Water Resources Management

, Volume 28, Issue 2, pp 527–540 | Cite as

Integrating Stakeholders’ Preferences into Water Resources Management Planning in the Incomati River Basin



Stakeholder participation is a key principle of the integrated water resources management. It is a central issue in planning and decision making processes for the development of suitable water resources management strategies at the river basin level. This study tests a methodology for identifying stakeholders’ preferences regarding water resources management objectives, to incorporate them in the design of water resources management plans at the river basin level. The empirical application of this study focused in Mozambique, on the Incomati river basin. This research applies the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) method to evaluate stakeholders’ involvement and participation in the selection of water resources management plans. This research revealed that there are heterogeneities in stakeholders’ individual groups preferences regarding water resources management objectives and the management options of their satisfaction. Furthermore it revealed the potential utility of the AHP methodological framework in facilitating stakeholders’ participation and involvement in planning and decision-making processes for the development of water resources management plans. The application of this approach may improve water governance at the river basin level through higher commitments of stakeholders to the proposed objectives.


AHP IWRM Mozambique River basin Stakeholders 


  1. Ananda J, Herath G (2003) The use of analytic hierarchy process to incorporate stakeholder preferences into regional forest planning. Forest Policy Econ 5:13–26. doi:10.1016/S1389-9341(02)00043-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. ARA-Sul (Administração Regional de Águas do Sul) (2004) ARA-Sul Business Plan. vol. 1. Main Report. ARA-SUL MaputoGoogle Scholar
  3. AustralCowi, Aurecon (2011) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) for Completion of the Corumana Dam. Volume 1 to 4. Consultancy report. National Directorate of Water MaputoGoogle Scholar
  4. Barziali J, Golani B (1994) AHP rank reversal, normalization and aggregation rules. Informatics 32:93–102Google Scholar
  5. Blackstock KL, Waylen KA, Dunglinson J, Marshall KM (2012) Linking process to outcomes—internal and external criteria for a stakeholder involvement in river basin management planning. Ecol Econ 77:113–122. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.02.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Börjeson L, Höjer M, Dreborg KH, Ekvall T, Finnveden G (2006) Scenario types and techniques: towards a user’s guide. Futures 38:723–739. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2005.12.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bryson JM (2004) What to do when stakeholders matter. Stakeholder identification and analysis techniques. Public Manag Rev 6:21–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Calizaya A, Meixner O, Bengstoon L, Berndtsson R (2010) Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) for integrated water resources management (IWRM) in the lake Poopo basin, Bolivia. Water Resour Manage 24:2267–2289. doi:10.1007/s11269-009-9551-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carmo-Vaz A, Pereira A (2000) The Incomati and Limpopo international river basins: a view from downstream. Water Policy 2:99–112. doi:10.1016/S1366-7017(99)00024-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chikozho C (2008) Globalizing integrated water resources management: a complicated option in Southern Africa. Water Resour Manage 22:1241–1257. doi:10.1007/s11269-007-9223-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dong C, Schoups G, van de Giesen N (2013) Scenario development for water resources management planning and management: a review. Tech Forecast Soc Chang 80:749–761. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2012.09.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dyer J (1990) Remarks on the analytic hierarchy process. Manag Sci 36:249–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gallego-Ayala J (2013) Trends in integrated water resources management research: a literature review. Water Policy 15:628–647. doi:10.2166/wp.2013.149 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gallego-Ayala J, Juizo D (2011) Strategic implementation of integrated water resources management in Mozambique: an A’WOT analysis. Phys Chem Earth 36:1103–1111. doi:10.1016/j.pce.2011.07.040 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gallego-Ayala J, Juízo D (2012) Performance evaluation of River Basin Organizations to implement integrated water resources management using composite indexes. Phys Chem Earth 50–5:205–216. doi:10.1016/j.pce.2012.08.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Giordano R, Passarella G, Uricchio VF, Vurro M (2007) Integrating conflict analysis and consensus in decision support system for water resources management. J Environ Manage 84:213–228. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.05.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. GoM (Government of Mozambique) (2007a) Water Policy. Republic of MozambiqueGoogle Scholar
  18. GoM (Government of Mozambique) (2007b) Nacional Water Resources Strategy. Republic of MozambiqueGoogle Scholar
  19. Grimble R, Wellard K (1997) Stakeholders methodologies in Natural Resoure Management: a review o principles, context, experiences and opportunities. Agric Syst 55:173–193. doi:10.1016/S0308-521X(97)00006-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hajkowicz S, Collins K (2007) A review of multiple criteria analysis for water resource planning and management. Water Resour Manag 21:1553–1566. doi:10.1007/s11269-006-9112-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Harmancioglu NB, Barbaros F, Cetinkaya CP (2013) Sustainability issues in water management. Water Resour Manage 27:1867–1891. doi:10.1007/s11269-012-0172-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Harrison SR, Qureshi ME (2000) Choice of stakeholder groups and members in multi-criteria decision models. Nat Resour Forum 24:11–19. doi:10.1111/j.1477-8947.2000.tb00925.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Herath G, Prato T (2006) Role of multi-criteria decision making in natural resources management. In: Herath G, Prato T (eds) Using multi-criteria decision making in natural resources management. Ashgate Publishing, Hampshire, pp 1–10Google Scholar
