Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of Compensatory and non-Compensatory Multi Criteria Decision Making Models in Water Resources Strategic Management

  • Published:
Water Resources Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Growing water demands as well as inconsistency between water demand and water supply pose new challenges for water resources managers in arid regions. This study examines the strategies to tackle water shortage for a sustainable development in Shahrood, Iran. A contentious plan has been proposed to transfer water from the Caspian Sea in north of Iran to this region. Ensuring sustainable development, however, necessitates a strategic planning for water resources. The study develops all viable strategies for the region using Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) analysis. Due to inability of the SWOT model to rank the alternatives, the developed strategies are ranked using Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) models based on specified sustainable development criteria. The ranking is implemented using the compensatory models of Simple Additive Weighting (SAW) and Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), and the non-compensatory model of ELimination and Choice Translating REality (ELECTRE III). The results of all MCDM models introduce water transfer as the worst strategy for the region. Because of the uncertainty in the relative importance of specified criteria, sensitivity analysis is done for MCDM models by altering the criteria weights. The results show that the ELECTRE III method has lower sensitivity than the SAW and AHP methods to changes in the weights. Also, the compensatory methods exhibits a high dependency to the weights of some dominant criteria. Therefore, this research reveals that the rankings obtained from the ELECTRE III method are more reliable for decision makers to ensure a sustainable development in the region.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abrishamchi A, Ebrahimian A, Tajrishi M, Mariño MA (2005) Case study: application of multicriteria decision making to urban water supply. J Water Resour Plan Manag 131:326–335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banihabib ME (2009) Water supply studies report for Shahrood city vol vol 11. Gamasiab consulting company

  • Banihabib ME, Azarnivand A, Peralta RC (2015) A new framework for strategic planning to stabilize a shrinking lake. Lake and Reservoir Management 31:31–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banihabib ME, Shabestari MH (2016) Fuzzy hybrid MCDM model for ranking the agricultural water demand management strategies in arid areas. Water Resour Manag 1:19. doi:10.1007/s11269-016-1544-y

    Google Scholar 

  • Belton V, Stewart T (2002) Multiple criteria decision analysis: an integrated approach. Springer Science & Business Media

  • Chitsaz N, Banihabib ME (2015) Comparison of different multi criteria decision-making models in prioritizing flood management alternatives. Water Resour Manag 29:2503–2525

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallego-Ayala J, Juízo D (2011) Strategic implementation of integrated water resources management in Mozambique: an A’WOT analysis. Phys Chem Earth, Parts A/B/C 36:1103–1111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hazeltine B, Bull C (2003) Field guide to appropriate technology. Academic Press

  • Hill T, Westbrook R (1997) SWOT analysis: it's time for a product recall. Long Range Plan 30:46–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ho W (2008) Integrated analytic hierarchy process and its applications–a literature review. Eur J Oper Res 186:211–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hwang CL, Yoon K (1981) Multiple attribute decision making: method and applications, vol 186. Springer-Verlag, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeffreys I (2004) The use of compensatory and non-compensatory multi-criteria analysis for small-scale forestry. Small Scale For Econ Manag Policy 3:99–117

    Google Scholar 

  • Kangas A, Kangas J, Pykäläinen J (2001) Outranking methods as tools in strategic natural resources planning. Silva Fennica 35:215–227

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotter JP (2012) Leading change, with a new preface by the author. 1st edn. Harvard Business Review Press

  • Kurttila M, Pesonen M, Kangas J, Kajanus M (2000) Utilizing the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in SWOT analysis—a hybrid method and its application to a forest-certification case. Forest Policy Econ 1:41–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mareschal B (1988) Weight stability intervals in multicriteria decision aid. Eur J Oper Res 33(1):54–64

  • Mikhailov L (2004) A fuzzy approach to deriving priorities from interval pairwise comparison judgements. Eur J Oper Res 159:687–704. doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00432-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naseri Amin M (2011) Ranking of the important factors in locating dam site using multi criteria decision making (AHP, ELECTRE-III, TOPSIS); case study: Kamyaran and Mianrahan basin in kermanshah province. Tehran University, Iran

    Google Scholar 

  • Roy B (1968) Classement et choix en présence de points de vue multiples Revue française d'automatique, d'informatique et de recherche opérationnelle. Recherche opérationnelle 2:57–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roy B (1991) The outranking approach and the foundations of ELECTRE methods. Theor Decis 31:49–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process: planning, priority setting, resources allocation. McGraw, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Srdjevic B, Medeiros YDP (2008) Fuzzy AHP assessment of water management plans. Water Resour Manag 22:877–894

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Srdjevic B, Medeiros Y, Faria A (2004) An objective multi-criteria evaluation of water management scenarios. Water Resour Manag 18:35–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsakiris G, Spiliotis M (2011) Planning against long term water scarcity: a fuzzy Multicriteria approach. Water Resour Manag 25:1103–1129. doi:10.1007/s11269-010-9692-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United Nation (UN) (2000) United Nation Millennium Declaration. General Assembly Resolution (A/RES/55/2). UN Millennium Summit, New York, U.S.A

  • United Nation Development Program (UNDP) (2008) Human development indices: a statistical update New York, USA

  • Yang X-l, J-h D, Hou H (2013) Application of a triangular fuzzy AHP approach for flood risk evaluation and response measures analysis. Nat Hazards 68:657–674

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yüksel İ, Dagdeviren M (2007) Using the analytic network process (ANP) in a SWOT analysis–a case study for a textile firm. Inf Sci 177:3364–3382

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, Aburaihan Campus, University of Tehran, P.O. Box: 3391653755, Tehran, Iran

    Mohammad Ebrahim Banihabib

  2. Department of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, Aburaihan Campus, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

    Farkhondeh-Sadat Hashemi-Madani

  3. Civil and Environmental Engineering, Utah State University, Logan, UT, USA

    Ali Forghani

Authors
  1. Mohammad Ebrahim Banihabib
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Farkhondeh-Sadat Hashemi-Madani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ali Forghani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohammad Ebrahim Banihabib.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Banihabib, M.E., Hashemi-Madani, FS. & Forghani, A. Comparison of Compensatory and non-Compensatory Multi Criteria Decision Making Models in Water Resources Strategic Management. Water Resour Manage 31, 3745–3759 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-017-1702-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-017-1702-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation