Multi-criteria decision making for water resource management: a case study of the Gediz River Basin, Turkey

B Yilmaz,N Harmancioglu

doi:10.4314/wsa.v36i5.61990

Abstract

In this study, a water resource management model that facilitates indicator-based decisions, with respect to environmental, social and economic dimensions in a multiple criteria perspective, is developed for the Gediz River Basin in Turkey. The basic input of the proposed model is the quantity of surface water that is mainly allocated to irrigation purposes. The model has been applied under 3 different hydro-meteorological scenarios that reflect baseline as well as better and worse conditions of water supply and demand, not only to reach a comprehensive assessment of the water budget in the Gediz Basin, but also to evaluate the impacts of proposed management alternatives under different conditions. The Water Evaluation and Planning (WEAP) software is used as a simulation and evaluation tool to assess the performance of possible management alternatives; performance is measured by 9 indicators representing economic, social and environmental sustainability. The study has delineated the best management alternative on the basis of 3 different multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) methods, including simple additive weighting (SAW), compromise programming (CP) and technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS). Each method is also applied with 7 different sets of criteria weights that represent objective judgements as well as subjective preferences of decision makers. The results of the study indicate that the decision on the best alternative is basically independent of the MCDM method used, but slightly sensitive to the weights assigned to the criteria as well as the data used in the analyses. Keywords: MCDM, water resource management, WEAP, Gediz River Basin

Highlights

As freshwater resources are declining in quantity and deteriorating in quality, water resource management is of greater importance than ever before, and it is widely agreed that integrated water resource management (IWRM) is the way forward
Many researchers employ multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) methods to cope with water-related problems in their studies, as well as in research projects that foresee the establishment of decision support systems (DSS) in acquiring sustainable development strategies
A1, A4 and A7, which focus on the reduction of water losses in the conveyance system, as well as A3 and A6, which improve irrigation efficiency, are considered as the alternatives which are worth analysing in depth

Summary

Introduction

As freshwater resources are declining in quantity and deteriorating in quality, water resource management is of greater importance than ever before, and it is widely agreed that integrated water resource management (IWRM) is the way forward. IWRM is the concept of managing water sectors subject to various objectives in an integrated manner, while considering social, economic and environmental dimensions It includes the management of both the water supply and the demand to reduce projected gaps and meet future needs in a river basin. This is a difficult task that requires sound and reliable information about the river basin in terms of physical, hydrological and demographic characteristics. It is quite a difficult decision-making process, especially in highly developed basins, due to the very complex socio-economic systems with different interest groups pursuing multiple and conflicting objectives. It has been applied to an array of problems in water resources, including river basin planning (e.g. Qin et al, 2008; Raju et al, 2000; Eder et al, 1997), water supply/allocation and reservoir operation (e.g. Srdjevic et al, 2004; Flug et al, 2000; Mahmoud and Garcia, 2000), urban water management (e.g. Zarghami et al, 2008, Joubert et al, 2003; De Marchi et al, 2000), design of monitoring networks (e.g. Harmancioglu and Alpaslan, 1992), wastewater treatment alternatives (e.g. Kholgi, 2001; Khalil et al, 2005), water quality (e.g. Heilman et al, 1997), groundwater management (e.g. Pietersen, 2006), flood control (e.g. Tkach and Simonovich, 1997), wetland management (e.g. Janssen et al, 2005), and irrigation planning (e.g. Tiwari et al, 1999; Gupta et al, 2000)

Methods

Results

Conclusion