Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A social choice-based methodology for treated wastewater reuse in urban and suburban areas

  • Published:
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Reusing treated wastewater for supplying water demands such as landscape and agricultural irrigation in urban and suburban areas has become a major water supply approach especially in regions struggling with water shortage. Due to limited available treated wastewater to satisfy all water demands, conflicts may arise in allocating treated wastewater to water users. Since there is usually more than one decision maker and more than one criterion to measure the impact of each water allocation scenario, effective tools are needed to combine individual preferences to reach a collective decision. In this paper, a new social choice (SC) method, which can consider some indifference thresholds for decision makers, is proposed for evaluating and ranking treated wastewater and urban runoff allocation scenarios to water users in urban and suburban areas. Some SC methods, namely plurality voting, Borda count, pairwise comparisons, Hare system, dictatorship, and approval voting, are applied for comparing and evaluating the results. Different scenarios are proposed for allocating treated wastewater and urban runoff to landscape irrigation, agricultural lands as well as artificial recharge of aquifer in the Tehran metropolitan Area, Iran. The main stakeholders rank the proposed scenarios based on their utilities using two different approaches. The proposed method suggests ranking of the scenarios based on the stakeholders’ utilities and considering the scores they assigned to each scenario. Comparing the results of the proposed method with those of six different SC methods shows that the obtained ranks are mostly in compliance with the social welfare.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • d'Angelo, A., Eskandari, A., & Szidarovszky, F. (1998). Social choice procedures in water-resource management. Journal of Environmental Management, 52(3), 203–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Axelrad, G., & Feinerman, E. (2009). Regional planning of wastewater reuse for irrigation and river rehabilitation. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 60(1), 105–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bazargan-Lari, M. R., Kerachian, R., & Mansoori, A. (2009). A conflict-resolution model for the conjunctive use of surface and groundwater resources that considers water-quality issues: a case study. Environmental Management, 43(3), 470–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Borda, JC. (1781). Memoire sur les elections au scrutin, historie de l’academie royale des sciences. Paris, France.

  • Brams, S. J., & Fishburn, P. C. (1978). Approval voting. The American Political Science Review, 72(3), 831–847.

  • Condorcet, M. (1785). Essai sur l’application de l’analyse a la probabilite des de’cisions rendues a la pluralite des voix. Paris: Imprimerie Royale.

    Google Scholar 

  • Copeland, A. H. (1951). A reasonable social welfare function. University of Michigan Seminar on Applications of Mathematics to the Social Sciences.

