Advertisement

Water Resources Management

, Volume 33, Issue 2, pp 591–602 | Cite as

Assessment of Sustainable Use of a Multipurpose Reservoir through the Multicriteria Approach: the Case of Corumbá IV Reservoir, Brazil

  • José Roberto RibasEmail author
  • Juan Ignacio Perez Diaz
Article
  • 46 Downloads

Abstract

This study proposes a framework for assessing and ranking a set of sustainable alternatives for instream use of the Corumba IV reservoir, a multipurpose water resource located in the center-east of Brazil. The model is structured with six applicable sustainable benefits and five sustainable water uses, identified through in-depth interviews with four interest groups. The fuzzy analytic hierarchy process was used to calculate the sustainable benefit weights and the performance of water uses relative to the sustainable benefits, which were inputs to the Electre III method, used to determine the rank order of water uses for the interest groups. The hierarchies of the set of water use preferences indicate conflicts. The results demonstrate the need to develop an institutional framework governing the sustainable multiple use of the reservoir analyzed, negotiating adverse impacts associated with population growth, regional development and mitigation of conflicts among the four stakeholders.

Keywords

Multicriteria analysis Water resource management FAHP, Electre III Multipurpose reservoir Sustainable benefits 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

None.

References

  1. Alipour MH (2015) Risk-informed decision making framework for operating a multi-purpose hydropower reservoir during flooding and high inflow events, case study: Cheakamus River system. Water Resour Manag 29:801–815.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-014-0844-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alvarado A, Esteller MV, Quentin E et al (2016) Multi-criteria decision analysis and GIS approach for prioritization of drinking water utilities protection based on their vulnerability to contamination. Water Resour Manag 30:1549–1566.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-016-1239-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bárdossy A, Duckstein L (2007) Analysis of a karstic aquifer management problem by fuzzy composite programming. J Am Water Resour Assoc 28:63–73.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.1992.tb03154.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boggia A, Rocchi L (2010) Water use scenarios assessment using multicriteria analysis. J Multicrit Decis Anal 17:125–135.  https://doi.org/10.1002/mcda.457 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boyce C, Neale P (2006) Conducting in-depth interview: a guide for designing and conducting in-depth interviews for evaluation input. Pathfinder international tool series, monitoring and evaluation 2. Pathfinder International, Watertown. Retrieved from http://www2.pathfinder.org/site/DocServer/m_e_tool_series_indepth_interviews.pdf
  6. Branche E (2017) The multipurpose water uses of hydropower reservoir: the SHARE concept. Comptes Rendus Physique 18:469–478.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crhy.2017.06.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Briedenhann J, Wickens E (2004) Tourism routes as a tool for the economic development of rural areas - vibrant hope or impossible dream? Tour Manag 25:71–79.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(03)00063-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brito MM, Evers M (2016) Multi-criteria decision-making for flood risk management: a survey of the current state of the art. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 16:1019–1033.  https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-16-1019-2016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cetinkaya CP, Gunacti MC (2018) Multi-criteria analysis of water allocation scenarios in a water scarce basin. Water Resour Manag 32:2867–2884.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-018-1963-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chang DY (1996) Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. Eur J Oper Res 95:649–655.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(95)00300-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Che D (2006) Developing ecotourism in first world, resource-dependent areas. Geoforum 37:212–226.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2005.02.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Darwiche-Criado N, Sorando R, Eismann SG et al (2017) Comparing two multi-criteria methods for prioritizing wetland restoration and creation sites based on ecological, biophysical and socio-economic factors. Water Resour Manag 31:1227–1241.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-017-1572-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fedrizzi M, Krejčí J (2015) A note on the paper “fuzzy analytic hierarchy process: fallacy of the popular methods”. Int J Uncertain Fuzzy 23:965.  https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218488515500440 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Few R, Brown K, Tompkins E (2007) Public participation and climate change adaptation: avoiding the illusion of inclusion. Clim Pol 7:46–59.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2007.9685637 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Figueira J, Greco S, Roy B, Slowinski R (2010) Electre methods: main features and recent developments. Cahier du Lamsade 298. Laboratoire d'Analyse et Modélisation de Systèmes pour l'Aide à la Décision - Dauphine Université, Paris hal-00876980Google Scholar
  16. Govindan K, Jepsen MB (2016) ELECTRE: a comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications. Eur J Oper Res 250:1–29.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.07.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Honey M (2008) Ecotourism and sustainable development: who onws paradise? 2nd edn. Island Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  18. Hsieh HF, Shannon SE (2005) Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res 15:1277–1288.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. IBGE (2018) Brasil panorama. Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística, Rio de Janeiro. Retrieved from https://cidades.ibge.gov.br/brasil/panorama
  20. Jaiswal RK, Ghosh NC, Lohani AK et al (2015) Fuzzy AHP based multi criteria decision support for watershed prioritization. Water Resour Manag 29:4205–4227.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-015-1054-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jenerette GD, Larsen L (2006) A global perspective on changing sustainable urban water supplies. Glob Planet Chang 50:202–211.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2006.01.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kubler S, Robert J, Derigent W et al (2016) A state-of the-art survey & testbed of fuzzy AHP (FAHP) applications. Expert Syst Appl 65:398–422.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2016.08.064 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kumar P, Thakur PK, Bansod BK et al (2017) Multi-criteria evaluation of hydro-geological and anthropogenic parameters for the groundwater vulnerability assessment. Environ Monit Assess 189:564.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-017-6267-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Liang C, Xin S, Dongsheng W et al (2016) The ecological benefit–loss evaluation in a riverine wetland for hydropower projects – a case study of Xiaolangdi reservoir in the Yellow River, China. Ecol Eng 96:34–44.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2015.12.037 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lu H, Feng M, He L et al (2015) Optimization-based multicriteria decision analysis for identification of desired petroleum-contaminated groundwater remediation strategies. Environ Sci Pollut Res 22:9505–9514.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-015-4081-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Martin DM, Hermoso V, Pantusd F, Olley J, Linke S, Poff L (2016) A proposed framework to systematically design and objectively evaluate non-dominated restoration tradeoffs for watershed planning and management. Ecol Econ 127:146–155.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.04.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mostafazadeh R, Sadoddin A, Bahremand A et al (2017) Scenario analysis of flood control structures using a multi-criteria decision-making technique in Northeast Iran. Nat Hazards 87:1827–1846.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-017-2851-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pisinaras V, Polychronis C, Gemitzi A (2016) Intrinsic groundwater vulnerability determination at the aquifer scale: a methodology coupling travel time estimation and rating methods. Environ Earth Sci 75:85.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-015-4965-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ren L, He L, Lu H, Li J (2017) Rough-interval-based multicriteria decision analysis for remediation of 1,1-dichloroethane contaminated groundwater. Chemosphere 168:244–253.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2016.10.042 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ribas JR (2014) An assessment of conflicting intentions in the use of multipurpose water reservoirs. Water Resour Manag 28:3989–4000.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-014-0722-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Richter BD, Mathews R, Harrison DL et al (2003) Ecologically sustainable water management: managing river flows for ecological integrity. Ecol Appl 13:206–224. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2003)013[0206:ESWMMR]2.0.CO;2Google Scholar
  32. Rossi G, Cancelliere A, Giuliano G (2005) Case study: multicriteria assessment of drought mitigation measures. J Water Resour Plan Manag 131:449.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(2005)131:6(449 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Srdjevic Z, Srdjevic B (2014) Modelling multicriteria decision making process for sharing benefits from the reservoir at Serbia-Romania border. Water Resour Manag 28:4001–4018.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-014-0723-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. The International Ecotourism Society (1990) What is ecotourism? https://www.ecotourism.org/what-is-ecotourism
  35. Trojan F, Morais DC (2015) Multicriteria decision analysis applied to water supply network. In: Guarnieri P (ed) Decision models in engineering and management. Decision engineering. Springer, Cham, pp 197–223.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11949-6_11 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Yilmaz B, Harmancioglu NB (2010) Multi-criteria decision making for water resource management: a case study of the Gediz River Basin, Turkey. Water SA 36(5):563–576.  https://doi.org/10.4314/wsa.v36i5.61990 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Zardari NH, Ian Cordery I, Sharma A (2010) An objective multiattribute analysis approach for allocation of scarce irrigation water resources. J Am Water Resour Assoc 46:412–428.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2009.00410.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Zavadskas EK, Antucheviciene J, Vilutiene T et al (2018) Sustainable decision-making in civil engineering, construction and building technology. Sustainability 10:1–22.  https://doi.org/10.3390/su10010014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zhu F, Zhong P, Sun Y, Xu B (2017) Selection of criteria for multi-criteria decision making of reservoir flood control operation. J Hydroinf 19:558–571.  https://doi.org/10.2166/hydro.2017.059 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zopounidis C, Doumpos M (2002) Multicriteria classification and sorting methods: a literature review. Eur J Oper Res 138:229–246.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(01)00243-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • José Roberto Ribas
    • 1
    Email author
  • Juan Ignacio Perez Diaz
    • 2
  1. 1.Centro de TecnologiaUniversidade Federal do Rio de JaneiroRio de JaneiroBrazil
  2. 2.Universidad Politécnica de MadridMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations