WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH, VOL. 18, NO.

2, PAGES 193-202, APRIL 1982

Multiobjective River Basin Planning With Qualitative Criteria

MARK GERSHON•

Department of Systems and Industrial Engineering, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721

LUCIEN DUCKSTEIN

Department of Systems and Industrial Engineering, Department of Hydrology and Water Resources, University of Arizona
Tucson, Arizona 85721

RICHARD MCANIFF

Technical Staff, Sandia Laboratories, Division 4737, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87115

The impact of alternative river basin development strategies is examined from a multicriterion
viewpoint using the ELECTRE I and II techniques.The main stem of the Santa Cruz River in the
vicinity of Tucson, Arizona is taken as a case study. A systematicformulation of the problem is
provided leadingto an array of 25 alternativesystemsversus 13 criteria, only 5 of which are quantified.
A procedurefor rankingthesealternativesis presentedwhich usesELECTRE I to obtain preference
graphs as input into ELECTRE II, which is then used to obtain the ordering. Sensitivity analysis
showsthat changingthe weights assignedto each criterion has a greater effect on the results than does
changingthe scales.However, neither effect is very significant.It is recommendedthat ELECTRE I
be usedfor screeningpurposesto narrow the setof alternativesunderconsideration.ELECTRE II can
then be applied to this reduced set to obtain a complete ordering. For the case study the preferred
systemsincludereservoirsand channelizationand the least preferred systemsincludenew groundwa-
ter development.

INTRODUCTION approachpresentedby Kazanowski[1968, 1972]and Duck-

The purpose of this paper is to demonstratean approach
stein and Opricovic[ 1980].A methodologysectionfollowsin
which ELECTRE I is briefly discussedand an algorithmfor
for solvingmultiobjectivewater problemsinvolving qualita-
ELECTRE II is presented.After developingthe ELECTRE
tive ordinal criteria. More specifically,we proposeto com-
bine the ELECTRE I methodology[Benayounet al., 1966] II solution to the example problem, a discussionof the
and the ELECTRE II methodology[Roy and Bertier, 1971]
results and conclusionsis provided. It is suggestedthat
into an overall method of ranking alternative systemsin the ELECTRE I shouldbe appliedfor the purposeof screening,
and ELECTRE II should then be applied to rank the
presence of qualitative criteria. This ranking scheme is
remaining systems.
applied to a water resource managementcase study in a
semiaridenvironment. The site of this studyis the main stem PROBLEM FORMULATION
of the Santa Cruz River in the vicinity of Tucson, Arizona.
Alternative river basin strategiesare defined to meet the Planning in the Santa Cruz River Basin (see Figure 1) is
stated objectives, and ELECTRE I and II are used to obtain complicated by the water use conflictsof urban, agricultural,
a complete ordering amongthese systemsbasedupon quan- Indian, and mining interests.Planningproblemsin the basin
tiffable and nonquantifiableordinal criteria. are exacerbated by the rapid growth in the population of
A number of techniquesare available for the solutionof Tucson. Competitionfor water is extremely intense,and the
multiobjectivedecisionproblems,but mostof them require basin tends to be one of the msot critically overdrafted areas
the use of a cardinal scale. The approachproposedherein in the nation. Given the inherent conflictinginterests of the
requires only an interval scale. Several critiques of the user groups,it is not surprisingto see severalobjectivesput
forth as river basin goals.
current state of the art in multiobjectivedecisiontheory have
been published,suchas thoseby Roy [1971], MacCrimmon In formulatingthe problemin a multiobjectivecontext, the
[1973], Cohon and Marks [1975], Major [1977], Starr and so-called cost effectivenessapproach [Duckstein and Opri-
Zeleny [1977], Cohon [1978], and Goicoechea et al. [1982]. covic, 1980] is used. This processbeginswith the definition
ELECTRE I and II are appropriateranking techniquesfor of a set of system objectives. To be useful to the decision
fiver basin planningproblemswhich are characterizedby a maker (DM), these objectives should be quantified to the
discrete set of alternatives hat are to be evaluated with fullest extent possiblein the form of engineeringspecifica-
qualitative as well as quantitativecriteria. tions. A method to achieve this quantificationis to express
This paper is organized along the following lines. The each objective in terms of a set of measurablecriteria. The
example problem, described by Gershon et al. [1980] is objectives and the correspondingcriteria for the Santa Cruz
formulatedaccordingto the 'standardized'costeffectiveness case study are presentedin Table 1.
Next, a set of alternative systemsto meet the objectivesis
developed. Although alternatives in the Santa Cruz were
i Now with ControlData Corporation,Tucson,Arizona85710.
designedwith flood protection and increasedwater require-
Copyright1982by the AmericanGeophysical Union. ments in mind, they will be evaluated in terms of all of the
Paper number 1W1592 193
0043-1397/82/001 W- 1592505.00
194 GERSHON ET AL.' MULTIOBJECTIVE RIVER BASIN PLANNING

RI3E R 14E RISE KEY MAP

SANTA CRUZ VALLEY
?ROM RILLITO STATION TO
THE NEXICAN BOUNDARY

DRAINAGE DIVIDE ß ß ß ß ß

COUNTY LINES

TIIS

o 5

T'12S MILLS

ELEVAT IONS

TI3S ;•:X/-4000'

TI4S
•K)0O' uP

TI55

Tt65

LOGATION
• AR;ZONA
/
i
-'o..,,0-,.

Fig. 1. Map of the case study basin.

objectives presented in Table 1. Alternative flood control be evaluatedis a discreteset of 25 predefined alternative
actions include levee construction, channelization, dams and systems. Second, since some of the evaluation criteria are
reservoirs, flood plain management, and no action, while nonquantifiable,qualitative data are presentin the analysis.
water supply alternatives are wastewater reclamation, new Techniques other than ELECTRE which have been de-
groundwater development, the Central Arizona Project, signed to handle qualitative data and discrete alternatives
conservation and education, and no action. Combining one include a related techniqueknown as concordanceanalysis
flood control action with one water supply action yields a [Nijkamp and Vos, 1977]as well as Q analysis[Duckstein
matrix of 25 systemsto be evaluated, as shown in Table 2. and Kempf, 1979], lexicographic ordering [MacCrimmon,
These systemsdo not representall possiblealternatives,but 1973], and the approach developed by Zionts [1977]. The
they are realistic ones [U.S. Corps of Engineers, 1978]. ELECTRE I and II techniquesare well suited to deal with
The evaluation of each system with respect to each both situations; that is, a discrete set of systems and
criterion is summarizedin the systemsversus criteria array qualitative criteria.
shown in Table 3. Quantitative data were used wherever
ELECTRE I
possible to achieve this evaluation. The qualitative ratings
were assignedwith the idea that an interval scalewould be This methodology, developedby Benayoun et al. [1966]
needed in much the sameway that, for example, air quality and Roy [ 1971]has beenappliedto a water problemby David
is evaluatedas falling into one of four groupsby meansof an and Duckstein [1976]. The idea in ELECTRE I is to choose
index. those systemswhich are preferredfor most of the criteria
and yet do not causean unacceptablelevel of discontentfor
METHODOLOGY
any one criterion. Three concepts are developed in this
The problem under considerationhas two distinguishing methodology:concordance,discordance,and thresholdval-
characteristics. First, the set of nondominated solutions to ues.
 GERSHON ET AL.: MULTIOBJECTIVE RIVER BASIN PLANNING 195

TABLE. 1. Objectives, Specificationsand Criteria

Objective Specifications Criteria*
1. Water supply Aquifer level net changein ft/yr
Water quality, urban a, b, c, d, e
Water quality, agriculture a, b, c, d, e
2. Flood protection Expected flood losses expecteddollars
Expected frequency expected number of
floods (annual
probability)
3. Environmental Preservationof designated a, b, c, d, e
areas

Effect on wildlife and a, b, c, d, e

vegetation
4. Utilization of Implementation present dollars
resources Operation and maintenance present dollars
Indirect costs a, b, c, d, e
Natural resources a, b, c, d, e
5. recreation Preservation of existing a, b, c, d, e
facilities
Creation of new opportunities a, b, c, d, e
*Here, a, b, c, d, e is an ordinal scale, with a being the best and e being worst.

