, M. (2014). “Impact of climate change on diffuse pollutant fluxes at the watershed scale.” Hydrol. Processes, 28(4), 1962–1972.
Arabi, M., Govindaraju, R. S., and Hantush, M. M. (2006). “Cost-effective allocation of watershed management practices using a genetic algorithm.” Water Resour. Res., 42(10), 1–14.
Arnold, J. G., Kiniry, J. R., Srinivasan, R., Williams, J. R., Haney, E. B., and Neitsch, S. L. (2011). “Soil and water assessment tool input/output file documentation, version 2009.”, Texas Water Research Institute, Texas A&M Univ., College Station, TX, 643.
Arnold, J. G., Srinivasan, R., Muttiah, R. S., and Williams, J. R. (1998). “Large area hydrologic modeling and assessment part I: Model development.” J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc., 34(1), 73–89.
Brown, K., Hall, W. L., Snook, M. H., and Garvin, K. (2010). Sustainable land development and restoration: Decision consequence analysis, Butterworth-Heinemann, Burlington, MA, 528.
Cary, J. W., and Wilkinson, R. L. (1997). “Perceived profitability and farmers’ conservation behaviour.” J. Agric. Econ., 48(1–3), 13–21.
Chapra, S. C. (2008). Surface water-quality modeling, Waveland Press, Long Grove, IL, 844.
Deb, K. (2001). Multi-objective optimization using evolutionary algorithms, Wiley, New York, 518.
Easton, Z. M., Walter, M. T., and Steenhuis, T. S. (2008). “Combined monitoring and modeling indicate the most effective agricultural best management practices.” J. Environ. Qual., 37(5), 1798–1809.
Fleischer, M. (2003). “The measure of Pareto optima applications to multi-objective metaheuristics.” Lect. Notes Comput. Sci., 2632, 519–533.
Garen, D. C., and Moore, D. S. (2005). “Curve number hydrology in water quality modeling: Uses, abuses, and future directions.” J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc., 41(2), 377–388.
Haggard, B. E., Sharpley, A. N., Massey, L. B., Hardiman, N., and Teague, K. (2010). “HUC 12 watershed prioritization along a water quality and land use gradient: Upper Illinois River watershed management plan.” 2010 Land Grant and Sea Grant National Water Conf., National Water Quality Monitoring Council, Denver, CO, 〈http://www.usawaterquality.org/conferences/2010/WednesdayPDF’s/Concurrent_Sessions/SessionJ_8am-10am_DataManagement/Haggard.pdf〉.
Hajkowicz, S., and Collins, K. (2007). “A review of multiple criteria analysis for water resource planning and management.” Water Resour. Manage., 21(9), 1553–1566.
Hajkowicz, S., and Higgins, A. (2008). “A comparison of multiple criteria analysis techniques for water resource management.” Eur. J. Oper. Res., 184(1), 255–265.
Hansen, D. O., Erbaugh, J. M., and Napier, T. L. (1987). “Factors related to adoption of soil conservation practices in the Dominican Republic.” J. Soil Water Conserv., 42(5), 367–369.
Hipel, K. W. (1992). “Multiple objective decision making in water resources.” J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc., 28(1), 3–12.
Horowitz, J. K., Lynch, L., and Stocking, A. (2009). “Competition-based environmental policy: An analysis of farmland preservation in Maryland.” Land Econ., 85(4), 555–575.
Howard, A. F. (1991). “A critical look at multiple criteria decision making techniques with reference to forestry applications.” Can. J. For. Res., 21(11), 1649–1659.
Jha, M. K., Rabotyagov, S., Gassman, P. W., Feng, H., and Campbell, T. (2009). “Optimal placement of conservation practices using genetic algorithm with SWAT.” Int. Agric. Eng. J., 18(1–2), 41–50.
Kanwar, R. S. (2006). “Effects of cropping systems on NO3-N losses to tile drain.” J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc., 42(6), 1493–1501.
Kiker, G. A., Bridges, T. S., Varghese, A., Seager, P. T. P., Linkov, I. (2005). “Application of multicriteria decision analysis in environmental decision making.” Integr. Environ. Assess. Manage., 1(2), 95–108.
Lacroix, A., Beaudoin, N., and Makowski, D. (2005). “Agricultural water nonpoint pollution control under uncertainty and climate variability.” Ecol. Econ., 53(1), 115–127.
Leonard, R., Knisel, W., and Still, D. (1987). “GLEAMS—Groundwater loading effects of agricultural management-systems.” Trans. ASAE, 30(5), 1403–1418.
Madani, K., and Lund, J. R. (2011). “A Monte-Carlo game theoretic approach for multi-criteria decision making under uncertainty.” Adv. Water Resour., 34(5), 607–616.
Malone, R. W., et al. (2007). “Empirical analysis and prediction of nitrate loading and crop yield for corn-soybean rotations.” Geoderma, 140(3), 223–234.
Maringanti, C., Chaubey, I., Arabi, M., and Engel, B. A. (2011). “Application of a multi-objective optimization method to provide least cost alternatives for NPS pollution control.” Environ. Manage., 48(3), 448–461.
Mirchi, A., Watkins, D. W. J., and Madani, K. (2010). “Modeling for watershed planning, management, and decision making.” Watersheds management, restoration and environmental impact, J. C. Vaughn, ed., Nova Science Publishers, New York, 420.
Neitsch, S. L., Arnold, J. G., Kiniry, J. R., and Williams, J. R. (2005). Soil and water assessment tool (SWAT) theoretical documentation, version 2005, Grassland, Soil and Water Research Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, Temple, TX, 494.
Novotny, V. (2003). Water quality: Diffuse pollution and watershed management, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 864.
Rabotyagov, S., et al. (2010). “Least-cost control of agricultural nutrient contributions to the Gulf of Mexico hypoxic zone.” Ecol. Appl., 20(6), 1542–1555.
Ripa, M. N., Leone, A., Garnier, M., and Lo Porto, A. (2006). “Agricultural land use and best management practices to control nonpoint water pollution.” Environ. Manage., 38(2), 253–266.
Rowe, M. D., and Pierce, B. L. (1982). “Sensitivity of the weighting summation decision method to incorrect application.” Soc Econ. Plann. Sci., 16(4), 173–177.
Solovay, R. M. (1970). “A model of set-theory in which every set of reals is lebesgue measurable.” Annals Math., 92(1), 1–56.
Sullivan, D. G., and Batten, H. L. (2007). “Little River experimental watershed, Tifton, Georgia, United States: A historical geographic database of conservation practice implementation.” Water Resour. Res., 43(9), 1–5.
Tedesco, L. P., et al. (2005). Eagle Creek watershed management plan: An integrated approach to improved water quality. Eagle Creek watershed alliance, CEES Publication, Indianapolis, IN, 182.
Tomer, M. D. (2010). “How do we identify opportunities to apply new knowledge and improve conservation effectiveness?” J. Soil Water Conser., 65(4), 261–265.
USGS. (2001). “2001 land cover data (NLCD).” 〈http://seamless.usgs.gov〉 (Sep. 23, 2010).
Veith, T. L. (2002). “Agricultural Bmp placement for cost-effective pollution control at the watershed level.” Ph.D. thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Univ., Blacksburg, VA.
Walter, T., Dosskey, M., Khanna, M., Miller, J., Tomer, M., and Wiens, J. (2007). “The science of targeting within landscapes and watersheds to improve conservation effectiveness.” Managing agricultural landscapes for environmental quality, M. Schrnepf and C. Cox, eds., Soil and Water Conservation Society, Ankeny, IA.
Williams, J. R. (1990). “The erosion-productivity impact calculator (EPIC) model: A case history.” Phil. Trans. Biol. Sci., 329(1255), 421–428.

