Water 13 00125 v3

water
Review
Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods to Address Water
Allocation Problems: A Systematic Review
Sintayehu Legesse Gebre 1,2, * , Dirk Cattrysse 1 and Jos Van Orshoven 3
1 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Center for Industrial Management, Traffic & Infrastructure,
KU Leuven (University of Leuven), 3001 Leuven, Belgium; dirk.cattrysse@kuleuven.be
2 Department of Natural Resource Management, Jimma University, P.O. Box 307 Jimma, Ethiopia
3 Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Division of Forest, Nature and Landscape,
KU Leuven (University of Leuven), 3001 Leuven, Belgium; jos.vanorshoven@kuleuven.be
* Correspondence: sintayehulegesse@gmail.com or sintayehulegesse.gebre@kuleuven.be
Abstract: The water allocation problem is complex and requires a combination of regulations, policies,
and mechanisms to support water management to minimize the risk of shortage among competing
users. This paper compiles the application of multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) related to
water allocation. In this regard, this paper aims to identify and to discern the pattern, distribution of
study regions, water problem classifications, and decision techniques application for a specific water
allocation problem. We applied a systematic literature review study from 2000 to 2019 by using four
literature databases (Web of Science, Scopus, Science Direct, and Google Scholar). From 109 papers,
49 publications have been identified and information extracted. This study reveals that in the past
two decades the application of MCDM in the area of water allocation has increased particularly after
2014. Around 65% and 12% of study papers were conducted in Asia and Europe, respectively. Water
shortage, water use management, and water quality were consecutively the most top-ranked discussed
water problems. NSGA II (non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm), GA (genetic algorithm), and LP
(linear programming) are the more often applied decision methods to solve water allocation problems.

The key findings of this study provide guidelines for future research studies.
Citation: Gebre, S.L.; Cattrysse, D.;
Van Orshoven, J. Multi-Criteria Keywords: database; MCDM methods; systematic review; water allocation
Decision-Making Methods to
Address Water Allocation Problems:
A Systematic Review. Water 2021, 13,
125. https://doi.org/10.3390/
1. Introduction
w13020125
Water is an essential resource for the existence of every form of life. It is valuable
Received: 23 November 2020 for maintaining a healthy ecosystem and supporting socio-economic development. The
Accepted: 4 January 2021 availability of water resources varies in physical state, space, and time. Nearly 75% of
Published: 7 January 2021 the earth’s surface is covered by water. However, 97% of the earth’s water is found in
oceans and seas and is saline. The remaining 3% of the water on earth is freshwater. A
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neu- large portion (±68.7%) of freshwater is inaccessible to human beings since it is locked up in
tral with regard to jurisdictional clai- glaciers, ice caps, and a permanent snow cover in the polar regions. 30.1% is concentrated
ms in published maps and institutio- as groundwater and 0.9% is surface water (2% rivers, 11% swamps, and 87% lakes) [1,2].
nal affiliations. Overall, more than 99% of water is unfit and unavailable for human consumption and only
0.0067% of the total water on earth is fresh and accessible for human water use. The rest
requires intensive investment to refine for consumption [1]. This shows freshwater is very
important and different water uses should be considered very carefully. At a global level,
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. Li-
censee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
according to the Cassardo and Jones [1]; FAO [3] report, approximately 70% of water is
This article is an open access article
used for agriculture, mainly in the form of irrigation, 22% for industrial purposes, and 8%
distributed under the terms and con- for domestic purposes and one percent for recreational use.
ditions of the Creative Commons At- Water allocation represents the process of distributing water supplies to fulfill the
tribution (CC BY) license (https:// various requirements of water users. The four questions are: who uses water resources,
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ how, when, and where. Moreover, it determines the allocation of water resources to
4.0/). different purposes in space and time. Water allocation influences the economic, ecological,
Water 2021, 13, 125. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13020125 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/water

Water 2021, 13, 125 2 of 28
and socio-cultural aspects of an ecosystem. Water allocation is employed to address various

water problems. It is applied in a region (areas) where there are competing demands for
water by different users. The demand for water use is determined by quantifying the
combining sum of the amount of water required with the amount of water available. To
avail water resources continuously in space and time, water infrastructures have been built
to store water in various parts of the world. These water storage reservoirs are built either
for single or multi-purpose use, for example, for water supply, irrigation, and hydropower
production.
At this moment, there is a growing competition for water among different stakeholders.
In the past decades, global water demand has increased at a rate of about 1% per year
as a function of population growth, economic development, and changing consumption
patterns [4]. Further, FAO [3] reported that over the last century, global water withdrawal
grew 1.7 times faster than the world population.
Hence, this indicates that the demand for water increases the inter-sectoral competition
within the nexus of water, food, and energy. In addition, this drives the concern of
sustainable water use. Several studies were conducted to address the multifunctional
conflicts with regard to the limited water supply. Some studies established and applied
water allocation methods to optimally use water resources in a sustainable manner by
considering various socio-economic and environmental factors. Multi-criteria decision-
making (MCDM) is the most suitable method adopted to solve multi-objective (criteria)
water allocation problems. Different computational multi-criteria decision tools have been
designed to support decision-makers. It is substantially important to assess the state of the
art regarding MCDM for better understanding and application for future research studies.
Previously, a limited number of review studies have been done on MCDM related to
water management [5–7]. However, some of the publications were not compiled and did not
perform a study in detail, by implementing a systematic review procedure. Moreover, some
did not include the recent evolution and distribution of multi-criteria applications across the
world. In this study, we review research publications ranging from 2000–2019 on MCDM
with regard to water allocation using systematic review procedures by retrieving English
based publications from four major literature databases (Web of Science (WoS), Scopus,
Science Direct (SD), and Google Scholar (GS)). The objectives of this review study are: (1) to
assess the trend of papers based on publication year, (2) to assess the distribution of papers
based on the study region, (3) to identify and prioritize water allocation problems, (4) to
identify the most frequently applied decision techniques, and (5) to suggest appropriate
decision-making methods for different water allocation problems. This review study
contains detailed information and useful guidelines for the application of multi-criteria
decision-making methods with regard to water allocation problems.
The remainder of this work is organized as follows. Section 2 provides an explanation
about the classification of MCDM, Section 3 describes the data and the methodology used,
Section 4 presents the results of the review, Section 5 discusses the results in detail, and
Section 6 presents the conclusions, limitations, and future research directions.
2. Classification of MCDM Methods

MCDM is one of the most widely used decision methods to perform mathematical
optimization in different fields of applications such as water allocation, land allocation,
forest management, energy production, project management and environmental protection,
and so on [8–11]. The application of MCDM has been an active operational research area
for many decades [12]. It is an effective tool used to solve complex and conflicting decision
problems. It allows the use of both quantitative and qualitative evaluation factors. MCDM
is a generic term used for all methods that are useful to solve complex problems. MCDM
methods can be classified into two broad classes MADM (multi-attribute decision-making)
and MODM (multiple-objective decision-making) [13,14]. MADM is suitable for selection
of a limited number of alternatives and preference ranking. The evaluation is based on
predetermined decision alternatives with respect to weighted attributes (i.e., the decision
Water 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 29
problems. MCDM methods can be classified into two broad classes MADM (mul-
Water 2021, 13, 125 ti-attribute decision-making) and MODM (multiple-objective decision-making) [13,14]. 3 of 28
MADM is suitable for selection of a limited number of alternatives and preference rank-
ing. The evaluation is based on predetermined decision alternatives with respect to
weighted attributes (i.e., the decision space is discrete). Alternatives are the different
space
choicesisordiscrete). Alternatives
preferences are the
available for thedecision-maker.
different choicesThese
or preferences
alternativesavailable for the
are assumed to
decision-maker. These alternatives are assumed to be limited in number or
be limited in number or finite. They are supposed to be screened, prioritized, and finally finite. They
are supposed
ranked to be
or sorted screened,
with respectprioritized,
to the statedand finally
criteria ranked or
decisions or objectives.
sorted with respect to the
stated criteria decisions or objectives.
There are different types of MADM methods (or discrete MCDM) available such as
There arefunction
Value/Utility different(e.g.,
typesmulti-attribute
of MADM methods value (or discrete
theory MCDM)
MAVT, available such
multi-attribute as
utility
Value/Utility
theory (MAUT), function
simple(e.g., multi-attribute
additive weightingvalue
SAW)theory MAVT,
[15,16], multi-attribute
pairwise comparisonutility
(e.g., the-
an-
ory (MAUT), simple additive weighting SAW) [15,16], pairwise comparison
alytic hierarchy process (AHP),analytic network process ANP) [17,18], distance-based (e.g., analytic
hierarchy processfor
(e.g., technique (AHP),analytic network by
order of preference process ANP)to
similarity [17,18],
ideal distance-based (e.g., tech-
solution (TOPSIS)) [19],
nique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS)) [19],
outranking (e.g., preference ranking organization method for enrichment evaluation outranking (e.g.,
preference ranking organization method for enrichment evaluation (PROMETHEE),and
(PROMETHEE),and elimination and choice expressing reality (ELECTREE)) [20–22]. The
elimination and choice expressing reality (ELECTREE)) [20–22]. The MODM method is
MODM method is preferably used for continuous optimization problems where the
preferably used for continuous optimization problems where the number of alternatives is
number of alternatives is infinite, i.e., the decision space is continuous [23]. In general, it
infinite, i.e., the decision space is continuous [23]. In general, it is suitable for the design
is suitable for the design of the best alternative planning decision problems in which al-
of the best alternative planning decision problems in which alternatives are not predeter-
ternatives are not predetermined but instead, a set of objective functions is optimized
mined but instead, a set of objective functions is optimized subject to a set of constraints.
subject to a set of constraints. The MODM methods are further grouped into mathemat-
The MODM methods are further grouped into mathematical programming models and
ical programming models and heuristic algorithms based on computational time and
heuristic algorithms based on computational time and solution. For example, mathematical
solution. For example, mathematical methods include linear programming (LP),
methods include linear programming (LP), non-linear programming, mixed integer linear
non-linear programming, mixed integer linear programming NLP, MILP, goal pro-
programming NLP, MILP, goal programming (GP), compromise programming CP, and
gramming (GP), compromise programming CP, and dynamic programming [24]. Heu-
dynamic programming [24]. Heuristic methods include ones such as simulating annealing
ristic genetic
(SA), methods include ones
algorithm (GA),such as simulating
non-dominated annealing
sorting genetic(SA), genetic
algorithm algorithm
(NSGA), and(GA),
tabu
non-dominated
search TS [25–27]sorting
(Figuregenetic
1). algorithm (NSGA), and tabu search TS[25–27] (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Classification of multi-criteria

multi-criteria decision-making
decision-making (MCDM)
(MCDM) methods.
methods.
3. Materials
3. Materials and
and Methods
Methods
In this systematic study,
In this systematic study, allall
thethe most
most acceptable
acceptable literature
literature web web database
database sources
sources were
were used.
used. The characteristic
The characteristic featurefeature
of eachofsource
each source is stated
is clearly clearlyfor
stated forunderstanding
better better under-
standing
(Table 1). (Table 1).
3.1. Bibliographic Search Engine Databases

1. Web of science core collections (WoS) (https://apps.webofknowledge.com)
Web (https://apps.webofknowledge.com)
2. Science Direct
Science Direct (SD)
(SD) (http://www.sciencedirect.com)
(http://www.sciencedirect.com)
3. Scopus (http://www.scopus.com)
Scopus (http://www.scopus.com)
4.
4. Google Scholar (GS)
Google Scholar (GS) (http://scholar.google.com)
(http://scholar.google.com)
Water 2021, 13, 125 4 of 28
Table 1. Bibliographic database source characteristics.
What Is
Type Features Search Results Strength Weakness Publisher Year of Data Availability References
Included?
Interdisciplinary
platform with many Ability to analyze
databases of sciences. It Journal Reliable sorting. search results by Poorer
Web of Thomson Reuters/
covers agriculture articles, Searches are author, affiliation, coverage of in- Established 1973 but data
Science Clarivate [28–31]
in the broadest conference reproducible and country, journal/book terdisciplinary contains since 1900
(WoS) Analytics
sense, including proceedings reportable title, and broad journals
veterinary subject categories.
medicine
Low coverage
Journal Easy to search journal
Science Science, technology, and Reliable and of interdisci-
articles, articles and provide Elsevier 1997 [32]
Direct (SD) medicine retrievable plinary
and books full-text access
sciences
Tools for analyzing
Biomedical sciences,
Journal Reliable sorting. search results by Medium
natural sciences, Launched in 2004 but
articles, Searches are author, affiliation, coverage of in-
Scopus engineering, social Elsevier article indexing coverage [29–31,33]
conference reproducible and country, journal title, terdisciplinary
sciences, arts, and goes back to 1970
proceedings reportable and broad subject journals
humanities
categories
Few sorting
Includes all types International and
Search results are options;
Google of documents, e.g., interdisciplinary
All subject areas not reproducible many non- Google Unknown [28,29,34]
Scholar (GS) tutorials, posters, coverage (all types of
and reportable peer-reviewed
presentations documents)
sources
Water 2021, 13, 125 5 of 28
WoS, Scopus, and SD are the most popular scientific literature search database plat-
forms. They contain a systematic search option that can allow backward and forward
search. Further, the databases can easily retrieve a trusted academic journal article. WoS
has in-depth coverage of the database compared to Scopus. WoS compiles its database since
1900, whereas Scopus contains scientific literature from 1970 (Table 1). In general, all the
above databases cover the wide fields of scientific journals and proceedings [35,36]. These
database platforms give more information about the search articles in a more advanced
metric system, and the search is reproducible. However, these databases do not inclusively
contain all scientific literature for a systematic scientific review evaluation. Therefore, we
included the GS database search for our systematic review study because GS adds relevant
articles that are not found in the other databases [37]. GS is often used by researchers due
to its easy access and retrieves any scholarly journal article records from all web sites [38].
The GS tool has a comprehensive approach in coverage of the scientific and scholarly litera-
ture compared to the other database searches [39]. In summary, GS has good coverage of
disciplines and multi-languages, particularly in the field of humanities and social science as
compared to WoS, SD, and Scopus [30,34,40]. Nevertheless, GS searching is challenging as
it lacks the basic functionality of search history, bibliographic metrics, and search interface
strategies. This makes that this search strategy is very laborious and time-consuming [41].
Notwithstanding all its limitations, GS can be used in addition to WoS, SD, and Scopus as a
search database for systematic scientific literature database sources [42]. In conclusion, each
database has its own advantage and disadvantage. Thus, it is advisable to use multiple
databases for adequate and efficient coverage [37]. In this systematic review work, all four
database sources were used in searching research articles using standard string words
on multiple topics under the umbrella of multi-criteria decision-making to solve water
allocation problems (Table 2).
3.2. Data Extraction and Procedures

This section presents how data was extracted, archived, and screened for further
analysis. The detailed procedure and development are illustrated in Table 2 and Figure 2.
Selecting Research Literature Using Formal Strings

Recently, compared to the informal literature review, a systematic literature review
approach is the most adapted practice in the scientific world. It is developed with a formal
planned approach to select scientific literature using a string of words that can address and
cover the wider topic of research. It is easy to find relevant literature and include quality
publications for further data extraction process. The real challenge in a systematic literature
review is to define and formulate a search string words. However, this approach helps to
assess and validate the review process protocol. A study conducted by Niazi [43] showed
that the SLR (systematic literature review) approach outperformed better in collecting the
right list of publications compared to the informal literature review method. Therefore,
we preferred to use a string words format to select relevant publications. In this study,
a wide range of search words were selected and formulated (Table 2). Two important
phrases were selected. These were, “water resource allocation” or “optimization”, and
“multi-criteria decision making of water resource use” or “allocation” then coined with
terms, namely, ecosystem service, ecology, agricultural productivity, or environmental
management. Finally, the formulated search words were used in the search engine of
the web database sources. Table 2 shows the number of hits when inserting those search
string words in the search engine in each web database system. The term ‘hits’ describe
the number of publications pop up when the search was done while ‘sel’ refers to the
number of relevant publications selected from the pop-up publications. Only important
publications were retained for further screening. Different documents like technical reports,
thesis, and other documents were also selected; however, due to duplications we rather left
out them and relevant journals were retained. In general, journals are easily accessible and
contain summarized results.
Water 2021, 13, 125 6 of 28
Table 2. Scoping results of selected articles based on the four database sources (From 2000–2019, English language-based literature).
WoS SD Scopus GS Total

Strings Category Strings hits sel hits sel hits sel hits sel sel
Water–Environment
allocation
TI = ((“Water resource allocation” or
“optimization”) and (“ecosystem
W1 service”or “ecology”or “agriculture 16 2 57 7 2291 53 2 1 63
productivity” or“environmental
management”))
TI = ((“Multi criteria decision making of
water resource use”or “allocation”) and
W2 (“ecosystem service”or “ecology”or 17 1 11 1 762 32 171 8 46
“agriculture productivity” or
“environmental management”))
Total 109
WoS = Web of Science, SD = Science Direct, GS = Google Scholar, sel = selected, W1, W2 = string category lists, TI = title.
The strings in the case of GS used the same words, but with different word orders to
restrict the search engine. In Table 2, the literature was selected using the stated strings from
each database through screening of the abstracts, keywords, and titles of the research articles.
Eventually, a full-text review has been done to refine the collected articles, and 109 articles were
archived for further eligibility assessment. The detailed workflow is presented in Figure 2.
.
Figure 2. Study flow chart of identification, screening, eligibility, and included articles.
Figure 2. Study flow chart of identification, screening, eligibility, and included articles.
4. Results
In this section, the results of the 49 reviewed publication papers from January 2000
to 2018 are presented. The results are summarized in detail according to: the trend of
publications, study region distribution, water problem classification, use of decision
techniques, and applications in different water allocation problems.
4.1. Distribution of Research Papers Based on Publication Year

Water 2021, 13, 125 7 of 28
4. Results
In this section, the results of the 49 reviewed publication papers from January 2000
to 2018 are presented. The results are summarized in detail according to: the trend
of publications, study region distribution, water problem classification, use of decision
techniques, and applications in different water allocation problems.
4.1. Distribution of Research Papers Based on Publication Year

In this study, the trend of published article shows that the evolution of publications
increased during the last two decades. Especially after 2014, the number of papers signifi-
cantly increased. In 2017, eleven publications (22.4%) were released. In 2019, the number
of publications also increased. This has been checked and assessed using the search string
words. A further increase in the number of publications is to be expected. It also shows
the broad acceptance and credibility of the MCDM application to solve water allocation
problems [7]. There are different reasons for the growth of publications. The primary factor
is due to the paradigm shift in the concept and implementation of water management at the
global level. This is accentuated in the adoption of sustainability as an overriding objective
in water resources management. The fundamental concept of sustainability progressively
becomes a major agenda in the utilization of natural resources after 1992 at the Rio Summit
(Earth summit).
sources The
afterissue
1992 of
at sustainability in water
the Rio Summit (Earth resources
summit). management
The issue planning
of sustainability can
in water
be addressed by considering economic, environmental, and social benefits
resources management planning can be addressed by considering economic, environ- at stake.
Figuremental,
3 shows andthat thebenefits
social water at allocation
stake. problem is reasonably expected to remain the
Figure 3 shows that the water allocation
center of a research topic. According to Boretti et al. [44] problem is reasonably
report, the demand expected to remain
for water use is
the center of a research topic. According to Boretti et al. [44]
growing at a global level, as a function of population growth, economic development, report, the demand for wa-
and
ter use is growing at a global level, as a function of population growth, economic devel-
changes in consumption patterns. Moreover, the global climate changes are directly affect-
opment, and changes in consumption patterns. Moreover, the global climate changes are
ing the natural pattern of the hydrological (water) cycle. This has undoubtedly contributed
directly affecting the natural pattern of the hydrological (water) cycle. This has un-
to the uneven and
doubtedlyerratic water to
contributed occurrence
the unevenin various
and erratic key
waterparts of the in
occurrence world [44].
various keyTherefore,
parts of
it is necessary
the world [44]. Therefore, it is necessary to use the available scarce water resources in way
to use the available scarce water resources in an efficient and effective an
by adoptingefficient
multi-dimensional
and effective way perspective approaches.
by adopting It provides
multi-dimensional the option
perspective to minimize
approaches. It
provides the option to
existing and anticipated water problems. minimize existing and anticipated water problems.
number of published articles
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
year
Figure 3. Distribution
Figure 3. Distributionofofthe
thenumber
number ofofpublished
published papers
papers based
based on publication
on publication year. year.
4.2. Distribution of Publications

4.2. Distribution Based on
of Publications the on
Based Study Region
the Study Region
Figure 4 depicts
Figure 4the distribution
depicts of MCDM
the distribution of MCDM published
published articles
articlesbased on the
based on thestudy
study
region. A total of A
region. 16total
countries contributed
of 16 countries to this
contributed to study analysis
this study analysis and
and22publications were
publications were
genericresearch
generic (general (general research
study). study).
ChinaChina accounts
accounts for for 44.9%
44.9% (22(22publications),
publications), Australia
Australia
and Iran
and Iran follow follow(4by
by 8.2% 8.2% (4 publications).
publications). It is notItsurprising
is not surprising that Asia
that Asia recorded
recorded about
about 65%
65% of the publications, this may be due to a high number of people and it is expected
of the publications, this may be due to a high number of people and it is expected there
there might be numerous water allocation problems that motivated researchers to en-
might be numerous water allocation
gage in multi-criteria problems
tools. Next, Europe that
(12%)motivated
and Australiaresearchers
(8.2%) wereto engage
the mostin
multi-criteria tools. Next, Europe (12%) and Australia (8.2%) were the most
studied regions. This finding broadly supports the work of other studies on MCDM studied regions.
ap-
This findingplication
broadly supports the work of other studies on MCDM
on water resource planning and flood risk management [5,7]. application on water
resource planningNotably, there is
and flood a significant
risk management water[5,7].
problem in the southern hemisphere of the
Notably, there is a significant water problem in occurrence
world associated with drought and untimely the southern of flooding [45,46].
hemisphere ofHowever,
the world
very limited publications have been reported. The rare use
associated with drought and untimely occurrence of flooding [45,46]. However, very of MCDM applications in
these continents could be due to a lack of expertise, technology, and resources [5]. In the
future, these gaps could be filled by exporting MCDM techniques to developing coun-
tries for the implementation of coherent global sustainable water allocation manage-
ment.
Water 2021, 13, 125 8 of 28
limited publications have been reported. The rare use of MCDM applications in these
continents could be due to a lack of expertise, technology, and resources [5]. In the future,
Water 2021, 13, x FOR PEERthese
REVIEWgaps could be filled by exporting MCDM techniques to developing 8countries
of 29 for the
implementation of coherent global sustainable water allocation management.
Figure 4. Distribution of publications based on the study region (2000–2018). The color legend
Figure 4. Distribution of publications based on the study region (2000–2018). The color legend shows the range of the
shows the range of the number of publications where the dot legend represents the exact number of
number of publications where the dot
publications. represents the exact number of publications.
legend
4.3. Distribution of Figure

Publication Based on Aspects
4. Distribution of publications based on the study region (2000–2018). The color legend
4.3. Distribution of Publication
The primary objective
shows Based
of
the range onnumber
the Aspects
theofapplication ispublications
of to maximize the the
where benefits of water
dot legend use. the exact number of
represents
Thisprimary
implies the publications. of and the response to the growing societal (equity), eco-
achievement
The objective of the application is to maximize the benefits of water use. This
nomic (efficiency), and environmental (soundness) interests. In this review study, the
implies the achievement
aspects addressed4.3.
of and the
by Distribution
each reviewed
response
of Publication
study have
to theAspects
Based growing
beenoncritically
societal (equity), economic
identified and analyzed.
(efficiency), and environmental
In most cases, the water allocation
The (soundness)
primaryproblem interests.
objectiveconsiders In
more thanisone
of the application this review
to aspect
maximize study,
or criterion.
the benefitsthe ofaspects
water use.
addressed
Figure by5 each
showsreviewed
47% study
Thisofimplies
the thehave
published been critically
papers
achievement addressed
of and the identified
economic
response and and
to the analyzed.
environmental In most
growing societal cases,eco-
(equity),
aspects.
the water Thirty-nine
allocation percent
nomic
problem of the published
(efficiency),
considers and
more papers
environmental
than one included altogether
(soundness)
aspect social, Figure
interests.
or criterion. econom-
In this 5review
showsstudy,
47% the
ic, and environmentalaspectsissues. Only aby
addressed few
eachstudies considered
reviewed study havea single
beenaspect, i.e., identified
critically either and analyzed.
of the published papers addressed economic and environmental aspects. Thirty-nine percent
the economic or environmental
In most cases,dimension. The reason
the water allocation is, water
problem allocation
considers morerequires
than onea re-aspect or criterion.
of the published papers
alistic basis in included
benefiting
Figure the
5 shows altogether
different
47%elements
of the social, economic,
of demand
published by each
papers and environmental
user
addressedand economic
uses of wa- issues.
and Only
environmental
a few studies
ter. The considered
concept of a single
integrating aspect, i.e.,
multi-dimensionseither inthe
the economic
optimization or environmental
process of
aspects. Thirty-nine percent of the published papers included altogether social, econom-water dimension.
The reason is, water
allocation allocation
helps in sustainable
ic, requires
conservation
and environmental a issues.
realistic
and Only basis
protection
a fewinofstudies
benefiting the different
water considered
resources. This elements
idea aspect,
a single i.e., of
either
demand hasbyemerged into practice
each user the
and usesafterofthe
economic ministerial
orwater.
environmental declaration
The concept ofofintegrating
dimension. the
The2nd World
reason is, Forumallocation
water (The
multi-dimensions requires
in thea re-
Hague, 2000). Water management
alistic or water the
basis in benefiting allocation
differentpractice
elementshas of
to demand
reflect itsbyeconomic,
each user and uses of wa-
optimization process ter.
of water
environmental, social,
allocation
and concept
The cultural values
helps inuses
sustainable
of all its multi-dimensions
of integrating
conservation
[47]. This study in reveals
and protection of
any mul- process of water
the optimization
water resources. This
ti-criteria water idea has
allocation
allocation emerged
study
helps has into practice
to consider
in sustainable afterone
more than
conservation theaspect
and ministerial
for the
protection declaration
sake
of water resources.ofThis
of theidea
2nd World Forumsustainable
maintaining (ThehasHague,water 2000).
emerged Waterafter
management.
into practice management
the ministerial ordeclaration
water allocation
of the 2nd practice has to(The
World Forum
Hague, 2000). Water
reflect its economic, environmental, management
social, or water
and cultural allocation
values practice
of all has [47].
its uses to reflect
Thisitsstudy
economic,
environmental, social, and cultural values of all its uses [47]. This study reveals any mul-
reveals any multi-criteria water allocation study has to consider more than one aspect for the
ti-criteria water allocation study has to consider more than one aspect for the sake of
sake of maintaining sustainable water management.
maintaining sustainable water management.
Figure 5. Distribution of publications based on aspect. Ec+So (economical and social); Ec+En+Te (economic, environ-
mental, and technical); Ec+En+So+Te (economic, environmental, social, and technical); Ec (economical); En (environ-
mental); Ec+En (economical and environmental).
Figure 5. Distribution of publications based on aspect. Ec+So (economical and social); Ec+En+Te (economic, environ-
Figure 5. Distribution of publications based on aspect. Ec+So (economical and social); Ec+En+Te
mental, and technical); Ec+En+So+Te (economic, environmental, social, and technical); Ec (economical); En (environ-
(economic, environmental,
mental); Ec+En and technical); Ec+En+So+Te (economic, environmental, social, and
(economical and environmental).
technical); Ec (economical); En (environmental); Ec+En (economical and environmental).
Water 2021, 13, 125 9 of 28
4.4. Distribution of Decision Technique Methods Based on Publication Year

