environmental impact assessment and ranking the environmental projects in jordan

Theory and Methodology

Environmental impact assessment and ranking the environmentalprojects in Jordan

Dina Al-Rashdan, Bashar Al-Kloub, Angela Dean, Tarik Al-Shemmeri *

School of Engineering, Sta�ordshire University, Beaconside, P.O. Box 333, Sta�ord ST18 0DF, UK

Received 20 February 1996; accepted 28 August 1996

Abstract

The Nominal Group Technique as a structured group decision process and PROMETHEE as a Multi-Criteria

Decision Aid software are utilised to develop a reliable methodology to prioritise environmental projects in Jordan and

to evaluate their environmental impacts. This methodology is novel in that it integrates the various analytical decision

management techniques in order to increase the ¯exibility and e�ciency of the environmental planning. This meth-

odology is then implemented on a sample of wastewater projects in Jordan, and the results are discussed. Ó 1999

Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Environmental impact assessment; Multi-criteria decision aid

1. Introduction

Jordan has very fragile environmental resourc-es, and many are undergoing unsustainable levelsof exploitation due to a high rate of populationgrowth, consequent rise in demand, which threatenthe viability of the country's environmental re-sources and the quality of life for the generalpublic and more severely the poor. The most im-portant class of Jordan's environmental problemsare water related (e.g. salination, sewage and waterpollution) and these pose a real threat to publichealth, agriculture, and industrial activity. The

scarcity of water resources and issues related toquality are creating environmental problems atlocal, regional and international levels. Numerousstudies have appeared detailing the extent of de-gradation of natural resources and the need tolook for alternative sources of water (Salameh,1991; Al-Kloub and Al-Shemmeri, 1994, 1995).These studies have emphasised the rapid deterio-ration of these resources, especially water.

The Jordanian government is well aware thatsound environmental policies have a direct positiveimpact on the sustainable development of thecountry. A number of studies has been commis-sioned with the aim of identifying environmentalissues and determining enhancement options invarious sectors. Amongst these the National En-vironmental Strategy, prepared in 1992, was an

European Journal of Operational Research 118 (1999) 30±45www.elsevier.com/locate/orms

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +44-17-853-5335; fax: +44-17-

855-7073; e-mail: t.t.al-shemmeri@sta�s.ac.uk

0377-2217/99/$ ± see front matter Ó 1999 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

PII: S 0 3 7 7 - 2 2 1 7 ( 9 7 ) 0 0 0 7 9 - 9

important ®rst step for Jordan in confrontingenvironmental problems. Formulated by some180 Jordanian specialists; it catalogues all envi-ronmental resources and problems and containsover 400 speci®c recommendations and suggestedactions in the ®eld of environmental protectionand conversation. However, the strategy was notable to set priorities for the suggested actions, ®-nancial costs had not been calculated and insti-tutional capacity issues had not been addressed.In addition a draft environmental law was pre-pared in 1994 and is currently being examined bythe Jordanian Parliament. The law provides aframework for environmental management andthe establishment of sectoral legislation. It out-lines the basic objectives, the roles of concernedauthorities, and the procedures for developing,adopting and monitoring environmental stan-dards.

Water scarcity is becoming a signi®cantconstraint to development and the ongoing de-velopment process involves further resources ex-ploitation, especially through the use of newtechnologies which may in¯ict serious environ-mental damage (i.e depleting fossil aquifers).Currently Jordan utilises over 93% of its availableground resources (pumping exceeds safe yields inmany cases) and more than 80% of the total sur-face resources. The stresses on the water environ-ment stem from two main pressure factors: thewitnessed deterioration of water quality, and thecurrent and projected imbalance in the supply/de-mand equation (aggregated by di�erent enablingfactors) as shown in Fig. 1. Recent pollutionstudies in Jordan stress the need for signi®cantwork to protect surface and ground water fromenvironmental degradation. Such degradationtakes the form of contamination from seepage ofwastes into surface streams and salination frommining ground water aquifers. In the summer of1991, around $85 million worth of agriculturalproducts were destroyed due to the inadvertent useof the polluted irrigation water in the Jordan val-ley. Any future contamination of the various waterresources could possibly cost Jordan an una�ord-able price just to reverse the contamination processand bring the water quality back to acceptablestandards.

