IJHAP Article: Sabia, Salomon, Sobreira Junior, Marins, Lima/ Determination of the Most

Appropriate Policy for River Basin Management

International Journal of the

Analytic Hierarchy Process

201 Vol. 7 Issue 2 2015
ISSN 1936-6744

http://dx.doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v7i2.263

DETERMINATION OF THE MOST APPROPRIATE POLICY FOR

RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT

Rodolfo J. Sabia

Cariri Regional University (URCA)

Juazeiro do Norte, CE, BRAZIL

E-mail: rodolfo.sabia@urca.br

Valerio A. P. Salomon

Sao Paulo State University (UNESP)

Guaratingueta, SP, BRAZIL

E-mail: salomon@feg.unesp.br

Francisco A. V. Sobreira Junior

Cariri Regional University (URCA)

Juazeiro do Norte, CE, BRAZIL

E-mail: jr2_vilar@hotmail.com

Fernando A. S. Marins

Sao Paulo State University (UNESP)

Guaratingueta, SP, BRAZIL

E-mail: fmarins@feg.unesp.br

Anna F. O. Lima

Cariri Regional University (URCA)

Juazeiro do Norte, CE, BRAZIL

E-mail: annaflavia.lima@gmail.com

ABSTRACT

The Parliament of the Salgado River provided actions and recommendations for the

future of the Salgado River Basin which is in the south of Ceara State, Brazil. These

recommendations were obtained through a democratic process, with the involvement of

around 100 participants from private companies, public organizations and the third

sector. The intention was to define a model that is compatible with the aspirations of

society regarding the use and quality of the water, as well as define necessary decision

actions and strategies. The main goal of this article is to determine, with a multi-criteria

decision analysis, an appropriate policy for the river basin management. Therefore, the

Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) was applied. The criteria are a combination of

economic, environmental, and social issues; the alternatives were defined as essentially


Corresponding author. This research was financially supported by Sao Paulo Research

Foundation (FAPESP Grant no. 2013/03525-7).

IJHAP Article: Sabia, Salomon, Sobreira Junior, Marins, Lima/ Determination of the Most

Appropriate Policy for River Basin Management

International Journal of the

Analytic Hierarchy Process

202 Vol. 7 Issue 2 2015
ISSN 1936-6744

http://dx.doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v7i2.263

preservationist policy, sustainable policy, and essentially economic policy. The AHP

application was effective in this decision analysis.

Keywords: AHP; environmental policies; river basin management.

1. Introduction

Disordered growth associated with the process of water quality degradation has caused

serious problems to the Salgado River Basin in the Brazilian state of Ceara. River basins

in Northeast Brazil are affected by the intermittence of rivers, rainfall irregularity and the

lack of an efficient and participative management policy. Multi-criteria decision analysis

(MCDA) may help the assessment of environmental impacts and in turn improve the

management of river basins.

The Parliament of the Salgado River provided actions and recommendations for the

future of the Salgado River Basin, through a democratic process, with around 100

participants from private companies, public organizations and also from the third sector.

The objective of this research was to define an MCDA model compatible with the

aspirations of society regarding the use and quality of the water, as well as to define the

necessary actions and strategies. The main goal of this article is to determine, with

MCDA, the appropriate policy for the river basin management. Therefore, the Analytic

Hierarchy Process (AHP) was applied.

Section 2 highlights some works from MCDA literature on environmental management.

Section 3 discusses methodological issues which resulted in the MCDA model. In

Sections 4 and 5, the AHP application and results are presented and discussed. Section 6

ends this article with conclusions, limitations and a proposal for future works.

2. Literature review

In the past, environmental management has been regarded as a constraint for companies

and has even been considered an obstacle to competitiveness. Nowadays, however, it is

treated differently, with increasingly more companies adopting strategies and making

decisions towards environmental management (Frondel et al., 2007). River basin

management is a major issue in environmental management.

AHP has been applied to rank alternatives when several criteria and sub-criteria are

present in the decision (Tahriri et al., 2008). AHP has proved itself a suitable method for

pondering judgments in complex decisions (Awasthi & Chauhan, 2011; Bottero et al.,

2011; Gao & Hailu, 2012). With AHP, decision-making problems are structured in

hierarchies, and qualitative or quantitative data can be used to derive ratio scales among

the decision elements in each hierarchical level (Bello-Dambatta et al., 2009), which

makes it one of the most preferable approaches for MCDA. There are several software

models (e.g. Expert Choice and Super Decisions) already used in environmental

management problems (Contreras et al., 2008).