  • Diaby, M., Ferrer, H., & Valognes, F. (2013). A social choice approach to primary resource management: the rubber tree case in Africa. Forest Policy and Economics, 28, 8–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Estalaki, S. M., Abed-Elmdoust, A., & Kerachian, R. (2015). Developing environmental penalty functions for river water quality management: application of evolutionary game theory. Environmental Earth Sciences, 73(8), 4201–4213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Estalaki, S. M., Kerachian, R., & Nikoo, M. R. (2016). Developing water quality management policies for the Chitgar urban lake: application of fuzzy social choice and evidential reasoning methods. Environmental Earth Sciences, 75, 404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghodsi, S. H., Kerachian, R., & Zahmatkesh, Z. (2016a). A multi-stakeholder framework for urban runoff quality management: application of social choice and bargaining techniques. Science of the Total Environment, 550, 574–585.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ghodsi, S. H., Kerachian, R., Estalaki, S. M., Nikoo, M. R., & Zahmatkesh, Z. (2016b). Developing a stochastic conflict resolution model for urban runoff quality management: application of info-gap and bargaining theories. Journal of Hydrology, 533, 200–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kangas, A., Laukkanen, S., & Kangas, J. (2006). Social choice theory and its applications in sustainable forest management: a review. Forest Policy and Economics, 9(1), 77–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kant, S., & Lee, S. (2004). A social choice approach to sustainable forest management: an analysis of multiple forest values in northwestern Ontario. Forest Policy and Economics, 6(3), 215–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karamouz, M., Zahraie, B., Kerachian, R., Mahjouri, N., & Jaafarzadeh, N. (2007). Developing a master plan for hospital solid waste management: a case study of the Khuzestan province in Iran. Waste Management, 27, 626–638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerachian, R., Fallahnia, M., Bazargan-Lari, M. R., Mansoori, A., & Sedghi, H. (2010). A fuzzy game theoretic approach for groundwater resources management: application of Rubinstein bargaining theory. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 54(10), 673–682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laukkanen, S., Kangas, A., & Kangas, J. (2002). Applying voting theory in natural resource management: a case of multiple-criteria group decision support. Journal of Environmental Management, 64(2), 127–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madani, K., Read, L., & Shalikarian, L. (2014). Voting under uncertainty: a stochastic framework for analyzing group decision making problems. Water Resources Management, 28(7), 1839–1856.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahjouri, N., & Bizhani-Manzar, M. (2013). Waste load allocation in rivers using fallback bargaining. Water Resources Management, 27(7), 2125–2136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, W. E., Shields, D. J., Tolwinski, B., & Kent, B. (1996). An application of social choice theory to USDA forest service decision making. Journal of Policy Modeling, 18(6), 603–621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morais, D. C., & de Almeida, A. T. (2012). Group decision making on water resources based on analysis of individual rankings. Omega, 40(1), 42–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nurmi, H. (1988). Discrepancies in the outcomes resulting from different voting schemes. Theory and Decision, 25(2), 193–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ortega-Reig, M., Palau-Salvador, G., Cascant i Sempere, M. J., Benitez-Buelga, J., Badiella, D., & Trawick, P. (2014). The integrated use of surface, ground and recycled waste water in adapting to drought in the traditional irrigation system of Valencia. Agricultural Water Management, 133, 55–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Pablo, D. A. L. (2007). Ranking of ecological risks related to wastewater management. Wastewater Reuse–Risk Assessment, Decision-Making and Environmental Security, 111–20.

  • Roy, B. (1991). The outranking approach and the foundation of ELECTRE methods. Theory and Decision, 31, 49–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roy, B., Présent, M., & Silhol, D. (1986). A programming method for determining which Paris metro stations should be renovated. European Journal of Operational Research, 24, 318–334.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sheikhmohammady, M., & Madani, K. (2008). Bargaining over the Caspian Sea—the largest lake on the Earth. Proceeding of the 2008 World Environmental and Water Resources Congress, Honolulu, Hawaii, 1–9.

  • Shields, D. J., Tolwinski, B., & Kent, B. M. (1999). Models for conflict resolution in ecosystem management. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 33(1), 61–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, P. B. (1969). On defining areas of voter choice: Professor Tullock on stable voting. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 83(3), 478–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Srdjevic, B. (2007). Linking analytic hierarchy process and social choice methods to support group decision-making in water management. Decision Support Systems, 42(4), 2261–2273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vincke, P. (1992). Multicriteria decision aid. Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang, H., & Abbaspour, K. C. (2007). Analysis of wastewater reuse potential in Beijing. Desalination, 212(1), 238–250.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Yekom Consulting Engineers. (2009). Urban runoff quantity and quality management in the southern part of Tehran—Technical report.

  • Zarghami, M., & Szidarovszky, F. (2011). Multicriteria analysis: applications to water and environment management. Berlin: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Mr. Mehdi Shafeie-Far, the head of Water Resources Management Department, Yekom Consulting Engineers, who kindly provided useful and precise information about the study area.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Civil Engineering, K. N. Toosi University of Technology, Tehran, Iran

    Najmeh Mahjouri & Ehsan Pourmand

Authors
  1. Najmeh Mahjouri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ehsan Pourmand
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Najmeh Mahjouri.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mahjouri, N., Pourmand, E. A social choice-based methodology for treated wastewater reuse in urban and suburban areas. Environ Monit Assess 189, 325 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-017-6039-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-017-6039-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation