JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION

Vol. 46, No. 2 AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION April 2010

AN OBJECTIVE MULTIATTRIBUTE ANALYSIS APPROACH FOR

ALLOCATION OF SCARCE IRRIGATION WATER RESOURCES1

Noor ul Hassan Zardari, Ian Cordery, and Ashish Sharma2

ABSTRACT: In this study, end user (farmer) and decision maker (water allocator) opinions were surveyed and a
conjoint analysis (CA) based method was applied to the quantitative and qualitative data to assess the utility
associated with each attribute that plays a role in forming the final thinking of the water users. The application
of CA for estimating the utility for each attribute level is a novel approach, which helps provide a formal, objec-
tive basis for assigning relative scales for each attribute interval within a multiattribute decision-making model.
The utilities (part-worths) obtained from the CA have a cardinal scale and were found to be comparable within
and across the attributes. A farmers survey on five water allocation attributes was completed from 62 farmers
and their opinions on the relative importance of attributes were elicited for a subarea of the Indus River Basin.
The CA method was then applied to the survey data and the utilities for each attribute level were determined.
This allowed, for instance, decisions to be made, which take account of the perceived value of the water and of
the availability of local labor to work on the farm. Finally, these interval scales were used within the specifica-
tion of the ELECTRE multiattribute decision-making method to provide a complete and objective ranking of
nine irrigation districts so that the best decisions on water allocation could be made.

(KEY TERMS: ELECTRE; conjoint analysis; water allocation; Indus River Basin; multiattribute decision
making.)

Zardari, Noor ul Hassan, Ian Cordery, and Ashish Sharma, 2010. An Objective Multiattribute Analysis
Approach for Allocation of Scarce Irrigation Water Resources. Journal of the American Water Resources
Association (JAWRA) 46(2):412-428. DOI: 10.1111/j.1752-1688.2009.00410.x

INTRODUCTION as poor farmer practices, poor soils, inappropriate

quantities of water use, outdated technologies, etc. In
many countries in Asia and Africa where irrigation
Productivity, in terms of production per unit of systems were set up under colonial regimes water is
applied water, is quite low in many irrigation regions allocated to farmers and there is virtually no water
around the world. With availability of water per unit market. This is certainly the case throughout the
of population growing smaller this low productivity is Indian subcontinent where the warabandi system
to be regretted. The causes of low productivity are is in place. This system supposedly allocates water
many. They can be summarized under headings such to farmers on the basis of the land area they have
1
Paper No. JAWRA-08-0169-P of the Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA). Received September 3, 2008;
accepted October 28, 2009. 2010 American Water Resources Association. Discussions are open until six months from print publica-
tion.
2
Respectively, Research Scholar, Visiting Research Scholar, and Associate Professor, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The
University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales 2052, Australia (E-Mail Sharma: a.sharma@unsw.edu.au).

JAWRA 412 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION

 AN OBJECTIVE MULTIATTRIBUTE ANALYSIS APPROACH
available for irrigation. This system is in operation in
Pakistan where the productivity of irrigated wheat is
only about 2 tons ha less than for most dryland farm-
ing in developed countries (WAPDA, 1990; Kijne
et al., 2003). The problems in the warabandi system
are many, and improvements are needed. These
improvements can be achieved through several
actions such as on-farm water management, infra-
structure upgrading, and political commitment, but
particularly by changing the allocation system to per-
mit farmers to show initiative and take risks to
improve their productivity. The International Water
Management Institute (IWMI, 2005) in a report on
the warabandi irrigation system states: By consider-
ing groundwater availability and quality when allo-
cating canal water for irrigation, water managers
could improve the equity, sustainability and produc-
tivity of irrigated systems. Hussain and Young
(1985) suggest options that include the use of
advanced technology, introduction of new crop varie-
ties, and farmer training and awareness, by which
the productivity of irrigation water could be
improved. However, because the farmers have almost
no control over the amount or timing of their water
deliveries they have little or no incentive to make
efforts to improve productivity. Any efforts they make
can be negated by the unreliability of supplies (Zar-
dari and Cordery, 2009). As stated above, obstacles to
initiative on the part of farmers are common in many
irrigation regions throughout the world. Anywhere
where allocations are made by some central authority
there is a tendency toward inefficiency in those allo-
cations unless the sharing algorithm is reviewed peri-
odically. In Pakistan, and many other parts of the
world, significant increases in water productivity
could be achieved by modifying the current century-
old rules for irrigation water allocation that were
supposedly built on ensuring an equitable and effi-
cient distribution of water to various user groups.
Other important factors (e.g., socioeconomic), on
which the value of a single unit of water may also
depend, have been neglected. Any reform of a single
issue within the current warabandi, or any other irri-
gation allocation system may not fully achieve the
multiple objectives that need to be considered. A
major reform in which the basic rules of the wara-
bandi system are changed could undoubtedly improve
the productivity of scarce irrigation water (Zardari
and Cordery, 2006). Thus, in this study, we have con-
sidered water allocation as a multicriterion decision-
making (MCDM) problem and have investigated a
scheme for ranking allocations between nine irriga-
tion districts (IDs) based on socioeconomic objectives.
Five water allocation attributes (quantitative and
qualitative) were used to rank nine IDs in a subarea
of the Indus River Basin in Pakistan in terms of their
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION
FOR ALLOCATION OF SCARCE IRRIGATION WATER RESOURCES
being deserving of priority in water allocations. In
the presence of qualitative attributes, MCDM meth-
ods such as ELECTRE, Q-analysis, lexicographic
ordering, and other related approaches could be
applied to rank the various alternatives (Zeleny,
1982). However, the combined presence of qualitative
and quantitative attributes complicates the applica-
tion of such methods. Additionally, the need for sub-
jective inputs to most MCDMs means that their
acceptability for deriving objective indications of
potential benefits is limited. To overcome these limi-
tations a conjoint analysis (CA) based approach is
presented for transforming combined qualitative and
quantitative attribute information into a common
scale without the need for model user inputs concern-
ing relative values, making the application of quanti-
tative multiobjective approaches possible and
meaningful. The outcomes of the CA application are
then input to the ELECTRE I and II MCDM models
to indicate possible priorities for water allocation
across the nine IDs. This approach could have value
not only where the warabandi system is in operation,
but anywhere that there is a centralized water alloca-
tion system in operation.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. The
next section provides a brief introduction to the wara-
bandi system and the selected water allocation attri-
butes used in ranking the nine IDs. The chosen
MCDM methodology (ELECTRE) is also discussed in
this section. The survey dataset used in the paper,
the CA method and the subsequent data necessary to
compute relative importance of attributes (attribute
weights) are discussed in the next section. The proce-
dure to develop a complete ranking of nine IDs from
the use of ELECTRE I and II is discussed in detail
next. This is followed by the results obtained from
CA and ELECTRE methodologies. The last section
provides the study conclusions.
BACKGROUND
The Warabandi Water Allocation System
Warabandi was set up as a rotational method for
equitable allocation of the available water in an irri-
gation system. It has been in place in Pakistan for
more than 125 years and is described in some detail
by Zardari and Cordery (2009). In the system, the
rotational turns are fixed according to a time roster,
specifying the day, time, and duration of supply to
each irrigator. This provides a continuous rotation of
water in which one complete cycle of rotation gener-
ally lasts seven days. The duration of supply for each
413 JAWRA
 ZARDARI, CORDERY, AND SHARMA