2. Environmental management in Jordan

An overview of the current environmentalmanagement framework shows the followingcharacteristics:1. A weak institutional framework with little ad-

ministrative capacities.2. Limited environmental legislation and mecha-

nisms to de®ne and enforce environmental reg-ulations and standards.

3. A comprehensive National EnvironmentalStrategy which de®nes a large number of pro-jects without providing priorities or a method-ological framework for priority setting.

4. Uncoordinated environmental actions support-ed by di�erent international donors, and amongthe di�erent government agencies.

3. Approaches to setting priorities

Setting priorities for new projects is a complextask, since there is generally not enough availableinformation to assess or forecast resulting envi-ronmental problems and their impact on theeconomy or society. Therefore, strategic decisionshave to be made with high levels of uncertainty.Furthermore, there is a limit to the resources (®-nancial, institutional, technical, human) that canbe made available for environmental management.Following the current peace process in the MiddleEast, an increase in economic activity is expectedwhich will result in new projects with signi®cantenvironmental impacts. The impacts of predictiontools such as the environmental assessment andplanning to mitigate these impacts to a lower coston the society is vital.

A ®rst step in identifying priorities involvesseeking consensus on the country's critical en-vironmental problems among the di�erent bene-®ciaries and to establish the environmentalobjectives. It is important to choose appropriateprojects and policy instruments to achieve theobjectives and to address the underlying causes ofthese environmental problems.

Given the limited resources available for envi-ronmental management, the Jordanian decisionmaker is confronted with di�erent dilemmas. The

D. Al-Rashdan et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 118 (1999) 30±45 31

®rst is how many issues to address? The risk ofchoosing to act on a large number of issues is thatnone of them might receive the critical mass ofattention needed for a breakthrough solution;choosing a few issues to focus on means that someenvironmental problems might be totally neglectedfor a while.

The second is whether to invest in addressingproblems of the past rather than preventing futureproblems. Correcting environmental problemsmight be costly, but there might be more aware-ness of an existing problem, and the expectedoutcomes of the corrective action are known.Prevention is less expensive, but the awareness andunderstanding of the problem might be limited,a�ecting the willingness to invest in them.

The third is if a decision should be made toinvest primarily in problems that are uniquelyJordanian or to signi®cantly participate in regionalenvironmental programmes and contribute toglobal issues. Finally, how much emphasis shouldbe placed on short-term direct, physical manage-

ment actions as compared to investing in a long-term building of the tools and capacities for envi-ronmental management.

Concentrating on a single objective as a basisfor priority setting is not realistic because of thecomplex and interdependent relationships of en-vironmental economic and socio-political factors.Pro®t is often the dominant criterion in today'sinvestments and often becomes equal in impor-tance to other environmental criteria. The Multi-Criteria Decision Aid (MCDA) has been devel-oped as a mathematical tool to prioritise projectsand to satisfy the broad objectives which aresometimes non-commensurable and con¯ict innature.

4. Environmental impact assessment (EIA)

EIA was developed in the 1950s, and in January1970 the USA had become the ®rst country in theworld to adopt requiring EIA on major projects

Fig. 1. Problem analysis (cause±e�ect relationship) of non-sustainable development of water resources.

32 D. Al-Rashdan et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 118 (1999) 30±45

(Canter, 1977). Since 1970 the growth of EIAlegislation and methods has been quite phenome-nal. By 1976 there were some 89 methodologies(Canter, 1977), and since that time more method-ologies have been developed. The currently avail-able environmental impact assessment methodsare generally not appropriate for developingcountries. The methodologies should incorporaterequirement for social, climatic, and culturalcharacteristics to enable developing countries tocarry out EIA within the limited costs and exper-tise available. In addition, the need for preparingcase studies from developing countries was high-lighted in many occasions.

Three analytical functions are associated withEIA: identi®cation, prediction and evaluation.Identi®cation methods include checklists, matricesand networks. These methods can assists in spec-ifying the range of impacts that may occur, in-cluding their spatial dimensions and time periods,and generally answer questions concerning thecomponents of the project and what elements ofthe environment may be a�ected by these compo-nents.