The concordance between any two actions i and j is a
weighted measureof the number of criteria for which action i
is preferred to actionj (denoted i P j) or for which action i is
equal to action j (denoted i E j) and is given as
C(i,j) = • w(k) w(k)
k•A(i•])
where w(k) is the weight on criterion k, k = 1, ß ß ß, K and
A(i,j) = {kli Pj tOi E j}, i.e., the set of all criteria for which i
is preferred to j or equal to j. The weights, which are elicited
from the decision-maker, reflect his preference structure.
Concordance can be thought of as the weighted percentage
of criteria for which one action is preferred to another. By
definition, 0 < C(i, j) < 1.
To compute the discord matrix, an interval scalecommon
to each criterion is first defined. The scale is used to
compare the discomfort causedbetween the 'worst' and the
'best' criterion value for eachpair of alternatives.A rangeof
(1-150) may be chosen where the best rating would be
assignedthe highestvalue of the range, and the worst rating
would receive the lowest value of the range. Each criterion,
however, can have a different range. Regardingthe qualita-
tive criteria, the problem of applyinga numericalrangeto an
ordinal scalepresentstheoreticaldifficultieswhich are fully
addressedby Rietveld [ 1980]. Essentially, the evaluations(a,
b, c, d, e) here are assignedin the samemanner as gradesare
given to students. The discordanceindex is defined as:
max (Z(j, k) - Z(i, k))
D(i,j) = k•l,K
R*
where Zq, k) is the evaluationof alternativej with respectto
criterion k, and R* is the largest of the K criterion scales.
To synthesize both the concordance and discordance
matrices, threshold values (p, q), both between zero and
one, are definedby the decisionmaker. In choosinga value
of p, the decision maker specifieshow much 'concordance'
he wants. Now p = 1 corresponds to full concordance,
which means that i should be prefered to j in terms of all
criteria. By choosingq, he specifiesthe amount of 'discor-
dance' he is willing to tolerate: q = 0 meansno discordance.
It is possible that some choices of p and q may yield an
infeasibleproblem.If this is the case,the valuesofp and/orq
must be restated. It is also possiblefor cycles to occur in
ELECTRE I; that is, 1 P 2, 2 P 3, and 3 P 1, which
correspondsto intransitivity. In suchcases,the three nodes
in question are collapsed into one new node (labeled YJ),
which is equivalent to assigningthe same rank to the three
systems.
The result of ELECTRE I is a preference graph which
presents a partial ordering of the alternative systems.
ELECTRE II [Roy and Bertier, 1971; Abi-Ghanem et al.,
1978] is then used to obtain a completeordering.
ELECTRE II
Two preferencegraphsmustbe generatedby ELECTRE I
for use as input to the ELECTRE II procedure. These
graphsrepresentthe strongand weak preferencestructures
of the decision-maker.The strongpreferencegraph results
from the use of stringent threshold values; that is, the
decisionmaker is asked to selecta high level of concordance
and a low level of discordance. For the weak preference
graph the decision-maker is asked to relax his threshold

TABLE 2. Index Numbers for Alternative Systems

Levee Reservoirs Flood Plain
Alternatives Construction Channelization and Dams Management No Action

1. Waste water reclamation 1 2 3 4 5

2. Groundwater development 6 7 8 9 10
3. Central Arizona Project 11 12 13 14 15
4. Conservation and education 16 17 18 19 20
5. No action 21 22 23 24 25
196 GERSHON
ET AL..'MULTIOBJECTIVE
RIVERBASINPLANNING

TABLE 3. SystemsVersus

Criteria W 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Aquifer level, 9 2.7 1.6 2.0 2.4 3.5 2.7 1.6 2.0 2.4 3.5
ft/yr
Water quality, 3 e a d a b e a d a b
urban
Water quality, 3 a b b b b a b b b b
Agriculture
Expected flood 4 7.22 7.22 0 19.45 26.33 7.72 7.72 0 19.45 26.33
losses
Expected frequency 5 0.01 0.01 0.003 0.02 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.003 0.02 0.04
per year
Preservation desig- 5 d d c a a d d c a a
nated areas
Effect on wildlife 5 c b d a a d c e c c
and vegetation
Implementation 2 12.7 16.8 12.3 1.9 0.2 32.5 36.6 32.1 21.8 20
costs
Operations and 2 37.6 37.8 38.2 37.2 37.0 2.6 2.8 3.2 2.2 2.0
maintenance costs
Indirect costs 2 c c b d c d d d e e
Natural resource 2 c c c b a d d d c c
Preservation of 1.5 c b c b b c b c a a
existing facilities
Creation of 1.5 b b a a c d d b c e
new opportunities