Figure 6 presents a comprehensive overview of the trend of decision techniques based
on publication year. From the broad MCDM classification, MODM was by far the routine
method most applied with 81.6% (40 papers) of the papers, MADM 14.3% (7 papers), and
both MODM and of
4.4. Distribution MADM in combination
Decision Technique wasonused
Methods Based in 4%
Publication (2) of the papers. The study
Year
analysis ofFigure
the different types of decision-making methods
6 presents a comprehensive overview of the trend of decision used in thistechniques
review study shows
that NSGA
based on publication year. From the broad MCDM classification, MODM was bysecond
(11 times) was the most employed decision method. The far the most used
routine method most applied with 81.6% (40 papers) of the
method was GA that has been used six times. The third most applied decision papers, MADM 14.3% (7 pa-method was
pers), and both MODM and MADM in combination was used in 4% (2) of the papers. The
LP that has been used 5 times. From the multi-attribute decision methods, AHP is the most
study analysis of the different types of decision-making methods used in this review
frequently applied
study shows thatand
NSGA the(11top fourth-ranked
times) in the list.
was the most employed Though
decision there
method. Thewere
second 23 distinctive
typesmost
of decision
used method techniques
was GA that discussed,
has been used only a fewThe
six times. ofthird
them were
most used
applied more than once.
decision
Thirteen different
method was LPtypes of been
that has decision-making
used 5 times. Frommethods are used only
the multi-attribute one methods,
decision time. This indicates
MCDM AHP is the most frequently
applications applied
in the field and theallocation
of water top fourth-ranked
can beinapproached
the list. Though bythere
different types
were 23 distinctive types of decision techniques discussed, only a few of them were used
of decision technique methods. Nevertheless, the decision method
more than once. Thirteen different types of decision-making methods are used only one
has to be robust that
give atime.
reliable
This solution and with
indicates MCDM less error.
applications Moreover,
in the it has
field of water to be a can
allocation relevant
be ap- and regular
method that can
proached be adopted
by different typesand used totechnique
of decision addressmethods.
complex problems.the
Nevertheless, Note here, the sum of
decision
method has to be robust
the decision-making that give
methods (56)a reliable
does notsolution
matchand with
withless
theerror. Moreover,
number it has
of publications (49).
Sometoresearch
be a relevant and regular method that can be adopted and used to address complex
articles used more than one type of method. In summary, the result of this
problems. Note here, the sum of the decision-making methods (56) does not match with
studythe
indicates
number that there is no
of publications observable
(49). Some research pattern
articlesofused
decision technique
more than one typeusedof in the last
two decades.
method. In summary, the result of this study indicates that there is no observable pattern we merely
Surprisingly, even though we used the search from 2000 to 2018,
foundofand included
decision techniqueeligible
used inpublications since Surprisingly,
the last two decades. 2007. The even classification
though we used of the different
the search from 2000 to 2018, we merely found and included eligible
decision methods as outranking, pairwise, distance-based, and utility function, and so on publications since
2007. The classification of the different decision methods as outranking, pairwise, dis-
is presented in Figure 1.
tance-based, and utility function, and so on is presented in Figure 1.
Figure 6. Distribution of decision technique type based on publication year. FUZZY = Fuzzy stochastic programming;
fuzzy = simplyof decision
fuzzy technique type based on publication year. FUZZY = Fuzzy stochastic programming;
method.
fuzzy = simply fuzzy method.
4.5. Distribution of Publications Based on Water Problem Classifications
Water is of
4.5. Distribution allocated to meet Based
Publications different
onwater
Waterusers’ demands.
Problem The water demands arise
Classifications
to respond to, a certain type of water problem, e.g., water shortage, water quality, water
Water is allocated to problem,
ecosystem/environment meet different
etc. MCDM water users’
is used demands.
to address theseThe water
different demands arise
water
to respond to,problems.
allocation a certainIntype of water
this study, problem,
all the reviewede.g., water shortage,
publications waterinto
were categorized quality, water
ecosystem/environment problem, etc. MCDM is used to address these different water
allocation problems. In this study, all the reviewed publications were categorized into
seven water problems context-based classification (Figure 7). A detailed explanation of
each water problem classification is presented below.
Water 2021, 13, 125 10 of 28
6% 2%
6% 2%
24% 40%
24% 40%
2%
10%
2% 16%
10%
WS WQ WE 16%
WF WU WSQ WSF
Figure 7. Distribution of publications based on water problem context-based classification. WS

WS WQ WE WF WU WSQ WSF
(water shortage), WQ (water quality), WE (water-ecosystem/environment), WF (water for flood
management), WU (waterofuse
Figure 7. Distribution planning), based
publications WSQ (water shortage-quality),
on water WSF (water
problem context-based short-
classification. WS
age-flood of publications based on water problem context-based classification. WS
management).
(water shortage), WQ (water quality), WE (water-ecosystem/environment), WF
(water shortage), WQ (water quality), WE (water-ecosystem/environment), WF (water for flood(water for flood
management),
management), WU (water
WU (water use planning), WSQ (water shortage-quality), WSF (water shortage-flood
Figure 7 showsuse planning),
that 40% (19)WSQ (water shortage-quality),
of the published papers WSF (water
focused onshort-
addressing the
management).
age-flood management).
water shortage problems. It is the biggest share of publications on water problem con-
text classification. Figure 8 presents the the
distribution of papers
water problems across study re-
FigureFigure
7 shows 7 shows that
that 40% 40%of(19)
(19) theofpublished
published
papers focusedfocused on addressing
on addressing the the
gions.
waterAsia takesproblems.
shortage a significant
It is portion of the
the biggest distribution
share of water
of publications shortage
on water problems.
problem context
water shortage problems. It is the biggest share of publications on water problem con-
China comes first
classification. of all8 presents
Figure countriesthelisted in the review
distribution study
of water (20.4%).
problems Taiwan
across and
study Iran
regions.
text classification. Figure 8 presents the distribution of water problems across study re-
account for 4%
Asia takes each. In conclusion,
a significant portion of thethe use of MCDMofiswater
distribution relevant to solve
shortage water alloca-
problems. China
gions. Asia takes a significant portion of the distribution of water shortage problems.
comes
tion first ofparticularly
problems all countriesinlisted
high in the review
densely study regions
populated (20.4%).like
Taiwan andBurek
China. Iran account for
et al. [48]
China comes first of all countries listed in the review study (20.4%). Taiwan and Iran
4% each. In conclusion, the use of MCDM is relevant to solve water
reported that about 73% of people affected by water shortage live in Asia. Australia, allocation problems
account for 4% each. In conclusion, the use of MCDM is relevant to solve water alloca-
particularly
Brazil, in highFaso
and Burkina denselyare populated
also someregions
of the like China.listed
countries Burekunder
et al. [48] reported
water shortagethat
tion problems particularly in high densely populated regions like China. Burek et al. [48]
about 73%
problem of people affected by water shortage live in Asia. Australia, Brazil, and Burkina
classifications.
reported that about 73% of people affected by water shortage live in Asia. Australia,
Faso are also some of the countries listed under water shortage problem classifications.
Brazil, and Burkina Faso are also some of the countries listed under water shortage
problem classifications.
24
WS
20
number of publications
24 16 WQ
WS
20 12
WE
number of publications
16 8 WQ
WF
12 4 WE
8 0 WU
WF
Burkina Faso Brazil
South Africa
Greece China
Italy
South Africa Nepal
Taiwan Sweden
United States
BrazilAustralia
Burkina Faso
Iran Greece
Sri Lanka Spain

Iran
Luxembourg
General
Sri Lanka
South Korea
United StatesTaiwan
4
WSQ
0 WU
China
Italy
Nepal
Sweden
Australia
Luxembourg
Spain
General
WSF
South Korea
WSQ
WSF
Figure 8. Distribution of publications based on water problems across the study regions.
Next, 24% (12) of the publications used MCDM to solve water use management prob-
Figure 8. Distribution of publications based on water problems across the study regions.
lems. It is the second hot topic next to the water shortage problem. Some researchers also
indicated that the water crisis in the 21st century is much more of water use management
Figurethan
8. Distribution of publications
a real crisis based on
in water quantity water
and problems
quality [49].across
Figurethe
8 study regions.
indicates, China is the most
studied country with 6 publications. The rest of the papers are reports from Australia
(2 publications) and one paper each from the countries of Brazil, Iran, Nepal, and Sir
Lanka. The reason China becomes the center of water management problem is closely
interlinked with high population growth and density (over 30% growth since 1979 and
Water 2021, 13, 125 11 of 28
the population is close to 1.3 billion), rapid urban expansion, and economic development
(the annual GDP growth rate was 9.8% in the last few years). In addition, China has many
graduate researchers and institutional funding opportunities; these might contribute to
a high number of publications. Recently, unpredictable climate variability has created
and challenged water resources management and planning strategies [50]. According to
Reference [51], water use management is a major problem in Central Asia, this is due to its
complex nature which is affected by different driving forces at different levels. This report
suggests that multi-criteria decision-making will continue to remain an optional technical
tool for water resource management problems in the world and in particular in Asia.
In this review study, the water quality problem was the third most covered topic,
i.e., 16% with eight publications (Figure 7). Europe (Greece, Luxembourg, Spain, and
Sweden) was the most studied region regarding the application of MCDM in the field of
water quality problems. China from Asia, and South Africa from Africa, were among the
countries listed under water quality problems. In general, developed countries are more
likely exposed to water quality problems. As discussed by Martin-Ortega and Berbel [52],
there is a possibility of releasing wastes into rivers. Some of the primary sources of pollution
are urban, industrial wastewater discharge, agricultural waste discharge, excessive erosion,
excessive nutrient waste, and pesticide residue waste runoff from agricultural land. There
might be other sources that contribute to water quality deterioration. Furthermore, the
concentration level of pollutants is expected to increase by 30% in the near future. In Europe,
over the past few decades, nutrient runoff from agricultural areas becomes a problem to
coastal sea environments and estuaries which creates eutrophication. Laamanen et al. [53],
Rabalais et al. [54], and Zmijewski and Wörman [55] used multi-criteria decision in the
Dalälven River (Sweden) to reduce the phosphorous load supplied to downstream aquatic
environments. According to a report by the European Environment Agency: State of
the Environment Report 2015, around half of the European rivers and lakes have been
polluted. For example, the constructed Kiev reservoir in Ukraine has a water quality
problem. There is an accumulation of vast suspended forms of minerals and organic
matter over the reservoir. About 2–3 million tons of major ions, 30–40 thousand nutrients,
and 15 thousand trace elements are accumulated per year [56]. This shows that more
multi-criteria-based water quality research would continue to remain the major potential
topic in Europe. The problem of water quality study has been reported also in China. This
might be due to the economic growth that puts massive pressure on natural resources and
waste productions. Several research studies based on the theory of ECK (Environmental
Kuznets Curve) indicated how economic growth is important to environmental protection.
However, this hypothesis does not work in the case of water pollution in most developed
countries. Rather an economic growth creates pressure on water resource quality [57].
Fourthly, 10% (5) publications have focused on the optimization of water allocation
to satisfy and protect ecosystem demands. It is the top fourth topic covered (Figure 7).
Two publications are reported from China and one paper each from Italy, Taiwan, and the
United States of America. In other words, Asia was the most studied continent. This result
shows that high population growth and economic development rate in Asia has led to more
environmental problems than the rest of the continents. This can create a tremendous extent
of ecological and environmental problems even to the river reaches and affecting the aquatic
ecosystem. In this regard, Asia0 s ecological/environmental management, particularly to
water body conditions, will continue to be an important issue [58,59]. In this study report,
we found only one publication from China that implemented the MCDM method with
reference to water allocation to address flood management problems. With regards to
combined water problems, three publications have applied MCDM methods that focused to
solve both water shortage and quality problems. All three publications are from Asia (China,
Iran, and South Korea). Liu et al. [60] discussed the condition of water problems in China,
by considering combined indicators of water quantity and quality over the Huangqihai
River basin in Inner Mongolia. The report shows the basin has experienced both problems.
However, they stressed that the water quality problem was more serious than the water
Water 2021, 13, 125 12 of 28
quantity problem. With the increase of socio-economic growth, Satoh et al. [61] projected
that by the 2050s, water demand in Asia will be larger than the sum demand of all the other
continents together. In general, in the future, water quantity and quality problems will be an
upfront challenge in Asia’s water resources management. Similarly, only one generic study
employed multi-criteria decision-making to address combined water allocation problems of
water shortage and flood risk minimization (Figure 8). This paper used fictitious data to
run and produce an optimized solution to address multi-objective functions.
4.6. Description of Water Problems and MCDM Methods Application to Solve Water Resource
Allocation Problems
4.6.1. MCDM Methods Application to Solve Water Shortage Problems
Water shortage happens when the demand for water use exceeds the supply of water
resources in a certain geographical location over a certain time span. The concepts of
shortage or scarcity are relative terms. There are quite a number of definitions of water
scarcity or shortage. However, there are a few that stand out as robust and well-constructed.
In this part, it is not our intention to review all those definitions but to provide an overview
of the meaning of what it does refer to. According to FAO [62], it is a concept of describing
the relation between demand for water and its availability. It is obvious also that demand
and availability are comparative. It varies from place to place, seasons, and local climatic
conditions. Water shortage or scarcity is classified into two broad categories i.e., physical
scarcity and economic scarcity. Physical scarcity refers to scarcity in availability due to
a physical shortage of water resources in a given region. Economic scarcity describes
water access due to a lack of adequate infrastructure and institutions to ensure regular
water supply [63]. There have been many strategies developed in order to compact water
shortage by constructing water resources development structures in different parts of the
world. Many researchers have used MCDM in water allocation problems to address the
water shortage. Water shortage is the major water allocation problem. Water scarcity is
the world’s most challenging problem, Mekonnen and Hoekstra [63] stated about 4 billion
people, nearly two-thirds of the world population, experience severe water scarcity at least
one month per year. Which is about 66 percent of the world’s population. Almost half
of those people reside in India and China. This could increase to some 4.8–5.7 billion in
2050 [48]. The water shortage problem will continue to be a great challenge in the future.
Therefore, to address complex multi-objective water shortage problems, it is recommended
to use and apply decision-making methods.
In this section, 16 publications used MODM methods, 2 papers applied MADM, and
one paper employed both methods to solve water shortage problems. From the heuristic
decision methods, NSGA II and GA were predominantly used by 7 publications. The
NSGA II decision method was the most frequently used method. The NSGA II method
was applied by Uen et al. [64] on the pivotal Shihmen Reservoir, Taiwan, to address the
water shortage problem. They reported that short-term reservoir operation outcomes from
the NSGA II methods increased hydropower production but only slightly affected water
supply to the different stakeholders. Actually, their results were based on a short-term
plan. Similarly, Zhang et al. [65] employed the technique on the Dahuofang Reservoir,
Hunhe River, China, to optimize the trade-off changes and to minimize water shortage.
Chu et al. [66] used NSGA II on the inter-basin connected reservoirs called Dahuofang,
Guanyinge, and Shenwo in China. The other type of heuristic method used was GA. This
technique is discussed in four publications. For instance, Xu, Q et al. [67] applied GA to
the Heihe River Basin, China, to reduce the water shortage for the different stakeholders.
Hu et al. [68] implemented GA in the Qujiang River basin China. Lai [69] used GA to solve
the water shortage in China. Fowe et al. [70] applied a GA to address irrigation water
shortage on the Boura reservoir, Burkina Faso.
Like heuristic methods, a number of different types of mathematical models are used
to address water shortage allocation problems. For instance, interactive two-stage fuzzy
stochastic programming (ITFSP) is used by Niu et al. [71] in a case study on the Hetao
irrigation district, one of the largest irrigation districts for food production in China. They
Water 2021, 13, 125 13 of 28
considered irrigation benefits, economic penalty, and irrigation quota as constraints to max-
imize agricultural system benefits through allocating the limited water to three main crops
(i.e., wheat, maize, and oil plant). A dynamic model is implemented by Wang et al. [72]
for optimal water distribution on the Heihe River Basin in the northwest of China and by
Grafton et al. [73] on the Murray River of Australia. They used optimal quotas, drought
status, weather condition, and storage status as criteria to maximize the net present value
of water between extractions and in situ uses. Elmahdi and McFarlane [74] tested an
integrated decision support system (DSS) on the Gnangara Groundwater System (GGS).
That is a large aquifer situated in the southwest region of Western Australia. Their research
employed different models together to maximizing recharge, maximizing biodiversity, max-
imizing short-term economic gains, maximizing food security, maintain zero abstraction for
public water supply by considering quantitative indicators namely environment (e.g., cli-
mate, land uses, land management, status of river gauge or river reach) and socio-economic
factors (e.g., policies). A MILP decision method was used by Roozbahani et al. [75] to solve
transboundary water allocation problems to reduce water shortage to different stakehold-
ers in the Sefidrud Basin, Iran. Later, they extended their work by introducing additional
constraints that maximize the minimum water allocation ratio to the stakeholders [76].
Other types of mathematical models such as rule-based, inexact quadratic programming
(IQP) and multi-objective based sum weighted method were used to solve water shortage
problems by Song et al. [77], Cai et al. [78] and Shang [79], respectively.
In this segment, the multi-attribute decision method was rarely used. Alamanos et al. [80]
employed four types of methods and compared their results, namely, multi-attribute util-
ity theory (MAUT), analytic hierarchy process (AHP), elimination and choice expressing
reality (ELECTRE), and technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution
(TOPSIS). They optimized the water allocation problem of the Lake on Karla Watershed,
located in central Greece. Lee M et al. [81] used a multi-attribute weighted method to
minimize sever water shortage from excessive irrigation use of the Choshui river, Taiwan.
One publication used both multi-attribute and multi-objective methods for feasible actions
(alternatives) that can balance water supply-demand in the semi-arid region of northeast
Brazil, i.e., PROMETHEE V and Integer linear programming (ILP) [82].
4.6.2. MCDM Methods Application to Solve Water Use Management Problems

