Published Aug 12, 2015
Rodolfo J. Sabiá Valerio A. P. Salomon Francisco A. V. Sobreira Júnior Fernando A. S. Marins Anna F. O. Lima


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 preservationist policy, sustainable policy, and essentially economic policy. The AHP application was effective in this decision analysis.


How to Cite

Sabiá, R. J., Salomon, V. A. P., Sobreira Júnior, F. A. V., Marins, F. A. S., & Lima, A. F. O. (2015). DETERMINATION OF THE MOST APPROPRIATE POLICY FOR RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT. International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, 7(2).


Download data is not yet available.
Abstract 2349 | PDF Downloads 158



AHP, environmental policies, river basin management

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 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, 201–8.

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.