Advertisement

Optimized Reservoir Management for Meeting Conflicting Stakeholder Preferences: Methodological Innovations with Evidence from Iran

  • Omid ZamaniEmail author
  • Hemen Nader
  • Masoomeh Rashidghalam
  • Frank A. Ward
Chapter
Part of the Perspectives on Development in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) Region book series (PDMENA)

Abstract

An ongoing challenge the water policymakers facing is to allocate water supplies controlled by reservoirs among competing uses. Despite many methodological advances in recent years, there is little agreement on the best method to meet the water demands of competing stakeholders. This study aims to fill that gap by the development of a multi-objective model defined as simple maximization of discounted net present value while meeting a minimum food and water security objective. In this region, as other part of Iran, irrigation is the largest use of water, followed by domestic use. Since the 1990s, Urmia Lake Basin containing the Mahabad Dam and reservoir has experienced a series of water shortages. Therefore, water distribution between different users has become more challenging for policymakers. The results of this study showed that the economic value of water for irrigated agriculture has major influence on the most economically efficient method to allocate reservoir water. Nevertheless, food security goals have an important influence on reservoir allocation. The optimized cropping pattern showed that the price of wheat cultivation was an important determinant of how reservoir water should be allocated for improved economic efficiency.

Keywords

Goal programming Water allocation Water stakeholders Irrigation Food security Iran 

References

  1. Antunes P, Karadzic V, Santos R, Beça P, Osann A (2011) Participatory multi-criteria analysis of irrigation management alternatives: the case of the Caia irrigation district, Portugal. Int J Agric Sustain 9(2):334–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Askın Ö (2008) Analysis of selection criteria for manufacturing employees using fuzzy—AHP. J Bus 9(1):141–160Google Scholar
  3. Badri MA (1999) Combining the analytic hierarchy process and goal programming for global facility location-allocation problem. Int J Prod Econ 62(3):237–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Balali H, Khalilian S, Viaggi D, Bartolini F, Ahmadian M (2011) Groundwater balance and conservation under different water pricing and agricultural policy scenarios: a case study of the Hamadan-Bahar plain. Ecol Econ 70:863–872CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bertolini M, Bevilacqua M (2006) A combined goal programming AHP approach to maintenance selection problem. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 91(7):839–848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bozbura FT, Beskese A (2007) Prioritization of organizational capital measurement indicators using fuzzy AHP. Int J Approximate Reasoning 44(2):124–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chang CT (2007) Multi-choice goal programming. Omega 35:389–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chuang TH, Hsiang HN, Chuang HJ (2007) A multiple-goal programming for nurse scheduling by AHP and simulated anneal. In: Proceedings of the 13th Asia Pacific management conference, Melbourne, Australia, pp 1056–1065Google Scholar
  9. Chung E, Won K, Kim Y, Lee H (2014) Water resource vulnerability characteristics by district’s population size in a changing climate using subjective and objective weights. Sustainability 6:6141–6157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dinar A, Rosegrant MW, Dick RM (2000) Water allocation mechanisms principles and examples. Policy Research Working Paper, 1779Google Scholar
  11. Ertugrul I, Karakasoglu N (2009) Performance evaluation of Turkish cement firms with fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and TOPSIS methods. Expert Syst Appl 36:702–715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Foltz R (2002) Iran’s water crisis: cultural, political, and ethical dimensions. J Agric Environ Ethics 15:357–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Grimble R, Chan MK, Aglionby J, Quan J (1995) Trees and Trade-offs: a stakeholder approach to natural resource management. (IIED) Int Inst Environ Dev Sustain Agric Rural Livelihoods Programme, GATEKEEPER SERIES No. SA52Google Scholar
  14. Huang H, Miller GY (2003) Evaluation of swine odor management strategies in a fuzzy multi-criteria decision environment. American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, Montreal, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  15. Iran’s Ministry of Agriculture (2015) Annual reportGoogle Scholar
  16. Iran’s Ministry of Energy (2015) Annual reportGoogle Scholar
  17. Iran’s Ministry of Energy (2016) Annual reportGoogle Scholar
  18. Kiker GA, Bridges TS, Varghese A, Seager TP, Linkov I (2005) Application of multicriteria decision analysis in environmental decision making. Integr Environ Manag 1:95–108Google Scholar
  19. Lee SM (1972) Goal Programming for Decision Analysis. Auerbach Publishing, Boston, Philadelphia PennsylvaniaGoogle Scholar
  20. Madani K (2014) Water management in Iran: what is causing the looming crisis? J Environ Stud Sci 1(14):315–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McDaniels TL, Gregory RS, Fields D (1999) Democratizing risk management: successful public involvement in local water management decisions. Risk Anal 19(3):497–510Google Scholar
  22. Mendelow A (1981) Environmental scanning: the impact of stakeholder concept. In: Proceedings of the second international conference on information systems. December 1981, Cambridge, MassGoogle Scholar
  23. Rani D, Moreira MM (2010) Simulation-optimization modeling: a survey and potential application in reservoir. Water Resour Manage 24:1107–1138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Reed MS (2008) Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biol Cons 141(10):2417–2431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Reed MS, Graves A, Dandy N, Posthumus H, Hubacek K, Morris J, Prell C, Quinn CH, Stringer LC (2009) Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. J Environ Manage 90(5):1933–1949CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rosso M, Bottero M, Pomaric S, La Ferlita S, Comino E (2014) Integrating multicriteria evaluation and stakeholders analysis for assessing hydropower projects. Energy Policy 67:870–881CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Saaty TL (2000) Fundamentals of decision making and priority theory, 2nd edn. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh, PAGoogle Scholar
  28. Savenije H, van der Zaag P (2002) Water as an economic good and demand management paradigm with pitfalls. Water International 27:98–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schniederjans MJ, Wilson RL (1991) Using the analytic hierarchy process and goal programming for information system project selection. Inf Manag 20:333–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Singh A (2012) An overview of the optimization modelling applications. J Hydrol 466–467:167–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tolga E, Demircan ML, Kahraman C (2005) Operating system selection using fuzzy replacement analysis and analytic hierarchy process. Int J Prod Econ 97(1):89–117Google Scholar
  32. Zahedi F (1986) The analytical hierarchy process: a survey of the method and its applications. Interfaces 16(4):96–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Zamarrón-Mieza I, Yepes V, Moreno-Jiménez JM (2017) A systematic review of application of multi-criteria decision analysis for aging-dam management. J Clean Prod 147:217–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Omid Zamani
    • 1
    • 5
    Email author
  • Hemen Nader
    • 2
  • Masoomeh Rashidghalam
    • 3
  • Frank A. Ward
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Agricultural Market AnalysisInstitute of Agricultural Economics, Christian-Albrechts-University KielKielGermany
  2. 2.Department of Agricultural EconomicsUniversity of ZabolZabolIran
  3. 3.Department of Agricultural EconomicsUniversity of TabrizTabrizIran
  4. 4.Department of Agricultural Economics and Agricultural BusinessNew Mexico State UniversityLas CrucesUSA
  5. 5.Leibniz-Institut für Agrartechnik und Bioökonomie e.V. (ATB)PotsdamGermany

Personalised recommendations