According to Saaty (2008), an MCDA method such as AHP balances the interactions

between decision criteria and synthesizes information into a vector of priorities for the

IJHAP Article: Sabia, Salomon, Sobreira Junior, Marins, Lima/ Determination of the Most

Appropriate Policy for River Basin Management

International Journal of the

Analytic Hierarchy Process

203 Vol. 7 Issue 2 2015
ISSN 1936-6744

http://dx.doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v7i2.263

alternatives. AHP is often used to solve complex decision problems, being widely used to

determine the weights or priorities (Dong et al., 2010; Xie & Tang, 2010; Vidal et al.,

2011).

AHP has many environmental management applications such as ecotourism (Ok et al.,

2011), natural resources (Schmoldt et al., 2001), forestry (Samari et al., 2012) coastal

systems (Ryu et al., 2012), and disaster risk measurement (Carreño et al., 2007; Chen, et

al. 2009).

An Expert Choice model was developed to prioritize alternatives of water utilization from

a Brazilian power plant (Larrubia, 2010). SWOT (Strengths-Weaknesses-Opportunities-

Threatens) Analysis was integrated with AHP in another watershed application, a Turkish

Lake Basin (Yavuz & Baycan, 2013). SWOT Analysis is a multi-criteria framework for

strategic planning (Humphrey, 2005). The BOCR (Benefits-Costs-Opportunities-Risks)

which is similar to SWOT framework is a usual model in AHP applications (Wijnmalen,

2007). PEST (Political-Economic-Social-Technological) Analysis is a framework to

evaluate environmental factors in business planning (MacGinty et al., 2013).

3. Research methodology

This article aims to present the best policy from a group of alternatives that is capable of

meeting the aspirations of society regarding the Salgado River. There are many

environmental problems on this river basin which can be addressed with a participatory

application of the AHP.

One of the authors has participated in the meetings of the Parliament of the Salgado

River, and has played a dual role in the process. At first, he spoke to the parliament about

how MCDA and AHP could be useful in the study of policies for the river basin

management. Then, he heard and collected opinions about the importance of criteria and

alternatives to the policies. This article is more than a case research as it presents the

MCDA modeling with AHP for this important environmental decision problem.

For this study, a total of seven meetings were conducted. The first and the last were

plenary meetings, in the main city of Juazeiro do Norte. Five meetings were conducted

with only the local participants in a single city: Barbalha, Caririaçu, Crato, Juazeiro do

Norte and Missao Velha. According to the Brazilian Institution of Geography and

Statistics, the population of these cities sums more than half a million inhabitants, the

area is around 5,500 km
2
, and their gross domestic product, in 2011, was 2.6 million

dollars (http://www.ibge.gov.br/english/).

Figure 1 presents the criteria hierarchy obtained from the Parliament of the Salgado

River. This hierarchical structure was validated by the parliament in the final plenary

meeting.

IJHAP Article: Sabia, Salomon, Sobreira Junior, Marins, Lima/ Determination of the Most

Appropriate Policy for River Basin Management

International Journal of the

Analytic Hierarchy Process

204 Vol. 7 Issue 2 2015
ISSN 1936-6744

http://dx.doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v7i2.263

Figure 1. Criteria and sub-criteria for the Salgado River Basin management.

As can be observed, there are two homonymous sub-criteria named “Residential”; one

below the “Social” criterion and another below the “Socio-Economic” criterion. This is

because the resident’s point-of-view was considered regarding these two criteria. As a

matter of fact, this repetition may suggest dependence or influence among the hierarchy’s

components. In this case, the Analytic Network Process (ANP) may be the proper multi-

criteria decision method. However, due to innovative application in the local river basin

management, AHP application was maintained, since it was considered a simpler method.

The hierarchy focuses on two (social and economic) of the four factors from the PEST

Analysis which also include political and technological factors (MacGinty et al., 2013).

Political factors are considered in the bottom of the hierarchy with the alternatives.

Technological factors were not considered in this case. One reason for this is that society

was not concerned with this major issue at that moment. That is, Social and Economic

problems were greater than Political or Technological ones.