  24. Huang IB, Keisler J, Linkov I (2011) Multi-criteria decision analysis in environmental sciences: Ten years of applications and trends. Sci Total Environ 409:3578–3594. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.06.022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ishizaka A, Labib A (2011) Review of the main developments in the analytic hierarchy process. Expert Syst Appl 38:14336–14345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ishizaka A, Balkenborg D, Kaplan T (2011) Influence of aggregation and measurement scale on ranking a compromise alternative in AHP. J Oper Res Soc 62:700–710. doi:10.1057/jors.2010.23 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Islam S, Susskind LE (2013) Water diplomacy. A negotiated approach to managing complex networks. The RFF press water policy series, Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. JIBS (2000) Joint Inkomati Basin Study Phase 2. Consultec in association with BKS Acres, MaputoGoogle Scholar
  29. Kangas J (1994a) An approach to public participation in strategic forest management planning. Forest Ecol Manage 70:75–88. doi:10.1016/0378-1127(94)90076-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kangas J (1994b) Incorporating risk attitude into comparison of reforestation alternatives. Scand J For Res 9:297–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kangas J, Pukkala T, Kangas AS (2001) HERO: Heuristic optimisation for multi-criteria forestry decision making. In: Schmoldt DL, Kangas J, Mendoza GA, Pesonen M (eds) The Analytic Hierarchy Process in Natural Resource and Environmental Decision Making. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands, pp 51–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. LeMarie M, Van der Zaag P, Menting G, Baquete E, Schotanus D (2006) The use of remote sensing for monitoring environmental indicators: the case of the Incomati estuary, Mozambique. Phys Chem Earth 31:857–863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Marttunen M, Hämäläinen RP (2008) The decision analysis interview approach in the collaborative management of a large regulated water course. Environ Manage 42:1026–1042. doi:10.1007/s00267-008-9200-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Messner F (2006) Applying participatory multicriteria methods to river basin management: improving the implementation of the water framework directive. Environ Plan C-Gov Policy 24:159–167. doi:10.1068/c2402ed CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Millet I, Wedley W (2002) Modelling risk and uncertainty with the Analytic Hierarchy Process. J Multi-Criteria Decis Anal 11:97–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mostert E (2003) The challenges of public participation. Water Policy 5:179–197Google Scholar
  37. Pahl-Wostl C (2008) Requirements for adaptative water management. In: Pahl-Wostl C, Kabat P, Molten J (eds) Adaptative an integarted water management: coping with complexity and uncertainty. Springer, Berlin, pp 1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pollard S, du Toit D (2011) Towards adaptive integrated water resources management in Southern Africa: the role of self-organisation and multi-scale feedbacks for learning and responsiveness in the letaba and crocodile catchments. Water Resour Manage 25:4019–4035. doi:10.1007/s11269-011-9904-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Reed MS, Graves A, Dandy N, Posthumus H, Hubaeck K, Morris J, Prell C, Quinn CH, Stringer LC (2009) Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resources management. J Environ Manage 90:1933–1949. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.01.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  41. Saaty TL (2001) Decision Making with Dependence and Feedback The Analytic Network Process The organization and prioritization of complexity, 2nd edn. RWS publications, PittsburghGoogle Scholar
  42. Saaty TL, Vargas L (2006) Decision making with the analytic network process: economic, political, social and technological applications with benefits, opportunities, costs and risks. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  43. Schmoldt DL, Mendoza GA, Kangas K (2001) Past developments and future directions for the AHP in natural resources. In: Schmoldt DL, Kangas J, Mendoza GA, Pesonen M (eds) The analytic hierarchy process in natural resource and environmental decision making. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands, pp 289–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sengo D, Kachapila A, van der Zaag P, Mul M, Nkomo S (2005) Valuing environmental water pulses into the Incomati estuary: key to achieving equitable and sustainable utilisation of transboundary waters. Phys Chem Earth 30:648–657. doi:10.1016/j.pce.2005.08.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Slinger JH, Hilders M, Juizo D (2010) The practice of transboundary decision-making on the Incomati River: elucidating underlying factors and their implications for institutional design. Ecol Soc 15(1):1Google Scholar
  46. Stam A, Duarte Silva P (2003) On multiplicative priority rating methods for the AHP. Eur J Oper Res 145:92–108. doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(02)00228-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Straton AT, Jackson S, Marinoni O, Proctor W, Woodward E (2011) Exploring and evaluating scenarios for a river catchment in northern Australia using scenarios development, Multi-criteria analysis and a deliberative process as a tool for planning. Water Resour Manage 25:141–164. doi:10.1007/s11269-010-9691-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sweco & associates (2009) Augmentation of water supply to the City of Maputo and its metropolitan area. FIPAG, MaputoGoogle Scholar
  49. UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) (2009) IWRM guidelines at River Basin Level. Part 1: Principles. UNESCO, ParisGoogle Scholar
  50. van der Zaag P, Carmo-Vaz A (2003) Sharing the Incomati waters: cooperation and competition in the balance. Water Policy 5:349–368Google Scholar
  51. van Ogtrop FF, Hoekstra AY, van der Muelen F (2005) Flood management in the lower Incomati river basin, Mozambique: two alternatives. J Am Water Resour Assoc 41:607–619. doi:10.1111/j.1752-1688.2005.tb03758.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Water Regulatory Council of MozambiqueMaputoMozambique
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringEduardo Mondlane UniversityMaputoMozambique

Personalised recommendations