IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/smo/fpaper/003.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Selecting Sustainable Development Criteria for Effective Watershed Governance

Author

Listed:
  • Reza Javidi Sabbaghian

    (Hakim Sabzevari University, Sabzevar)

Abstract

Recently, inappropriate governance within the watersheds have caused to qualitative and quantitative degradation of water resources and unbalanced allocation of resources amongst the beneficiaries. Therefore, one of the most important challenges for stakeholders is the selection of final sustainable development criteria, which affects the planning and management for water supply scenarios and leads to effective watershed governance. Selection of final criteria depends on the stakeholders’ preferences and the decision-making risk attitudes. The risk attitudes related to the importance of viewpoints associated with stakeholders’ number within the watershed. This paper has developed a comprehensive approach based on the risk analysis to calculate the group weights and the group consensus measurements of criteria, which leads to selecting final decision-making criteria. Accordingly, in the first step, the initial criteria are determined by the group of DMs. In the second step, the group criteria weights have been calculated and in the third step, the group consensus measurements of criteria have been measured in several risk attitudes using the Hybrid Weighted Averaging (HWA) operator and the distance-based group consensus method. Finally, the most important criteria have been selected from the initial criteria based on the group consensus measurements, compared with an acceptable threshold level. This approach has been developed for the Kashafrud watershed, to select the final sustainable criteria in 2040. The results showed that the number of the final criteria depends on the risk attitudes of decision-making. Development of this method is recommended for watershed governance in the world.

Suggested Citation

  • Reza Javidi Sabbaghian, 2018. "Selecting Sustainable Development Criteria for Effective Watershed Governance," Proceedings of the 7th International RAIS Conference, February 19-20, 2018 003, Research Association for Interdisciplinary Studies.
    • Handle: RePEc:smo:fpaper:003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://rais.education/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/003.pdf
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chatzimouratidis, Athanasios I. & Pilavachi, Petros A., 2009. "Technological, economic and sustainability evaluation of power plants using the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 778-787, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Domenech, B. & Ferrer-Martí, L. & Pastor, R., 2015. "Including management and security of supply constraints for designing stand-alone electrification systems in developing countries," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 359-369.
    2. Koo, Jamin & Park, Kyungtae & Shin, Dongil & Yoon, En Sup, 2011. "Economic evaluation of renewable energy systems under varying scenarios and its implications to Korea's renewable energy plan," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 88(6), pages 2254-2260, June.
    3. Ishizaka, Alessio & Siraj, Sajid & Nemery, Philippe, 2016. "Which energy mix for the UK (United Kingdom)? An evolutive descriptive mapping with the integrated GAIA (graphical analysis for interactive aid)–AHP (analytic hierarchy process) visualization tool," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 602-611.
    4. Abdul, Daud & Wenqi, Jiang & Tanveer, Arsalan, 2022. "Prioritization of renewable energy source for electricity generation through AHP-VIKOR integrated methodology," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 184(C), pages 1018-1032.
    5. Alkan, Ömer & Albayrak, Özlem Karadağ, 2020. "Ranking of renewable energy sources for regions in Turkey by fuzzy entropy based fuzzy COPRAS and fuzzy MULTIMOORA," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 712-726.
    6. Tsita, Katerina G. & Pilavachi, Petros A., 2012. "Evaluation of alternative fuels for the Greek road transport sector using the analytic hierarchy process," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 677-686.
    7. Farboud Khatami & Erfan Goharian, 2022. "Beyond Profitable Shifts to Green Energies, towards Energy Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-28, April.
    8. Milad Kolagar & Seyed Mohammad Hassan Hosseini & Ramin Felegari & Parviz Fattahi, 2020. "Policy-making for renewable energy sources in search of sustainable development: a hybrid DEA-FBWM approach," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 40(4), pages 485-509, December.
    9. Milutinović, Biljana & Stefanović, Gordana & Dassisti, Michele & Marković, Danijel & Vučković, Goran, 2014. "Multi-criteria analysis as a tool for sustainability assessment of a waste management model," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 190-201.
    10. Shen, Yung-Chi & Chou, Chiyang James & Lin, Grace T.R., 2011. "The portfolio of renewable energy sources for achieving the three E policy goals," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 2589-2598.
    11. Wu, Yunna & Xu, Chuanbo & Zhang, Ting, 2018. "Evaluation of renewable power sources using a fuzzy MCDM based on cumulative prospect theory: A case in China," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 1227-1239.
    12. Sani Habibu & Aliyu Bilkisu Adamu & Nuhu Siddique R., 2021. "Assessing Renewable Energy Practice in Turaki Ali House Kaduna-Nigeria," Real Estate Management and Valuation, Sciendo, vol. 29(4), pages 85-96, December.
    13. Büyüközkan, Gülçin & Güleryüz, Sezin, 2016. "An integrated DEMATEL-ANP approach for renewable energy resources selection in Turkey," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 182(C), pages 435-448.
    14. Hernandez-Perdomo, Elvis A. & Mun, Johnathan & Rocco S., Claudio M., 2017. "Active management in state-owned energy companies: Integrating a real options approach into multicriteria analysis to make companies sustainable," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 195(C), pages 487-502.
    15. Saraswat, S.K. & Digalwar, Abhijeet K., 2021. "Empirical investigation and validation of sustainability indicators for the assessment of energy sources in India," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    16. Giannoulis, E.D. & Haralambopoulos, D.A., 2011. "Distributed Generation in an isolated grid: Methodology of case study for Lesvos - Greece," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 88(7), pages 2530-2540, July.
    17. B. Domenech & L. Ferrer-Martí & R. Pastor, 2022. "Multicriteria analysis of renewable-based electrification projects in developing countries," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 312(2), pages 1375-1401, May.
    18. Milutinović, Biljana & Stefanović, Gordana & Đekić, Petar S. & Mijailović, Ivan & Tomić, Mladen, 2017. "Environmental assessment of waste management scenarios with energy recovery using life cycle assessment and multi-criteria analysis," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 917-926.
    19. Yi Liu & Yutian Liang & Shiping Ma & Kaixuan Huang, 2017. "Divergent Developmental Trajectories and Strategic Coupling in the Pearl River Delta: Where Is a Sustainable Way of Regional Economic Growth?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-15, October.
    20. Wee, Hui-Ming & Yang, Wen-Hsiung & Chou, Chao-Wu & Padilan, Marivic V., 2012. "Renewable energy supply chains, performance, application barriers, and strategies for further development," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 16(8), pages 5451-5465.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Sustainable Development Criteria; Effective Watershed Governance; Group Consensus; Risk Analysis; Hybrid Weighted Averaging Operator;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:smo:fpaper:003. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Eduard David (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://rais.education/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.