farmer is proportional to the size of the farmers

landholding to be irrigated within the particular
watercourse command area (Bandaragoda, 1998).
Warabandi, as a water allocation method, was des-
igned to achieve two objectives: high water use effi-
ciency and to maintain equity in water distribution.
However, the warabandi in practice deviates from its
design objectives. Some of the users and some of the
areas are often allocated more water than others
(Bandaragoda, 1998). The reasons for this inequity
are related to both physical and social factors that
are not considered in the allocation procedure. The
system is particularly inequitable in that any break
in supply, from any cause, results in no deliveries to
farmers whose supply turns occur during the
break in supply. It is possible for a farmer to miss
his supply turn for several consecutive weeks due
to the timing of damage, accidental or otherwise,
to the canal or its headwater control works and the
necessary repair activities. Loss of water supply
such as this can (and usually does) cause the crop to
fail. FIGURE 1. Procedure for Ranking IDs
A primary survey on the warabandi water alloca- in Water Allocation Problem.
tion method practiced in Pakistan revealed some
empirical evidence of water rights violation and
confirmed that the current practice of warabandi On the basis of the decision-makers preferences,
deviates substantially from the actual design expecta- three water allocation objectives comprising five
tions. Multiple uses of irrigation water have widened important water allocation attributes were identified.
the gap between design and practice of warabandi. These objectives include: maximizing economic bene-
Incorporating more of the factors which contribute to fit, maximizing social benefit, and maintaining fair-
the value of a single unit of water could eventually ness in allocation.
improve the water productivity and the water use The water allocation objectives were characterized
efficiency (Zardari and Cordery, 2006). To demon- by five attributes which are:
strate the value of using MCDM with CA to develop
input data to avoid subjectivity a study was con- Maximizing economic benefits
ducted in which five important factors (i.e., water Annual net farm income (INCOME)
allocation attributes) on which the value to the Amount paid to the Provincial Irrigation Depart-
farmer of a single unit of irrigation water depends ment for water share (PID)
(i.e., the attributes the farmer considers valuable or Water use efficiency (EFFICIENCY)
of little value) have been taken into account. Then a
complete ranking of nine IDs is produced by applying Maximizing social benefits
ELECTRE I and II to these quantitative and qualita- Percent of family working on the farm (FAMILY)
tive attributes. An outline of the procedure used in
this study is presented in Figure 1. Maintaining fairness in water resources allocation
Quality of groundwater beneath the farm
(QUALITY)
Water Allocation Objectives and Attributes
These attributes form the basis of a survey conducted
The key issues upon which water allocation should across 300 farms in our study region, the data from
depend were identified based on discussions with 20 which is used as the basis of prioritizing the water allo-
decision makers in a subarea of the Indus River cation across the nine IDs considered in this study.
Basin where this study is focused. A list of 10 water Prior to conducting this detailed survey, an extensive
allocation attributes was presented and each decision preliminary survey was undertaken in which about 300
maker was asked to show his preferences by farmers were asked to respond to over 100 questions in
assigning ranks to the attributes according to their an attempt to elicit general opinions and areas of
importance in water allocation decisions. approval and discontent concerning water allocations.