Predictive methodologies involve the greatestapplication of technology, this includes identi®ca-tion of environmental modi®cations that may besigni®cant, forecasting of the quantity and/orspatial dimensions of the change in the environ-ment, and estimation of the probability thatimpacts will occur. Such methods include quanti-tative predictive methods for the biological,cultural and socio-economic environments.

Evaluation methods are based on the evaluationof the incidence of costs and bene®ts to user groups,population a�ected by the projects and the com-parison of the trade-o�s between the various al-ternatives. These include methods like cost-bene®tanalysis, Battele environmental evaluation system,Georgia optimum pathway matrix (Canter, 1977),and Multi-criteria methods (Bana e Costa, 1990).

The following sections demonstrate the use ofMulti-Criteria Environmental Impact Assessmentmethods to bring better solutions to the pressingenvironmental problems in Jordan since they takeinto account a variety of other view points apartfrom the cost involved after describing the currentmulti-criteria methods.

5. Multi-criteria methods

A variety of multi-criteria methods has beenused in dealing with environmental problems.Merkhofer and Keeney (1987) used a traditionalmulti-attribute analysis in determining sites forthe disposal of nuclear waste; Briggs et al. (1990)used the PROMETHEE and GAIA methodswithin nuclear waste management; Stam et al.(1992) applied Wierzbicki's reference point meth-od in studying transboundary air pollution inEurope.

Details on the earlier development, and the newdirections in the ®eld of multi-criteria analysis canbe found in Roy and Vincke (1981), Bana e Costa(1990), Vincke (1992) and Maystre et al. (1994).Current methods can be classi®ed into four types:distance based, utility or value functions, outrank-ing and mixed. The distance based identi®es so-lutions which are closest to the ideal solution asdetermined by some measure of distance; theutility or value functions attempt to model math-ematically a decision maker's preference structureby a utility function (if the problem is stochastic)or a value function (if the problem is determinis-tic), and these functions can be used to identifypreferred solution. The outranking methodsevolved due to the limitations of the traditionalmethods mainly as the border-line between what isand what is not feasible is often fuzzy, or fre-quently modi®ed, and the decision maker's pref-erences very seldom sure. These methods arebased on the idea that the decision aid cannot bereduced to ``problem solving''. Finally, the mixedmethods where di�erent ideas and interactivemethods are utilised. A tendency has been ob-served that the outranking methods are mostsuccessful because of their adaptability to realproblems and the fact that they are more easilycomprehended by the decision makers. One of theuser friendly computerised methods is thePROMETHEE method developed by Brans andMareschal (1986). In addition, an initial investi-gation which was carried out to select the mostappropriate MCDA method for ranking environ-mental projects revealed that PROMETHEE isthe best technique (Internal Report, Sta�ordshireUniversity, TAS/BK9).


5.1. The PROMETHEE method

The PROMETHEE outranking method (Pref-erence Ranking Organisation METHod for En-richment Evaluation) was adopted for use in thisstudy. This method is software driven, user-friendly, provides direct interpretation of param-eters, and a sensitivity analysis of results. ThePROMETHEE method incorporates the followingsteps (Brans and Mareschal, 1986):1. Building an evaluation matrix for the projects

according to a set of criteria.2. Enrichment of the preference structure by in-

troducing generalised criteria to remove scalinge�ects.

3. Enrichment of the dominance relation by build-ing:� a multi-criteria preference index to express to

which degree an option is preferred to anoth-er;

� an associate outranking graph and outrank-ing ¯ow to express how each option relatesto the other options (strengths and weakness-es of the option).

4. Exploitation for decision aid. PROMETHEEI provides a partial ranking, including possi-ble incomparabilities. PROMETHEE II showscomplete ranking of options. PROMETHEEV extends the application of PROMETHEEII method to the problem of selection of sev-eral options to satisfy a set of constraints.

5. The GAIA program (Geometrical Analysis forInteractive Aid) provides a geometrical pre-sentation of results obtained by PROME-THEE. GAIA is based on reducing themulti-dimensional criteria plane with to allowdirect visual presentation. Furthermore, it of-fers interactive dialogue with the user to varycertain parameters and displays the resultingchanges.

