A MCDM Model for Urban Water Conservation Strategies Adapting Simos Procedure for Evaluating Alternatives Intra-criteria

  • Marcele Elisa Fontana
  • Danielle Costa Morais
  • Adiel Teixeira de Almeida
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6576)


This paper proposes a MCDM model based on the SMARTER method for the problem of urban water conservation strategies. The main contribution of this decision model is the use of Simos procedure adapted for evaluating alternatives intra-criteria, specifically on qualitative attributes. In fact, analyses of water resources problems are normally very complex, not only because this involves multiple alternative actions and objectives, but also because many attributes are subjective or need to be evaluated qualitatively. Nevertheless, there are many approaches to dealing with a semantic scale so as to make evaluation easier. However, it is often the case that the DM does not feel comfortable with the fixed nominal scale adopted or with the number of evaluations since the alternatives often need to be compared pairwise. On the other hand, a simple conversion from a nominal to an ordinal scale normally loses information. For these reasons, this paper proposes an adaptation of Simos procedure, associating ’playing cards’ to evaluate alternatives on qualitative attributes, in order to facilitate the elicitation process. To show the applicability of the model proposed, a Brazilian case study is conducted.


Intra-criteria evaluation Revised Simos procedure Water Conservation SMARTER 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Silva, V. B. S., Morais, D. C., Almeida, A. T.: A Multicriteria Group Decision Model to Support Watershed Committees in Brazil. Water Resources Management (2010) doi:10.1007/s11269-010-9648-2 Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ahmad, S., Prashar, D.: Evaluating Municipal Water Conservation Policies Using a Dynamic Simulation Model. Water Resources Management 24, 3371–3395 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Morais, D.C., Almeida, A.T.: Water network rehabilitation: a group decision-making approach. Water S.A. 36, 1–7 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Morais, D.C., Almeida, A.T.: Group Decision-Making for Leakage Management Strategy of Water Network. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52, 441–459 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kallis, G., Ray, I., Fulton, J., McMahon, J.E.: Public Versus Private: Does It Matter for Water Conservation? Insights from California. Environmental Management 45, 177–191 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Randolph, B., Troy, P.: Attitudes to conservation and water consumption. Environmental science & policy 11, 441–455 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Morais, D.C., Almeida, A.T.: Water supply system decision making using multicriteria analysis. Water S.A. 32, 229–235 (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hajkowicz, S., Higgins, A.: A comparison of criteria analysis techniques for water resource management. European Journal of Operational Research 184, 255–265 (2008)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shepetukha, Y., Olson, D.L.: Comparative Analysis of Multi-attribute Techniques Based on Cardinal and Ordinal Inputs. Mathematical and Computer Modeling 34, 229–241 (2001)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Weber, M.: Decision making with incomplete information. European Journal of Operational Research 28, 1–12 (1987)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bana e Costa, C.A., Vansnick, J.C.: MACBETH - An Interactive Path Towards the Construction of Cardinal Value Functions. International Transactions in Operational Research 1, 489–500 (1994)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Figueira, J.R., Greco, S., Ehrgott, M. (eds.): Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys. Springer-Media, New York (2005)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Figueira, J.R., Roy, B.: Determining the weights of criteria in the ELECTRE type methods with a revised Simos procedure. European Journal of Operational Research 139, 317–326 (2002)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Simos, J.: L’évaluation environnementale: Un processus cognitif négocié. Thése de doctorat, DGF-EPFL, Lausanne (1990)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Edwards, W., Hutton, B.F.: SMARTS and SMARTER: improved simple methods for multi-attribute utility measurement. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 60, 306–325 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Barron, F.H., Barrett, B.E.: The efficacy of SMARTER - Simple Multi-Attribute Rating Technique Extended to Ranking. Acta Psychologica 93, 23–36 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Olson, D.L.: Comparison of three multicriteria methods to predict known outcomes. European Journal of Operational Research 130, 576–587 (2001)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marcele Elisa Fontana
    • 1
  • Danielle Costa Morais
    • 1
  • Adiel Teixeira de Almeida
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Management EngineeringFederal University of PernambucoRecifeBrazil

Personalised recommendations