An Expert Choice model was developed for AHP application. Judgments and priorities

are presented in Section 4.

4. AHP Application

Table 1 presents the judgments of the relative priorities for the criteria, according to the

Parliament of Salgado River based on the Fundamental Scale of Absolute Numbers

(Saaty, 2014).

Determination of the most appropriate policy for Salgado River Basin
management

Economic

Agriculture
and livestock

Industrial

Services

Environmental

Landscape

Fauna and
flora

Siltation

Social

Governmental

Recreational

Residential

Socio-
Economic

Agricultural

Industrial

Residential

Socio-
Environmental

Waste disposal

Water supply

Water
treatment

IJHAP Article: Sabia, Salomon, Sobreira Junior, Marins, Lima/ Determination of the Most

Appropriate Policy for River Basin Management

International Journal of the

Analytic Hierarchy Process

205 Vol. 7 Issue 2 2015
ISSN 1936-6744

http://dx.doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v7i2.263

Table 1

Priorities for the criteria

Criterion EC EN SO SC SN Priority

Economic (EC) 1 2 8 7 7 50%

Environmental (EN) 1/2 1 4 6 6 31%

Social (SO) 1/8 1/4 1 1/2 1/2 5%

Socio-Economic (SC) 1/7 1/6 2 1 1 7%

Socio-Environmental (SN) 1/7 1/6 2 1 1 7%

The pairwise comparison matrix presented in Table 1 has an inconsistency ratio around

3%. It is assumed that an inconsistency ratio value lower than 10% is an indication of the

reliability of information (Saaty, 1977; Garuti & Salomon, 2011). Economic factors have

the highest priority with 50%. They are followed by environmental factors with 31%.

Social factors have the lowest priority with only 5%.

Table 2 presents the judgments on the relative priorities for the economic sub-criteria,

also according the Parliament of Salgado River and based on the Fundamental Scale of

Absolute Numbers. The inconsistency ratio was around 5%. ‘Services’ has the highest

priority which indicates that it is the economic sector preferred by society.

Table 2

Priorities for economic sub-criteria

Sub-criterion A I S Priority

Agriculture and livestock (A) 1 3 1 40%

Industrial (I) 1/3 1 1/6 10%

Services (S) 1 6 1 50%

Similar judgments were conducted for the other four criteria. Table 3 summarizes the

local and overall priorities for the sub-criteria. No comparison matrix has an

inconsistency ratio greater than 10%. Sub-criterion ‘Services’ has the highest overall

priority.

IJHAP Article: Sabia, Salomon, Sobreira Junior, Marins, Lima/ Determination of the Most

Appropriate Policy for River Basin Management

International Journal of the

Analytic Hierarchy Process

206 Vol. 7 Issue 2 2015
ISSN 1936-6744

http://dx.doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v7i2.263

Table 3

Priorities for all sub-criteria

Sub-criterion / Criterion Local Priority Overall Priority

Agriculture and livestock / Economic 40% 20.0%

Industrial / Economic 10% 5.0%

Services / Economic 50% 25.0%

Landscape / Environmental 40% 12.5%

Fauna and flora / Environmental 40% 12.5%

Siltation / Environmental 20% 6.0%

Governmental / Social 44% 2.2%

Recreational / Social 50% 2.5%

Residential / Social 6% 0.3%

Agricultural / Socio-Economic 67% 4.7%

Industrial / Socio-Economic 22% 1.5%

Residential / Socio-Economic 11% 0.8%

Waste disposal / Socio-Environmental 14% 1.0%

Water supply / Socio-Environmental 29% 2.0%

Water treatment / Socio-Environmental 57% 4.0%

Three alternatives policies were defined by the Parliament of Salgado River. These

policies are an essentially preservationist policy, a sustainable policy, or an essentially

economic policy. Table 4 presents the judgments on the relative priorities for the

alternatives policies regarding the economic sub-criterion A (agriculture and livestock).

The comparison matrix is 100% consistent.

Table 4

Local priorities for alternatives policies regarding agriculture and livestock

Policy P S E Priority

Essentially preservationist (P) 1 3 3 69%

Sustainable (S) 1/3 1 1 23%

Essentially economic (E) 1/3 1 1 8%

Similar judgments were conducted for the other four criteria. Table 5 summarizes the

local priorities for alternatives policies regarding economic sub-criteria.