6. The proposed methodology, and results

The methodology consists of four steps asshown in Fig. 2. It is a prescriptive requisite anal-ysis (French, 1989; Phillips, 1982) to guide the

evolution of decision maker's perceptions in adynamic and cyclic process. The decision maker'sbeliefs and preferences are assessed, modelled andexplored to derive insights and to allow revision ofjudgements until no further intuitions emergeabout the problem. The visual interactive model-ling provided meaningful pictures and easy inter-actions to stimulate creativity and insight;promoting a process of ``generate and test'' orconsequences of any decision the decision makermight try; to explore the decision maker's subjec-tive decision space, constraints, and priorities.Aspects of the problem which can not be easilymeasured in numerical terms and are a matter ofjudgement were explored. This interactive proce-dure facilitated a rapid cycle of learning for un-derstanding or even possible changes in thedecision maker's subjective views. Components ofthe framework are described in the followingsteps.

6.1. Step 1: Identi®cation of the environmentalproblems and objectives

This is a necessary step to understand andde®ne the problem tree (causes±e�ects relation-ship) and the objective tree (means±ends rela-tionship).

Figs. 3 and 4 demonstrate a general layout ofthe problem and objective trees. The hierarchy ofboth trees was broken down into lower objec-tives. Due to space limitations, two examples, inboth trees, are shown in Figs. 5 and 6. Fig. 5shows the general layout of the problem ``scarcityof water supply'', causes and e�ects while Fig. 6shows the objective tree for the objective ``watersupply is increased''. Maximising water supplycould be achieved by using conventional waterresources, non-conventional resources, and man-agement and optimisation, to name a few optionsin order of precedence. Further speci®cations areshown to indicate the various levels and elementsof the tree. The weights are shown in bracketswhich are evaluated using the specialised Judg-mental Analysis System software (JAS) to reducesubjectivity, and validate consistency (Islei andLockett, 1991).


Fig. 2. General overview of the proposed methodology for ranking environmental projects and planning in Jordan.

Fig. 3. General layout of the core problem, causes and e�ects.


6.2. Step 2: Selection and testing of the fundamentalenvironment objectives, speci®cation of criteria andweights

In order to select the set of fundamental envi-ronment objectives an organised brainstormingworkshop was carried out with the help of decisionmakers and a facilitator (co-author, Al-Rashdan)in Jordan to reach consensus between the di�erentJordanian interest group members about the waterenvironmental problems, objectives and weights,and to achieve a shared understanding, a sense ofcommon purpose and mutual commitment to ac-tions. The expert group members were drawn fromdiverse professional backgrounds to represent thevarious concerned Jordanian ministries and inte-rest groups. The following ideas were utilised tocomplete the above tasks:· Nominal Group Technique (NGT) as a creative

group decision making process to identify objec-tives and to build an ownership for objectives.The NGT method was implemented accordingto steps described in Delbecq and Van de Ven(1976).

· Value focused thinking to establish the funda-mental objectives (Keeney, 1992). Projects weredeveloped to best achieve the values speci®ed for

the decision situation in the brainstormingworkshop rather than selecting projects fromthe environment. The process of identifying ob-jectives required signi®cant creativity and con-centration about the decision situation. Duringthis process several devices that could help tostimulate the identi®cation of possible objectiveswere utilised, for example using problems tostimulate the identi®cation of objectives ratherthan to engage in discussion of the decision sit-uation to defuse a list of potential objectives. Aproblem tree describing the core problem, cause±e�ects relationship and an objective tree describ-ing means±ends relationship for the Jordanianenvironmental problems were constructed forthis purpose. The fundamental objective set satis-fying certain necessary properties (completeness,essential, controllable, decomposable, non-re-dundant, minimal, measurable, and understand-able) to be used later in the analysis was selectedby the decision makers and tested against theseproperties.

· Demand management to overcome the short-comings of the existing supply augmentation ap-proach which encounters hydrological limits,and increasing costs (Winpenny, 1994). In thedemand approach actions are required at a

Fig. 4. General layout of the objective tree.


Fig. 5. General layout of the problem ``scarcity of water supply''.


number of levels to promote a more e�cient useof water; this includes: incentives, direct inter-ventions, and pricing policies.