Water use refers to the total amount of use of water by the ecosystem, for domestic
purposes and agriculture, for energy production, and by industrial sectors [3,83]. It is
essential to measure and evaluate the amount of water used by these different users.
This leads to water use management. Water use management is defined as a process of
planning, developing, distributing, allocating, and managing the optimum use of water
resources [84]. Water use management endures the idea of optimum allocation of water
resources by taking into account ecological, economic (including water price), and social
functions [83]. In summary, water use allocation consists of a combination of policies, laws,
and mechanisms to manage the distribution of water resources among competing uses.
Modern water use management strategies should be robust by performing well under both
average and extreme conditions. Moreover, it should be flexible and adjust to changing
conditions over a time span [85]. At present, the issues of water resources management are
addressed by considerations of any sectoral interference and trade-off [86]. This paradigm
shift in water resources management is precisely the requirement of equitable distribution
of water among users, the need for adequate governance, efficient and effective economic
measures, and environmental performance. Optimal water use management is one of the
fundamental objectives of water allocation research studies.
In this topic, 10 reviewed publications fall under multi-objective and one paper is
categorized under a multi-attribute decision-making method, and one paper uses both
methods. From the MODM class, the heuristic method NSGA II is the most predominantly
employed decision method. Five publications use NSGA II to solve water use management
problems. Hurford, Huskova, and Harou [87] applied the NSGA II method to generate
Water 2021, 13, 125 14 of 28
optimal water management options that consider the benefits of all stakeholders on a
multi-reservoir water system located on the Jaguaribe River, Brazil. They suggest optimum
water use policies that incorporate economic, ecological, and livelihood dimensions. The
results show an increase in allocated water to different downstream users. A similar
decision technique method is used by Dai et al. [88]. They propose an optimal reservoir
operation on the Three Gorges-Gezhouba cascade reservoirs in China. The proposed water
management option will enable decision-makers to establish suitable reservoir operation
rules. They come to the conclusion that NSGA II is an effective and recommendable method
to optimize especially reservoir operations. The procedure is fast, flexible, and easy to
accelerate sorting processes and compares individuals in a population [89]. The NGSA
II method has an improved computational complexity convergence efficiency and model
robustness [89]. Lewis and Randall [90] applied the technique to manage water for crop
production at the Murrumbidgee irrigation area in Australia. They consider different
constraints (i.e., available water, cultivated area, environmental flow, and groundwater
pumping rate) to maximize net revenue, minimize groundwater pumping, and minimize
variable costs. The result presented optimal water use for different crops under different
scenarios that allocate land for each crop to maintain sustainability. Martin et al. [91]
implemented NGSA II on the Goulburn-Broken River catchment, Victoria, Australia, to
manage water distribution to different users. Yan et al. [92] employed the same method to
identify and assess a robust water allocation plan for future water use of the Pearl River
basin. Furthermore, different types of mathematical models are implemented to solve
water use management problems, e.g., a multi-stage fuzzy stochastic programming (MFSP)
is applied by Li C et al. [93] to solve complex water resource management problems in
the northwest of China. Goal programming is applied by Li Yet al. [94] on the South-to-
North Water Diversion Project in China; LP [95] is employed to analyze the trade-offs in
the water–energy—food nexus in Nepal and compound cloud model (CCM) to solve a
water allocation problem in Nanjing [96]. In addition, a hybrid of TLFWM (mathematical
model) and STLFCWM (mathematical model) is applied by Li M et al. [97] to allocate the
limited water resources to different water users in the Northwest of China. Moreover, the
STLFCWM model has a unique advantage over a TLFWM model since it addresses random
uncertainty in the form of a membership function. The model can provide optimal water
allocation plans under different flow levels. Another paper by Rousta and Araghinejad [98]
used both MODM (Ideal point distance-based methods _TOPSIS) and MADM (SAW)
methods to address water resources management of the Gorganrud River Basin in the
north of Iran. In this part, only a single paper used the multi-attribute AHP technique to
select the best reservoir to achieve sustainable water use for aquaculture development in
Sri Lanka [99].
4.6.3. MCDM Method Applications to Solve Water Quality Problems

Water quality is defined as the condition of the water content with reference to the
physical, chemical, and biological characteristics. It is expressed as the suitability of water
for particular purposes like drinking, swimming, agriculture, and industrial demands [100].
The water quality is measured by analyzing many factors such as the concentration of
dissolved oxygen (DO), salinity (TDS), heavy metals, nutrients, phosphorus, nitrate, am-
monia, microorganisms, PH, water temperature, and the amount of suspended materials
in the water (turbidity), etc. [101].Water quality level is determined by measuring the
chemical and physical contents and then it has to be compared with the global standard.
The water quality level ranges vary depending on the intended water use. The quality of
water required for municipality purposes is different than the water quality level needed
for industrial or agricultural activities. Good quality of water is crucial and required for
humans, animals, and the environment. On the other hand, poor quality of water creates
health risks and negatively affects the ecosystems. Water quality is significantly affected by
wide ranges of natural and human influences. Natural factors that arise from geological,
hydrological, and climatic conditions affect the quality of water. The amount and degree
Water 2021, 13, 125 15 of 28
of influence are largely visible in the case of arid and coastal areas. Negative humans’
activities on top of environmental pollution enact a considerable role in deteriorating the
water quality [102]. Wastes (pollution) from human activities (e.g., domestic, agricultural,
industrial inputs) are the key reason for water quality decline in various parts of the world.
Currently, human activity pollution constitutes a critical threat to water quality. For in-
stance, when wastes from human activities are dumped into water sources (e.g., lakes,
rivers), then water sources are polluted. This means it is contaminated by foreign sub-
stances so-called pollutants. These pollutants change the water use suitability, and it is
harmful to organisms and the environment [103–105]. In general, the water quality status
of a given water resource is assessed by thoroughly measuring and summarizing the data,
then it is reported in the form of a water quality index (WQI). The water quality index
represents a summary tool for reporting evaluated water quality conditions in numeric
expression in an understandable manner to the public and decision-makers [106]. Many
studies have implemented MCDM methods to minimize water quality problems in water
allocation planning by considering conflicting multi-criteria.
With regard to water quality problems, 2 papers applied the MADM and 6 publications
applied the MODM methods. From the MADM method class, both papers used AHP
decision techniques. The AHP used by Martin-Ortega and Berbel [52] had as a target to find
the best criteria (attribute) from the trade-offs between the attributes involved by a number
of respondents. This would help to identify the best environmental benefits in the context
of EU Water Framework Directives to improve the water quality of the Guadalquivir River
which is located in the southern part of Spain. The other study by Li Y et al. [107] adapted
AHP to select the optimum site for industrial wastewater discharge at the Luoyuan Bay
coastal area in Fujian of China. The study aimed to provide alternative sites to minimize the
threats of pollutants coming from industry discharges. With respect to the MODM method
classification, 3 publications employed a heuristic type of decision methods like (e.g., NSGA
II and bee colony) and 3 papers used mathematical models such as LP, inexact two-stage
stochastic programming (ITSP), and a Fuzzy approach. Raei et al. [108] applied NSGA II
on a hypothetical area to design an optimal in situ groundwater bioremediation system.
NSGA was also used by Zmijewski and Wörman [55] to optimize the tradeoff between
hydropower production and reduction of the transport of phosphorus in the reservoir
network of the Dalälven River, Sweden. Another form of heuristic algorithm method called
Multi-Objective Artificial Bee Colony-based optimization approach (MOABC) was applied
to allocate water quality monitoring stations in the Great Fish River, South Africa [109].
They reported, the method performed well under the considered criteria for building
water quality networks along the river basin. In their report, they suggested the MOBAC
algorithm for further use in the field of water quality. This is because, MOABC is based
on the principle of swarm-intelligence, searching the global optimal by escaping from
local optima. It is a very useful method for the exploitation and exploration of these
types of problems. One publication by Karterakis et al. [110] utilized a hybrid method by
combining a mathematical LP and a heuristic method called differential evolution (DE). The
aim of the paper was to develop an optimal groundwater pumping scheme that supplies
adequate freshwater demand in coastal areas of the karstic aquifer in Crere, Greece, without
deteriorating the quality of freshwater due to the seawater intrusion. Regneri et al. [111]
applied fuzzy programming to solve the combined sewer overflow problem to the Haute-
Sûre storage lake in Luxembourg. Furthermore, mathematical models like ITSP (inexact
two-stage stochastic programming) were employed on the Yinema River basin in northeast
China [112]. They reported that optimal water allocation strategies to the four water sectors
would improve the water use and water quality in the Yinema River basin. The study
suggested the ITSP approach as applicable and effective for the management of water
resources and limiting water pollutants. However, this model did not consider decision
risk uncertainties, different water sources, climate change influence on water availability,
and wastewater treatment efficiency.
Water 2021, 13, 125 16 of 28
4.6.4. MCDM Methods Application to Solve Water Ecosystem Problems

Ecosystems consist of four primary components namely water, land (soil and rock),
air, and biological organisms (plants and animals including humans). An ecosystem is
interrelated and the interaction is complex. Forests, wetlands, and grasslands ecosystems
play a role in the global hydrological cycle. The normal functioning of the ecosystem com-
ponents is immensely important for the water cycle and essential for achieving sustainable
water management. Water is a notable part of an ecosystem. The aquatic/water ecosystem
refers to the water-based environment in which plants and animals interact with the non-
living features of the water-based environment system [113]. A water ecosystem serves to
replenish and purify water resources. It is very important for human and environmental
well-being. However, the sustainability of the water ecosystem has been affected by human
activities like agricultural expansion, deforestation, degrading wetland, marsh areas, and ef-
fluent discharges from industries and households to water bodies [114]. This has a negative
impact on the natural hydrological (water) cycle and can pollute surface and groundwater
resources. To overcome such embedded problems, an ecosystem management approach
has been introduced. The ecosystem management approach has received strong attention
at the international level after the concept of natural resources management came into the
agenda of the United Nation Environmental Program. Ecosystem management represents
an integrated approach to managing the healthy functioning of the diversified natural
system to ensure the sustainability of ecosystem goods and services to human beings0
needs [115]. Ecosystem services and goods include necessary benefits for societal interest,
i.e., allocation of energy production, clean air, and maintaining the nutrient cycle, and
operational of the water cycle. Some studies estimated that 64% of the world0 s wetlands
have disappeared since 1990 and the percentage of loss is higher in Asia [116]. According
to Reference [113], on a global scale, ecosystem services from wetlands are in decline in
terms of the services they provide. From 1997–2011, between 4.3 USD and 20.2 USD, trillion
per year worth of ecosystem services were lost due to land-use change [113]. Currently, a
paradigm shift has taken place in recognizing ecosystem management as an integral part
of integrated water resources management to more sustainable aquatic development [117].
Multi-criteria decision-making methods have been used to allocate water resources to
maintain and sustain ecosystem services.
In this regard, all 5 publications adapted the multi-objective decision-making (MODM)
method. Three papers used a heuristic algorithm (GA, GA, and NSGA II), and the other
two employed mathematical models (dynamic programming and MOGM).Yang [118]
developed a genetic algorithm to optimize water allocation from the Yellow River Delta,
China, to meet the environmental flow requirement of the restored wetlands. The model
result of water release coincides better with the ideal value plant community needs. The GA
model is best suited and effective to optimize water distribution for ecosystem/ecological
problems. GA was used by Akhbari and Grigg [119] to optimize water allocation from the
San Joaquin River, California, USA, to satisfy the environmental needs of the surrounding
region. They reported the GA model performed well in producing an optimal solution.
The sensitive results are appreciated and accepted. Cioffi and Gallerano [120] studied
the Pieve di Cadore reservoir (Piave River, Italy), using two different optimization meth-
ods to optimize water release for power production and fish habitat protection (aquatic
ecosystem). They compared and analyzed the performance of the two models0 observa-
tional results, i.e., e-constraint and NSGA. The e-constraint method was first introduced by
Haimes et al. [121].It keeps one of the objective functions to be optimized while the other
objective functions are converted into constraints by setting an upper bound to each of
them [121]. The e-constraint method is faster computationally and allows a direct sensi-
tivity analysis of the solutions under constraints. On the other hand, the NSGA method
is by far more informative than an e-constraint method (traditional method). Besides, it
provides an option to examine the intermediate results of the optimization solution space.
Mathematical models are also often used to address the water problem with regard to
ecological/ecosystem management. Lee [122] studied how to optimize the environmental
Water 2021, 13, 125 17 of 28
and economic demands on the Tseng-Wen reservoir, Taiwan. He used the multi-objective
game-theory model (MOGM) and e-constraint methods to analyze the conflicting interac-
tion between economic development and environmental protection. They reported that
MOGM is preferably used for environmental problems because it supports and permits a
more realistic simulation of stakeholders’ preferences. Moreover, the model is suitable for
providing a general planning and policy insight. Whereas, the e-constraint method focuses
on either minimization or maximization of a specific environmental factor/objective of an
optimization problem. Furthermore, sometimes the results of the traditional multi-objective
optimization may not be feasible or socially acceptable. This leads to a failure to implement
the strategy or policy. On the contrary, MOGM is flexible to find politically and socially
acceptable compromises [123]. In general, with MOGM it is easier to incorporate socially
sound choices for policymakers to realize into practice. The other type of mathematical
models, called Feasible search discrete differential dynamic programming (FS-DDDP),
was used to optimize reoperation of multi reservoirs for integrated water management
to address the conflict interaction between water use and environmental deterioration of
Nanpan River, China [124]. The results of the study showed that the model performs well
in the optimal reservoir reoperation problem compared to routine reservoir operations.
They suggested the model can be readily extended and applied to multi-reservoir water
management systems.
4.6.5. MCDM Methods Application to Solve Flood Risk Problems

Flood is defined as an overflow of water that submerges land areas that are usually
dry [125]. Flood originates from various sources like oceans, seas or rivers, and lakes. Flood
is normally triggered by extreme rainfall events or heavy precipitation, e.g., by monsoon
rains in Asia and the Indian peninsula, and snow melts due to rapid temperature increases
(example in Northern hemisphere during spring season after strong winter snowfall, this
occurs when the season changes from winter to spring, it results in a slight temperature
change) which causes an increase in river flows and elevation. Further, a flood also occurs
when intensive long-duration rainfall happens during autumn that is when summer ends.
A flood occurs when manmade dams fail due to many unpredictable causes like landslides,
technical errors, or volcanic eruptions and earthquakes. Recently, flooding has remained
a recurrent phenomenon in coastal and estuarine sea areas of the world due to extreme
atmospheric depressions (e.g., cyclones, typhoons, and hurricanes). Flooding results also
from sea level rise and natural events of an earthquake volcanic eruption (e.g., tsunami tidal
waves) which causes massive volume of water displacement from oceans or sea to land
areas [125]. Flood has a negative impact on infrastructures, damaging homes, community
and agricultural production, and natural biodiversity. Moreover, it might risk human
health if the water is exposed to pollutants. The extent and the magnitude of the impact
depend on the nature and occurrence of the flood in a given region. Flood management
includes both operational and administrative activities that have been taken before, during,
or after the occurrence of flood events to mitigate or prevent flood impacts on the socio-
economic and environmental resources. As part of flood operational management, reservoir
water allocation is considered a flood controlling mechanism. Flood is one of the worst
natural hazards affecting the life of people. For example, between 2000–2014, more than
85,000 human fatalities occurred and affected about 1.4 billion people around the globe [5].
Therefore, flood risk management is important and it requires the use of multi-criteria
decision-making methods that consider multiple objectives, constraints, trade-offs, and
feasible alternatives.
This section point out the evaluation of an MCDM application specifically aimed at
flood release control of reservoirs. Extreme events of river flow and high reservoir storage
result in an overflow of water and have negative consequences on wealth and human
beings if a flood disaster occurs. It is important to minimize and mitigate the impacts
of the flood by controlling reservoir operations and regulating the river flow. However,
reservoir flood operations, especially cascade reservoirs, are complex and challenging for
Water 2021, 13, 125 18 of 28
water resources planners and decision-makers. Hence, the objectives of flood operation
in the case of multi-reservoir systems are complex, due to conflicting interests among
different objectives. For example, water releases from a reservoir may be required to
maximize hydropower generation, at the same time as releases need to be restricted to
minimize flooding at downstream river reaches. Jia et al. [126] adapted and implemented
the multi-objective best compromise decision model called (MoBCDM) on the Shiguan
River basin (consists of two reservoirs, three flood control points, and two flood routing
river reaches) to improve the optimal flood operation practices of frequently changing the
opening of flood gates in central China. The model is composed of a utility function for a
quantitative preference comparison, fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) for assigning
weights, DE for an optimization algorithm, and segmentation and averaging Seg/Ave for a
feasible floodgate operation. They considered four historical flood operations scenarios to
test the model. The results prove, the MoBCDM outperforms well in all reservoir operation
scenarios in reducing peak flow at flood control points when validated to the observed
reservoir rule operation. Moreover, this model has interacting features in considering
decision-makers0 preference information. However, the flexibility and efficiency of the
model have not been tested when the system dimensions size increases like when a number
of reservoir and control points increases. The detailed criteria and objectives list used in
the model analysis are presented in Supplementary Material Table S1.
4.6.6. MCDM Methods Application to Solve Combined Water Problems

Water Shortage and Water Quality Problems
MCDM has been extensively applied to support decision-making processes for issues
related to water quantity and quality. Multi-criteria decision tools are preferably applied
to address combined water problems. It is an effective tool and especially after mid-
20th century, MCDM has been successfully used to select optimal strategies to reduce
water shortage and water quality problems, supporting to optimize the allocation of water
resources [127]. In recent decades, water quantity and quality problems represent a hot
topic agenda. WHO [128] reported that more wastewater is generated and dispersed
today than ever in the history of our planet. Around 1.1 billion people lack access to
safe drinking water and 1.8 million people die from diarrheal disease each year. Water
allocation to solve water shortage and water quality problems is essential for decision-
makers because combined water problems have a significant impact on the environment
and socio-economic development of society.
This part underlines and discusses a combination of water shortage and water quality
problems. In some cases, water is allocated to address both water problems. The degra-
dation of water quality has a significant consequence, water becomes unfit for use and
the water quantity availability is reduced. Often, the MCDM method is applied to tackle
combined water problems of water quantity and quality. In this case, both multi-attribute
decision-making and multi-objective decisions-making tools were used namely ELEC-
TRE II, Fuzzy, and LP, respectively. Yang et al. [129] employed the ELECTRE II and AVF
(Additive value function) methods to prioritize water management alternatives based on
the DPSIR framework (Driving force-Pressure-State-Impact-Response). The research was
applied to the Anyangcheon watershed in South Korea to examine the water allocation
problem of the watershed, which has already suffered from potential streamflow depletion
and possible water quality deterioration [130]. Their research improved and modified the
set of criteria used earlier by Reference [131]. The criteria selected have mainly focused on
satisfying the demands on water quality and quantity need. The result report shows that
AVF is easy and convenient to be used. However, ELECTRE II is more effective and it shows
the outranking priorities of the alternatives. This indicates that the ELECTRE method is an
ideal tool for prioritizing alternatives with respect to water quality and quantity problems.
However, they did not consider the impact of water price on the decision-making process
and also used only limited water pollutant materials for determining the characteristics
of the mining sites. Hence, in the future, these components ought to be underlined for
Water 2021, 13, 125 19 of 28
optimal water management strategies. The other form of multi-attribute decision making
used is modified fuzzy social choice (MFSC). This method was applied by Pourmand and
Mahjouri [132]. The objective of the study was to find a socially optimal scenario for water
allocation and reuse in Tehran, Iran. There has been a growing concern about the increase
of water demand and pollution by wastewater from the agricultural and industrial sectors.
To address the existing water allocation problems, they proposed scenarios for the water
quantity and quality management by considering multi-stakeholders’ conflicting utilities,
negotiation power, degree of importance, and uncertainties. Eventually using the MFSC
method, socially acceptable scenarios were prioritized to address water allocation problems
of Tehran city. In their result analysis, the MFSC method has some advantages like its
flexibility in defining preferences and incorporating imprecise input information using
fuzzy membership functions. The method requires less mathematical calculations. How-
ever, they did not include uncertainties associated with water availability and reclaimed
wastewater.
From the MODM class, LP was applied by Ke et al. [133] to optimize water allocation
in Ordos city, China, by considering water quantity and water quality aspects of the
Ordos river. The quality had been affected by mining industries. The LP method is
used to address water allocation with reference to water quantity and to reclaim polluted
water. They discussed that the dynamic linear optimization model can elaborate and
simultaneously address problems related to water shortage and water quality.
In summary, mathematical programming (LP) was predominantly employed to ad-
dress combined water problems. ELECTRE II and MFSC were preferably used to prioritize
multi-attribute water management alternatives.
Water Shortage and Flood Problems

As discussed in the intergovernmental panel on climate change IPCC [134] assessment
report, arid and semi-arid areas are particularly exposed to the impacts of climate change on
water resource availability. This creates temporal and spatial variability in water resource
distribution particularly in, e.g., Mediterranean Basin, western United States, and major
parts of Africa, northeast Brazil, southern and eastern Australia. There is a discrepancy
in water uses and users. Therefore, water resource management is crucial to satisfy the
demand–supply relationship. Since the flow of a river is highly dependent on the seasonal
climatic variation, it drives water managers to harvest water during the wet season to
minimize water shortage during the dry season. One of the water resources management
strategies is building water resources structures along a river basin such as dykes and
reservoirs to store water [135]. However, it has been very challenging to optimally control
reservoir water operations for water resource planners and managers. When the reservoirs
get sufficient water supply in a wet period, then it is possible to control the water level
to minimize flood risk to downstream areas. In normal periods of reservoir operation, all
planned demands are met, the reservoir storage level is kept at or above the intended level.
While during dry periods, when the reservoir storage level falls, the reservoir release is
reduced to maintain a sufficient amount of water remaining in the reservoir for future water
supply. This kind of situation seeks appropriate multi-criteria decision-making methods
to optimally solve the existing conflicting trade-offs objectives, meeting ongoing water
users0 demand, minimizing flood risks, and ensuring adequate reservoir storage when
inflow is insufficient [136]. The MCDM methods are useful in situations where there is a
decision-making that must meet multiple objectives in an integrated manner [135].
More often optimization is applied in reservoir water resource allocation to address a
combined water shortage and flooding problem. Veintimilla-Reyes et al. [137] developed a
generic linear programming model to optimize water allocation from a networked reservoir
system to meet multiple spatially and temporally distributed water demands, reducing
flood from maximum capacity and minimizing costs associated with unmet demand and
flood events. The report shows that the LP model effectively optimizes the spatiotemporal
allocation of water on a connected reservoir system. They suggested the model can be
Water 2021, 13, 125 20 of 28
extended by considering other additional parameters like identifying new optimal locations
for additional reservoirs.
5. Discussion
Water resources management is absolutely crucial for sustainable natural resource
utilization and protection. Water resource management planning has to safeguard all the
competing water demands and finds the best option to allocate water on an optimum basis
to all demands and uses. The demand for water is rising due to many factors like global
population growth and socio-economic development. These factors create pressure on the
available limited water resources. Besides, global climate change affects water resources too.
These factors make the use and allocation of water very complex and challenging. MCDM
tools have been used to address the conflicting trade-offs in water resource distribution
and management. Such methods are ideal and promising for optimizing water resources
allocation in maximizing all benefits and reducing the risk associated with it. Researchers
in different parts of the world have used MCDM methods to address water allocation
problems. According to our review study, the trend analysis from 2000–2018 shows that the
number of publications significantly increased particularly after 2014. One unanticipated
finding was that there was no publication found between 2000 and 2006. The result of
this study is similar to the result of de Brito and Evers [5], who reviewed the application
of MCDM on flood risk management from 1995–2015. They indicated more publications
were released after 2011 and there were equal to or less than one per year until 2004. Our
results also reflect on those of Archibald and Marshall [6], who reviewed the application of
mathematical programming on water resources management. They found that the number
of publications increased from January 2010 to December 2017. This could be a reflection
of the growing awareness of sustainable water resources management and the need for a
more holistic approach towards complex water problems. This confirms that in the future,
the number of publications will increase. The study of the distribution of publication based
on the study region is useful to show where and how often the application of MCDM is
used across the globe. In this study, at least 2 papers were reported from each continent
and a total of 16 countries were listed. China has the first position; almost half of the
publications originate from there. Similar review results were obtained by Archibald and
Marshall [6] and Bhateria and Jain [101], which proved China is the top-ranked country.
This may be due to the presence of multiple waterways and transboundary rivers that
require the application of multi-objective decision-making tools. In contrast to the previous
reviewers, Hajkowicz [7] reported that the USA and India were the prolific study regions.
However, this study reviewed publications between 1973 and 2005, which is different from
our study period.
An important topic emphasized and analyzed were criteria considered in the applica-
tion of MCDM methods. Almost 50% of the papers considered economic and environmental
factors, while the rest (around 40%) incorporated economic, environmental, and social
aspects. There have been limited review studies that included the topic of these aspects
in their paper. In summary, water resource management planning requires identifying
and selecting appropriate criteria that consider the multifunctionality of water resource
allocation. Hence, a good decision practice should be based on a critical analysis of the
tradeoffs existing in the interaction of water resource management. Water is allocated
to respond to different types of water problems like water shortage, water quality, wa-
ter/environment ecosystem, and flood risk problems. Water shortage is the major problem
reported, subsequently, water use management problem (regulations, policies), water
quality problem, water ecosystem, and flood problem follow. In this review study, we
found less attention was devoted to water allocation in response to flood problems, even if
a flood is one of the worst natural hazards and affects a large portion of population and
wealth. Some publications have also attempted to address simultaneously more than one
water problem at the same time. Very often, water shortage and water quality problems
happen at the same time. Normally, water quantity and quality are inherently related.
Water 2021, 13, 125 21 of 28
More publications are expected in the future to fill and cover this topic. In this study, we
also reviewed publications that have used MCDM to address a combined water allocation
problem of two antagonistic issues, i.e., water shortage and flooding problems at the same
time. This kind of paper-primarily studies the reservoir water allocation problem that can
sustain water supply and at the same time minimizes the overflow of water that could
impact the downstream side. In the case of the geographical distribution of the publication
in the context of water problem classifications, all the publications in all the listed water
problems were concentrated in China. Some water problems were also reported in Iran and
Taiwan. We can conclude that water allocation remains a fundamental problem in Asia.
This might be associated with a combination of rapid population growth, environmental
pollution from big industries, and climate change. The other point observed was that, even
though water allocation is a critical problem in Africa and South America, there have been
limited publications on those continents. Further studies should consider studying the
status and condition of water resource allocation problems in those continents.
A number of multi-criteria decision-making methods were used to deal with different
water allocation problems. For each specific water allocation issue, we found preferable
decision methods that had been applied. For example, the heuristic methods Genetic algo-
rithms (GA and NSGA II) and mathematical programming methods (LP forms like MILP,
ILP) were the more frequently used for water shortage problems. NSGA II is the most com-
monly applied method for water use management problems. NSGA II and AHP methods
are evenly used for water quality issues. GA and NSGA II were frequently implemented
for water ecosystem/environment-related issues. In the case of flood risk problems, we
found only a single publication that adapted the multi-objective best compromise decision
model (MoBCDM). For a combined water problem (flood-water shortage and quality),
there was no single outright decision technique employed. Nevertheless, relatively LP was
slightly more applied compared to other methods.
Overall, this review research study reveals that NSGA II was the most commonly
applied method, and GA and LP follow. In contrast to our conclusion, Archibald and
Marshall [6] in their review study reported that stochastic dynamic programming and
multistage stochastic programming were the frequently used methods. However, their
review was concentrated on the broad aspect of water resource management and the review
time-limited between 2010 and 2017. Another review study by Hajkowicz [7] indicated
fuzzy, compromise programming, AHP, and ELECTRE were the most likely used methods.
The same reason justifies that their review report focused on water resources planning
and management and they used the time period between 1973 and 2005. Bhateria and
Jain [101] discussed in their review that AHP and TOPSIS were the most popular methods.
Their review was only targeted on flood risk management problems from 1995 to 2015.
Our review report is different from the previous reviews in the sense that it specifically
covering on recent publications and narrow context-based on publications dealing with
water allocation problems.
In general, this study identified and demonstrated how decision-making methods are
applied and employed to solve different water allocation problems. The results asserted
and provided detailed information with regards to the application of different MCDM
methods in the field of water allocation. In this paper, only a few studies used hybrid
methods to address water problems. In the future, it is recommended to use a hybrid
decision-making method and simultaneously attempt multiple objectives to solve complex
water resources management and planning problems. In summary, the main intention
of this review analysis was to give an overview and guidelines for researchers to select
the appropriate decision tools to solve water allocation problems, based on repeatability
and uncertainty, we suggested different possible decision methods for each type of water
problems, besides the intention of the study was to show the trend and to provide updated
information with respect to MCDM methods on water allocation problems. The paper
contains intensive information for future researchers to use as a guideline. Furthermore, in
the supplementary material (Table S1), the summary of each reviewed paper was presented
Water 2021, 13, 125 22 of 28
in a structured manner for readers. This table is categorized into different water allocation
problems and contains the description of problem gaps/motivations, objectives, criteria
used, MCDM methods, and decision techniques employed.
6. Conclusions
This study carried out a systematic review of peer-reviewed publications on MCDM
method applications with a focus on water allocation problems. The study used a literature
web-based database source of WoS, Scopus, SD, and GS from January 2000 to December
2018. A total of 109 published articles were screened based on the title, keywords, and
abstract. Forty-nine publication articles were selected and reviewed. Our findings show
that MCDM application in the field of water allocation will continue to increase. More
publications emerged particularly after 2014 as compared to the previous years. Sixteen
countries as a study area applied MCDM methods with reference to water allocations.
Nearly 65% and 12% of applications were conducted in Asia and Europe, respectively.
Virtually, this review study is more a reflection of Asiatic and European water allocation
problems. Note that this result is only based on the study origin and it did not consider
experts0 origin.
MCDM tool has grown as part of operational research. It is a useful method for
making decisions when there exist multiple conflicting criteria. It comprehensively targets
to satisfy and meet multi-complex objectives and constraints. Notably, water allocations
are interconnected with various dimensions like economical, environmental, and social
factors. This study confirms that about 86% of papers considered more than one aspect
of water allocation problems. Less than 10% of papers have considered only a single
dimension. Regarding water problem context classifications, a range of different water
problems were identified. Water shortage, water use management, and water quality were
the most discussed water allocation problems. China is the top-ranked country where all
water allocation problems were conducted. The study result report on the distribution
of water shortage with respect to the study region is in line with the UN world water
data report published in 2020 which classifies China, Burkina Faso, Iran, and Australia are
mentioned in water scarcity areas [138].
Based on review findings, NSGA II is the most frequently used method followed
by GA and linear programming forms. We can conclude MCDM techniques have been
successfully implemented in various ranges of water allocation problems. However, many
of the reviewed articles did not include sensitivity and uncertainties analysis in their
MCDM study results. It is very relevant to identify sources of uncertainties and the way
forward how to minimize them for further practical and operational applications in the field
of water management. Moreover, many of the reviewed researches had not ascertained the
issue of climate change in addressing water allocations.
In summary, this review paper rigorously covered and analyzed the state of the art of
MCDM application in the field of water allocation problems. However, some limitations
ought to be cautioned. Our review paper only focused on English peer-reviewed literature.
Normally, important MCDM-based water allocation literature may be available in other
languages and do not publish in high ranked journals. Even if it quite time-consuming
to translate those literature and searching in databases, such types of literature are very
crucial to grasp and collect relevant information on water allocation problems. Therefore,
future review papers can consider other language-based scholarly articles and contain
broad fields of water resources management problems. The results of this study report
will provide substantial information and serve as a guide for future research on MCDM
methods application to address water allocation problems.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/2073-444

1/13/2/125/s1.
Water 2021, 13, 125 23 of 28
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, S.L.G., D.C., and J.V.O.; methodology, S.L.G., D.C., and
J.V.O.; validation, S.L.G., D.C. and J.V.O.; formal analysis, S.L.G., D.C., and J.V.O.; investigation, S.L.G.;
resources, D.C. and J.V.O.; data curation, S.L.G., D.C., and J.V.O.; writing—original draft preparation,
S.L.G., D.C. and J.V.O.; writing—reviewing and editing, S.L.G., D.C., and J.V.O.; visualization, S.L.G.;
supervision, D.C. and J.V.O. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Acknowledgments: This research was performed as part of a PhD study. The study is supported by
Global Mind0 s scholarship. The views expressed in this review study are those of the authors and do
not necessarily reflect the views or policies of Global Minds.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Abbreviations
AHP analytic hierarchy process