values (lower p, higher q). These relaxed thresholdvalues danceand a low discordancerelationshipbecomesa high
represent lower bounds on system performancethat the discordance. The remainingstepsare identicalto the steps
decisionmaker is willing to accept. The strongpreference outlined in the forward ranking with one difference:the
graphis alwaysa subgraphof the weak preferencegraph,but systemwhichis rankedlastis rankedfirst,andthe remaining
the distinctionbetweenstrongpreferenceand weak prefer- systems are ranked in reverse order. This reestablishes the
ence must be made to assure a complete ranking of the correct direction of the rankingprocess.
alternatives. Upon completionof the forwardandreverserankings,an
The graph representingthe strongpreferencestructureis averageof the two is taken for eachnode.Thusif systemi
definedas the graph Gr. The graph representing weak was ranked first in the forward ranking and secondin the
preferences is definedas Gr.ThegraphGf is definedby the reverseranking,its averagerankingis 1.5. The final stageof
pair (Yi*,l/i,) andthegraphGfby (Yf, Vf),whereYis the set ELECTRE II is to order the systemswith respectto their
of nodes representingthe alternatives and V is the set of average rankings. This establishesa complete ranking
directed arcs showingpreferencesamongalternatives.An amongthe systems.A concisedescriptionof the algorithm
arc is directed from node i to node j if alternative i is follows:
preferredto alternativej. The ELECTRE II approachre-
quires two separate rankings, which are referred to as the Forward Ranking
forward and reverserankings. 1. Sett = 0.
Forward ranking. The first stepin the forwardrankingis 2. Select all nodes (or systemsy) in Gr(t) having no
to identifyall nodesin the graphGf whichhaveno prede- precedent. Denote this set as C.
cents; that is, those that have no arcs directed into the node. 3. Selectall nodesin C havingno precedent
in GAt).
This set is defined as the set C. Next, the nodes in set C Denote this set as A(t).
havingno precedents in graphGf are identified.This setis 4. Assignrank o'(y) = t + 1 to all nodesy in set A(t).
definedas setA, andthe elementsof thissetare assigned the 5. ReduceGi*and Gf. If all nodesare eliminated,stop.
rank of one.
6. Set t = t + 1 and return to step 2.
Thenextstepconsists of reducingGi*andGfby eliminat-
ingall nodescontained at Reverse Ranking
in thesetA andall arcsoriginating
these nodes.The reducedgraphGi* is againexaminedto 1. Reversedirectionof all arcsVi*of Gi*andVTof GT.
identifyall nodeshavingno precedents.Thesenodescom- 2. Obtainrankinga(y) analogousto v'(y) above.
prise a new set C, and the procedureoutlinedabove is 3. Reestablish
correctdirectionof the rankingby setting
repeated. The next set of nodes in set A receives the rank of
two. This iterative procedureis continueduntil all nodesof
Gi*and Gf havebeeneliminatedandall systemsareranked. v"(y) = 1 + max [a(y)]- a(y)
y•Y
Reverse ranking. The first step in this rankingis to
reversethedirection of allarcsin Gi*andGr.If system i was
preferredto systemj in theforwardranking,system j is now APPLICATION OF ELECTRE I AND II
preferredto systemi in thereverseranking.By reversing the ELECTREI isapplied
tothesystems
versus
criteria
array
arcs, a highconcordancerelationshipbecomesa low concor- of Table 3, yieldingthe concordance
and discordance
matri-
 GERSHON
ET AL.' MULTIOBJECTIVE
RIVERBASINPLANNING 197

CriteriaArray 'Cost Effectiveness'Table

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

2.7 1.6 2.0 2.4 3.5 2.7 1.6 2.0 2.4 3.5 2.7 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.5

e a d a b e a d a b e a d a b

a b b b b a b b b b a b b b b

7.72 7.72 0 19.45 26.33 7.72 7.72 0 19.45 26.33 7.72 7.72 0 19.45 16.33

0.01 0.01 0.003 0.02 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.003 0.02 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.003 0.02 0.01

d d c a a d d c a a d d c a a

c c d d b c c d b c c c d b b

28.1 32.2 27.6 17.3 15.6 12.6 16.7 12.2 1.8 0.01 12.5 16.6 12.1 1.8 0

2.2 2.4 2.8 1.0 1.6 1.1 1.3 1.7 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.8 1.2 0.2 0

