Advertisement

Water Resources Management

, Volume 32, Issue 9, pp 2955–2968 | Cite as

An Approach for Supporting Problem Structuring in Water Resources Management and Planning

  • Vanessa B. Schramm
  • Fernando Schramm
Article
  • 243 Downloads

Abstract

The watershed committees in Brazil often face difficulties to find out consensus solution for problems in water resources management and planning, due to multiple participants with different backgrounds, differences of opinion, conflict of interests and differences in perceiving and interpretation of problem and solution. This situation results in conflicts and consequently put activities of committees at risk. The Problem Structuring Methods – PSMs are techniques to structure problems and analyze similar type of problems. PSMs offer a way of representing the situation to provide clarity to participants in understanding the problem and lead to converging on potential agreeable actions for at least partial resolutions. This paper presents a group decision approach for supporting water resources management and planning, based on the use of the PSM Strategic Options Development and Analysis – SODA, which performs the cognitive mapping of individuals. The approach promotes a common understanding about a complex situation under investigation, assisting the group in identification of a course of actions for solving the problem. The approach is intended to support Brazilian watershed committees and it was applied to the committee of the Paraíba River watershed in northeastern Brazil. Using this approach, the committee identified inadequate watershed management as a major issue that must be undertaken in order to achieve mitigation of watershed degradation.

Keywords

Group decision Problem structuring methods Cognitive mapping SODA Watershed committee 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the committee of the Paraíba River watershed for its collaboration in applying the proposed model and the suggestions made by anonymous reviewers, which have contributed to make this a better final version. The Brazilian Research Council – CNPq, funded this research.