AVF additive value function
CCM compound cloud model
DE differential evolution
DM dynamic modeling
ELECTREE elimination and choice expressing reality
e-NSGAII epsilon dominance non-dominated sorted genetic algorithm-II
FAHP fuzzy analytic hierarchy process
GA genetic algorithm
GP goal programming
GRASP greedy randomized adaptive search procedure
IPCC intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IQP inexact quadratic programming
ITSP inexact two-stage stochastic programming
LP linear programming
MADM multi-attribute decision-making
MAUT multi-attribute utility theory
MCDM multi-criteria decision-making
MFSC modified fuzzy social choice
MFSP multi-stage fuzzy stochastic programming
MIP mixed-integer programming
MOABC multi-objective artificial bee colony-based optimization approach
MoBCDM multi-objective best compromise decision model
MODM multi-objective decision-making
Model DSS Innovative modeling approaches model (decision support system)
MOGM multi-objective game-theory model
PROMETHEE preference ranking organization method for enrichment evaluation
SA simulating annealing
TOPSIS technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution
WSM weighted sum method
References
1. Cassardo, C.; Jones, J.A.A. Managing Water in a Changing World. Water 2011, 3, 618–628. [CrossRef]
2. Du Plessis, A. Freshwater Challenges of South Africa and Its Upper Vaal River: Global Context of Freshwater Resources; Springer
International Publishing: New York, NY, YSA, 2017; 164p.
3. FAO. Water for Sustainable Food and Agriculture Water for Sustainable Food and Agriculture. A Report Produced for the G20 Presidency of
Germany; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2017.
4. WWAP. The United Nations World Water Development Report 2018: Nature–Based Solutions for Water. 2018. Available online:
https://doi.org/https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000261424 (accessed on 18 July 2020).
5. De Brito, M.M.; Evers, M. Multi–Criteria Decision–Making for Flood Risk Management: A Survey of the Current State of the Art.
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2016, 16, 1019–1033. [CrossRef]
6. Archibald, T.W.; Marshall, S.E. Review of Mathematical Programming Applications in Water Resource Management Under
Uncertainty. Environ. Model. Assess. 2018, 23, 753–777. [CrossRef]
Water 2021, 13, 125 24 of 28
7. Hajkowicz, S.; Collins, K. A Review of Multiple Criteria Analysis for Water Resource Planning and Management. Water Resour.
Manag. 2007, 21, 1553–1566. [CrossRef]
8. Kangas, J.; Kangas, A. Multiple criteria decision support in forest management—The approach, methods applied, and experiences
gained. For. Ecol. Manag. 2005, 207, 133–143. [CrossRef]
9. Estrella, R.; Cattrysse, D.; Van Orshoven, J. Comparison of Three Ideal Point-Based Multi-Criteria Decision Methods for
Afforestation Planning. Forests 2014, 5, 3222–3240. [CrossRef]
10. Veintimilla-Reyes, J.; De Meyer, A.; Cattrysse, D.; Tacuri, E.; Vanegas-Peralta, P.; Cisneros, F.; Van Orshoven, J.; Veintimilla-Reyes, J.;
Meyer, D.; Van Orshoven, J. MILP for Optimizing Water Allocation and Reservoir Location: A Case Study for the Machángara River
Basin, Ecuador. Water 2019, 11, 1011. [CrossRef]
11. Mardani, A.; Jusoh, A.; Nor, K.M.D.; Khalifah, Z.; Zakwan, N.; Valipour, A. Multiple criteria decision-making techniques and
their applications—A review of the literature from 2000 to 2014. Econ. Res. EkonomskaIstraživanja 2015, 28, 516–571. [CrossRef]
12. Sitorus, F.; Cilliers, J.J.; Brito-Parada, P.R. Multi-criteria decision making for the choice problem in mining and mineral processing:
Applications and trends. Expert Syst. Appl. 2019, 121, 393–417. [CrossRef]
13. Leake, C.; Malczewski, J. GIS and Multicriteria Decision Analysis; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 2000; Volume 51. [CrossRef]
14. Zimmermann, H.-J.; Gutsche, L. Multi-Criteria Analysis; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1991.
15. Churchman, C.W.; Ackoff, R.L. An Approximate Measure of Value. J. Oper. Res. Soc. Am. 1954, 2, 172–187. [CrossRef]
16. Pokehar, S.D.; Ramachandran, M. Application of multi-criteria decision making to Sustainable Energy Planning. Renew. Sustain.
Energy 2004, 8, 365–381.
17. Saaty, T.L. The Analytic Hierarchy Process; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1980.
18. Strantzali, E.; Aravossis, K. Decision making in renewable energy investments: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 55,
885–898. [CrossRef]
19. Tzeng, G.H.; Huang, J.J. Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2011; 335p.
20. Brans, J.P.; Vincke, P. A Preference Ranging Organization Method. The PROMETHEE Method for MCDM. Manag. Sci. 1985, 31,
21. Rouyendegh, B.D.; Erol, S. Selecting the Best Project Using the Fuzzy ELECTRE Method. Math. Probl. Eng. 2012, 2012, 1–12.
[CrossRef]
22. Hwang, C.L.; Kwangsun, Y. Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1981.
[CrossRef]
23. Chen, J.; Wang, J.; Baležentis, T.; Zagurskaitė, F.; Streimikiene, D.; Makutėnienė, D. Multicriteria Approach towards the Sustainable
Selection of a Teahouse Location with Sensitivity Analysis. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2926. [CrossRef]
24. De Meyer, A.; Cattrysse, D.; Rasinmäki, J.; Van Orshoven, J. Methods to optimise the design and management of biomass-for-
bioenergy supply chains: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 31, 657–670. [CrossRef]
25. Belton, V.; Stewart, T.J. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: An Integrated Approach; Kluwer Academic Publications: Boston, MA,
USA, 2002.
26. Deb, K.; Pratap, A.; Agarwal, S.; Meyarivan, T. A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Trans. Evolut.
Comput. 2002, 6, 182–197. [CrossRef]
27. Castillo-Villar, K.K. Metaheuristic Algorithms Applied to Bioenergy Supply Chain Problems: Theory, Review, Challenges, and
Future. Energies 2014, 7, 7640–7672. [CrossRef]
28. Boeker, M.; Vach, W.; Motschall, E. Google Scholar as replacement for systematic literature searches: Good relative recall and
precision are not enough. BMC Med Res. Methodol. 2013, 13, 131. [CrossRef]
29. Harzing, A.W. Publish or Perish. 2007. Available online: http://www.harzing.com/pop.htm (accessed on 16 April 2020).
30. Mongeon, P.; Paul-Hus, A. The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics 2016, 106,
31. Waltman, L. A review of the literature on citation impact indicators. J. Inf. 2016, 10, 365–391. [CrossRef]
32. Tober, M. PubMed, Science Direct, Scopus or Google Scholar—Which is the best search engine for an effective literature research
in laser medicine? Med Laser Appl. 2011, 26, 139–144. [CrossRef]
33. Falagas, M.E.; Pitsouni, E.I.; Malietzis, G.A.; Pappas, G. Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar:
Strengths and weaknesses. FASEB J. 2008, 22, 338–342. [CrossRef]
34. Martín-Martín, A.; Orduña-Malea, E.; Thelwall, M.; López-Cózar, E.D. Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A systematic
comparison of citations in 252 subject categories. J. Inf. 2018, 12, 1160–1177. [CrossRef]
35. Bakkalbasi, N.; Bauer, K.; Glover, J.; Wang, L. Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science.
Biomed. Digit. Libr. 2006, 3, 7. [CrossRef]
36. Neuhaus, C.; Daniel, H.D. Data sources for performing citation analysis: An overview. J. Doc. 2008, 64, 193–210. [CrossRef]
37. Bramer, W.M.; Rethlefsen, M.L.; Kleijnen, J.; Franco, O.H. Optimal Database Combinations for Literature Searches in Systematic
Reviews: A Prospective Exploratory Study. Syst. Rev. 2017, 6, 1–12. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
38. Chen, X. Google Scholar’s Dramatic Coverage Improvement Five Years after Debuta. Ser. Rev. 2010, 36, 221–226. [CrossRef]
39. Orduna–Malea, E.; Ayllón, J.M.; Martin-Martin, A.; López-Cózar, E. Methods for Estimating the Size of Google Scholar. Sciento-
metrics 2015, 104, 931–949. [CrossRef]
Water 2021, 13, 125 25 of 28
40. Chavarro, D.; Ràfols, I.; Tang, P. To what extent is inclusion in the Web of Science an indicator of journal ‘quality’? Res. Eval. 2018,
27, 106–118. [CrossRef]
41. Hoseth, A. Google Scholar. Charlest. Advis. 2011, 12, 36–39. [CrossRef]
42. Halevi, G.; Moed, H.; Bar-Ilan, J. Suitability of Google Scholar as a source of scientific information and as a source of data for
scientific evaluation—Review of the Literature. J. Inf. 2017, 11, 823–834. [CrossRef]
43. Niazi, M. Do Systematic Literaure Reviews Outperform Informal Literature Reviews in the Software Engineering Domain? An
Initial Case Study. Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 2015, 40, 845–855. [CrossRef]
44. Boretti, A.; Rosa, L. Reassessing the projections of the World Water Development Report. Npj Clean Water 2019, 2, 2. [CrossRef]
45. UNEP. Global International Waters Assessment. International Waters Regional Assessments in a Global Perspective; United Nations
Environment Programme: Stockholm, Sweden, 2006.
46. EM-DAT. EM-DAT International Disaster Database. Available online: http://www.emdat.be (accessed on 6 June 2019).
47. Shatanawi, M.; Naber, S. Valuing Water from Social, Economic and Environmental Perspective. Dialogues Mediterr. Water
Challenges Ration. Water Use, Water Price Versus Value Lessons Learn. from Eur. Water Framew. Dir. 2011, 117, 109–117.
48. Burek, P.; Satoh, Y.; Fischer, G.; Kahil, M.T.; Scherzer, A.; Tramberend, S.; Nava, L.F.; Wada, Y.; Eisner, S.; Flörke, M.; et al. Water
Futures and Solution. Water Futures and Solution—Fast Track Initiative (Final Report); IIASA Working Paper WP-16-006; IASA:
Laxenburg, Austria, 2016.
49. Tundisi, J.G. Water Resources in the Future: Problems and Solutions. EstudosAvançados 2008, 22, 7–16. [CrossRef]
50. Jiang, Y.; Chan, F.K.S.; Holden, J.; Zhao, Y.; Guan, D. China’s water management—Challenges and solutions. Environ. Eng. Manag.
J. 2013, 12, 1311–1321. [CrossRef]
51. GWP. Integrated Water Resources Management in Central America: The Over–Riding Challenge of Managing Transboundary Waters;
Global Water Partnership: Stockholm, Sweden, 2016.
52. Martin-Ortega, J.; Berbel, J. Using multi-criteria analysis to explore non-market monetary values of water quality changes in the
context of the Water Framework Directive. Sci. Total. Environ. 2010, 408, 3990–3997. [CrossRef]
53. Backer, H.; Leppänen, J.-M.; Brusendorff, A.C.; Forsius, K.; Stankiewicz, M.; Mehtonen, J.; Pyhälä, M.; Laamanen, M.; Paulomäki,
H.; Vlasov, N.; et al. HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan—A regional programme of measures for the marine environment based on
the Ecosystem Approach. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2010, 60, 642–649. [CrossRef]
54. Rabalais, N.N.; Díaz, R.J.; Levin, L.A.; Turner, R.E.; Gilbert, D.; Zhang, J. Dynamics and distribution of natural and human-caused
hypoxia. Biogeosciences 2010, 7, 585–619. [CrossRef]
55. Zmijewski, N.; Wörman, A. Trade-Offs between Phosphorous Discharge and Hydropower Production Using Reservoir Regulation.
J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag. 2017, 143, 04017052. [CrossRef]
56. UNESCO. Report on the UNESCO–IHP Regional Consultation Meeting on “Water Quality in Europe: Challenges and Bestpractices”;
UNESCO-IHP: Koblenz, Germany, 2015.
57. Grossman, G.M.; Krueger, A.B. Economic Growth and the Environment. Q. J. Econ. 1995, 110, 353–377. [CrossRef]
58. Wu, J.; Cindy, O. Asian Ecology: Pressing Problems and Research Challenges. Bull. Ecol. Soc. Am. 2002, 83, 189–194.
59. ESCAP/CED. Key Environment Issues, Trends and Challenges in the Asia–Pacific Region. In Environmental Challenges in the Context of the
Implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; United Nations Economic and Social Council: Bangkok, Thailand, 2018.
60. Liu, J.; Liu, Q.; Yang, H. Assessing water scarcity by simultaneously considering environmental flow requirements, water quantity,
and water quality. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 60, 434–441. [CrossRef]
61. Satoh, Y.; Kahil, T.; Byers, E.; Burek, P.; Fischer, G.; Tramberend, S.; Greve, P.; Flörke, M.; Eisner, S.; Hanasaki, N.; et al. Multi-model
and multi-scenario assessments of Asian water futures: The Water Futures and Solutions (WFaS) initiative. Earth’s Futur. 2017, 5,
62. FAO. Coping with Water Scarcity an Action Framework for Agriculture and Food Security; Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2012; Volume 38. Available online: https://doi.org/http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/i3015e/i301
5e.pdf (accessed on 24 March 2020).
63. Mekonnen, M.M.; Hoekstra, Y.A. Four Billion People Facing Severe Water Scarcity. Am. Assoc. Adv. Sci. 2016, 2, 1–7. [CrossRef]
64. Uen, T.-S.; Chang, F.-J.; Zhou, Y.; Tsai, W.-P. Exploring synergistic benefits of Water-Food-Energy Nexus through multi-objective
reservoir optimization schemes. Sci. Total. Environ. 2018, 633, 341–351. [CrossRef]
65. Zhang, C.; Li, Y.; Chu, J.; Fu, G.; Tang, R.; Qi, W. Use of Many-Objective Visual Analytics to Analyze Water Supply Objective
Trade-Offs with Water Transfer. J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag. 2017, 143, 05017006. [CrossRef]
66. Chu, J.; Zhang, C.; Fu, G.; Li, Y.; Zhou, H. Improving multi-objective reservoir operation optimization with sensitivity-informed
dimension reduction. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2015, 19, 3557–3570. [CrossRef]
67. Xu, Q.; Song, W.; Zhang, Y. Forecast and optimal allocation of production, living and ecology water consumption in Zhangye,
China. Phys. Chem. Earth, Parts ABC 2016, 96, 16–25. [CrossRef]
68. Hu, Z.; Wei, C.; Yao, L.; Li, L.; Li, C. A multi-objective optimization model with conditional value-at-risk constraints for water
allocation equality. J. Hydrol. 2016, 542, 330–342. [CrossRef]
69. Lai, C. A Multi-objective Optimal Water Strategy Using Time Series Analysis and Improved Genetic Algorithm. J. Inf. Comput.
Sci. 2015, 12, 2229–2239. [CrossRef]
70. Fowe, T.; Nouiri, I.; Ibrahim, B.; Karambiri, H.; Paturel, J.E. OPTIWAM: An Intelligent Tool for Optimizing Irrigation Water
Management in Coupled Reservoir–Groundwater Systems. Water Resour. Manag. 2015, 29, 3841–3861. [CrossRef]
Water 2021, 13, 125 26 of 28
71. Niu, G.; Li, Y.P.; Huang, G.H.; Liu, J.; Fan, Y.R. Crop planning and water resource allocation for sustainable development of an
irrigation region in China under multiple uncertainties. Agric. Water Manag. 2016, 166, 53–69. [CrossRef]
72. Wang, J.; Cheng, G.D.; Gao, Y.G.; Long, A.H.; Xu, Z.M.; Li, X.; Chen, H.; Barker, T. Optimal Water Resource Allocation in Arid
and Semi-Arid Areas. Water Resour. Manag. 2007, 22, 239–258. [CrossRef]
73. Grafton, R.Q.; Chu, H.L.; Stewardson, M.; Kompas, T. Optimal dynamic water allocation: Irrigation extractions and environmental
tradeoffs in the Murray River, Australia. Water Resour. Res. 2011, 47, 1–13. [CrossRef]
74. Elmahdi, A.; McFarlane, D.J. A decision support system for sustainable groundwater management. Case study: Gnangara
sustainability strategy—Western Australia. Water Resour. Manag. V 2009, 125, 327–339. [CrossRef]
75. Roozbahani, R.; Abbasi, B.; Schreider, S.; Ardakani, A. A Multi-objective Approach for Transboundary River Water Allocation.
Water Resour. Manag. 2014, 28, 5447–5463. [CrossRef]
76. Roozbahani, R.; Abbasi, B.; Schreider, S. Optimal allocation of water to competing stakeholders in a shared watershed. Ann. Oper.
Res. 2015, 229, 657–676. [CrossRef]
77. Song, W.-Z.; Yuan, Y.; Jiang, Y.-Z.; Lei, X.-H.; Shu, D.-C. Rule-based water resource allocation in the Central Guizhou Province,
China. Ecol. Eng. 2016, 87, 194–202. [CrossRef]
78. Cai, Y.P.; Huang, G.H.; Wang, X.; Li, G.C.; Tan, Q. An inexact programming approach for supporting ecologically sustainable
water supply with the consideration of uncertain water demand by ecosystems. Stoch. Environ. Res. Risk Assess. 2011, 25, 721–735.
[CrossRef]
79. Shang, S.H. A general multi-objective programming model for minimum ecological flow or water level of inland water bodies. J.
Arid. Land 2015, 7, 166–176. [CrossRef]
80. Alamanos, A.; Mylopoulos, N.; Loukas, A.; Gaitanaros, D. An Integrated Multicriteria Analysis Tool for Evaluating Water
Resource Management Strategies. Water 2018, 10, 1795. [CrossRef]
81. Lee, M.; Yu, C.-Y.; Chiang, P.-C.; Hou, C.-H. Water–Energy Nexus for Multi-Criteria Decision Making in Water Resource
Management: A Case Study of Choshui River Basin in Taiwan. Water 2018, 10, 1740. [CrossRef]
82. Cambrainha, G.M.; Fontana, M.E. A multi-criteria decision making approach to balance water supply-demand strategies in water
supply systems. Production 2018, 28. [CrossRef]
83. Loucks, D.P.; Van, B.E. Water Resources Planning and Management: An Overview. In Water Resource Systems Planning and
Management; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017.
84. Duncan, A.E.; De Vries, N.; Nyarko, K.B. The effectiveness of water resources management in Pra Basin. Hydrol. Res. 2019, 21,
85. OECD. Water Resources Allocation: Sharing Risks and Opportunities. Water Intell. Online 2015, 14. [CrossRef]
86. Amprako, J.L. Water for a Sustainable World; UNESCO: Paris, France, 2015.
87. Hurford, A.P.; Huskova, I.; Harou, J.J. Using many-objective trade-off analysis to help dams promote economic development,
protect the poor and enhance ecological health. Environ. Sci. Policy 2014, 38, 72–86. [CrossRef]
88. Dai, L.; Zhang, P.; Wang, Y.; Jiang, D.; Dai, H.; Mao, J.; Wang, M. Multi-objective optimization of cascade reservoirs using NSGA-II:
A case study of the Three Gorges-Gezhouba cascade reservoirs in the middle Yangtze River, China. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. Int. J.
2017, 23, 814–835. [CrossRef]
89. Hajiabadi, R.; Zarghami, M. Multi-Objective Reservoir Operation with Sediment Flushing; Case Study of Sefidrud Reservoir.
Water Resour. Manag. 2014, 28, 5357–5376. [CrossRef]
90. Lewis, A.; Randall, M. Solving multi-objective water management problems using evolutionary computation. J. Environ. Manag.
2017, 204, 179–188. [CrossRef]
91. Martin, D.M.; Powell, S.J.; Webb, J.A.; Nichols, S.J.; Poff, N.L. An Objective Method to Prioritize Socio-Environmental Water
Management Tradeoffs Using Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis. River Res. Appl. 2016, 33, 586–596. [CrossRef]
92. Yan, D.; Ludwig, F.; Huang, H.Q.; Werners, S.E. Many-objective robust decision making for water allocation under climate change.
Sci. Total. Environ. 2017, 607–608, 294–303. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
93. Li, C.; Cai, Y.; Qian, J. A multi-stage fuzzy stochastic programming method for water resources management with the consideration
of ecological water demand. Ecol. Indic. 2018, 95, 930–938. [CrossRef]
94. Li, Y.; Cui, Q.; Li, C.; Wang, X.; Cai, Y.; Cui, G.; Yang, Z. An improved multi-objective optimization model for supporting reservoir
operation of China’s South-to-North Water Diversion Project. Sci. Total. Environ. 2017, 575, 970–981. [CrossRef]
95. Dhaubanjar, S.; Davidsen, C.; Bauer-Gottwein, P. Multi-Objective Optimization for Analysis of Changing Trade-Offs in the
Nepalese Water–Energy–Food Nexus with Hydropower Development. Water 2017, 9, 162. [CrossRef]
96. Wang, M.; Tang, D.; Bai, Y.; Xia, Z. A compound cloud model for harmoniousness assessment of water allocation. Environ. Earth
Sci. 2016, 75. [CrossRef]
97. Li, M.; Guo, P.; Ren, C. Water Resources Management Models Based on Two-Level Linear Fractional Programming Method under
Uncertainty. J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag. 2015, 141, 05015001. [CrossRef]
98. Rousta, B.A.; Araghinejad, S. Development of a Multi Criteria Decision Making Tool for a Water Resources Decision Support
System. Water Resour. Manag. 2015, 29, 5713–5727. [CrossRef]
99. Wijenayake, W.M.H.K.; Amarasinghe, U.S.; De Silva, S.S. Application of a multiple-criteria decision making approach for
selecting non-perennial reservoirs for culture-based fishery development: Case study from Sri Lanka. Aquacultur 2016, 459, 26–35.
[CrossRef]
Water 2021, 13, 125 27 of 28
100. UNCED. Agenda 21, Chapter 18. Protection of the Quality and Supply of Freshwater Resources: Application of Integrated Approaches to the
Development, Management and Use of Water Resources. United Nations Conference on Environment and Development; United Nations:
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 1992.
101. Bhateria, R.; Jain, D. Water quality assessment of lake water: A review. Sustain. Water Resour. Manag. 2016, 2, 161–173. [CrossRef]
102. Chapman, D.V. Water Quality Assessments: A Guide to the Use of Biota, Sediments and Water in Environmental Monitoring; CRC Press:
Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1996.
103. Inyinbor Adejumoke, A.; Adebesin Babatunde, O.; Oluyori Abimbola, P.; Adelani-Akande Tabitha, A.; Dada Adewumi, O.;
Oreofe Toyin, A. Water Pollution: Effects, Prevention, and Climatic Impact. In Water Challenges of an Urbanizing World; IntechOpen:
Rijeka, Crotia, 2018.
104. Wuana, R.A.; Okieimen, F.E. Heavy Metals in Contaminated Soils: A Review of Sources, Chemistry, Risks and Best Available
Strategies for Remediation. ISRN Ecol. 2011, 2011, 1–20. [CrossRef]
105. Wen, Y.; Schoups, G.; Van De Giesen, N. Organic pollution of rivers: Combined threats of urbanization, livestock farming and
global climate change. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 43289. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
106. Dunca, A.-M. Water Pollution and Water Quality Assessment of Major Transboundary Rivers from Banat (Romania). J. Chem.
2018, 2018, 9073763. [CrossRef]
107. Li, Y.; Lin, C.; Wang, Y.; Gao, X.; Xie, T.; Hai, R.; Wang, X.; Zhang, X. Multi-criteria evaluation method for site selection of
industrial wastewater discharge in coastal regions. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 161, 1143–1152. [CrossRef]
108. Raei, E.; Nikoo, M.R.; Pourshahabi, S. A multi-objective simulation-optimization model for in situ bioremediation of groundwater
contamination: Application of bargaining theory. J. Hydrol. 2017, 551, 407–422. [CrossRef]
109. Pérez, C.J.; Vega-Rodríguez, M.A.; Reder, K.; Flörke, M. A Multi-Objective Artificial Bee Colony-based optimization approach to
design water quality monitoring networks in river basins. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 166, 579–589. [CrossRef]
110. Karterakis, S.M.; Karatzas, G.P.; Nikolos, I.K.; Papadopoulou, M.P. Application of linear programming and differential evolution-
ary optimization methodologies for the solution of coastal subsurface water management problems subject to environmental
criteria. J. Hydrol. 2007, 342, 270–282. [CrossRef]
111. Regneri, M.; Klepiszewski, K.; Ostrowski, M.; Vanrolleghem, P.A. Fuzzy Decision Making for Multi-Criteria Optimization
in Integrated Wastewater System Management. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Sewer Processes and
Networks, Gold Coast, Australia, 7–10 November 2010.
112. Meng, C.; Wang, X.; Li, Y. An Optimization Model for Water Management Based on Water Resources and Environmental Carrying
Capacities: A Case Study of the Yinma River Basin, Northeast China. Water 2018, 10, 565. [CrossRef]
113. Costanza, R.; De Groot, R.; Sutton, P.C.; Van Der Ploeg, S.; Anderson, S.J.; Kubiszewski, I.; Farber, S.; Turner, R.K. Changes in the
global value of ecosystem services. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2014, 26, 152–158. [CrossRef]
114. UNEP. Global Environment Outlook. GEO 4 Environment for Development. United Nations Environment Programme; Progress Press
Ltd.: Valletta, Malta, 2014; Volume 9. [CrossRef]
115. Brussard, P.F.; Reed, J.M.; Tracy, C.R. Ecosystem management: What is it really? Landsc. Urban Plan. 1998, 40, 9–20. [CrossRef]
116. UNEP. Wetlands and Ecosystem Services World Wetlands Day; CBD Press Brief: Montreal, QC, Canada, 2015.
117. Xepapadeas, A. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations; Kumar, P., Ed.; Earthscan:
London, UK; Washington, DC, USA, 2011; ISBN 978-1-84971-212-5.
118. Yang, W. A multi-objective optimization approach to allocate environmental flows to the artificially restored wetlands of China’s
Yellow River Delta. Ecol. Model. 2011, 222, 261–267. [CrossRef]
119. Akhbari, M.; Grigg, N.S. Water Management Trade-offs between Agriculture and the Environment: A Multi objective Approach
and Application. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 2014, 140, 05014005. [CrossRef]
120. Cioffi, F.; Gallerano, F. Multi-objective analysis of dam release flows in rivers downstream from hydropower reservoirs. Appl.
Math. Model. 2012, 36, 2868–2889. [CrossRef]
121. Haimes, Y. On a Bicriterion Formulation of the Problems of Integrated System Identification and System Optimization. IEEE
Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. 1971, 1, 296–297. [CrossRef]
122. Lee, C.-S. Multi-objective game-theory models for conflict analysis in reservoir watershed management. Chemosphere 2012, 87,
123. Carraro, C.; Marchiori, C.; Sgobbi, A. Negotiating on water: Insights from non-cooperative bargaining theory. Environ. Dev. Econ.
2007, 12, 329–349. [CrossRef]
124. Xu, X.; Bin, L.; Pan, C.; Ding, A.; Chen, D. Optimal Reoperation of Multi-Reservoirs for Integrated Watershed Management with
Multiple Benefits. Water 2014, 6, 796–812. [CrossRef]
125. USAID. Overarching Guide: Incorporating Climate Change Adaptation in Infrastructure Planning and Design. In Executive
Summary; USAID: Washington, DC, USA, 2015.
126. Jia, B.; Simonovic, S.P.; Zhong, P.; Yu, Z. A Multi-Objective Best Compromise Decision Model for Real-Time Flood Mitigation
Operations of Multi-Reservoir System. Water Resour. Manag. 2016, 30, 3363–3387. [CrossRef]
127. Amorocho-Daza, H.; Cabrales, S.; Santos, R.; Saldarriaga, J. A New Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Methodology for the
Selection of New Water Supply Infrastructure. Water 2019, 11, 805. [CrossRef]
128. World Health Organization. Combating Waterborne Disease at the Household Level; WHO: Geneva, Switherland, 2007.
Water 2021, 13, 125 28 of 28
129. Yang, J.-S.; Chung, E.-S.; Kim, S.U.; Kim, T.W. Prioritization of water management under climate change and urbanization using
multi-criteria decision making methods. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2012, 16, 801–814. [CrossRef]
130. Chung, E.-S.; Lee, K.S. Identification of Spatial Ranking of Hydrological Vulnerability Using Multi-Criteria Decision Making
Techniques: Case Study of Korea. Water Resour. Manag. 2009, 23, 2395–2416. [CrossRef]
131. Chung, E.-S.; Lee, K.S. Prioritization of water management for sustainability using hydrologic simulation model and multicriteria
decision making techniques. J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 90, 1502–1511. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
132. Pourmand, E.; Mahjouri, N. A fuzzy multi-stakeholder multi-criteria methodology for water allocation and reuse in metropolitan
areas. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2018, 190, 444. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
133. Ke, W.; Lei, Y.; Sha, J.; Zhang, G.; Yan, J.; Lin, X.; Pan, X. Dynamic simulation of water resource management focused on water
allocation and water reclamation in Chinese mining cities. Hydrol. Res. 2016, 18, 844–861. [CrossRef]
134. IPCC 2014. Climate Change, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. 2014. Available online:
https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/vector-borne-diseases-1/ipcc-2014-climate-change-2014 (accessed on
24 March 2020).
135. De Almeida, A.T.; Cavalcante, C.A.V.; Alencar, M.H.; Ferreira, R.J.P.; De Almeida-Filho, A.T.; Garcez, T.V. Multicriteria and
Multiobjective Models for Risk, Reliability and Maintenance Decision Analysis; Springer: Cham, Switzeland, 2015. [CrossRef]
136. Men, B.; Wu, Z.; Li, Y.; Liu, H. Reservoir Operation Policy based on Joint Hedging Rules. Water 2019, 11, 419. [CrossRef]
137. Veintimilla-Reyes, J.; De Meyer, A.; Cattrysse, D.; Van Orshoven, J. A linear programming approach to optimise the management
of water in dammed river systems for meeting demands and preventing floods. Water Supply 2017, 18, 713–722. [CrossRef]
138. UN Water. World Water Development Report: Water and Climate Change; UNESCO World Water Assessment Programme (WWAP):
Paris, France, 2020.

