Multicriterion Analysis of Hydropower Operation
Publication: Journal of Energy Engineering
Volume 115, Issue 3
Abstract
Two real‐life examples are presented to show how multicriterion decision‐making (MCDM) techniques can help hydropower engineers mitigate the environmental and social effects of hydropower development and operation. A brief introduction and overview of MCDM is presented, consisting of an 11‐step process that starts with problem definition and ends with implementation. A typology of MCDM is provided, dividing the techniques into three groups: outranking, distance‐based, and value‐ or utility‐based types. The operation of the Upper Isar River project in Bavaria is analyzed by means of a value technique and an outranking technique called multicriterion Q‐analysis. Fourteen criteria are considered in that study, including power production, habitat quality for four groups of species, aesthetics, several recreation indices, minimum flows, and phosphorus loadings. The case study of the Erlauf River Division in Austria is evaluated using a distance‐based technique, called composite programming, combined with Monte Carlo simulation. An outcome of that study is that the facility's owners have increased the minimum instream flow in order to protect ecological values.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
Bárdossy, A., Bogárdi, I., and Duckstein, L. (1985). “Composite programming as an extension of compromise programming.” Mathematics of multiobjective optimization, P. Serafini, ed., CSIM Udine, Italy; Springer‐Verlag, Vienna, Austria, 375–408.
2.
Bayerisches Landesamt fur Wasserwirtschaft (1983). “Nutzen‐Kosten‐Untersuchung fur Teilruckleitung des oberen Isar.” Bericht Nr. IV/4‐4439.1, Munich, Germany (in German).
3.
Benayoun, R., Roy, B., and Sussman, N. (1966). “Manual de reference du programme electre.” Note de Synthese et Formation, No. 25, Direction Scientifique SEMA, Paris, France (in French).
4.
Bogárdi, I., Duckstein, L., and Bárdossy, A. (1984). “Trade‐off between cost and efficiency of pollution control.” Proc. VIth Int. Conf. on Multiple Criteria Decision Making, Cleveland, Ohio, Springer‐Verlag, New York, N.Y.
5.
Bogárdi, I., et al. (1987). “Development versus environment: Toward a decision support system.” Working paper, 31st Annual Meeting of the International Society for General Systems Research: Problems of Constancy and Change, Budapest, Hungary.
6.
Chankong, V., and Haimes, Y. Y. (1983). Multiobjective decision making: Theory and methodology. Elsevier‐North Holland, New York, N.Y.
7.
Dee, N., et al. (1972). “Environmental evaluation system for water resource planning.” Battelle Columbus Laboratories, Columbus, Ohio.
8.
Duckstein, L., Hiessl, H., and Becker, M. (1988). “Multicriterion Q—analysis with a discordance concept; Application to river basin management.” Working paper 88‐15, Systems Engrg. Dept., Case Western Reserve Univ., Cleveland, Ohio.
9.
Duckstein, L., and Opricovic, S. (1980). “Multiobjective optimization in river basin development.” Water Resour. Res., 16(1), 14–20.
10.
Gershon, M. E., and Duckstein, L. (1983). “Multiobjective approaches to river basin planning.” J. Water Resour. Plng. and Mgmt., ASCE, 109(1), 945–967.
11.
Gershon, M. E., and Duckstein, L. (1984). “A procedure for selection of a multiobjective technique with application to water and mineral resources.” Applied Math. and Comp., 14(3), 245–271.
12.
Goicoechea, A., Hansen, D. R., and Duckstein, L. (1982). Multiobjective decision analysis with engineering and business applications. J. Wiley and Sons, New York, N.Y.
13.
Harboe, R., Schultz, G., and Duckstein, L. (1980). Low‐flow and flood control:distributed versus lumped reservoir model.” Proc., Symp. on Water and Related Land Resource Systems, International Federation on Automatic Control, Cleveland, Ohio.
14.
Hiessl, H., Duckstein, L., and Plate, E. (1985). “Multiobjective Q‐analysis with concordance and discordance concepts.” Applied Math. and Comp. 17(1), 107–122.
15.
Hobbs, B. (1980). “Multiobjective power plant siting methods.” J. Energy Engrg. Div., ASCE, 106(2), 187–200.
16.
Hobbs, B. (1986). “What can we learn from experiments in multicriteria decision analysis?” Trans. Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Inst., of Electrical and Electronic Engrs., SMC‐16(3), May–Jun., 410–425.
17.
Keeney, R. L., and Raiffa, H. (1976). Decisions with multiple objectives: Preferences and value tradeoffs. John Wiley and Sons, New York, N.Y.
18.
Markowitz, H. (1959). Portfolio selection. John Wiley and Sons, New York, N.Y.
19.
McCuen, R. H., and Moglen, G. E. (1988). “Multicnterion stormwater management methods.” J. Water Resour. Plng. and Mgmt., ASCE, 114(4), 414–431.
20.
Nachtnebel, H. P., et al. (1985). “Fluβstudie Pielach,” Amt der NO, Landesriegierung, Vienna, Austria.
21.
Nachtnebel, H. P., Hanisch, P., and Duckstein, L. (1986). “Multicnterion design of small hydropower plants.” Annals of Reg. Sci., XX(3), 86–100.
22.
Perlack, R. D., and Willis, C. E. (1985). “Multi‐objective decision‐making in waste disposal planning.” J. of Envir. Engrg., ASCE, 111(3), 373–385.
23.
Roy, B. (1973). “How outranking relation helps multiple criteria decision making.” Multiple criteria decision making, J. L. Cochrane and J. Zeleny, eds., University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, S.C.
24.
Roy, B. (1977a). “Partial preference analysis and decision aid: The fuzzy outranking relation concept.” Conflicting objectives in decisions, D. Bell, R. Keeney and H. Raiffa, eds., John Wiley and Sons, New York, N.Y.
25.
Roy, B. (1977b). “Conceptual framework for a normative theory of decision aid.” Multiple criteria decision making, M. Starr and M. Zeleny, eds., North Holland, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
26.
Roy, B., and Vincke, P. H. (1984). “Relational systems of preference with one or more pseudo‐criteria: Some new concepts and results.” Mgmt. Sci., 30(11), 1323–1335.
27.
Schulu βbericht der interdepartementalen Arbeitsgruppe Restwasser. (1982). E. Akeret, ed., Erdgenossisches Department des Inneren, Bern, Switzerland.
28.
Szidarovszky, F., Gershon, M. E., and Duckstein, L. (1986). Techniques for multiobjective decision making in systems management. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
29.
Tecle, A., Duckstein, L., and Fogel, M. (1987). “Multicnterion decision making in wastewater management: Problem formulation.” Working paper No. 87‐007, Systems and Indust. Engrg. Dept., Univ. of Arizona, Tucson, Ariz.
30.
Tecle, A., Fogel, M., and Duckstein, L. (1988). “Multicnterion selection of wastewater management alternatives.” J. Water Resour. Plng. and Mgmt., ASCE, 114(4), 383–388.
31.
User's manual for the stream quality model QUAL‐II. (1981). Envir. Res. Lab., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Athens, Ga.
32.
Zeleny, M. (1973). “Compromise programming.” Multiple Criteria Decision Making, J. L. Cochrane and M. Zeleny, eds., University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, S.C., 263–301.
33.
Zeleny, M. (1981). Multiple criteria decision‐making, McGraw‐Hill Book Co., New York, N.Y.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Energy Engineering
Volume 115 • Issue 3 • December 1989
Pages: 132 - 153
Copyright
Copyright © 1989 ASCE.
History
Published online: Dec 1, 1989
Published in print: Dec 1989
Authors
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.