multiple criteria analysis and water resources risk management
DESCRIPTION
Multiple Criteria Analysis and Water Resources Risk Management. David L. Olson James & H.K. Stuart Chancellor’s Distinguished Chair Professor, Department of Management. Overview. Multiple criteria in Water Resource Risk Management Interactive Decision Maps Russian method - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Multiple Criteria Analysis and Water Resources Risk
Management
• David L. Olson– James & H.K. Stuart Chancellor’s
Distinguished Chair– Professor, Department of Management
Climate, Water and Ecosystems - Oct 2011
Overview
• Multiple criteria in Water Resource Risk Management
• Interactive Decision Maps– Russian method
• LP to generate alternatives• Visualize more than three criteria
– Useful for problems with many potential variants
Climate, Water and Ecosystems - Oct 2011
Past Work of Others – library search• Water balance, climate change and land-use planning in the Pear
Harbor Basin, Hawaii– Giambelluca, Ridgley & Nullet Water Resources Development 12:4, 1996
• The Peconic River: Concerns associated with different risk evaluations for fish consumption– Burger & Gochfeld, Jounral of Environmental Planning & Management
48:6, 2005• Evaluation of drinking water treatment technology: An entropy-based
fuzzy application– Chowdhury & Husain, Journal of Environmental Engineering, Oct 2006
• Charting a path for innovative toilet technology using multicriteria decision analysis– Borsuk, Mareur, Lienert & Larsen, Environmental Science & Technology
42:6, 2008
Climate, Water and Ecosystems - Oct 2011
CriteriaChowdhury & Husain (2006) Drinking Water
Borsuk et al. (2008) Water quality protection
Johnson & White (2010) Drinking Water
Cancer risk Quality of life Health
Noncancer risk Costs Cost
Technology availability Health risk Testing
Management factors Environmental quality Treatment
Chemical performance Fairness
Cost of technology Scientists – publication
Cost of chemicals Scientists – water quality
Cost of operation
Cost of maintenance
Cost of accessories
Cost - Watershed
Climate, Water and Ecosystems - Oct 2011
Corps of Engineers - CriteriaMiddle Mississippi
Delaware River
Great Lakes Virgin River (UT, AZ, NV)
ForestsWetlandsHabitatAgricultureAquaticsRecreationFloodplainWater qualityInvasive speciesEconomics
Cost-benefit EcologyConnectivity -(native species)HydrologyGeomorphic-(diversity)Invasive species
FloodplainInvasive speciesLand use planningEndangered speciesWater supply & qualityWildfireChannel maintenanceStorm runoff, salinity
Visualization of Multiple-criterion Decision Problems
and Search for Efficient Decisions
Alexander V. Lotov
Russian Academy of Sciences, Computing Center, and Lomonosov Moscow State University
Climate, Water and Ecosystems - Oct 2011
Complications related to old approaches: example of water quality planning — cost (F) versus oil products pollution (Z5)
Feasible Goals Method (FGM) / Interactive Decision Maps (IDM)
technique
The FGM/IDM is a graphic form of the goal approach. Its main features are:
• approximation of the Edgeworth-Pareto Hull (EPH), i.e. the variety of feasible goals and all dominated criterion points;
Climate, Water and Ecosystems - Oct 2011
Real-life application of the FGM
Decision support system for decision screening in water
quality planning
Russian Federal programmeRevival of the Volga River
Climate, Water and Ecosystems - Oct 2011
Water quality to be improved in a large river basin
DSS to support the search for reasonable strategies of investment in wastewater treatment facilitiesConsider both cost and its allocation between
regions
Climate, Water and Ecosystems - Oct 2011
DSS calibrated for the Oka RiverOne of the largest tributaries of the Volga RiverSeven regions are located at the main flow of the riverThe river-bed was split into fourteen segments that are
related to the locations of the regionsSix most important pollutants
SuspensionPhosphatesNitratesOil productsFerrous combinationsBiological oxygen demand
Climate, Water and Ecosystems - Oct 2011
Oka River Basin
Climate, Water and Ecosystems - Oct 2011
Climate, Water and Ecosystems - Oct 2011
• Users apply the DSS for the search for preferable investment strategies
• A large list of performance indicators is provided to users– They can specify screening criteria directly in the list – Two kinds of potential criteria
·environmental indicators - describe resulting pollutant concentrations in a region or in the river·economic indicators - include the total cost of the project and investments in particular regions
Climate, Water and Ecosystems - Oct 2011
DSS allows user to specify two to seven performance indicators from the list to be the screening criteria. Constraints on the indicator values can be imposed.
Here the total cost of the project, the investment in the fourth region and the investment in the seventh region have been already specified to be screening criteria.
After criteria were specified, computer approximates the Edgeworth-Pareto Hull (EPH), which is contains all feasible combinations of the criterion values and all criterion points dominated by them.
Usually user desires to explore three criteria at once:
he/she explores decision maps
Climate, Water and Ecosystems - Oct 2011
To explore dependencies between more than three
criteria, user can animate the decision map or use
matrices of decision maps
(snap-shots of decision map animation)
Climate, Water and Ecosystems - Oct 2011
Then, user selects one of the decision maps and selects the
preferred goal(cross in the following picture)
Climate, Water and Ecosystems - Oct 2011
The related water quality improvement project is computed automatically
(displayed in the third column of the table)
Climate, Water and Ecosystems - Oct 2011
Conclusions• Water resource management involves many
tradeoffs• Many criteria could be considered• US Federal Gov’t tends to focus on cost-
benefit– Water resources agencies in the past mandated
multiple criteria• Lotov’s IDM offers an interesting means to
visualize tradeoffsClimate, Water and Ecosystems - Oct 2011