Comparing the Subjective and the Objective Criteria Weighting in Agricultural Water Resources Management

Maryam Hafezparast; Shahab Araghinejad; Tatiana Filatova

doi:doi:10.11648/j.hyd.20150304.11

| Peer-Reviewed

Comparing the Subjective and the Objective Criteria Weighting in Agricultural Water Resources Management

Maryam Hafezparast, Shahab Araghinejad, Tatiana Filatova

Published in Hydrology (Volume 3, Issue 4)

Received: 30 August 2015 Accepted: 13 September 2015 Published: 26 September 2015

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

In this study Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) approach is applied to the Aras basin in the North West of Iran to integrate different criteria for demand management and decision making. Coupling between the River Basin Management Model (MIKEBASIN) and Visual Basic Macro in Excel with the use of COM/.Net interface as a Decision Support System (DSS) have done to evaluate the performance of 9 indicators of structural alternatives. The Analytical Hierarchical process, Entropy method and the strategy of equal weighting are compared as three different methods of Subjective, Objective and Equal criteria weighting. The Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) is used for Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) analysis to determine the best management alternatives. The results show that, the alternative 'Increase water efficiency’ and ‘Decrease cultivated area’ is the most preferred option.

Published in	Hydrology (Volume 3, Issue 4)
DOI	10.11648/j.hyd.20150304.11
Page(s)	38-46
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2015. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM), Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM), TOPSIS, Aras River Basin

References

[1]	Ako, A. A., Eyong, G. E. T., & Nkeng, G. E. (2009). 'Water Resources Management and Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) in Cameroon', Journal of Water Resources Management (24): 871–888.
[2]	American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). 1998. 'Sustainability Criteria for Water Resources Systems'. (Task Committee on Sustainability Criteria, Water Resources Planning and Management Division, ASCE and Working Group, UNESCO/IHP IV Project M-4.3). ASCE, Reston, VA.
[3]	Bressers, H. and S. Kuks (2004). Governance of Water resources. In: Integrated governance and water basin management, Bressers H. and S. Kuks [eds.], Kluwer Academic Publishers.
[4]	Christensen, F. 2004. 'Coupling between the River Basin Management Model (MIKE BASIN) and the 3D Hydrological Model (MIKE SHE) with use of the OpenMI System'. 6th International Conference on Hydroinformatics. Singapore.
[5]	Churchman, C. W., Ackoff, R. L., Arnoff, E. L., 1957. Introduction to Operations Research. John Wiley, New York.
[6]	Danish Institute of Hydrology. MIKE BASIN.2003. A versatile decision support tool for integrated water resources management and planning, DHI Water and Environment, Denmark.
[7]	Danish Institute of Hydrology. MIKE BASIN.2003. Manuals and Documentation. http:// www. dhisoftware. com/ mikebasin/ index.htm.
[8]	Densham P. J. and Goodchild M. F.1989.Spatial decision support systems: a research agenda. Proceedings of GIS/LIS'89.ACSM, Bethesda Maryland, pp.707-16.
[9]	Eckenrode, R. T. 1965. Weighting multiple criteria. Management Sc. 12, 180-192.
[10]	Hashimoto, T., Stedinger, J. R., and Loucks, D. P., 1982, Reliability, resiliency and vulnerability criteria for water resource system performance evaluation, Water Resources Research, 18(1), 14 – 20, doi: 10.1029/ WR018i001p00014.
[11]	Humberto, S. H., Ignacio, R. M. D., María Teresa, A. H.,and Alfredo, G. O., 2009. Mathematical modeling for the integrated management of water resources in hydrological basins. Water Resources Management (23): 721–730.
[12]	Hwang, C. L; Yoon, K. 1981. Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications. New York: Springer-Verlag.
[13]	Ireson, A., Makropoulos, C., Maksimovic, C., 2006. Water Resources Modeling under Data Scarcity: Coupling MIKE BASIN and ASM Groundwater Model. Journal of Water Resources Management (20):567-590.
[14]	Leemhuis, C., Jung, G., Kasei, R., Liebe, J., 2009. The Volta Basin Water Allocation System: assessing the impact of small-scale reservoir development on the water resources of the Volta basin, West Africa. Journal of Advances in Geosciences (21):57-62.
[15]	Dingfei Liu, Theodor J. Stewart. 2004. Integrated object-oriented framework for MCDM and DSS modelling. Decision Support Systems 38(3): 421-434.
[16]	Mahabghods consulting engineering. 2010. Update the State Water Plan Aras, Sefidrood, Gorganrood, Atrak, Urmia watersheds. Aras synthesis Report.
[17]	Reitsma, R. F., 1996. Structure and support of water-resources management and decision-making. Journal of Hydrology (177). Iss.3-4: 253.
[18]	Saaty, T. 1994. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. Wiley, New York.
[19]	Shannon Claude, E., 1948. A Mathematical Theory of Communication. Bell System Technical Journal 27 (3): 379–423.
[20]	Tzeng, G-H., Chen, T-Y., Wang, J. C., 1998. A weight assessing method with habitual domains. European Journal of Operational Research, 110: 342-367.
[21]	UN-Water. 2008. Status Report on Integrated Water Resources Management and Water Efficiency Plans.
[22]	UN-Water. GWP. 2007. Roadmapping for Advancing Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) Processes.
[23]	Yilmaz, B., Harmancioglu, N. B., 2010. An indicator based assessment for water resources management in Gediz River Basin, Turkey. Journal of Water Resources Management 24(15):4359-4379.
[24]	Water Strategy Man project, EU Contract No. EVK1-CT-2001-00098(2002-2005) http://environ.chemeng.ntua.gr/wsm.
[25]	Zeeb, S., 2010. Adaptation to Climate Change in the Kura-Aras River Basin. Snapshot Draft for Discussion.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Maryam Hafezparast, Shahab Araghinejad, Tatiana Filatova. (2015). Comparing the Subjective and the Objective Criteria Weighting in Agricultural Water Resources Management. Hydrology, 3(4), 38-46. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.hyd.20150304.11

