Water and Environmental Resources: A Multi-Criteria Assessment of Management Approaches
Author:
Armas Vargas Felipe1, Nava Luzma Fabiola23ORCID, Gómez Reyes Eugenio1, Olea-Olea Selene4ORCID, Rojas Serna Claudia1, Sandoval Solís Samuel5ORCID, Meza-Rodríguez Demetrio6ORCID
Affiliation:
1. Departamento de Ingeniería de Procesos e Hidráulica, Ciencias Básicas e Ingeniería, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana-Iztapalapa, Mexico City 09340, Mexico 2. CONAHCyT—Departamento de Ingeniería Geomática e Hidráulica, División de Ingenierías, Campus Guanajuato, Universidad de Guanajuato, Guanajuato 38096, Mexico 3. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), 2361 Laxenburg, Austria 4. Departamento de Dinámica Terrestre y Superficial, Instituto de Geología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City 04510, Mexico 5. Department of Land, Air and Water Resources, University of California Davis, Davis, CA 95616, USA 6. Departamento de Ecologia y Recursos Naturales, Universidad de Guadalajara, Jalisco 48900, Mexico
Abstract
The present study applied a multi-criteria analysis to evaluate the best approach among six theoretical frameworks related to the integrated management of water–environmental resources, analyzing the frequency of multiple management criteria. The literature review covers the period from 1990 to 2015, with a notable presence of the theoretical frameworks of Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM), Ecohealth, Ecosystem Approach (EA), Water Framework Directive (WFD), and, to a lesser extent, the Watershed Governance Prism (WGP) and the Sustainability Wheel (SW). The multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods applied include AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process), TOPSIS (Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution), and PROMETHEE (Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment Evaluations). Twenty-five criteria were analyzed, such as governance, participation, sustainability, decentralization, and health and well-being, among others. We started with five criteria for evaluating the hierarchy of the six theoretical frameworks using the AHP method. Subsequently, we again evaluated the five criteria using the TOPSIS and PROMETHEE methods to calibrate the results with the AHP. Then, using word counting, we evaluated the best approach, applying 10, 15, 20, and 25 more criteria. Our results indicate that the best integrated management alternative was the WFD, which fulfilled 47% of the management criteria. Second, with 45%, was the WGP, and third was IWRM, with 41%; less successful approaches to the criteria were demonstrated by the EA, SW, and Ecohealth methods. By applying this methodology, we demonstrated an excellent structured tool that can aid in the selection of the most important issue within a given sector.
Subject
Water Science and Technology,Aquatic Science,Geography, Planning and Development,Biochemistry
Reference113 articles.
1. FNWA (2023, March 25). European Declaration for a New Water Culture. Foundation for a New Water Culture. Available online: https://ris.utwente.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/5149912/Arrojo+et+al_2005_European+Declaration+for+a+New+Water+Culture.pdf. 2. Domínguez, S.J. (2021, October 15). Hacia una Buena Gobernanza Para la Gestión Integrada de los Recursos Hídricos (Towards Good Governance for the Integrated Water Resources Management). Proceso Regional de las Américas VI foro Mundial del Agua. Available online: https://www.gwp.org/globalassets/global/gwp-cam_files/gobernanza-para-girh-2012.pdf. 3. Andrade-Pérez, A. (2007). Aplicación del Enfoque Ecosistémico en Latinoamérica (Application of the Ecosystem Approach in Latin America), Commission on Ecosystem Management—International Union for Conservation of Nature, IUCN. 4. México, D.F. (2012). Cultura del Agua en México: Conceptualización y Vulnerabilidad Social (Water Culture in Mexico: Conceptualization and Social Vulnerability), Universidad Nacional Autonoma de México. 5. Integrated water resources management: Definitions and conceptual musings;Cardwell;J. Contemp. Water Res. Educ.,2006
|
|