The set of the environmental fundamental objec-tives was selected from the objectives tree andsuitable criteria were developed (Table 1). The setwas broken down into lower objectives. In order toset weights the decision makers were asked to

provide their subjective value judgement in apairwise comparison matrix as in the JAS software.

6.3. Step 3: Development of the environmentalprojects and constraints

Options re¯ecting the values developed in thebrainstorming workshop were identi®ed. The op-

Fig. 6. The objective tree for the objective ``water supply is increased'', and the calculated weights using the JAS software.


Table 1

The fundamental objectives, description, weights and measurements scale

Objective Description Weight Measurement scale

C1 Water supply

(maximise)

To increase supply through: conventional, non-conven-

tional, and management and optimisation techniques.

Importance of the end user is necessary (re¯ected in the

measurement scale).

18.6 Quantity � relative

Importance

C2 Urgency

(minimise)

An environmental issue is urgent when, unless immediate

action is taken the situation will deteriorate rapidly, or a

large number of people or resources will be at risk.

7.0 Subjective (1±5)

C3 Irreversibility

(minimise)

When damage or loss of a resource is irreversible, then it is

more important to address the source of impact that if the

e�ect is reversible.


C4 E�ects on human

health (minimise)

Human health may be harmed by direct exposure to

pollution and indirectly through contamination of the

physical environment (i.e. hydrological impacts, visual

annoyance, distance from residential area, and land use).


C5 Loss of amenity

(minimise)

A clean environment has an aesthetic value that can not be

quanti®ed. Environmental problems can harm the intrinsic

value of amenities, such as sites of cultural and natural

heritage,

and usually this loss translates into a reduced quality of life.


C6 Number of people

a�ected (minimise)

To provide an estimate of scope of impact. A problem that

a�ects a lot of people may be higher priority than one that

a�ects only a few. The poor people are mostly a�ected,

since health damages destroy the labour power, the only

productive resource for the poor.

5.0 Number of popu-

lation a�ected

C7 E�ects on the water

quality (minimise)

This includes physical and biological impacts depending

on the end user. For example, the treated wastewater

is used in agriculture, where careful attention is necessary

regarding quality.


C8 Certainty of

outcome (minimise)

The impacts of some important environmental problems

are uncertain, or not yet known making them di�cult to

prioritise, or even current methods of addressing these

problems yield uncertain.


C9 Technical feasibility

(maximise)

Some options which have worked well elsewhere may not

be applicable in Jordan.


C10 Economic feasibility

(maximise)

Options can be cost e�ective, ®nancially sustainable

and should aim to achieve full cost recovery wherever

possible

9.0 Internal rate of

return

C11 Cultural feasibility

(acceptability) max

Options are most e�ective when they are understood and

acceptable to the groups they are trying to in¯uence.


C12 E�ectiveness

(maximise)

An option must work towards achieving a speci®c objective,

and it is important the objective is clearly speci®ed.


C13 Institutional and

legislative feasibility

Minor adjustments to an existing regulatory or institutional

framework to implement an option is easier to implement

than one that requires major reforms.


C14 Flexibility

(maximise)

To re¯ect the changing nature of environmental conditions,

for example water charges should re¯ect scarcity/cost of

provision and ability to pay. A change of any of these

conditions should be re¯ected by a change in the charge.


C15 Opportunity

(maximise)

The implementation of any option might be easier, if it

responds to macro-economic policies: large scale projects

fostered by the peace process, sectoral adjustment, private

sector based growth, decrease in water stress problem,

and public awareness.



tions were deduced from di�erent available docu-ments (including the National EnvironmentalStrategy). As an example, according to the valueselicited, highest priorities were given to projectsincluding: reducing water losses, increasing watersupplies, and improving the environmental condi-tions in poor areas. The set of constraints (initialcost, operation and maintenance costs, and re-gional development) were de®ned by the group ofthe decision makers who participated in thebrainstorming workshop.

6.4. Step 4: Ranking and selection of the environ-mental projects

A complete analysis for the environmentalprojects was carried out using PROMETHEE.Complete ranking was demonstrated and a sensi-tivity analysis was undertaken by changing theweights of the criteria and observing the changes inthe ranking.

A sample of 12 wastewater projects (A1±A12)was chosen for a demonstration of this method-ology (Table 2) where each project has two co-factors within the brackets corresponding to:regions served (R1: North, R2: Middle, R3: Jor-dan Valley, R4: South), and the cost of theproject in Million Jordan Dinars. The spread-sheet of PROMETHEE was built (Table 3),which includes: the criteria, type (maximisationor minimisation), associated weights, types ofpreference functions and their de®ned parame-

ters, and the evaluations of projects according tothe criteria.

Complete and partial rankings were presentedgraphically as shown in Figs. 7 and 8. For exam-ple, in Fig. 7 alternative A7 (construction ofwastewater network in Wadi Es-Sir) is the lowestin ranking (the worst, Phi�ÿ0.27) while alterna-tive A4 (rehabilitation of wastewater treatmentplants in southern Jordan) is the ®rst in ranking(the best, Phi�+0.26). In addition, some incom-parabilities appear in the PROMETHEE I (partialranking) (Fig. 8) where projects A8, A10, and A7

are incomparable. This happens when one projectis good on a set of criteria in which the second isweak and reciprocally the second is good on cri-teria which the ®rst is weak. In such case it isrecommended that the decision maker should takeresponsibility for the decision.

The actual values of the net outranking ¯owsare represented in a ``Phi-scale'' (as shown inFig. 7) and by looking at the display it is possibleto detect clusters of alternatives which are close toeach other. For example, projects A4 and A6 forma cluster, other clusters which could be seen (A5,A6) and (A1, A12, A3).

The complete ranking is consistent with thevalues of the environmental sector so for example:the number of people a�ected criterion was high-lighted by giving higher priority to projects servingsouthern Jordan, which is less developed com-pared to other parts of the country; consequently;poor people are heavily a�ected, the opportunitywhere the government policy is to improve the

Table 2

The sample of wastewater projects, regions served, and their costs a

A1 Rehabilitation of Khirbet Al-Samra Wastewater plant (2, 60)

A2 Rehabilitation of wastewater treatments plants in the North (1, 70)

A3 Rehabilitation of wastewater treatment plants in the Dead Sea and Azraq region (2.3, 30)

A4 Rehabilitation of wastewater treatment plants in Southern Jordan (4, 70)

A5 Rehabilitation of water network in greater Amman area (2, 44)

A6 Construction of new wastewater networks and plants in Amman, Fuheis and the surrounding area (2, 60)

A7 Construction of wastewater network in Wadi Es-Sir (2, 55)

A8 Industrial e�uent rerouting projects in Zarq area (2, 33)

A9 Sewer networks for Souf refugee camp (1, 30)

A10 Wastewater treatment plant in Souf refugee camp (1, 90)

A11 Construction of wastewater collection system and treatment plant in the Ghor area (2, 40)

A12 Greater Irbid wastewater collection and treatment plant (1, 100)

a Legend: Project name (Regions Served (R1, R2, R3, R4), Cost (Million Jordanian Dinars)).


standard of living, especially after the peace pro-cess, the certainty of outcome where rehabilitationof the existing treatment plants is a priority com-pared with investing in new and expensive pro-jects.

Checking weight stability intervals indicateshow much each criterion weight can be changedwithout a�ecting the total ranking. For example,the water supply criterion with a normalised

weight of 18.6% may be weighted between 17.77%and 19.71% without a�ecting the ranking, all otherfactors remaining unchanged. This demonstrateshow sensitive the optimal solution to changes inthe weights of the criteria. Stability of results fordi�erent criteria weights is quite sensitive andusing di�erent sets of weights with gives anotherset of priorities as demonstrated in the specialfeature of PROMETHEE called the walking

Table 3

PROMETHEE spreadsheet

Criteria C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8

Type (max, min) max min min min min min min min

Preference function 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

type and parameters q

p 16.21 1.72 1.55 1.55 1.77 65.63 1.03 2.15

Criteria weight 18.60 7.00 7.00 9.80 2.00 5.00 10.00 4.00

Projects/evaluations

A1 + 30.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 100.0 4.00 5.00

A2 + 25.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 5.00 20.00 4.00 5.00

