Advertisement

Water Resources Management

, Volume 25, Issue 2, pp 641–659 | Cite as

Integrated Use of a Continuous Simulation Model and Multi-Attribute Decision-Making for Ranking Urban Watershed Management Alternatives

  • Eun-Sung Chung
  • Won-Pyo Hong
  • Kil Seong Lee
  • Steven J. Burian
Article

Abstract

The objective of this paper is to introduce a continuous simulation-based screening procedure for ranking urban watershed management alternatives using multi-attribute decision making (MADM). The procedure integrates continuous urban runoff simulation results from the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s Storm Water Management Model (SWMM) with the use of an alternative evaluation index (AEI) and MADM techniques, following the driver-pressure-state-impact-response (DPSIR) approach. The analytic hierarchy process estimates the weights of the criteria, and SWMM results are used to quantify the effects of the management alternatives on water quantity and quality metrics. In addition, the tendency of AEI to reflect resident preferences toward management objectives is incorporated to include stakeholder participation in the decision-making process. This systematic decision support process is demonstrated for a Korean urban watershed. According to the AEI, seven alternatives were divided into three groups: poor (0∼0.3), acceptable (0.3∼0.6), and good (0.6∼1). The use of multiple MADM techniques provided a consistency check. The demonstration illustrates the ability of the continuous simulation-based MADM approach to provide decision makers with a ranking of suitable urban watershed management alternatives which incorporate stakeholder feedback.