b b a c b c c b d d c c c c d
e e e d c c b e a a c b c b a
c b c b b c b c a a c b c b b

d d b c e d d b c e d d b c e

cesshown,respectively,in Tables4 and5. Fromthesetwo fromtherangeof therow.Forthequalitative rows(2, 3, 6, 7,

matricesthestrongandweakpreference graphsareobtained 10,11,12,13),aisthescale range,bis• oftherange,cis«of
as shownin Figures2 and 3, respectively.For the strong therange,d is • of therange,ande is zero.Theremaining
preferencegraph,p andq aredefinedto be 0.9 and0.2;for rowsaretreatedsimilarly.Thereasonfor thisis to useall of
the weakgraph,thesevaluesarerelaxedto 0.7 and0.5. As the entries as havingcommonunits.
an example,considerthe concordance betweensystems1 For example,discordance between1 and3 existsfor any
and 3. A value of 0.30 can be found in Table 4. This is criterion where 3 P 1. These criteria are 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10,
calculatedby lookingdownthecolumns marked1 and3 of and 13. The largestdiscordance is for the firstcriterion;a
Table3, determining the weightedaverageof howoftenthe value of 0.26 for D(1, 3) is found in Table 5.
firstispreferred
to thethird,anddividing
by thetotalweight
of 45: 120 - 67.5
D(1, 3) = = 0.26
150
3+5+2+2+ 1.5
C(1, 3) =
45
= 0.30 Details
oftheELECTRE
II applications
together
withan
explanation
of Y2,Y3,andY4aregivenin thelowerportion
To calculate the discordance,an interval (or ratio) scale of Table 6; Table 7 showsthe calculationof the average
mustbe defined.For thispurpose,the entriesin the ith row ranking.The rankingalgorithm presented in the previous
of Table 3 are first expandedover the intervalsgivenin sectioncan be followedin the detailsshownin Tables6 and
column2 of Table 8. These scalesare appliedbasedon the 7.

magnitude of theeffectof movingfrombestto worstforany

givencriterion.Lookingagainat columns1and3 ofTable3, ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
the scaled values are:
ELECTRE I has been appliedto comparealternative
First systems
using
thedatagiveninTable3.Theacceptable
level
of concordanceis taken to be 0.9 (i.e., p = 0.9) and the
(67.5, 0, 130, 111.4, 128, 37.5, tolerable level of discordanceis 0.2 (i.e., q = 0.2). The
100, 149.2, 16.42,50, 50, 50, 57) resultsindicatethat wastewaterreclamationcombinedwith
Third channelization
(system2), reservoirs(system3), or levee
construction
(system1) are the alternatives mostoften
(120, 27.5, 97.5, 160, 150.4,75, preferred.
WhileELECTREI determines thattheabove
50, 150.8, 15.99,75, 50, 50, 76) systemsarepreferable
toothersystems,it doesnotprovide
Thesescaledvaluesare computedfrom Table 3 as follows: a rankingamongthesepreferred
alternatives.
Theapplica-
by 100;the smallest tion of the ELECTRE II methodyieldssucha ranking.In
The entryin the firstrow is multiplied
entryin the row is subtractedfromit; thisnumberis'then general, thefinalranking groups thesystems accordingto
subtractedfrom the largestscalerangeandthenmultiplied the flood control actions. The alternativesthat include
by therangefor thisrow dividedby thelargestrange.For reservoirs, namely,3, 23, 18,13,8 arerankedwithinthetop
the fourthrow, the entryis multipliedby 5 andsubtracted 9 of the 25 systems. Thusthe reservoirs seemto be the
198 GERSHON ET AL' MULTIOBJECTIVE RIVER BASIN PLANNING
 GERSHON ET AL.' MULTIO!•IECTIVE RIVER BASIN PLANNING 199

<
200 GERSHON ET AL.: MULTIOBJECTIVE RIVER BASIN PLANNING

Within the flood control groups, wastewater reclamation

remains the most preferred water supply alternative while
new groundwater development remains last. No further
trends are apparent.

Weighting Changes
When all criteria receive the sameweights, channelization
combined with no action is the most preferred choice.
Although some trends appear evident (for example, levees
are consistentlyranked lowest), it is difficult to rank systems
according to flood control or water supply groupings.