Table 5

Local priorities for alternatives policies regarding economic sub-criteria

Policy A (40%) I (10%) S (50%) Priority

Essentially preservationist 69% 78% 60% 65%

Sustainable 23% 14% 20% 21%

Essentially economic 8% 8% 20% 14%

5. Results and discussion

Table 6 summarizes the local and overall priorities for alternative policies regarding all

criteria. Essentially preservationist policies have the highest overall priority with 60%.

IJHAP Article: Sabia, Salomon, Sobreira Junior, Marins, Lima/ Determination of the Most

Appropriate Policy for River Basin Management

International Journal of the

Analytic Hierarchy Process

207 Vol. 7 Issue 2 2015
ISSN 1936-6744

http://dx.doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v7i2.263

Table 6

Priorities for alternatives policies regarding all criteria

Policy EC

(50%)

(31%)

(5%)

(7%)

Overall

priority

Essentially preservationist 65% 60% 67% 36% 42% 60%

Sustainable 21% 21% 22% 48% 40% 24%

Essentially economic 14% 19% 11% 16% 18% 16%

Figure 2 presents the variation of overall priorities for alternatives as a function of

priority for socio-economic criterion. This is the only criterion where the essentially

preservationist policy has a local priority lower than another policy. However, the priority

for the socio-economic factor shall be increased to more than 75%, and then the

sustainable policy will have an overall priority higher than essentially preservationist

policy.

Figure 2. Sensitivity analysis (Expert Choice software)

6. Conclusions

The essentially preservationist policy has the highest priority. After a sensitivity analysis

was performed this priority was confirmed. This result was presented to all the members

of the Parliament of Salgado River, and they agreed to pursue essentially preservationist

policies. However, the economic criterion was the most relevant and was a result of the

need for infrastructure to ensure the achievements of environmental yearnings.

A large number of publications applying AHP, or another MCDA method in river basin

management do not exist. In this sense, environmental management was used as a

background theory. It is clear that the study of river basin management linked to

Brazilian policy management instruments is a challenge that must be faced every day.

Therefore, the AHP applications are useful in contributing to the carrying out of the

purposes and the policies to be adopted. One of the main benefits of the AHP application

IJHAP Article: Sabia, Salomon, Sobreira Junior, Marins, Lima/ Determination of the Most

Appropriate Policy for River Basin Management

International Journal of the

Analytic Hierarchy Process

208 Vol. 7 Issue 2 2015
ISSN 1936-6744

http://dx.doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v7i2.263

was the lack of political bias when prioritizing alternatives and criteria. The judgments

were impartially conducted.

The results of this study have implications for the use of a suitable alternative for the

estimation of the benefits of river basin management improvements. The AHP with its

hierarchy structure was an effective method for studying the problem. The AHP

established priorities to alternative policies according to the Parliament of Salgado River.

The essentially preservationist policy must be the policy for river basin management in

Brazil. This may not be the solution for other countries. Thus, the application of this

study is preliminarily bound to places with similar culture and laws as Brazil.

IJHAP Article: Sabia, Salomon, Sobreira Junior, Marins, Lima/ Determination of the Most

Appropriate Policy for River Basin Management

International Journal of the

Analytic Hierarchy Process

209 Vol. 7 Issue 2 2015
ISSN 1936-6744

http://dx.doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v7i2.263

REFERENCES

Awasthi, A. & Chauhan, S.S. (2011). Using AHP and Dempster-Shafer theory for

evaluating sustainable transport solutions. Environmental Modelling Software, 26(6),

787–796.

Bello-Dambatta, A., Farmani, R., Javadi A.A., & Evans B.M. (2009). The Analytical

Hierarchy Process for contaminated land management. Advanced Engineering

Informatics, 23, 433–41.

Bottero, M., Comino, E., & Riggio, V. (2011). Application of the Analytic Hierarchy

Process and the Analytic Network Process for the assessment of different wastewater

treatment systems. Environmental Modelling Software, 26(10), 1211–1224.

Carreño, M.L., Cardona, O.D., Barbat, A.H. (2007) A disaster risk management

performance index. Natural Hazards, 41(1), 1–20.

Chen, G; Tao, L; Zhang, H. Study on the methodology for evaluating urban and regional

disasters carrying capacity and its application. Safety Science, 4 (1), 50–58.