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Maryam Hafezparast; Shahab Araghinejad; Tatiana Filatova. Comparing the Subjective and the Objective Criteria Weighting in Agricultural Water Resources Management. Hydrology. 2015, 3(4), 38-46. doi: 10.11648/j.hyd.20150304.11

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Maryam Hafezparast, Shahab Araghinejad, Tatiana Filatova. Comparing the Subjective and the Objective Criteria Weighting in Agricultural Water Resources Management. Hydrology. 2015;3(4):38-46. doi: 10.11648/j.hyd.20150304.11

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.hyd.20150304.11,
  author = {Maryam Hafezparast and Shahab Araghinejad and Tatiana Filatova},
  title = {Comparing the Subjective and the Objective Criteria Weighting in Agricultural Water Resources Management},
  journal = {Hydrology},
  volume = {3},
  number = {4},
  pages = {38-46},
  doi = {10.11648/j.hyd.20150304.11},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.hyd.20150304.11},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.hyd.20150304.11},
  abstract = {In this study Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) approach is applied to the Aras basin in the North West of Iran to integrate different criteria for demand management and decision making. Coupling between the River Basin Management Model (MIKEBASIN) and Visual Basic Macro in Excel with the use of COM/.Net interface as a Decision Support System (DSS) have done to evaluate the performance of 9 indicators of structural alternatives. The Analytical Hierarchical process, Entropy method and the strategy of equal weighting are compared as three different methods of Subjective, Objective and Equal criteria weighting. The Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) is used for Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) analysis to determine the best management alternatives. The results show that, the alternative 'Increase water efficiency’ and ‘Decrease cultivated area’ is the most preferred option.},
 year = {2015}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Comparing the Subjective and the Objective Criteria Weighting in Agricultural Water Resources Management
AU  - Maryam Hafezparast
AU  - Shahab Araghinejad
AU  - Tatiana Filatova
Y1  - 2015/09/26
PY  - 2015
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.hyd.20150304.11
DO  - 10.11648/j.hyd.20150304.11
T2  - Hydrology
JF  - Hydrology
JO  - Hydrology
SP  - 38
EP  - 46
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2330-7617
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.hyd.20150304.11
AB  - In this study Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) approach is applied to the Aras basin in the North West of Iran to integrate different criteria for demand management and decision making. Coupling between the River Basin Management Model (MIKEBASIN) and Visual Basic Macro in Excel with the use of COM/.Net interface as a Decision Support System (DSS) have done to evaluate the performance of 9 indicators of structural alternatives. The Analytical Hierarchical process, Entropy method and the strategy of equal weighting are compared as three different methods of Subjective, Objective and Equal criteria weighting. The Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) is used for Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) analysis to determine the best management alternatives. The results show that, the alternative 'Increase water efficiency’ and ‘Decrease cultivated area’ is the most preferred option.
VL  - 3
IS  - 4
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Maryam Hafezparast

