Group Decision and Negotiation

, Volume 23, Issue 5, pp 937–960 | Cite as

A Sorting Model for Group Decision Making: A Case Study of Water Losses in Brazil

  • Danielle Costa Morais
  • Adiel Teixeira de Almeida
  • José Rui Figueira


Many water supply systems in Brazil have serious problems related to the high index of water losses, which provokes financial and environmental impacts. This is an immediate consequence of an inadequate maintenance plan, allied to natural and budgetary constraints. In addition, in these types of problems it is commonplace to consider the opinions of many managers, such as those from the operational, environmental and financial sectors of Water Companies. In view of this, a sorting multicriteria model to support group decision making is developed. We proposed an approach which sorts the areas of the system which are located in critical zones of water losses into categories, and which takes into account different points of view and considers uncertainty in criteria weights by using only ordinal information, so as to make it viable to manage the maintenance plan and to use the scant financial resources more efficiently. The SMAA-TRI method is used to tackle the group sorting problematic by categorizing the network into zones where losses are intense and thus to focus the managers’ effort on the most critical regions. A case study in Brazil is presented to demonstrate the efficiency of the approach proposed.


Group decision Sorting problem Multiple criteria decision analysis SMAA-TRI 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Arreguín-Cortes FI, Ochoa-Alejo LH (1997) Evaluation of water losses in distribution networks. J Water Resour Planing Manag 123(5): 284–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beynon M (2006) The role of the DS/AHP in identifying inter-group alliances and majority rule within group decision making. Group Decis Negot 15(1): 21–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bregar A, Gyorkos J, Rozman I (2003) An alternative sorting procedure for interactive group decision support based on the pseudo-criterion concept. J Syst Cybern Inf 1(4): 66–71Google Scholar
  4. Chen Y, Kilgour D, Hipel K (2012) A decision rule aggregation approach to multiple criteria-multiple participant sorting. Group Decis Negot 21(5): 727–745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Conejo JGL, Lopes ARG, Marcka E (1999) Panorama dos Sistemas Públicos de Abastecimento no País. Casos selecionados de estratégias de combate ao desperdício. PNCDA—Programa Nacional de Combate ao Desperdício de Água, DTA—Documento técnicos de Apoio C2, BrasíliaGoogle Scholar
  6. Daher SFD, Almeida AT (2010) Recent patents using group decision support systems: a short review. Recent Pat Comput Sci 3: 81–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Daher SFD, Almeida AT (2012) The use of ranking veto concept to mitigate the compensatory effects of additive aggregation in group decisions on a water utility automation investment. Group Decis Negot 21(2): 185–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Damart S, Dias L, Mousseau V (2007) Supporting groups in sorting decisions: methodology and use of a multi-criteria aggregation/disaggregation DSS. Decis Support Syst 43: 1464–1475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Figueira J, Roy B (2002) Determining the weights of criteria in the ELECTRE type methods with a revised Simos’ procedure. Eur J Oper Res 139(2): 317–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Halabi AX, Montoya-Torres JR, Obregón N (2012) A case study of group decision method for environmental foresight and water resources planning using a fuzzy approach. Group Decis Negot 21(2): 205–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hamalainen RP, Kettunen E, Ehtamo H, Marttunen M (2001) Evaluating a framework for multi-stakeholder decision support in water resources management. Group Decis Negot 10: 331–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hunaidi O, Chu W, Wang A, Guan W (2000) Detecting leaks in plastic pipes. J Am Water Works Assoc 92(2): 82–94Google Scholar
  13. Jabeur K, Martel JM (2007) An ordinal sorting method for group decision-making. Eur J Oper Res 180: 1272–1289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lahdelma R, Salminen P (2001) SMAA-2: stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis for group decision making. Oper Res 49(3): 444–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lambert V, Hirner W (2002) Losses from water supply systems: standard terminology and recommended performance measures. Voda i sanitarna tehnika 32: 29–38Google Scholar
  16. MacKenzie R, Seago C (2005) Assessment of real losses in potable water distribution systems: some recent developments. Water Sci Technol Water Supply 5(1): 33–40Google Scholar
  17. Matsatsinis N, Grigoroudis E, Samaras A (2005) Aggregation and disaggregation of preferences for collective decision-making. Group Decis Negot 14(3): 217–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Morais DC, Almeida AT (2006) Water supply system decision making using multicriteria analysis. Water SA 32(2): 229–235Google Scholar
  19. Morais DC, Almeida AT (2007) Group decision-making for leakage management strategy of water network. Resour Conserv Recycl 52(2): 441–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Morais DC, Almeida AT (2010) Water network rehabilitation: a group decision-making approach. Water SA 36(4): 487–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Morais DC, Almeida AT (2012) Group decision making on water resources based on analysis of individual rankings. Omega 40: 42–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Morais DC, Cavalcante CAV, Almeida AT (2010) Prioritization of areas of loss control in water distribution networks. Pesquisa Operacional 30(1): 15–32Google Scholar
  23. Nemery P (2008) Extensions of the FlowSort sorting method for group decision-making. In: 19th International conference on multiple criteria decision making (MCDM 2008), AucklandGoogle Scholar
  24. Parreiras R, Ekel P, Morais D (2011) Fuzzy set based consensus schemes for multicriteria group decision making applied to strategic planning. Group Decis Negot 21(2): 153–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Saldarriaga JG, Ochoa S, Moreno ME, Romero N, Cortés OJ (2010) Prioritised rehabilitation of water distribution networks using dissipated power concept to reduce non-revenue water. Urban Water J 7(2): 121–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Silva VBS, Morais DC, Almeida AT (2010) A multicriteria group decision model to support watershed committees in Brazil. Water Resour Manag 24: 4075–4091CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tervonen T, Lahdelma R, Almeida Dias J, Figueira J, Salminen P (2007) SMAA-TRI: a parameter stability analysis method for ELECTRE-TRI. In: Linkov I, Kiker GA, Wenning RJ (eds) Environmental security in harbors and coastal areas. NATO Science for Peace and Security Series C: Environmental Security 2007Google Scholar
  28. Tervonen T, Figueira JR, Lahdelma R, Dias JA, Salminen P (2009) A stochastic method for robustness analysis in sorting problems. Eur J Oper Res 192(1): 236–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Trojan F, Morais DC (2012) Prioritising alternatives for maintenance of water distribution networks: a group decision approach. Water SA 38(4): 555–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Vairavamoorthy K, Lumbers J (1998) Leakage reduction in water distribution systems: optimal valve control. J Hydraul Eng 124(11): 1146–1154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Walski T, Bezts W, Posluszny ET, Weir M, Whitman BE (2006) Modeling leakage reduction through pressure control. J Am Water Works Assoc 98(4): 147–155Google Scholar
  32. Yang J, Wen Y, Li P (2007) The genetic-algorithm-enhanced blind system identification for water distribution pipeline leak detection. Meas Sci Technol 18(7): 2178–2184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Yu W (1992) ELECTRE-TRI—aspects methodologiques et guide d’utilisation. Document du Lamsade 74Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Danielle Costa Morais
    • 1
  • Adiel Teixeira de Almeida
    • 1
  • José Rui Figueira
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Federal University of PernambucoRecifeBrazil
  2. 2.CEG-IST, Instituto Superior TecnicoLisbonPortugal
  3. 3.LORIANancyFrance

Personalised recommendations