Simultaneous Weight and Scale Changes

Channelization combined with no action is the preferred
choice in this case. In general, channelizationand floodplain
management rank highest among the flood control alterna-
tives and wastewater reclamation and conservation rank
highestamongthe water supply alternatives.
The completerankingsafter sensitivityanalysisare shown
Fig. 2. StrongpreferencegraphGœ(0.9,
0.2). in Figure 4. On the basis of these results, a closeinspection
of Figure 4 shows that overall wastewater reclamation and
reservoirs (system 3) should be implemented. However,
preferredelements,followedby channelization,floodplain wastewater reclamation with flood plain management(sys-
management, andlevees.The no-actionalternatives,that is, tem 2) and reservoirs with no action (system 23) would also
10, 20, 15, 25, 5, are ranked last.
be good compromisesolutions.Other, less radical changes
Within each flood control grouping,a further clustering
in the weights were tested, yielding even less shiftingin the
amongthewatersupplyactionsemerges. Wastewater recla- rankings than those shown here.
mationis preferredto all otherwatersupplyactionswithin
four of the five flood control groups. It is followd by no DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
action, conservationand education,Central Arizona Pro-
The impact of alternative development strategiesupon a
ject, andnewgroundwater
development.
It shouldbe noted river basin such as the main stem of the Santa Cruz can be
that the new groundwateralternativerankslastwithinevery examined within a multiobjective planning context. For
flood control group.
evaluation purposesthe ELECTRE I and II techniqueshave
The systemselectedasbestby the ELECTRE II method- been chosen because they allow for a ranking of a set of
ologyis reservoirscombinedwith wastewaterreclamation systems rated qualitatively. Where most other methods
(system 3). It should be noted that public responseto require a cardinal scale, this method only requires ordinal
reservoir constructionhas been negativein the past. Sucha
ranking with an interval scale.
considerationhas not been included explicitly in the analy-
The resuts of ELECTRE I indicate that three systemsare
sis, but this could easily be done by includinganother
the alternativesmost often preferred (i.e., systems2, 3, and
criterionandweightingit accordingly. The completeranking 1). The results of ELECTRE II suggestthat one of these
is given in the top portion of Figure 4. (system 3) is the best choice. Furthermore, another one of
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS these (system 1) appearsto be a poor choice (14th in the
ranking). This points out an important advantageof the use
Sensitivityanalyseswereperformedto testtherobustness of ELECTRE II. ELECTRE II providesa completeordering
of the model with respect to changesin the scalesand among the alternatives, whereas ELECTRE I only yields a
weights.The scalesare changedsuchthat the samescale partial ordering. In the above case, ELECTRE I suggests
interval is used for all criteria. Likewise, the weights are
that wastewater/levee construction is a preferred action.
changedsothatall criteriaaregiventhe sameweight.These This can be attributed to the fact that within the group of
changes, shownin Table8, aredesigned to provideinsightas
to the relativesensitivityof resultsto correctspecification
of
the scales and weights.

Scale Changes
Reservoirs combined with wastewater reclamation re-
mains the best choice upon implementationof the scale
changes.However, the scalechangesdo havean impacton
the overall ranking. Among the flood control alternatives,
channelizationreplacesreservoirsas the most preferred
choiceand leveesreplaceno actionas the leastpreferred
choice. Observe that the channelization alternatives (2, 22,
17, 12, 7) are ranked within the top eight systemchoices, Indicates weak pref.

whereas the levee construction alternatives are ranked in Indicates strong pref.

four of the last six positions. Fig. 3. Weak preferencegraphGf(0.7, 0.5).

 GERSHON
ETAL.:
MULTIOBJECTIVE
RIVER
BASIN
PLANNING 201
TABLE 6. Applicationof ELECTRE II
Forward Ranking Reverse Ranking