Department of Water Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture, Razi University, Emam-Khomeini Highway, Kermanshah, Iran
Shahab Araghinejad

Department of Irrigation & Reclamation Engineering, Faculty of Agricultural Engineering & Technology, College of Agriculture & Natural Resources, University of Tehran, Karaj, Tehran, Iran
Tatiana Filatova

Centre for Studies in Technology and Sustainable Development, Faculty of Management and Governance, University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands

Download PDF

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Maryam Hafezparast, Shahab Araghinejad, Tatiana Filatova. (2015). Comparing the Subjective and the Objective Criteria Weighting in Agricultural Water Resources Management. Hydrology, 3(4), 38-46. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.hyd.20150304.11

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Maryam Hafezparast; Shahab Araghinejad; Tatiana Filatova. Comparing the Subjective and the Objective Criteria Weighting in Agricultural Water Resources Management. Hydrology. 2015, 3(4), 38-46. doi: 10.11648/j.hyd.20150304.11

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Maryam Hafezparast, Shahab Araghinejad, Tatiana Filatova. Comparing the Subjective and the Objective Criteria Weighting in Agricultural Water Resources Management. Hydrology. 2015;3(4):38-46. doi: 10.11648/j.hyd.20150304.11

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.hyd.20150304.11,
  author = {Maryam Hafezparast and Shahab Araghinejad and Tatiana Filatova},
  title = {Comparing the Subjective and the Objective Criteria Weighting in Agricultural Water Resources Management},
  journal = {Hydrology},
  volume = {3},
  number = {4},
  pages = {38-46},
  doi = {10.11648/j.hyd.20150304.11},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.hyd.20150304.11},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.hyd.20150304.11},
  abstract = {In this study Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) approach is applied to the Aras basin in the North West of Iran to integrate different criteria for demand management and decision making. Coupling between the River Basin Management Model (MIKEBASIN) and Visual Basic Macro in Excel with the use of COM/.Net interface as a Decision Support System (DSS) have done to evaluate the performance of 9 indicators of structural alternatives. The Analytical Hierarchical process, Entropy method and the strategy of equal weighting are compared as three different methods of Subjective, Objective and Equal criteria weighting. The Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) is used for Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) analysis to determine the best management alternatives. The results show that, the alternative 'Increase water efficiency’ and ‘Decrease cultivated area’ is the most preferred option.},
 year = {2015}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Comparing the Subjective and the Objective Criteria Weighting in Agricultural Water Resources Management
AU  - Maryam Hafezparast
AU  - Shahab Araghinejad
AU  - Tatiana Filatova
Y1  - 2015/09/26
PY  - 2015
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.hyd.20150304.11
DO  - 10.11648/j.hyd.20150304.11
T2  - Hydrology
JF  - Hydrology
JO  - Hydrology
SP  - 38
EP  - 46
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2330-7617
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.hyd.20150304.11
AB  - In this study Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) approach is applied to the Aras basin in the North West of Iran to integrate different criteria for demand management and decision making. Coupling between the River Basin Management Model (MIKEBASIN) and Visual Basic Macro in Excel with the use of COM/.Net interface as a Decision Support System (DSS) have done to evaluate the performance of 9 indicators of structural alternatives. The Analytical Hierarchical process, Entropy method and the strategy of equal weighting are compared as three different methods of Subjective, Objective and Equal criteria weighting. The Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) is used for Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) analysis to determine the best management alternatives. The results show that, the alternative 'Increase water efficiency’ and ‘Decrease cultivated area’ is the most preferred option.
VL  - 3
IS  - 4
ER  -

Copy | Download