Ranking Ground‐water Management Alternatives by Multicriterion Analysis
Publication: Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management
Volume 120, Issue 4
Abstract
An application of four multicriterion decision making (MCDM) techniques to a typical ground‐water management problem is presented. Criteria representing pumping yield, total costs, and water‐shortage risk are considered. The management model expressed in such a multicriterion form is based on the finite‐element method and a combined embedding/response matrix method. This model is used to generate a discrete representation of a nondominated solution set. Four MCDM techniques: compromise programming, ELECTRE III, multiattribute utility function, and UTA method representing, respectively, distance‐based, outranking, and utility (multiplicative and additive forms) approaches are examined as potential decision‐aid tools to select the appropriate management scheme. Comparison of the results shows that these quite different MCDM techniques lead to a similar subset of recommended solutions. Adequacy of these techniques for ground‐water management is discussed from the points of view of technique characteristics, decision maker's expectations, analyst's knowledge required, and method output, that is, ranking of alternatives.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
Bogardi, J. J., Gupta, A. D., and Jiang, H. Z. (1991). “Search beam method—a promising way to define non‐dominated solutions in multi‐objective groundwater development.” Water Resour. Development, 7(4), 247–258.
2.
Choo, E. U., and Atkins, D. R. (1980). “An interactive algorithm for multicriteria programming.” Comp. & Operations Res., 7, 81–87.
3.
Duckstein, L., Bobée, B., and Ashkar, F. (1991). “A multiple criteria decision modeling approach to selection of estimation techniques for fitting extreme floods.” Stochastic Hydro. and Hydr., 5(3), 227–238.
4.
Duckstein, L., and Opricovic, S. (1980). “Multiobjective optimization in river basin development.” Water Resour. Res., 16(1), 14–20.
5.
El Magnouni, S. (1993). “Méthodologie d'aide à la décision pour l'évaluation et la gestion multicritère des ressources en eau souterraine,” PhD thesis, Institut National Polytechnique de Lorraine, Nancy, France (in French).
6.
El Magnouni, S., and Treichel, W. (1992). “A multi‐criteria approach to groundwater resources assessment.” BRGM Tech. Note No. 4S‐EAU/11/92, Bureau de Recherche Géologique et Minière (BRGM), Orléans, France.
7.
Gershon, M., and Duckstein, L. (1984). “A procedure for selection of a multiobjective technique with application to water and mineral resources.” Appl. Mathematics and Computation, 14(3), 245–271.
8.
Goicoechea, A., Hansen, D. H., and Duckstein, L. (1982). Multiobjective decision analysis with engineering and business applications, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, N.Y.
9.
Gorelick, S. M. (1983). “A review of distributed parameter groundwater management modeling methods.” Water Resour. Res., 19(2), 305–319.
10.
Herrling, B., and Heckele, A. (1986). “Coupling of finite element and optimization methods for the management of groundwater systems.” Adv. in Water Resour., 9(12), 190–195.
11.
Hrkal, Z. (1992). “Proposition d'élaboration des critères cartographiques pour la gestion des eaux.” Document interne du BRGM, Bureau de Recherche Géologique et Minière (BRGM), Orléans, France (in French).
12.
Jacquet‐Lagrèze, E. (1983). PREFCALC—evaluation et décision multicritères. Euro‐Décision, Paris, France (in French).
13.
Jacquet‐Lagrèze, E., Meziani, R., and Slowinski, R. (1987). “MOLP with an interactive assessment of a piecewise linear utility function.” Eur. J. Operational Res., 31(3), 350–357.
14.
Jacquet‐Lagrèze, E., and Siskos, J. (1982). “Assessing a set of additive utility functions for multi‐criteria decision‐making, the UTA method.” Eur. J. Operational Res., 10(2), 151–164.
15.
Keeney, R. L., and Raiffa, H. (1976). Decision with multiple objectives: preferences and value tradeoffs. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, N.Y.
16.
Keeney, R. L., and Wood, E. F. (1977). “An illustrative example of the use of multiattribute utility theory for water resource planning.” Water Resour. Res., 13(4), 705–712.
17.
Krzysztofowicz, R., and Duckstein, L. (1979). “Preference criterion for flood control under uncertainty.” Water Resour. Res., 15(3), 513–520.
18.
Roy, B. (1978). “ELECTRE III: un algorithme de classements fondé sur une représentation floue des préférences en présence de critères multiples.” Cahiers du CERO, 20(1), 3–24 (in French).
19.
Roy, B. (1985). Méthodologie multicritère d'aide à la décision, Economica, Paris, France, (in French).
20.
Roy, B. (1990). “The outranking approach and the foundations of ELECTRE methods.” Readings in multiple criteria decision aid. C. A. Bana e Costa, ed., Springer Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 155–1183.
21.
Roy, B., and Bouyssou, D. (1986). “Comparison of two decision‐aid models applied to a nuclear power plant siting example.” Eur. J. Operational Res., 25(2), 200–215.
22.
Roy, B., Présent, M., and Silhol, D. (1986). “A programming method for determining which Paris metro stations should be renovated.” Eur. J. Operational Res., 24(2), 318–334.
23.
Roy, B., Slowinski, R., and Treichel, W. (1992). “Multicriteria programming of water supply systems for rural areas.” Water Resour. Bull., 28(1), 13–32.
24.
Sakawa, M. (1982). “Interactive multiobjective decision making by the sequential proxy optimization technique: SPOT.” Eur. J. Operational Res., 9, 386–396.
25.
Shafike, N. G., Duckstein, L., and Madock, T. III. (1992). “Multiobjective analysis of groundwater contamination management.” Water Resour. Bull., 28(1), 33–43.
26.
Siskos, J. (1982). “Evaluating a system of furniture retail outlets using an interactive ordinal regression method.” Cahier du LAMSADE, No. 38, Université de Paris‐Dauphine, Paris, France.
27.
Tecle, A., and Duckstein, L. (1992). “A procedure for selecting MCDM techniques for forest resources management.” Multiple criteria decision making. Theory and applications in business, industry, and government. A. Goicoechea, L. Duckstein, and S. Zionts, eds., Springer Verlag, New York, N.Y., 19–31.
28.
Tecle, A., Fogel, M., and Duckstein, L. (1988). “Multicriterion selection of waste‐water management alternatives.” J. Water Resour. Plng. and Mgmt., ASCE, 114(4), 383–398.
29.
Treichel, W. (1987). “Application of the multi‐criterion decision analysis to programming of farmer waterworks.” Przeglad Statystyczny, Cracow, Poland, 34(4), 369–384 (in Polish).
30.
Treichel, W. (1991). “A multicriterion decision aid methodics for rural water supply system programming,” PhD thesis, Technical University of Cracow, Poland, (in Polish).
31.
Vanderpooten, D. (1989). “The interactive approach in MCDA: a technical framework and some basic conceptions.” Mathematical and Comp. Modelling, 12(10–11), 1213–1220.
32.
Wang, H. F., and Anderson, M. P. (1982). Introduction to groundwater modeling. Finite difference and finite element methods. Freeman and Co., San Francisco, Calif.
33.
Zeleny, M. (1973). “Compromise programming.” Multiple criteria decision making, J. L. Cochrane and M. Zeleny, eds., University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, S.C., 262–301.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management
Volume 120 • Issue 4 • July 1994
Pages: 546 - 565
Copyright
Copyright © 1994 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Feb 10, 1993
Published online: Jul 1, 1994
Published in print: Jul 1994
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.