Contreras, F., Hanaki, K., Aramaki, T., & Connors S. (2008). Application of Analytical

Hierarchy Process to analyze stakeholders preferences for municipal solid waste

management plans, Boston, USA. Resources Conservation and Recycling, 52, 979–991.

Dong, Y.C., Zhang, G.Q., Hong, W.C., & Xu, Y.F. (2010). Consensus models for AHP

group decision making under row geometric mean prioritization method. Decision

Support Systems, 49, 281–289.

Frondel, M., Horbach, J., & Rennings, K. (2004). What triggers environmental

management and innovation? Empirical evidence for Germany. RWI: Discussion Papers,

15, 1–29.

Gao, L. & Hailu, A. (2012). Ranking management strategies with complex outcomes: an

AHP-fuzzy evaluation of recreational fishing using an integrated agent-based model of a

coral reef ecosystem. Environmental Modelling Software 31, 3–18.

Garuti A., C. & Salomon, V.A.P. (2011) Compatibility indices between priority vectors.

International Journal of the Analytical Hierarchy Process, 4(2), 153–160.

Humphrey, A. S. (2005) SWOT analysis for management consulting. SRI Alumni

Association Newsletter, 7–8.

Larrubia, C.B. (2010) AHP as a decision support tool for the maintenance of the water

reservoir of Ilha Solteira. Master’s degree dissertation, Civil Engineering Graduate

Program. Ilha Solteira: Sao Paulo State University. [In Portuguese].

MacGinty, R., Carrasco, R., Oddershede, A. & Vargas, M. (2013). Strategic foresight

using an Analytic Hierarchy Process: environmental impact assessment of the electric

IJHAP Article: Sabia, Salomon, Sobreira Junior, Marins, Lima/ Determination of the Most

Appropriate Policy for River Basin Management

International Journal of the

Analytic Hierarchy Process

210 Vol. 7 Issue 2 2015
ISSN 1936-6744

http://dx.doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v7i2.263

grid in 2025. International Journal of the Analytical Hierarchy Process, 5(2), 186–199.

Ok, K., Okan, T., & Yilmaz, E. (2011). A comparative study on activity selection with

multi-criteria decision-making techniques in ecotourism planning. Scientific Research

and Essays, 6(6), 1417–1427.

Ryu, J., Leschine, T. M., Nam, J., Chang, W. K., & Dyson, K. (2011). A resilience-based

approach for comparing expert preferences across two large-scale coastal management

programs. Journal of Environmental Management, 92 (1), 92–101.

Saaty T.L. (1977) A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of

Mathematical Psychology, 15, 234–281.

Saaty T.L. (2008) Decision making with the Analytic Hierarchy Process. International

Journal of Service Sciences, 1(1), 83–98.

Saaty, T.L. (2014) The neural network process (NNP). Pittsburgh: RWS Publications.

Samari, D., Azadi, H., Zarafshani, K., Hosseininia, G., & Witlox, F. (2012). Determining

appropriate forestry extension model: application of AHP in the Zagros area, Iran.

Foreign Policy Economics, 15, 91–97.

Schmoldt, D.L., Kangas, J., Mendoza, G.A., & Pesonen, M. (2001, Ed.). The Analytic

Hierarchy Process in natural resource and environmental decision making. Dordrecht:

Kluwer.

Tahriri, F., Osman, M.R., Ali, A., & Yusuff, R. M. (2008). A review of supplier selection

methods in manufacturing industries. Suranaree Journal of Science Technology, 15, 201–

Vidal, L.A., Marle, F., & Bocquet, J.C. (2011). Using a Delphi process and the Analytic

Hierarchy Process (AHP) to evaluate the complexity of projects. Expert Systems of

Applications, 38, 5388–5405.

Wijnmalen, D.J.D. (2007) Analysis of benefits, opportunities, costs, and risks (BOCR)

with the AHP–ANP: A critical validation. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 46

(7–8), 892-905.

Xie, F. & Tang, D.S. (2010) The application of AHP and fuzzy comprehensive evaluation

in harmonious level measurement between human and water in city. Journal of Computer

Information Systems, 6, 4647–4656.

Yavuz, F., & Baycan, T. (2014), Application of combined Analytic Hierarchy Process

(AHP) and SWOT for integrated watershed management. International Journal of the

Analytical Hierarchy Process, 6(1), 3–32.