Information & Authors

Information

Published In

Go to Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management
Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management
Volume 141Issue 2February 2015

History

Received: Mar 1, 2013
Accepted: Mar 11, 2014
Published online: Jul 11, 2014
Discussion open until: Dec 11, 2014
Published in print: Feb 1, 2015

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Authors

Affiliations

Mehdi Ahmadi [email protected]
Postdoctoral Research Associate, Spatial Science Laboratory, Texal Agrilife Research, Texas A&M Univ., 1500 Research Plaza, College Station, TX 77843; formerly, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins, CO 80523 (corresponding author). E-mail: [email protected]
Mazdak Arabi [email protected]
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins, CO 80523. E-mail: [email protected]
Darrell G. Fontane [email protected]
Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins, CO 80523. E-mail: [email protected]
Bernard A. Engel [email protected]
Professor and Head, Dept. of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette, IN 47907. E-mail: [email protected]

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

Citations

Download citation

If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.

Cited by

View Options

Get Access

Access content

Please select your options to get access

Log in/Register Log in via your institution (Shibboleth)
ASCE Members: Please log in to see member pricing

Purchase

Save for later Information on ASCE Library Cards
ASCE Library Cards let you download journal articles, proceedings papers, and available book chapters across the entire ASCE Library platform. ASCE Library Cards remain active for 24 months or until all downloads are used. Note: This content will be debited as one download at time of checkout.

Terms of Use: ASCE Library Cards are for individual, personal use only. Reselling, republishing, or forwarding the materials to libraries or reading rooms is prohibited.
ASCE Library Card (5 downloads)
$105.00
Add to cart
ASCE Library Card (20 downloads)
$280.00
Add to cart
Buy Single Article
$35.00
Add to cart

Get Access

Access content

Please select your options to get access

Log in/Register Log in via your institution (Shibboleth)
ASCE Members: Please log in to see member pricing

Purchase

Save for later Information on ASCE Library Cards
ASCE Library Cards let you download journal articles, proceedings papers, and available book chapters across the entire ASCE Library platform. ASCE Library Cards remain active for 24 months or until all downloads are used. Note: This content will be debited as one download at time of checkout.

Terms of Use: ASCE Library Cards are for individual, personal use only. Reselling, republishing, or forwarding the materials to libraries or reading rooms is prohibited.
ASCE Library Card (5 downloads)
$105.00
Add to cart
ASCE Library Card (20 downloads)
$280.00
Add to cart
Buy Single Article
$35.00
Add to cart

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Copy the content Link

Share with email

Email a colleague

Share