JAWRA 414 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION

 AN OBJECTIVE MULTIATTRIBUTE ANALYSIS APPROACH FOR ALLOCATION OF SCARCE IRRIGATION WATER RESOURCES

The survey also attempted to discover social and
economic factors such as family sizes, numbers
employed in the irrigation enterprises, income gener-
ated, and general levels of efficiency and satisfaction
with the current farm and irrigation organization.
From this survey a set of 10 water allocation attri-
butes shown in Table 1 was identified as being the
most important by this large group of farmers. A
complete discussion on 10 water allocation attributes
is given in Zardari (2008) and Zardari and Cordery
(2009).
From the above 10 water allocation attributes the
group of 20 decision makers mentioned above identi-
fied the five attributes that they considered most
important. Surveys of irrigation farmers were used to
determine which attributes were important, and to
provide a basis for several other decision consider-
ations important to the study so as to avoid the
need for the modeler to introduce his own subjective
opinions.
Each of the five attributes listed above is described
as follows:
Annual Net Farm Income. To gauge the overall
benefit from the use of a single unit of canal water, a
net farm income attribute was introduced. It was
hypothesized that the respondents would attach
higher preferences to those IDs where the farmers
have relatively higher net incomes per unit of land.
The evidence from the 300 farms has supported this
hypothesis as the majority of survey participants
gave higher preferences to the IDs with higher farm
incomes.
Amount Paid to PID. There is reluctance by
funding organizations such as the World Bank to sup-

TABLE 1. Definition of Water Allocation Objectives and Attributes.

Water Allocation
Objectives Attributes Attribute Definition

Maximum economic Higher value of a unit The regions adopting policy of more crops with less drops
benefits volume of water should be preferred in canal water allocation.
Higher livestock income The regions where the majority of farmers who have higher
income from livestock should be preferred in water
allocation.
More revenue recovery To keep irrigation system working, the areas with high reve-
by the PID nue collection by the Provincial Irrigation Department
(PID) should get priority in water allocation. Or, where the
recovery from 1 m3 of supplied irrigation water is higher
than other areas, this should be preferred.
Maximum social Minimizing impacts of The populous regions should get priority in canal water
benefits nonallocation of canal allocations to reduce chances of migration.
water
Higher dependency on The areas, where the majority solely depends on agriculture
agriculture income for existence, or the majority have no other source of
income, should get high priority in canal water allocation.
Respecting senior water The regions, where canal water was first allocated to the
rights farmers from controlled irrigation system should be
preferred in water allocations. This means that priority to
supply irrigation water should be given to the farmers
situated in the existing irrigation delivery system rather
than expanding irrigation delivery system to other
non-irrigation regions.
Maintaining equity in water Optimal utilization of The farmers situated in the fresh groundwater areas have
allocations by considering tube wells installed tube wells to supplement canal water supplies.
capital investment and The areas with more capital investments should be pre-
groundwater quality ferred in water allocation so that the benefits from the use
of available infrastructure can be maximized.
Optimal use of farming The regions, where most of farmers have invested heavily in
equipment farm machinery may get priority in canal water allocation.
As, I assume that stopping canal water supplies to such
regions may result in under-utilization of invested capital.
Avoiding unemployment To avoid unemployment to large population, the regions
of a large labor with more labor availability should get priority in canal
population water allocation.
Compensation for poor The regions with marginal saline groundwater should get
quality groundwater priority in canal water allocation; as such regions have no
alternative source of irrigation.

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION 415 JAWRA

 ZARDARI, CORDERY, AND SHARMA

port irrigation projects where the taxpayers subsidize
the actual project beneficiaries (Gill et al., 2004). To
keep water projects viable, it is important that at
least the operation and maintenance (O&M) costs
should be recovered from the actual beneficiaries.
Thus, we assume that the IDs where O&M costs are
recovered (or where a greater proportion is recovered
than from the other IDs) from the water charges paid
to the PID should get priority in water allocations.
Indirectly, this attribute encourages water use effi-
ciency.
Water Use Efficiency. When water is a scarce
resource it should be allocated to the most efficient
users. In the agriculture sector, total farm benefits
divided by the amount of water delivered can be
termed water use efficiency (or value of water). It
was assumed that the respondents would assign
higher ratings to the IDs with higher water use effi-
ciency.
Percent of Family Working on the Farm. Apart
from economic attributes discussed earlier, one social
attribute, the percent of family members working on
the farm, was introduced. The aim of introducing this
attribute was to give more benefits to those families
who depend completely on farm income and do not have
other sources of income. The use of this attribute would
give an indication of the importance the respondents
give to social and employment issues in their water
allocation priorities.
Groundwater Quality Beneath the Farm. The
IDs with poor quality groundwater completely depend
on canal water supplies. On the other hand, regions
with fresh groundwater may have an opportunity to
exploit groundwater when canal water supplies are
inadequate to meet crop water requirements. There-
fore, it was assumed that the respondents would pri-
oritize the poor quality groundwater areas in water
TABLE 2. Averaged Farm and Water Management Data (n = 300).
allocations that might compensate for their location
misfortune. This hypothesis was later supported by
the survey findings.
Study Area and Survey Methodology
Data on social, economic, and administrative condi-
tions was collected in a primary survey completed
from 300 farms situated in nine IDs in Rohri Canal
catchment of the Lower Indus River Basin of Paki-
stan. A subsequent farmers survey was then com-
pleted in two phases to determine the relative
importance of the water allocation attributes. In the
first phase of this subsequent survey, 20 decision
makers were asked to assign rankings to 10 attri-
butes according to their importance in water alloca-
tions. From the results obtained the five most
important (from the 10 offered) attributes were
extracted. In the second phase, 62 survey partici-
pants were asked to show their preferences among
the chosen five most important water allocation attri-
butes to allow an assessment of the inter-comparison
of attribute utilities in evaluating the overall impor-
tance of the alternatives being considered. The aver-
age socioeconomic data responses (from 300 survey
participants) collected from the nine IDs are pre-
sented in Table 2.
It should be noted that the above survey was con-
ducted using carefully identified respondents, so as to
ensure that the responses being collected would be
genuine and the questions well understood. The
selection criteria used in identifying respondents
were education (well educated respondents were
selected), employment (preference was given to
respondents who were managers of their respective
farms), and experience (especially with agro-based
industries), with preference being given to those who
also interacted with officials from the Provisional Irri-
gation Department.

Water Allocation Attributes

Percent of Family
Working on Amount Paid to PID Water Use Annual Net Farm Groundwater
Irrigation the Farm for Water Share Efficiency Income Quality Beneath
District No. (%) (US$ ha) (%) (US$ ha) the Farm

ID-I 93 17 32 1,860 Fresh

ID-II 90 30 85 465 Saline
ID-III 42 26 36 350 Marginal
ID-IV 38 11 72 905 Fresh
ID-V 40 18 30 470 Saline
ID-VI 74 7 64 395 Marginal
ID-VII 45 25 72 1,050 Fresh
ID-VIII 84 8 55 485 Fresh
ID-IX 55 21 33 1,380 Fresh

JAWRA 416 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION

 AN OBJECTIVE MULTIATTRIBUTE ANALYSIS APPROACH
There is considerable difficulty in attempting to
assess which of a group of both quantitative and
qualitative attributes would contribute most to
achieving the best water allocations in the region of
interest. It is claimed for most MCDM approaches
that the mix of quantitative and qualitative attri-
butes can be properly considered. However, on
attempting to apply one of the methods it became
apparent that this was not really the case. There was
a need for the modeler to insert some scaling or rela-
tivity weightings between the attributes within the
modeling process, which removed any possibility of
claiming the modeling process to be objective. Hence
in this study, as few modeler decisions as possible
were introduced to the study, most decisions being
reached as a result of surveys of farmers. It could be
assumed that some subjectivity was introduced in the
selection of survey participants or in the questions
asked, but to avoid these potential criticisms large
numbers of questions were asked of a large number
of farmers, and further surveys were then conducted
based on outcomes of the earlier survey(s).
Selection of a Suitable MCDM Method
In a decision process, formulation of the problem is
more important than the selection of MCDM method.
Thus, more focus was placed on the problem formula-
tion than on selecting the MCDM method. Neverthe-
less, four criteria were applied in selection of a
suitable MCDM method to be used in this study. The
selection criteria include:
1. The chosen MCDM method can utilize both types
of data (quantitative and qualitative) together.
2. The selected MCDM method can perform well in
a situation where a large number of alternatives
and attributes are to be considered.
3. The MCDM method should be flexible so that the
decision makers or stakeholders can show their
preferences over different evaluation attributes.
4. The selected MCDM method should be easy for
use and easy for understanding to the people
involved in the decision process (e.g., decision
makers and stakeholders).
Many MCDM methods (e.g., AHP, SMART, and
ELECTRE) can work with quantitative and qualita-
tive data to rank different alternatives in any deci-
sion-making problem. However, some of the MCDM
methods (e.g., AHP and SMART) have limitations as
to the number of alternatives that can be evaluated.
AHP and SMART methods cannot handle more than
80 alternatives. However, ELECTRE methods have
the capacity to deal with more than 80 alternatives.
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION
FOR ALLOCATION OF SCARCE IRRIGATION WATER RESOURCES
Tecle (1992) analyzed 15 MCDM methods based
on four criteria (i.e., technique-related, problem-
related, solution-related, and decision maker analyst
related criteria). He then ranked those 15 MCDM
methods according to the effectiveness of each
method for solving a watershed resources manage-
ment problem. He concluded that ELECTRE meth-
ods (ELECTRE I and II), when compared with other
14 MCDM methods, produced a better result. Jacek
(2007) collected opinions from the decision makers
on the ease of use of the five selected MCDM meth-
ods (e.g., ELECTRE, AHP, UTA, MAPPAC, and OR-
ESTE). ELECTRE methods got more positive
opinion (i.e., 78%) than the other four MCDM
methods. Decision makers declared that ELECTRE
and AHP models are easy to understand, although
there were some opinions suggesting that the mean-
ing of veto threshold in ELECTRE III method is not
very clear to the decision makers and that relative
comparison between objects in AHP induces certain
difficulties (Jacek, 2007).
In the context of prioritizing water allocation to
IDs, compensation for a loss due to a given water
allocation attribute by a gain in another one cannot
be accommodated within the current system. For
example, sympathy for the poor quality of ground-
water in one of the IDs could not be weighted
against the higher net farm income of another ID.
In such a situation, the use of a noncompensatory
MCDM method should be better for producing the
ranking of different alternatives (i.e., IDs). ELEC-
TRE methods are one of the noncompensatory
methods (Bouyssou, 1986; Buchanan and Vander-
pooten, 2007).
Compared with other decision aiding techniques
such as Maximax and Lexicographic, which utilize a
part of the decision matrix, the ELECTRE makes full
use of decision matrices and is thus able to provide
more reliable results (Shanian and Savadogo, 2006).
The selection of an appropriate version of the
ELECTRE method was also an important issue in
this study. ELECTRE IV does not satisfy the third
criterion as the decision-makers preferences on the
attributes are not considered by this version of
ELECTRE method.
ELECTRE III does not meet the fourth criterion as
this version use pseudo-criteria to develop priority
ranking of alternatives. The use of pseudo-criteria
and upper and lower limit thresholds for each attri-
bute makes this version difficult to understand by the
decision makers and stakeholders. ELECTRE TRI
(electre tree) is only used for sorting alternatives and
could not be used for ranking alternatives.
Only ELECTRE I and II satisfied all four criteria
mentioned above and thus were selected to develop a
priority ranking of IDs for this study.
417 JAWRA
 ZARDARI, CORDERY,
ELECTRE
ELECTRE, a multiattribute decision-making
method, was originally suggested by Benayoun et al.
(1966), and improved by Roy (1971). The fundamental
concept of ELECTRE I and II is to select those alter-
natives that are preferred for most of the attributes
without violating an acceptable level of discontent for
any one attribute (Milani et al., 2006). The method
involves comparing pairwise alternatives among
members of a set of alternatives, and eliminating a
subset of less desirable alternatives. This is per-
formed through the formulation of a concord index
c(i, j) and a discord index d(i, j) to measure the pref-
erence of alternative i to alternative j. The concord
index measures a weighted number of attributes for
which alternative i is preferred to or equal to alterna-
tive j. It is defined as:
W 0:5W
ci; j ; 1
W W W
where W+ is the sum of weights for the attributes
where alternative i > alternative j; W= is the sum of
weights for the attributes where alternative i is equal
to the alternative j; and W) is the sum of weights for
the attributes where alternative i < alternative j.
Note: Relative attribute weights (wi) were determined
from the CA survey (n = 62).
The discord index, d(i, j), measures the strength of
the greatest discontent or disagreement among all
attributes, when alternative i is selected over alterna-
tive j. In other words it indicates the level of discon-
tent that is accepted when attribute i is selected
instead of attribute j. The discord index d(i, j) is
defined as:
max zj; m  zi; m
m21;M
di; j ; 2
S
where z(i, m), z(j, m) is the scaled payoff value of
alternative i or alternative j for attribute m, defined
as
Smvi; m
zi; m ; 3
max vn; m  min vn; m
n21;N n21;N
v(i, m) is the actual payoff value; S(m) is the assigned
scale for attribute m, the scale being generally
assigned to indicate the relative preference the deci-
JAWRA
AND SHARMA
sion maker has for one attribute vs. another; S* is
the largest scale S(m), m[1,M]; N is the number of
alternatives.
It should be noted that the specification of the
scale for each attribute S(m) is somewhat arbitrary
and can change depending on the preferences individ-
ual decision makers have on the attributes being con-
sidered. Furthermore, the standardization of the
scaled payoff values using S* is also debatable in the
form presented above, with several authors using
variations of the logic above in forming their discord
index values. We present a different rationale for
estimation of the attribute scale and their standardi-
zation that addresses the concerns raised above. The
proposed rationale uses CA as the basis for specifying
attribute scales, details on which are presented next.
A Modified Version of the Discordance
Index. With the aim of bringing resemblance in con-
cordance and discordance indices, we multiplied the
differences of scores of any two specific alternatives
with a relative importance weight (Wi, where i
denotes the i-th attribute considered). The modified
discordance index (called the weighted discordance
index) can now be written as:
 
di; j Wi max zj; m  zi; m
m21;M
4
Previously, the relative attribute importance
weights were only taken into consideration in com-
puting the concordance index. Consideration of this
multiplication gives lower influence to the less rele-
vant alternatives in estimating the discordance index.
The basis for estimating the importance weight Wi is
discussed in the next section.
USE OF CONJOINT ANALYSIS IN ESTIMATING
CONCORD AND DISCORD INDICES IN ELECTRE
As earlier discussed, in ELECTRE, the introduc-
tion of two subjective inputs (i.e., interval scales and
standardization operation on various qualitative
attributes) has resulted in the integrity of the final
output of the ranking method being unreliable (could
be predetermined by the decision maker). The deci-
sion maker can obtain a predetermined solution of a
ranking problem by manipulating the interval scales
and attribute weights skillfully (Gershon et al., 1982).
If quantitative and qualitative data are analyzed
using the CA approach, the problem of using arbi-
trarily specified interval scales could be avoided.
418 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION
 AN OBJECTIVE MULTIATTRIBUTE ANALYSIS APPROACH
Similarly, this also enables the assessment of attri-
bute weights on objectively comparable scales. In this
study, the objective estimation of relative weights
and attribute utilities from the application of the CA
approach has eliminated the subjectivity factor
involved in the original ELECTRE method. With the
use of objectively measured data, the construction of
concord and discord indices (two integral inputs in
ELECTRE) has improved the reliability of the final
rankings obtained from the use of ELECTRE I and II
methods.
Conjoint analysis is a scaling method originally
developed in the mathematical psychology research
area (Noguchi and Ishii, 2000). Huber (2005)
describes the method as follows: CA provided a the-
ory for creating a measurement scale from judgments
on conjoint objects. CA is a way to transform the
dross of ordinal preferences into the gold of interval
scales. The method is also used for measuring each
attributes contribution to the overall utility of an
alternative being considered, through the specifica-
tion of a utility or part-worth linked to each discrete
state the attribute can attain. The basic CA model
may be represented by the following formula:
Xm Xki
UX aij xij ;
i1 j1
where U(X) is the Overall utility of an alternative
(ascertained as the aggregate preference indicated by
survey respondents); aij is the part-worth contribution
or utility associated with the j-th level (j, j is the
1,2,,ki) of the i-th attribute (i, i is the 1,2,,m), the
levels for each attribute being assigned based on user
surveys and the variability they suggest; xij is the 1 if
the level of the i-th attribute is present and is the 0
otherwise; ki is the number of levels of attribute i; m
is the number of attributes.
Defining Part-Worth
Conjoint analysis evaluates the attributes and
attribute levels on the same measurement scale.
Thus, the part-worths for each attribute level can be
located on a general interval scale with a common
origin. Due to commensurable scales shared by all
attributes, it is possible to make inter-attribute com-
parisons of part-worth values and to determine an
estimation of overall attribute importance in addition
to relative attribute importance (Louviere et al.,
1993). The part-worth converts different levels of the
attribute into a measure of worth using an interval
scale and reflects the decision-makers judgment
about the relative desirability of the attributes natu-
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION
FOR ALLOCATION OF SCARCE IRRIGATION WATER RESOURCES
ral scale (Von Winterfeldt and Edwards, 1986;
Clemen, 1996). All this confirms that the part-worths
have interval scale properties and could be used to
construct the concordance and discordance matrices
in ELECTRE without using the subjective interval
scales discussed above.
Data Collection for Conjoint Analysis
Ten potential water allocation attributes were ini-
tially decided from the first phase of the secondary
survey where 20 decision makers were asked to show
their preferences on the attributes. From the analysis
of decision-makers preferences, the five attributes
shown in Table 2 were found to be the most impor-
tant water allocation attributes to the decision mak-
ers. Note the farm decision makers made this
decision, not the modeler. These attributes were then
used as input for the CA for estimating the part-
worths for each attribute level. Each water allocation
attribute was assigned three levels based on the ter-
ciles of the attribute gathered from the farm water
management survey (n = 300). For example, on aver-
age, 33% of the farmers in the surveyed IDs were
earning US$500 or less annually from one hectare of
5 farm, while 66% had incomes of up to US$1,250 per
annum. Thus, the three levels to this particular attri-
bute were assigned as: <US$500 ha, US$500-
1,250 ha, and >US$1,250 ha.
Although, there was a careful selection of attri-
butes and attribute levels, there were still an exces-
sive number of profiles the survey respondents
needed to evaluate (35 = 243). To reduce the surveys
to a manageable number, the SPSS statistical pack-
age was used to generate hypothetical profiles from
the full set available. Sixteen hypothetical profiles,
each characterized by one level for each of the five
attributes, were generated. The 16 hypothetical pro-
files used for this study are shown in Table 3. An
examination of the profiles indicates that none of the
hypothetical profiles was unrealistic in the real
world. For example, Profile 1 represented about 5% of
the surveyed farms (n = 300) and Profile 2 was repre-
senting 8% of the surveyed farms. All this indicates
that the constructed profiles were realistic and identi-
cal with the actual field data gathered in farmer sur-
vey. A complete discussion on profile development
and field survey is provided in the senior authors
PhD dissertation (i.e., Zardari, 2008).
In a pairwiseh comparison,
i these 16 profiles could
result in 120 16161
2 pairs, which were again too
many for a respondent to evaluate. To reduce the
load for the respondents, these 16 profiles were ran-
domly split into two equal groups (eight profiles in
each group). Even so, eight profiles in one-to-one
419 JAWRA
 ZARDARI, CORDERY, AND SHARMA

TABLE 3. Hypothetical Profiles and the Respondents Aggregate Preferences.

Amount Paid to PID

Percent for Weekly Water Water Use Annual Net Groundwater Aggregate
Profile of Family Working Share Efficiency Farm Income Quality Beneath Preferences
No. on the Farm (%) (US$ ha) (%) (US$ ha) the Farm (n = 31)

1 >80 <13 40-70 500-1,250 Fresh 0.58

2 50-80 <13 <40 >1,250 Marginal 2.32
3 50-80 13-25 40-70 <500 Fresh 1.61
4 <50 <13 >70 500-1,250 Saline 2.15
5 >80 13-25 40-70 <500 Fresh 0.39
6 >80 >25 <40 >1,250 Saline 2.68
7 50-80 13-25 >70 <500 Fresh 0.77
8 >80 <13 40-70 <500 Saline 0.90
9 >80 13-25 40-70 >1,250 Fresh 2.21
10 <50 <13 >70 >1,250 Marginal 3.16
11 50-80 13-25 <40 500-1,250 Saline 2.10
12 <50 <13 <40 <500 Fresh 0.10
13 50-80 >25 40-70 500-1,250 Fresh 1.84
14 >80 <13 <40 <500 Saline 0.52
15 <50 >25 40-70 <500 Fresh 0.23
16 50-80 13-25 40-70 <500 Marginal 1.71

comparison can produce 28 pairs. To further simplify
the conjoint questionnaire, one profile from each
group was randomly selected and compared with the
remaining seven profiles. These two groups formed
the basis of two separate CA questionnaires consist-
ing of seven pairwise choices. The 16 profiles were
printed on separate cards of identical length, breadth,
and thickness. The color of cards was the same (blue).
The presentation of each card was also identical. All
these efforts were targeted to ensure no bias existed
toward any individual profile on which responses
were sought.
The next step was to operationalize the profiles.
We decided to collect data face-to-face, with each sub-
ject performing the study in the presence of the sur-
vey manager (the first author). For each profile we
gave a definition and a reason why the profile was
important. The reasons were kept moderate, so as
not to bias the respondents in favor of any profile.
The 62 survey participants were randomly allocated
one of these two sets of profiles (31 participants for
each set of profiles). A five-point rating scale was
used to show the preference for one profile vs.
another. The aggregate preferences on 16 profiles
obtained from 62 survey participants are shown in
the last column of Table 3. To estimate the attribute
part-worths and their relative importance weights
necessary for objective computation of concordance
and discordance matrices, SPSS 11.5 (SPSS Inc.,
2002) was applied to the data presented in Table 3
(with the aggregate preferences forming the overall
utility associated with each alternative used to solve
the part-worths as expressed in Equation 5). In SPSS
11.5, a graphical user interface is not available for
the conjoint procedure. Thus, the problem presented
in this paper was solved by conjoint programming
using SPSS command syntax and the part-worth for
each level of attribute was computed based on ordin-
ary least squares (OLS) regression.
Statistical Analysis of the Conjoint Data
Estimation of Part-Worths for Each Attribute
Level. The estimation of part-worths in CA depends
on the type of dependent variable (for example, rank-
ing or rating scale). In SPSS Conjoint, part-worths
are estimated through OLS regression if the respon-
dents preferences to various profiles are on the rat-
ing scale where the respondents preferences are
the dependent variable [denoted as U(X) in Equa-
tion 5] and the values on various attribute levels are
independent variables (denoted as xijs in Equation 5).
The coefficient (aij) of each independent variable is
the part-worth corresponding to the specific attribute
level. Note that a total of 15 (5 attributes and 3 lev-
els) independent variables are included in the analy-
sis.
In this study, the CA procedure was applied to
estimate the part-worths for each attribute level, as
described in Equation (5). These part-worths, analo-
gous to regression coefficients, provide a quantitative
measure of the preference for each attribute level,
with larger values corresponding to greater prefer-
ence. Part-worths are expressed in a dimensionless
unit, allowing them to be added together to give the
total utility, or overall preference, for any combina-
tion of attribute levels. Table 4 illustrates the part-
worths and relative importance weights of attributes
that were attained.