Keywords

Alternative evaluation index Decision support system Urban watershed management DPSIR 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Albek M, Öğütveren UB, Albek E (2003) Hydrological modeling of Seydi Suyu watershed (Turkey) with HSPF. J Hydrol 285:260–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alberti M, Booth D, Hill K, Coburn B, Avolio C, Coe S, Spirandelli D (2007) The impact of urban patterns on aquatic ecosystems: an empirical analysis in Puget lowland sub-basins. Landsc Urban Plan 80:345–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boyer M, Burian SJ (2002) The effects of construction activities and the preservation of indigenous vegetation on stormwater runoff rates in urbanizing landscapes. In: Proceedings, indigenous vegetation within urban development, 14–16 August 2002, Uppsala, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  4. Choi W, Deal BM (2008) Assessing hydrological impact of potential land use change through hydrological and land use change modeling for the Kishwaukee River basin (USA). J Environ Manage 88(4):1119–1130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chung ES, Lee KS (2009a) Prioritization of water management for sustainability using hydrologic simulation model and multicriteria decision making techniques. J Environ Manage 90(5):1502–1511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chung ES, Lee KS (2009b) Identification of spatial ranking of hydrological vulnerability using multi-criteria decision making techniques: case of Korea. Water Resour Manage 23(12):2395–2416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Davis MD (2007) Integrated water resource management and water sharing. J Water Resour Plan Manage 133(5):427–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. European Environment Agency (1999) Environmental indicators: typology and overview. European Environment Agency, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  9. Fassio A, Giupponi C, Hiederer R, Simota C (2005) A decision support tool for simulating the effects of alternative policies affecting water resources: an application at the European scale. J Hydrol 304:462–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fattahi P, Fayyaz S (2010) A compromise programming model to integrate urban water management. Water Resour Manage 24(6):1211–1227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Giupponi C, Mysiak J, Fassio A, Cogan V (2004) MULINO-DSS: a computer tool for sustainable use of water resources at the catchment scale. Math Comput Simul 64:13–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goicoechea A, Duckstein L, Fogel M (1976) Multiobjective programming in watershed management: a case study of Charleston watershed. Water Resour Res 12(6):1085–1092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Guinaräes LT, Magrini A (2008) A proposal of indicators for sustainable development in the magagement of river basins. Water Resour Manage 22(9):1191–1202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hartmann L, Torno C, Bogardi I, Higler L (1987) Methodological guidelines for the integrated environmental evaluation of water resources development. Unep/Unesco Project FP/5201-85-01, ParisGoogle Scholar
  15. Heaney JP, Wright L, Sample D (2000) Chapter 3 sustainable urban water management. In: Field R, Heaney JP, Pitt R (eds) Innovative urban wet-weather flow management systems, pp 75–120Google Scholar
  16. Hinloopen E, Nijkamp P (1990) Qualitative multiple criteria choice analysis, the dominant regime method. Qual Quant 24:37–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hobbs BF, Chankong V, Hamadeh W, Stakhiv EZ (1992) Does choice of multicriteria method matter? An experiment in water resources planning. Water Resour Res 28:1767–1779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hollis GE (1975) Effect of urbanization on floods of different recurrence intervals. Water Resour Res 11(3):431–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Huber WC, Dickinson RE (1998) Storm water management model, version 4: user manual, EPA 600/3-88/001a. Environmental Research Laboratory, EPA, AthensGoogle Scholar
  20. ICSU (International Council for Science) (2002) Making science for sustainable development more policy relevant: new tools for analysis, ICSU series on science for sustainable development, no 8Google Scholar
  21. Jang JH, Park HS, Park CK (2006) Analysis of the effects of sewer system on urban stream using PCSWMM based on GIS. J Korean Soc Water Qual 22(6):982–990 (in Korean)Google Scholar
  22. Janssen R, van Herwijnen M (1992) DEFINITE: decisions on a finite set of alternatives. Institute for Environmental Studies. Kluwer, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  23. Janssen R, van Herwijnen M, Beinat E (2000) DEFINITE: decisions on a finite set of alternatives. Institute for Environmental Studies. Vrije Universiteit, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  24. Jayakrishnan R, Srinivasan R, Santhi C, Arnold JG (2005) Advances in the application of the SWAT model for water resources management. Hydrol Process 19(3):749–762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kiker GA, Bridges TA, Varghese A, Seager TP, Linkov I (2005) Application of multicriteria decision analysis in environmental decision making. Integ Environ Assess Manage 1(2):95–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Klein R (1979) Urbanization and stream quality impairment. Water Resour Bull 15(4):948–963Google Scholar
  27. KOWACO (2007) Groundwater survey 2007. Ministry of Construction and Transportation, SeoulGoogle Scholar
  28. Lahdelma R, Salminen P, Hokkanen J (2000) Using multicriteria methods in environmental planning and management. Environ Manage 26:595–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lee KS (2008) Rehabilitation of the hydrologic cycle in the Anyangcheon watershed. Seoul National University, SeoulGoogle Scholar
  30. Lee KS, Chung ES (2007) Development of integrated watershed management schemes for intensively urbanized region in Korea. J Hydro-Environ Res 1(2):95–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lee KS, Chung ES, Kim YO (2008) Integrated watershed management for mitigating streamflow depletion in an urbanized watershed in Korea. Phys Chem Earth 33(5):382–394Google Scholar
  32. Mishra A, Kar S, Singh VP (2007) Determination of runoff and sediment yield from a small watershed in sub-humid subtropics using the HSPF model. Hydrol Process 21:3035–3045CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nash JE, Sutcliffe JV (1970) River flow forecasting through conceptual models, part 1—a discussion of principles. J Hydrol 10(3):282–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nijkamp P, Rietveld P, Voogd H (1990) Multicriteria evaluation in physical planning. North Holland, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  35. Novotny V (2003) Water quality: diffuse pollution and watershed management. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  36. Opricovic S (2009) A compromise solution in water resources planning. Water Resour Manage 23(8):1549–1561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pitt RE, Chen SE, Clark SE, Swenson J, Ong CK (2008) Compaction’s impacts on urban storm-water infiltration. J Irrig Drain Eng 134(5):652–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Raju KS, Duckstein L (2004) Integrated application of cluster and multicriterion analysis for ranking water resources planning strategies: a case study in Spain. J Hydroinform 6:295–307Google Scholar
  39. Refsgaard JC (1997) Parameterization, calibration and validation of distributed hydrologic models. J Hydrol 198:69–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rossman L (2009) Storm water management model user’s manual, version 5.0. EPA/600/R-05/040, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, CincinnatiGoogle Scholar
  41. Roy B, Slowinski R, Treichel W (1992) Multicriteria programming of water supply systems for rural areas. Water Resour Bull 28:129–140Google Scholar
  42. Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  43. Santhi C, Arnold JG, Williams JR, Srinivasan R, Hauck LM (2001) Validation of the SWAT model on a large river basin with point and non point sources. J Am Water Resour Assoc 37(5):1169–1188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schueler T (1994) The importance of imperviousness. Watershed Prot Tech 1(3):100–111Google Scholar
  45. Sulis M, Marrocu M, Paniconi C (2009) Conjunctive use of a hydrological model and a multicriteria decision support system for a case study on the Caia catchment, Portugal. J Hydrol Eng 14(2):141–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tecle A, Fogel M, Duckstein L (1988) Mulitcriterion selection of wastewater management alternatives. J Water Resour Plan Manage 14:383–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tripathi MP, Panda RK (2005) Development of effective management plan for critical subwatersheds using SWAT model. Hydrol Process 19(3):809–826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Trombino G, Dirrone N, Cinnirella S (2007) A business-as-usual scenario analysis for the Po Basin-North Adriatic continuum. Water Resour Manage 21(12):2063–2074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Voogd H (1982) Multicriteria evaluation with mixed qualitative and quantitative data. Environ Plan B 9:221–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. WSM (2004) The waterstrategyman DSS: a comprehensive decision support system for the development of sustainable water management strategies. EU DG Research, Contract No: EVK1-CT-2001-00098Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eun-Sung Chung
    • 1
  • Won-Pyo Hong
    • 2
  • Kil Seong Lee
    • 3
  • Steven J. Burian
    • 4
  1. 1.College of Civil EngineeringSeoul National University of Science and TechnologyNowon-guRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.Daerim CorporationSeoulRepublic of Korea
  3. 3.Civil & Environmental EngineeringSeoul National UniversitySeoulRepublic of Korea
  4. 4.Civil & Environmental EngineeringUniversity of UtahSalt Lake CityUSA

Personalised recommendations