Multicriteria approach for selecting the most vulnerable watershed for developing a management plan

• Autorzy: Zardari N. H. , Naubi I. B. , Roslan N. A. B. , Shirazi S. M.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.1515/jwld-2014-0030

Warianty tytułu

PL

Użycie wielu kryteriów do wyboru najbardziej wrażliwej zlewni w projektowaniu planu zarządzania

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Listing of watershed management goals/targets is one of the integral parts of the management plan for a watershed. In this paper, we have listed 18 watershed management targets for which the Malaysian watersheds could possibly be managed in future. Based on the listed watershed management targets, the priority ranking of 18 targets is developed from the relative importance weights obtained from a survey conducted from 29 stakeholders. Three weighting methods (SWING, SMART, and SMARTER) were applied to elicit weights. We found that the SMART (Simple Multi-Attribute Rating Technique) weighting method was a favorable method for eliciting stable sets of weights for the watershed management targets. The SWING weighting method produces better weights than the SMARTER method. The listed watershed management targets will assist watershed managers and decision makers in decision making to use available resources (e.g. water quality, land-use, groundwater, and many other resources) in a more efficient and sustainable manner. The efficient utilization of all resources within a watershed will ultimately save watersheds (more specifically the urbanized watersheds) from further deterioration caused by unchecked infrastructure development activities.

PL

Określenie celów zarządzania zlewnią jest jedną z integralnych części planu zarządzania. W prezentowanej pracy ustalono 18 celów, do których w przyszłości zmierzać będzie zarządzanie zlewniami Malezji. Na podstawie tych celów ustalono ranking priorytetów, stosując wagi względnego znaczenia uzyskane w wyniku ankietowania 29 udziałowców. Dla uzyskania wag zastosowano trzy metody ważenia (SWING, SMART i SMARTER). Stwierdzono, że metoda SMART (Simple Multi-Attribute Rating Technique) była przydatna do ustalenia zestawu wag dla poszczególnych celów zarządzania zlewnią. Wagi ustalone metodą SWING były bardziej przydatne niż ustalone metodą SMARTER. Uporządkowana lista celów zarządzania będzie pomocna zarządcom i decydentom w podejmowaniu decyzji o wykorzystaniu dostępnych zasobów (jakość wody, użytkowanie ziemi, wód podziemnych i innych) w sposób bardziej efektywny i zrównoważony. Efektywne użytkowanie wszystkich zasobów zlewni uchroni je (szczególnie zlewnie zurbanizowane) od dalszego pogorszenia jakości wskutek niekontrolowanego rozwoju infrastruktury w przyszłości.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

relative importance weights; SMARTER; SWING; watershed management targets; watershed vulnerability; weighting method

PL

zarządzanie zlewniami; Malezja; metoda SWING; metoda SMART; metoda SMARTER; jakość wody

• Wydawca: Wydawnictwo ITP
• Czasopismo: Journal of Water and Land Development
• Rocznik: 2014
• Tom: no. 23
• Strony: 61--68
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 27 poz., rys., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Zardari N. H.

• Institute of Environmental and Water Resources Management (IPASA), Faculty of Civil Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai 81310, Johor, Malaysia; tel. [phone]

autor

Naubi I. B.

• Department of Hydraulics and Hydrology, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai 81310, Johor, Malaysia

autor

Roslan N. A. B.

• Department of Hydraulics and Hydrology, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai 81310, Johor, Malaysia

autor

Shirazi S. M.

• Institute of Environmental and Water Resources Management (IPASA), Faculty of Civil Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai 81310, Johor, Malaysia; tel. [phone]