JAWRA 420 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION

 AN OBJECTIVE MULTIATTRIBUTE ANALYSIS APPROACH FOR ALLOCATION OF SCARCE IRRIGATION WATER RESOURCES

TABLE 4. Conjoint Model Coefficients.

Relative
0 Importance 1
Range of Part-Worths B Maxaij Minaij
Attribute (i) Part-Worths
 
Weights wi @P  j j
  100%C
A
Attributes (i) Level (j) (aij) Maxaij  Minaij Maxaij Minaij
j j i
j j

Percent of family working on <50 0.11 0.83 17.0%

the farm (%) 50-80 0.36
>80 )0.47
Amount paid to PID for weekly <13 )0.15 0.35 7.1%
canal water share (US$ ha) 13-25 0.20
>25 )0.05
Water use efficiency (%) <40 )0.38 0.64 13.1%
40-70 0.26
>70 0.12
Annual net farm income <500 )0.89 2.0 41.0%
(US$ ha) 500-1,250 )0.22
>1,250 1.11
Groundwater quality beneath Fresh )0.51 1.06 21.8%
the farm Marginal )0.04
Saline 0.55

Notes: Pearsons R = 0.969 Significance = 0.00; Kendalls tau = 0.90 Significance = 0.00.

Determining the Relative Importance Weights
of Attributes. As the part-worths are expressed on
a common scale, the attributes can be compared by
looking at the range (highest to lowest) of these utili-
ties (Reed, 1995). The Conjoint procedure uses these
ranges to compute relative importance weights for
each attribute. These are listed in the rightmost col-
umn of Table 4. The relative importance weights are
computed by taking the utility range for the particu-
lar attribute and dividing it by the sum of all the util-
ity ranges. From Table 4, we can see that Annual net
farm income was a very important attributes (41.0%),
whereas the Amount paid to PID was not (7.1%). By
using the relative importance weights, the total util-
ity of any combination, even ones not rated by
respondents, can be predicted.
Pearsons R and Kendalls tau association values
are used to assess the validity of the CA model. Pear-
sons correlation coefficient is a robust parametric
statistic that can measure the strength of association
between two variables even when mathematical
assumptions appear violated (Smith and Albaum,
2004). Kendalls tau, however, is a nonparametric
measure of association that makes no assumptions
regarding frequency distribution (Field, 2003). In this
study, 14 profile pairs ([8 ) 1] + [8 ) 1]) were used
for determining correlation coefficient and frequency
distribution.
Pearsons correlation coefficient (0.969) and Ken-
dalls tau (0.90) values were high and indicated
strong agreement between the averaged profile rat-
ings and the predicted utilities (part-worths) from the
CA model. Readers interested in the complete details
of the conjoint procedure and the conjoint outputs are
encouraged to go through the work of Hair et al.
(2006).
Completing Payoff Matrix in ELECTRE With Con-
joint Output
In general, every ranking procedure consists of
segments related to: (1) the development of a payoff
matrix (i.e., alternatives vs. attributes array); (2)
assignment of weights to the attributes; and (3)
application of the selected MCDM method. The cur-
rent state of such methods requires the use of inter-
val scales to make attribute scores comparable
across the attributes. It is common for the decision
maker (without consulting analysts or stakeholders)
to assign such interval scales to various attributes.
These arbitrarily specified interval scales have con-
siderable impact on the final ranking of alternatives
obtained from the use of any multicriterion decision
method. Moreover, as the attributes are heteroge-
neous and are measured on different measurement
scales, these scaling methods are applied to prob-
lems of different ranges and attribute scores of dif-
ferent units. The goal of scaling is to bring all
attribute scores into nondimensional units, and thus
make them comparable. Naumann (2002) states that
different scaling methods produce different sets of
nondimensional attribute scores. Thus, any predeter-
mined solution can be justified by applying any
favorable scaling method. Furthermore, Hobbs
(1980) in a study on selection of an optimal location
for a power plant found that different weighting
methods produce various sets of attribute weights