References

  1. Ackermann F (2012) Problem structuring methods ‘in the Dock’: Arguing the case for Soft OR. Eur J Oper Res 219(3):652–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ackermann F, Eden C (2001) SODA-Journey making and mapping in practice. In: Rosenhead J, Mingers J (eds) Rational Analysis for a Problematic World Revisited: Problem Structuring Methods for Complexity, Uncertainty and Conflict. John Wiley & Sons, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  3. Ackermann F, Eden C (2010) Strategic Options Development and Analysis. In: Reynolds M, Holwell S (eds) Systems Approaches to Managing Change: A Practical Guide. Springer, London, pp 135–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Almeida S, Morais DC, Almeida AT (2014) Aggregation of stakeholder viewpoints using the value-focused thinking methodology in association with cognitive maps. Production 24(1):144–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brans JP, Vincke P (1985) A preference ranking organization method (The PROMETHEE method for multiple criteria decision-making). Manag Sci 31(6):647–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bryant J (1997) Requirements capture using SODA. Eur J Inf Syst 6(3):155–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Caruzzo A, Belderrain MC, Fisch G, Manso DF (2015) The Mapping of Aerospace Meteorology in the Brazilian Space Program-Challenges and Opportunities for Rocket Launch. J Aerosp Technol Manag 7(1):7–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Checkland P (2001) Soft Systems Methodology. In: Rosenhead J, Mingers J (eds) Rational Analysis for a Problematic World Revisited: Problem Structuring Methods for Complexity, Uncertainty and Conflict, 2nd edn. Wiley, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  9. Coelho AC, Labadie JW, Fontane DG (2012) Multicriteria decision support system for regionalization of integrated water resources management. Water Resour Manag 26(5):1325–1346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dias R, Cabral AS, López B, Belderrain MCN (2016) The Use of Cognitive Maps for Requirements Elicitation in Product Development. J Aerosp Technol Manag 8(2):178–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eden C (2004) Analyzing cognitive maps to help structure issues or problems. Eur J Oper Res 159(3):673–686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eden C, Ackermann F (2001) SODA-The Principle. In: Rosenhead J, Mingers J (eds) Rational Analysis for a Problematic World Revisited: Problem Structuring Methods for Complexity, Uncertainty and Conflict, 2nd edn. Wiley, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  13. Eden C, Ackermann F (2004) Cognitive mapping expert views for policy analysis in the public sector. Eur J Oper Res 152(3):615–630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fontana ME, Morais DC (2013) Using Promethee V to Select Alternatives so as to Rehabilitate Water Supply Network with Detected Leaks. Water Resour Manag 27(11):4021–4037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Friend P (2001) The Strategic Choice Approach. In: Rosenhead J, Mingers J (eds) Rational Analysis for a Problematic World Revisited: Problem Structuring Methods for Complexity, Uncertainty and Conflict. Wiley, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  16. Georgiou I (2011) Cognitive Mapping and Strategic Options Development and Analysis (SODA). In: Cochran JJ, Cox LA Jr, Pinar K, Kharoufeh JP, Smith JC (eds) Wiley Encyclopedia of Operations Research and Management Science. Wiley, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  17. Hajkowicz S (2008) Supporting multi-stakeholder environmental decisions. J Environ Manag 88(4):607–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hjortsø CN (2004) Enhancing public participation in natural resource management using Soft OR––an application of strategic option development and analysis in tactical forest planning. Eur J Oper Res 152(3):667–683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Karjalainen TP, Rossi PM, Ala-aho P, Eskelinen R, Reinikainen K, Kløve B et al (2013) A decision analysis framework for stakeholder involvement and learning in groundwater management. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 17:5141–5153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Keeney RL (1996) Value-Focused Thinking: A Path to Creative Decision Making. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  21. Levino NA, Morais DC (2011) A proposal for structuring and evaluating problems for participatory decision making in sanitation context. IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, AnchorageCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Liao S-H (2008) Problem structuring methods in military command and control. Expert Syst Appl 35(3):645–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Liu S, Crossman ND, Nolan M, Ghirmay H (2013) Bringing ecosystem services into integrated water resources management. J Environ Manag 129:92–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Manso DF, Suterio R, Belderrain MC (2015) Mapping out Sao Paulo state’s disaster management system through. Gestão e Produção 22(1):4–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Medeiros DFKL, Urtiga MM, Morais DC (2017) Integrative negotiation model to support water resources management. J Clean Prod 150:148–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mingers J, Rosenhead J (2001) Diverse unity: Looking inward and outward. In: Rosenhead J, Mingers J (eds) Rational Analysis for a Problematic World Revisited: Problem Structuring Methods for Complexity, Uncertainty and Conflict. Wiley, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  27. Mingers J, Rosenhead J (2004) Problem structuring methods in action. Eur J Oper Res 152(3):530–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Morton A, Ackermann F, Belton V (2003) Technology-driven and model-driven approaches to group decision support. Focus, research philosophy, and key concepts. Eur J Inf Syst 12:110–126.Google Scholar
  29. Mutikanga HE, Sharma SK, Vairavamoorthy K (2011) Multi-criteria Decision Analysis: A Strategic Planning Tool for Water Loss Management. Water Resour Manag 25:3947–3969CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Oliveira MDNT, Ferreira FAF, Pérez-Bustamante Ilander GO (2017) Integrating cognitive mapping and MCDA for bankruptcy prediction in small- and medium-sized enterprises. J Oper Res Soc 68(9):985–997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ribeiro MF, Ribeiro MM, Varanda MP (2016) Public participation for bulk water charge: Paraíba River Basin Committee (Brazil) and Alentejo Hydrographic Region Council (Portugal) cases study. RBRH 21(4):777–788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Roozbahani A, Zahraie B, Tabesh M (2012) PROMETHEE with Precedence Order in the Criteria (PPOC) as a New Group Decision Making Aid: An Application in Urban Water Supply Management. Water Resour Manag 26(12):3581–3599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rouwette E, Bastings I, Blokker H (2011) A Comparison of Group Model Building and Strategic Options Development and Analysis. Group Decis Negot 20(6):781–803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Silva Filho JL, Fontana ME, Morais DC (2014) Strategic Options Development and Analysis to identify criteria to evaluate segmentation problems of a water distribution network. IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, San DiegoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Silva VB, Morais DC, Almeida AT (2010) A Multicriteria Group Decision Model to Support Watershed Committees in Brazil. Water Resour Manag 24(14):4075–4091CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Simpson P, Beeby M (1992) Facilitating Public Sector Organisational Culture Change through the Process of Transformational Leadership. Manag Res News 15(5/6):39–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.DeSiDeS (Development of Systems for Supporting Sustainable Decisions)UFCG (Federal Univiversity of Campina Grande)Campina GrandeBrazil

Personalised recommendations