Water 13 00125 v3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Water 13 00125 v3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Water 13 00125 v3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

water

Water 2021, 13, 125. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13020125 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/water

and socio-cultural aspects of an ecosystem. Water allocation is employed to address various

2. Classification of MCDM Methods

Figure 1. Classification of multi-criteria

3.1. Bibliographic Search Engine Databases

Table 1. Bibliographic database source characteristics.

3.2. Data Extraction and Procedures

Selecting Research Literature Using Formal Strings

WoS SD Scopus GS Total

4.1. Distribution of Research Papers Based on Publication Year

4.1. Distribution of Research Papers Based on Publication Year

4.2. Distribution of Publications

Water 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 29

4.3. Distribution of Figure

4.4. Distribution of Decision Technique Methods Based on Publication Year

Figure 7. Distribution of publications based on water problem context-based classification. WS

South Africa Nepal

Sri Lanka Spain

4.6.2. MCDM Methods Application to Solve Water Use Management Problems

4.6.3. MCDM Method Applications to Solve Water Quality Problems

4.6.4. MCDM Methods Application to Solve Water Ecosystem Problems

4.6.5. MCDM Methods Application to Solve Flood Risk Problems

4.6.6. MCDM Methods Application to Solve Combined Water Problems

Water Shortage and Flood Problems

Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/2073-444

AHP analytic hierarchy process

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.