A3 + 15.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 60.00 3.00 4.00

A4 + 20.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 90.00 4.00 3.00

A5 + 30.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 24.00 3.00 5.00

A6 + 14.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 57.00 4.00 3.00

A7 + 12.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 3.00 90.00 4.00 4.00

A8 + 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 28.00 3.00 2.00

A9 + 13.00 3.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 90.00 3.00 3.00

A10 + 10.00 3.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 50.00 3.00 5.00

A11 + 25.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 12.00 3.00 5.00

A12 + 25.00 5.00 4.00 4.00 5.00 12.00 3.00 3.00

Criteria C9 C10 C11 C12 C13 C14 C15

Type (max, min) max max max max max max max

Preference function 3 3 3 2 2 2 1

type and parameters q 1.00 1.00 1.00

p 2.96 2.43 1.72

Criteria weight 5.00 9.00 6.40 1.70 3.20 4.00 7.30

Projects/evaluations

A1 + 1.00 3.00 3.00 5.00 4.00 4.00 5.00

A2 + 1.00 4.00 5.00 5.00 3.00 4.00 4.00

A3 + 4.00 3.00 3.00 5.00 3.00 4.00 4.00

A4 + 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 3.00 4.00 4.00

A5 + 3.00 6.00 4.00 5.00 3.00 4.00 4.00

A6 + 4.00 4.00 5.00 5.00 3.00 4.00 4.00

A7 + 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 3.00 4.00 4.00

A8 + 5.00 2.00 3.00 5.00 3.00 4.00 4.00

A9 + 5.00 4.00 5.00 5.00 3.00 4.00 3.00

A10 + 3.00 5.00 4.00 5.00 3.00 4.00 3.00

A11 + 5.00 3.00 5.00 5.00 3.00 4.00 3.00

A12 + 3.00 2.00 5.00 5.00 3.00 4.00 3.00


weights (part of it shown in Fig. 9) which allowsthe interactive modi®cation of weights and theresulting change on ranking.

The GAIA method was ®nally applied. Fig. 10shows the geometric representation of the prob-lem. According to the weights associated with thecriteria the PROMETHEE decision axis p is ori-ented in a direction consistent with PROME-THEE II complete ranking (A4 as ®rst priority).The con¯ict aspects between criteria are demon-strated graphically; for example, criterion C3 (ir-reversibility) is in con¯ict with criterion C14

(¯exibility), while criteria C4, C5, and C6 havesimilar preferences. Criterion C4 has more dis-criminating power compared to other criteria inthe same direction. Options A5, and A2 are good incriterion C4 and all other criteria in that direction.

7. Selection of projects subjected to the constraints

Application was undertaken to introduce con-straints such as:

Financial constraint: For example, an initialcost limit of 300 Million Jordan Dinars. The gen-eral formulation for such constraint isXi�12

i�1

CiAi6 300;

where Ci represents the initial cost of project Ai.Incomparability constraint: Some options can

not co-exist with each other in the same optimalsubset. For example, referring to the list of pro-jects in Table 2, project A9 is incompatible withproject A10 and this can be expressed as

A9 � A106 1:

Regional development constraints: Minimumnumber of projects for each region in the countryso that the selected subset of options must exhibitbene®ts in close proportion for each of the mainfour regions in the country. This can be expressedmathematically where the bene®ts must accrue inthe approximation proportion to the population ofthe four regions as follows: R1� 13%, R2� 70%,R3� 9% and R4� 8%. The bene®ts of each projectto every region are shown in Table 2 and the set ofconstraints are as follows:

Fig

.7.

Co

mp

lete

ran

kin

g(P

hi

scale

)o

fp

roje

cts

an

dth

eir

clu

ster

s.


Fig. 8. Partial ranking of projects.

Fig. 9. Part of the walking weights facility of PROMETHEE.


R1 (13% of projects) implies that

A2 � A9 � A126 2:


A1 � A3 � A5 � A6 � A7 � A8 � A116 8:


A36 1:


A46 1:

Subject to initial cost, geographical dispersionand incomparability constraints, the objectivefunction is composed of the net dominance ¯owsand it to be maximised, after seven iterations ofPROMETHEE V the optimal solution was deter-mined. Four projects were selected due to limited®nancial resources which are: A2, A4, A5, and A6

with an initial cost of 244 million Jordan Dinars,with one project serving region R1 (the north), twoprojects serving region R2 (the middle), and oneproject serving region R4 (the south).