Itera- Intera- Reverse

tion Set Set Rank tion Set Set Rank Rank
t C A v' t C A a v"
0 {Y2,Y3,Y4,2,4,5,19} {Y3, Y4,2} 1 0 {6,7,8,10,14} {6,10} 1 10
1 {Y2, 4,5,12,18,19} {12, 18} 2 1 {7,8,9,11,14,15,20} {9,11,15,20} 2 9
2 {Y2, 4,5,7,13,19} {7,13} 3 2 {Y2,7,8,14,24,25} {Y2, 24,25} 3 8
3 {Y2, 4,5,8,19} {8} 4 3 {5,7,8,14} {5,7} 4 7
4 {Y2, 4,5,19} {Y2,4,19} 5 4 {8,12,14} {12,14} 5 6
5 {5,14,24} {14,24} 6 5 {Y4,2,4,8,19} {Y4,2,4,19} 6 5
6 {5,9} {5,9} 7 6 {8} {8} 7 4
7 {11, 15,25} {11,15,25} 8 7 {13} {13} 8 3
8 {6,20} {6,20} 9 8 {18} {18} 9 2
9 {10} {10} 10 9 {Y3} {Y3} 10 1
SetC= allnodes
havingnoprecedents
instrong
preference
graph;
Set
A= allnodesinsetChaving
noprecedents
inweak
preference
graph.
Y2= systems
(1,16,21);Y3= systems
(3,23);Y4= systems
(17,22).

TABLE 7. ELECTRE II Rankings

Node Y2 2 Y3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Y4 18 19 20 24 25
o' 5 1 1 5 7 9 3 4 7 10 8 2 3 6 8 1 2 5 9 6 8
o" 8 5 1 5 7 10 7 4 9 10 9 6 3 6 9 5 2 5 9 8 8
• 6.5 3 1 5 7 9.5 5 4 8 10 8.5 4 3 6 8.5 3 2 5 9 7 8
Rank12 3 1 8 13 20 8 6 15 21 17 6 3 11 17 3 2 8 19 13 15

leveeconstruction (1, 6, 11, 16,21),thisis the systems

alternatives previously
ranked
higharestillranked
high.This
most
preferred.
Onlythrough II could suggests
theuseofELECTRE thata combined
useoftheELECTRE
I, II tech-
it be determinedthatall of thesesystemsarerankedlow. niquesis not sensitive
to scalechanges.
In thesensitivity
analysis thescalechanges Withregard
donothavea totheweightingchanges,
thosesystemsthat
significant
effecton thefinalranking.
Among
theflood rankedhighpreviously
stillrankedhigh aftersensitivity:
controlalternatives,
channelization
replaces as onlyminor
reservoirs shifting
canbedetected.
However,
asaresult
of
themostpreferredaction.However, reclama-theweightchanges,
wastewater no action/channelization
(system
22)
tion/reservoirs
(system
3)remains
thebestchoice,
andthose becomes
the bestchoice.
It should
be notedthatthechanges

Original
Weights
and
Scales

Weights
equal,
Original
Scales

Scales
equal,
Original
Weights

Weights
equal,
Scales
equal

KEY:

<• Chonnelization
alternatives
[-• Reservoir
alternatives
C Allother
alternatives
Fig.4. Ranking
ofalternative
systems,
including
sensitivity
analysis.
202 GERSHON ET AL.: MULTIOBJECTIVE RIVER BASIN PLANNING

