Abstract
Selection of a good water management plan for the river basin is a complex decision-making problem because interests of stakeholders are 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)consistency they will demonstrate when evaluating and/or judging options. This chapter shows how methodologically distinct tools can efficiently support group decision-making at a group and sub-group level within water committee. We propose to firstly use analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to rank management plans in strictly multi-criteria environment and, secondly, to use social choice (voting) methods Borda Count (BC) and Approval Voting (AV) for the final ranking of reduced set of top-ranked plans as identified in the AHP. Illustrative example from Brazil is used to show usefulness of combined approach.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Aguaron J, Escobar MT, Moreno-Jiménez JM (2003) Consistency stability intervals for a judgement in AHP decision support systems. Eur J Oper Res 145(2):382–393
d’Angelo A, Eskandari A, Szidarovszky F (1998) Social choice procedures in water resources management. Environ Manag 52(3):203–210
Blagojevic B, Srdjevic Z, Bezdan A, Srdjevic B (2016a) Group decision making in land evaluation for irrigation: a case study from Serbia. J Hydro Inf 18(3):579–598
Blagojevic B, Srdjevic B, Srdjevic Z, Zoranovic T (2016b) Heuristic aggregation of individual judgments in AHP group decision making using simulated annealing algorithm. Inf Sci 330:260–273
Bolloju N (2001) Aggregation of analytic hierarchy process models based on similarities in decision makers’ preferences. Eur J Oper Res 128:499–508
Bryson N (1995) A goal programming method for generating priorities vectors. J Oper Res Soc 46:641–648
Cabrerizo FJ, Urena R, Pedrycz W, Herrera-Viedma E (2014) Building consensus in group decision making with an allocation of information granularity. Fuzzy Sets Syst 255:115–127
Chu A, Kalaba R, Springam K (1979) A comparison of two methods for determining the weights of belonging to fuzzy sets. J Optim Theory Appl l27:531–541
Crawford G, Williams C (1985) A note on the analysis of subjective judgment matrices. J Math Psychol 29:387–405
Dong YC, Xu JP (2016) Searching the consensus path with minimum adjustments. Book. In: Consensus building in group decision making. Springer, Singapore
Dong Y, Zhang H (2014) Multiperson decision making with different preference representation structures: a direct consensus framework and its properties. Knowl-Based Syst 958:45–57
Forman E, Peniwati K (1998) Aggregating individual judgments and priorities with the analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res 108:165–169
Golany B, Kress M (1993) A multicriteria evaluation of methods for obtaining weights from ratio-scale matrices. Eur J Oper Res 69:210–220
Ishizaka A, Labib A (2011) Review of the main developments in the analytic hierarchy process. Expert Syst Appl 38:14336–14345
Jonoski A, Seid AH (2016) Decision support in water resources planning and management: the Nile basin decision support system. In: Real-world decision support systems. Springer, Cham, pp 199–222
Kadziński M, Greco S, Słowiński R (2013) RUTA: a framework for assessing and selecting additive value functions on the basis of rank related requirements. Omega 41(4):735–751
Kou G, Lin C (2014) A cosine maximization method for the priority vector derivation in AHP. Eur J Oper Res 235:225–232
Lakicevic M, Srdjevic Z, Srdjevic B, Zlatic M (2014) Decision making in urban forestry by using approval voting and multicriteria approval method (case study: Zvezdarska forest, Belgrade, Serbia). Urban For Urban Green 13:114–120
Moreno-Jimenez JM, Aguaron J, Escobar MT (2008) The Core of consistency in AHP-group decision making. Group Decis Mak Negot 17:249–265
Mikhailov L (2000) A fuzzy programming method for deriving priorities in the analytic hierarchy process. J Oper Res Soc 51:341–349
Mikhailov L, Singh MG (1999) Comparison analysis of methods for deriving priorities in the analytic hierarchy process. Proc IEEE Int Conf Syst Man Cybern 1:1037–1042
Morais DC, de Almeida AT (2012) Group decision making on water resources based on analysis of individual rankings. Omega 40(1):42–52
Ramanathan R, Ganesh LS (1994) Group preference aggregating methods employed in AHP: an evaluation and intrinsic process for deriving members’ weightgages. Eur J Oper Res 79:249–265
Saaty T (2003) Decision-making with the AHP: why is the principal eigenvector necessary. Eur J Oper Res 145:85–91
Saaty T (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New York
Srdjevic Z, Srdjevic B (2014) Modelling multicriteria decision making process for sharing benefits from the reservoir at Serbia-Romania border. Water Resour Manag 28(12):4001–4018 ISSN 0920-4741
Srdjevic B, Srdjevic Z (2011) Bi-criteria evolution strategy in estimating weights from the AHP ratio-scale matrices. Appl Math Comput 218:1254–1266
Srdjevic B (2007) Linking analytic hierarchy process and social choice methods to support group decision-making in water management. Decis Support Syst 42(4):2261–2273
Srdjevic B (2005) Combining different prioritization methods in analytic hierarchy process synthesis. Comput Oper Res 32:1897–1919
Zendehdel K, Rademaker M, De Baets B, Huylenbroeck V (2010) Environmental decision making with conflicting social groups: a case study of the Lar rangeland in Iran. J Arid Envir 74(3):394–402
Acknowledgment
Authors acknowledge the financial support from the Ministry of Education and Science of Serbia under the Fundamental scientific research program in Mathematics, Computer Science, and Mechanics; Grant No. 174003 (2011-2014): Theory and application of the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in multi-criteria decision-making under conditions of risk and uncertainty (individual and group context). Support from the CNPq Federal Agency for science in Brazil is also acknowledged.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendices
Annex I. Results of Evaluation (Session 1)
Final priorities of alternative plans derived by AHP, Borda Count, and Approval Voting in three interest sub-groups
Annex II. Results of Social Choice Methods (Session 2)
Final priorities of alternative plans derived by Borda Count and Approval Voting methods in three interest groups for three top-ranked plans by AHP during Session 1
Annex III. (Evaluation Sheets)
Evaluation sheets for AHP, Borda Count, and Approval Voting methods delivered to all participants in three interest sub-groups during two sessions
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Srdjevic, B., Srdjevic, Z., Medeiros, Y.D.P. (2019). Group Evaluation of Water Management Plans with Analytic Hierarchy Process and Social Choice Methods. In: Theodoridis, A., Ragkos, A., Salampasis, M. (eds) Innovative Approaches and Applications for Sustainable Rural Development. HAICTA 2017. Springer Earth System Sciences. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02312-6_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02312-6_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-02311-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-02312-6
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)