Bibliografia

• ARNETTE A., ZOBEL C., BOSCH D., PEASE J., METCALFE T. 2010. Stakeholder ranking of watershed goals with the vector analytic hierarchy process: Effects of participant grouping scenarios. Environmental Modelling and Software. Vol. 25 p. 1459–1469.
• BALOCH M.A., TANEK A.E. 2008. development of an integrated watershed management strategy for resource conservation in Balochistan Province of Pakistan. Desalination. Vol. 226 p. 38–46.
• BELTON V., STEWART T.J. 2001. Multiple criteria decision analysis: an integrated approach. 1st ed. Norwell, Massachusetts. Kluwer Academic Publishers. ISBN 978-1-4615-1495-4 pp. 372.
• CANCER V. 2012. Criteria weighting by using the 5Ws & H technique. Business Systems Research. Vol. 3 p. 41–48.
• CHESS C., GIBSON G. 2001. Watersheds are not equal: exploring the feasibility of watershed management. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. Vol. 37 p. 775–82.
• DARGHOUTH S., WARD C., GAMBARELLI G., STYGER E., ROUX J. 2008. Watershed management approaches, policies, and operations: lessons for scaling up. Water Sector Board Discussion Paper Series. Paper No. 11. Washington, DC. The World Bank pp. 137.
• EDWARDS W. 1977. How to use multiattribute utility measurement for social decision-making. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics. Vol. 7 p. 326–340.
• EDWARDS W., BARRON F.H. 1994. SMARTs and SMARTER: improved simple methods for multiattribute utility measurement. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. Vol. 60 p. 306–325.
• ELFITHRI R., TORIMAN M.E., MOKHTAR M., JUAHIR H. 2011. Perspectives and initiatives on integrated river basin management in Malaysia: A review. The Social Sciences. Vol. 6 p. 169–176.
• EPA 2013. Getting in step: engaging stakeholders in your watershed [online]. 2nd ed. Washington, DC. Office of Water, United States Environmental Protection Agency. [Access: 6.08.2013]. Available at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/npstbx/files/stakeholderguide.pdf
• GERMAN L., MANSOOR H., ALEMU G., MAZENGIA W., AMEDE T., STROUD A. 2007. Participatory integrated watershed management: Evolution of concepts and methods in an eco-regional program of the eastern African highlands. Agricultural Systems. Vol. 94 p. 189–204.
• HAMALAINEN R.P., ALAJA S. 2008. The threat of weighting biases in environmental decision analysis. Ecological Economics. Vol. 68 p. 556–569.
• HOBBS B.H. 1980. A comparison of weighting methods in power plant siting. Decision Sciences. Vol. 11 p. 725–737.
• JAHI J.M. 2011. The environment as our natural heritage: Issues and challenges for sustainable development in Malaysia. Malaysian Journal of Environmental Management. Vol. 12 p. 3–14.
• JIANG Y., SHEN J. 2013. Weighting for what? A comparison of two weighting methods for measuring urban competitiveness. Habitat International. Vol. 38 p. 167–174.
• KOJADINOVIC I. 2004. Estimation of the weights of interacting criteria from the set of profiles by means of information-theoretic functional. European Journal of Operational Research. Vol. 155 p. 741–751.
• MIODUSZEWSKI W. 2009. Water for agriculture and natural environment. Journal of Water and Land Development. Vol. 13b p. 3–16.
• NELSON L.S., WSCHLER L.F. 1998. Institutional readiness for integrated watershed management: The case of the Maumee River. The Social Science Journal. Vol. 35 p. 565–576.
• RABL A., SPADARO J. 2005. Externalities of energy: Extension of accounting framework and Policy Applications. Final Technical Report. Paris. ARMINES/ Ecole des Mines de Paris.
• RHOADS B.L., WILSON D., URBAN M., HERRICKS E. 1999. Interaction between scientists and nonscientists in community-based watershed management: Emergence of the concept of stream naturalization. Environmental Management. Vol. 24 p. 297–308.
• SHEELANEREA P., NOBLEB B.F., PATRICK R.J. 2013. Institutional requirements for watershed cumulative effects assessment and management: Lessons from a Canadian trans-boundary watershed. Land Use Policy. Vol. 30 p. 67–75.
• TOMER M.D. 2004. Watershed management. In: Encyclopedia of soils in the environment. Ed. D. Hillel. Vol. 4. Elsevier Ltd. Oxford, UK p. 306–314.
• TTF 2005. Tookany/Tacony-Frankford Integrated watershed management plan. Supplemental Documentation. Vol. 13. Tookany/Tacony-Frankford Watershed Partnership, Philadelphia Water Department pp. 355.
• VON WINTERFELDT D., EDWARDS W. 1986. Decision analysis and behavioural research. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 052125308X pp. 624.
• YANG J.S., CHUNG E., KIM S.U., KIM T.W. 2012. Prioritization of water management under climate change and urbanization using multi-criteria decision making methods. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences. Vol. 16 p. 801–814.
• ZARDARI N.H. 2008. An improved multicriterion analysis approach to avoid subjectivity in irrigation water allocation decisions. PhD Thesis. Sydney, Australia. School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of New South Wales.
• ZARDARI N.H., CORDERY I., SHARMA A. 2010. An objective multiattribute analysis approach for allocation of scarce irrigation water resources. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. Vol. 46 p. 412–428.