Multicriteria and Social Choice Methods in Assessing Water Management Plans

Selection of a good water management plan for the river basin is a complex decision-making problem because interests of stakeholders are usually confronted, rarely in complete agreement. If water committee has to emulate interest and power of key parties, decision-making process can be organized in many different ways, depending on adopted methodology for deriving decisions and formalizing setup to implement solutions. Group context brings individuals with different background, attitude and (in)consistencies they will demonstrate while evaluating and/or judging options. In this paper, we show how two methodologically distinct tools can efficiently support group decision making at a group and sub-group level within committee. We propose to firstly use analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to rank management plans, and secondly, to use voting method Borda Count (BC) for final ranking of plans selected by post analysis of the AHP results. Illustrative example from Brazil is used to show usefulness of combined approach.

[1]  M. Singh,et al.  Comparison analysis of methods for deriving priorities in the analytic hierarchy process , 1999, IEEE SMC'99 Conference Proceedings. 1999 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (Cat. No.99CH37028).

[2]  Gang Kou,et al.  A cosine maximization method for the priority vector derivation in AHP , 2014, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[3]  B. Golany,et al.  A multicriteria evaluation of methods for obtaining weights from ratio-scale matrices , 1993 .

[4]  Ferenc Szidarovszky,et al.  Social choice procedures in water-resource management , 1998 .

[5]  Bojan Srdjevic,et al.  Combining different prioritization methods in the analytic hierarchy process synthesis , 2005, Comput. Oper. Res..

[6]  D. C. Morais,et al.  Group decision making on water resources based on analysis of individual rankings , 2012 .

[7]  Bojan Srdjevic,et al.  Linking analytic hierarchy process and social choice methods to support group decision-making in water management , 2007, Decis. Support Syst..

[8]  G. Crawford,et al.  A note on the analysis of subjective judgment matrices , 1985 .

[9]  Noel Bryson,et al.  A Goal Programming Method for Generating Priority Vectors , 1995 .

[10]  R. Kalaba,et al.  A comparison of two methods for determining the weights of belonging to fuzzy sets , 1979 .

[11]  B. Baets,et al.  Environmental decision making with conflicting social groups: A case study of the Lar rangeland in Iran , 2010 .

[12]  T. Saaty,et al.  The Analytic Hierarchy Process , 1985 .

[13]  Andreja Jonoski,et al.  Decision Support in Water Resources Planning and Management: The Nile Basin Decision Support System , 2016 .

[14]  Roman Słowiński,et al.  RUTA: a framework for assessing and selecting additive value functions on the basis of rank related requirements , 2013 .

[15]  Ludmil Mikhailov,et al.  A fuzzy programming method for deriving priorities in the analytic hierarchy process , 2000, J. Oper. Res. Soc..

[16]  Bojan Srdjevic,et al.  Heuristic aggregation of individual judgments in AHP group decision making using simulated annealing algorithm , 2016, Inf. Sci..

[17]  Bojan Srdjevic,et al.  Bi-criteria evolution strategy in estimating weights from the AHP ratio-scale matrices , 2011, Appl. Math. Comput..

[18]  Witold Pedrycz,et al.  Building consensus in group decision making with an allocation of information granularity , 2014, Fuzzy Sets Syst..

[19]  Thomas L. Saaty,et al.  Decision-making with the AHP: Why is the principal eigenvector necessary , 2003, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[20]  Alessio Ishizaka,et al.  Review of the main developments in the analytic hierarchy process , 2011, Expert Syst. Appl..