TABLE 8. Sensitivity Changes Cohon,J., andD. Marks,A reviewandevaluation

ofmultiobjective
programingtechniques,Water Resour. Res., 11(2), 208-220, 1975.
Original Equal Original Equal David, L., and L. Duckstein, Multi-criterion rankingof alternative
Criterion Scales Scales Weights Weights long-rangewater resourcessystems, Water Resour. Bull., 12(4),
1 0-150 0-100 9 1 731-754, 1976.
2 0-110 0-100 3 1 Duckstein, L., and J. Kempf, Multicriteria Q-analysisfor plan
3 0-130 0-100 3 1 evaluation, preprint presentedat the 9th Meeting of the Working
4 0-160 0-100 4 1 Group on MCDM, Groupe Eur. Rech. Oper., Amsterdam,April
5 0-160 0-100 5 1 !979.
6 0-150 0-100 5 1 Duckstein, L., and S. Opricovic, Multiobjective optimization in
7 0-200 0-100 5 1 river basindevelopment, Water Resour. Res., 16(1), 14-20, 1980.
8 0-200 0-100 2 1 Gershon, M., R. McAniff, and L. Duckstein, A multi-objective
9 0-110 0-100 2 1 approachto river basin planning,paper presentedat the 1980
10 0-100 0-100 2 1 Meetings, Ariz. Sect. of the Am. Water Resour. Assoc. and the
11 0-100 0-100 2 1 Hydrol. Sect. of Ariz. Nev. Acad. of Sci., Las Vegas, Nevada,
12 0-100 0-100 1.5 1 April 1980.
13 0-76 0-100 1.5 1 Goicoechea, A., D. Hansen, and L. Duckstein, Introduction to
MultiobjectiveAnalysis with Engineeringand BusinessApplica-
tions, John Wiley, New York, in press, 1982.
in weights were dramatic, and as such, it is asserted that Kazanowski, A.D., A standardizedapproachto cost-effectiveness
evaluation, in Cost-Effectiveness:The Economic Evaluation of
ELECTRE I and II are fairly robustwith respectto changes Engineered Systems, edited by J. English, pp. 113-150, John
in weights;this assertionconfirmspreviousexperiencewith Wiley, New York, 1968.
the technique [Abi-Ghanern et al., 1978]. Kazanowski, A.D., Treatment of some of the uncertaintiesencoun-
The fact that changesin weightsand scalesshowedsome tered in the conduct of hydrologic cost-effectivenessevaluation,
paper presentedat the International Symposiumon Uncertainties
shiftingof the rankingsand even changedthe first choice in Hydrologic and Water ResourceSystems,Dep. of Hydrol. and
means that ELECTRE is responsive to the preference Water Resour., Tucson, Arizona, December 1972.
structure of the decision maker. It should be kept in mind MacCrimmon, K. R., An overview of multiple objectivedecision
that the systems defined in this study correspond to a making, in Multiple Criteria Decision Making, edited by J.
prefeasibility study. The next step is to define alternatves, CochraneandM. Zeleny,pp. 18-44,Universityof SouthCarolina
Press, Columbia, South Carolina, 1973.
mixing those ranked highly under the variousweightings. Major, D., Multiobjective Water ResourcePlanning, WaterResour.
In this study a complete ranking of only 25 systemswas Monogr. Ser., vol. 4, AGU, Washington,D.C., 1977.
desired. In other studies the number of alternative systems Nijkamp, P., and J. B. Vos A multicriteria analysisfor water
under consideration may be excessive. For this case it is resource and land use development, Water Resour. Res., 13(3),
513-518, 1977.
recommendedthat ELECTRE I be used as a screening Rietveld, P., Multiple Objective Decision Methods and Regional
device to choosea manageablesubsetof preferred systems. Planning, Stud. Reg. Sci. Urban Econ., vol. 7, North-Holland,
ELECTRE II can then be used to rank the systemsin this Amsterdam, 1980.
subset. Roy, B., Problemsand methodswith multiple objectivefunctions,
• Math. Programming, 1(2), 239-268, 1971.
Roy, B., and P. Bertier, La mtthode ELECTRE II, Note Trav. 142,
Acknowledgments. Funds for this research were furnished in
Dir. Sci., Groupe Metra, Paris, April 1971.
part by the EngineeringExperimentStation,University of Arizona.
Starr, M., and M. Zeleny, MCDM--State and future of the arts, in
The help of Martin Fogel in definingthe problem and providing
Multiple Criteria Decision Making, edited by M. Starr and M.
ratingsof alternative systemsis gratefullyacknowledged.Part of the
Zeleny, pp. 5-29, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1977.
content of this paper has been presented at the Fall Annual
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Urban study for the metropolitan
American GeophysicalUnion Meeting in San Francisco,December
1980. area of Tucson, Arizona, Rep. 12192, Tucson, Ariz., December
1978.

REFERENCES Zeleny, M., Linear Multiobjective Programming, Springer-Verlag,

Berlin, 1974.
Abi-Ghanem, G., L. Duckstein, and L. Hekman, Multiobjective Zionts, S., Multiple criteria decisionmakingfor discretealternatives
analysisof a vegetationmanagementproblemusingELECTRE with ordinal criteria, Int. Syrup. Extremal Meth. Syst. Anal.
II, WorkingPap. 78-19, Dep. of Syst. and Ind. Eng. Univ of Ariz., Works Pap. 29, Sch. of Manage., State Univ. of New York at
Tucson, 1978. Buffalo, Buffalo, N.Y., 1977.
Benayoun, R., B. Roy, and B. Sussmann,ELECTRE: Une mtthode
pour quiderle choix en prtsencede pointsde vue multiples,Note
Trav. 49, Dir. Sci., Soc. Econ. Math. Appl., Paris, 1966. (ReceivedDecember 18, 1980;
Cohon, J. L., MultiobjectiveProgrammingand Planning,Academ- revised September24, 1981;
ic, New York, 1978. accepted October 9, 1981.)