8. Conclusions

The proposed methodology has potentially adecisive positive contribution both to the processof environmental decision making and the selec-tion/ranking of the environmental projects. As aconsequence the use of MCDA became a compo-nent in the draft Water Policy Framework forJordan (published in 1995). The geometrical rep-resentation of the problem represents a powerfultool in the hands of the system analyst and valu-able help in solving problems which include con-¯icting criteria. Aspects of the problem which cannot be easily measured in numerical terms and area matter of judgement were explored. This inter-active procedure facilitated a rapid cycle oflearning for understanding or even possible chan-ges in the decision maker's subjective views.Typical examples of what is aimed at in this pro-cess include:· Identifying which criteria are important in the

evaluation, and the interaction between thesecriteria.

Fig. 10. The GAIA plane.


· Projects which are good or bad on a particularcriteria.

· Sensitivity analysis, either by changing weights,types of the preference function, threshold pa-rameters, and constraints levels. For example,ranking of the options is insensitive to varia-tions in some judgements which could be sourceof disagreement. In this way, the collectivelybest solution can be agreed while preserving in-dividual viewpoints that di�er from each other.Such insensitivities are di�cult to detect withwords alone, and it is this feature of the frame-work that helps the group to achieve a sharedunderstanding of the issues, a sense of commonpurpose and a commitment to action.

· The generation of new ideas; this could happenthrough allowing participants to try di�erentjudgements without commitment, to see the re-sults and to generate new perspectives.

References

Al-Kloub, B., Al-Shemmeri, T., 1994. Water harvesting in

Jordan, case study. The Arab Researcher Journal 12, 12±22.

Al-Kloub, B., Al-Shemmeri, T., 1995. Possible enhancement

technologies and application in Jordan. Water International

Journal 20, 106±109.

Bana e Costa, 1990. Readings in Multiple Criteria Decision

Aid. Springer, Berlin.

Brans, J., Mareschal, B., 1986. How to select and how to rank

projects: The PROMETHEE method. European Journal of

Operational Research 24, 228±238.

Briggs, T., Kunsch, P., L, Mareschal, B., 1990. Nuclear waste

management: An application of the multi-criteria method.

European Journal Research 44, 1±10.

Canter, L., 1977. Environmental Impact Assessment. McGraw

Hill, New York.

Delbecq, A., Van de Ven, A., 1976. Group Techniques for

Program Planning, A Guide to Nominal Group and Delphi

Process. Scott Publisher, London.

French, S., 1989. Readings in Decision Analysis. Chapman &

Hall, London.

Islei, G., Lockett, G., 1991. Modelling strategic decision

making and performance measurement at ICI Pharmaceu-

ticals. Interfaces 6, 4±22.

Keeney, R., 1992. Value Focused Thinking. Harvard University

Press, Cambridge, MA.

Maystre, L.Y., Pietet, J., Simos, J., 1994. Methodes Multicrit-

eres ELECTRE. Polytechniques et Universitaires Roman-

des.

Merkhofer, M.W., Keeney, R.L., 1987. Multiattribute analysis

of alternative sites for the disposal of nuclear waste. Risk

Analysis 7, 173±194.

Phillips, L., 1982. Requisite decision modelling: A case study.

Journal of the Operational Research Society 33, 303±311.

Roy, B., Vincke, P., 1981. Multi-criteria analysis, survey and

new directions. European Journal of Operational Research

8, 207±218.

Salameh, E., 1991. Over exploitation and salinization of ground

water resources and accompanying salt water intrusions. In:

Water pollution in Jordan Causes and E�ect. Friedrich

Ebert Stiftung, Jordan, 1991, pp. 85±95.

Stam, A., Kuula, M., Cesar, H., 1992. Transboundary air

pollution in Europe: An interactive multi-criteria tradeo�

analysis. European Journal of Operational Research 56,

263±277.

Vincke, P., 1992. Multicriteria Decision Aid. Wiley, New York.

Winpenny, J., 1994. Managing Water as an Economic Re-

source. Development Policy Institute, London.


environmental impact assessment and ranking the environmental projects in jordan

Documents