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION 421 JAWRA

 ZARDARI, CORDERY, AND SHARMA

and any predetermined solution can be obtained and
justified.
All above attempts to make data usable for run-
ning the ELECTRE lack axiom base and are very
subjective in nature. However, the part-worths (index
numbers) and the attribute relative importance
weights obtained through CA here have axiom foun-
dations and are more stable than the subjective
inputs discussed above. Thus, in this study, the attri-
bute relative importance weights and the payoff
scores necessary for the application of ELECTRE
were determined from the application of CA to the
results of a large survey of farmer (irrigation water
users) opinions. Attribute values shown in Table 2
were replaced with the corresponding part-worths
(Column 3 of Table 4) and a payoff matrix (Table 5)
was completed.
For example, the average proportion of family
working on ID-I was 93% (Table 2), which falls in
Level 3 of family working on the farm attribute
(i.e., >80%). As the estimated part-worth for >80% of
family working on the farm attribute was )0.47
(Table 4), thus the part-worth of )0.47 was assigned
to 93% of family working on the farm. This value is
shown in the third column of Table 5. Similarly, the
other attribute values shown in Table 2 were
replaced by the estimated part-worths and a payoff
matrix (Table 5) was completed. Later, ELECTRE I
was applied to the payoff matrix and a partial rank-
ing of dominant IDs was produced. The final ranking
of IDs was then established from the use of ELEC-
TRE II.
A Brief Insight into the Conjoint Results
Some interesting observations can be drawn from
the results presented in Tables 4 and 5. Users appear
more willing to improve water use efficiency rather
than to engage more family members to participate
in farming (as the part-worth) for the highest water
use efficiency (0.12) was much higher than the part-
worth for >80% of family working on the farm
()0.47) (Table 4). The conjoint results (Table 4) reveal
that the respondents gave their highest preference to
allocating water to the higher income districts since
the utility attached to the farm having annual net
income greater than US$1,250 ha was the highest
(1.11) compared with utilities attached to all other
levels of water allocation attributes. Additionally, to
the respondents, annual net farm income was the
most important attribute with 41% of relative impor-
tance weight (Table 4). Groundwater quality was
the second most important water allocation attribute
(21.8) followed by the percent of family working on
the farm attribute (17.1). Amount paid to PID was
the least preferred attribute with relative importance
weight of 7.1.
RANKING OF IRRIGATION DISTRICTS
USING ELECTRE
Applying ELECTRE I
As discussed earlier, ELECTRE I produces a par-
tial ranking of alternatives. Three factors (concor-
dance, discordance, and thresholds) are needed to
determine this ranking.
Establishing Concordance Matrix. The estima-
tion procedure for the concordance index follows the
logic outlined in Equation (1). Based on the data pre-
sented in Table 5, ID-I is preferred to ID-II for the
PID and INCOME attributes. Additionally, ID-I and
ID-II assume equal preferences for the FAMILY attri-
bute. Thus, concordance index from Equation (1) for
districts I and II is calculated as:
f7:1 41:0 0:517:1g
cI; II 0:57
f17:1 7:1 13:1 41:0 21:8g
The above value is shown in Row 2 and Column 3
of the concordance matrix (Table 6), and the proce-
dure repeated for other entries.

TABLE 5. Attribute Part-Worths for Each District (expansion of Column 3 of Table 4).

Relative Irrigation Districts (ID-)

Importance Weights
Attributes (wi from Table 4) ID-I ID-II ID-III ID-IV ID-V ID-VI ID-VII ID-VIII ID-IX

FAMILY 17.1% )0.47 )0.47 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.36 0.11 )0.47 0.36
PID 7.1% 0.20 )0.05 )0.05 )0.15 0.20 )0.15 0.20 )0.15 0.20
EFFICIENCY 13.1% )0.38 0.12 )0.38 0.12 )0.38 0.26 0.12 0.26 )0.38
INCOME 41.0% 1.11 )0.89 )0.89 )0.22 )0.89 )0.89 )0.22 )0.89 1.11
QUALITY 21.8% )0.51 0.55 )0.04 )0.51 0.55 )0.04 )0.51 )0.51 )0.51

JAWRA 422 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION

 AN OBJECTIVE MULTIATTRIBUTE ANALYSIS APPROACH FOR ALLOCATION OF SCARCE IRRIGATION WATER RESOURCES

TABLE 6. Concordance Matrix [c(i, j)].

Districts ID-I ID-II ID-III ID-IV ID-V ID-VI ID-VII ID-VIII ID-IX

ID-I - 0.57 0.55 0.59 0.51 0.48 0.55 0.68 0.41

ID-II 0.44 - 0.59 0.35 0.44 0.49 0.28 0.58 0.35
ID-III 0.46 0.42 - 0.38 0.36 0.38 0.31 0.67 0.28
ID-VI 0.42 0.66 0.63 - 0.63 0.44 0.47 0.73 0.24
ID-V 0.50 0.57 0.65 0.38 - 0.49 0.34 0.67 0.32
ID-VI 0.53 0.52 0.63 0.57 0.52 - 0.53 0.70 0.44
ID-VII 0.46 0.73 0.70 0.54 0.67 0.48 - 0.77 0.28
ID-VIII 0.33 0.43 0.34 0.28 0.34 0.31 0.24 - 0.24
ID-IX 0.60 0.66 0.73 0.77 0.69 0.57 0.73 0.77 -

Establishing Weighted Discordance Matrix. The result of ELECTRE is an outranking relationship

estimation procedure for the discordance index follows
the logic outlined in Equation (4). Looking at Table 5 for
weighted discordance index, ID-II was preferred to ID-I
for EFFICIENCY and QUALITY, which means the dis-
cordance between ID-I and ID-II only exists for those
two attributes. The largest weighted discordance
between ID-I and ID-II was 0.23 = [(21.8 100)
(0.55 ) ()0.51)] for QUALITY. This value of weighted
discordance index is shown in Row 2 and Column 3 of
Table 7, and the procedure repeated for other entries.
Selecting Thresholds (p, q). Note that both c(i,
j) and d(i, j) fall in the interval (0, 1). To synthesize
information from both the concordance and discor-
dance matrices, threshold values (p, q) are defined by
the decision maker. The values of p and q are in the
interval 0, 1: p close to 1 means high concordance; q
close to zero means low discordance. By choosing a
value of p, the decision maker specifies how much
concordance is wanted; by specifying q, the amount
of discordance that is acceptable or can be tolerated
is specified (Duckstein et al., 1982). The choice of too
stringent threshold values (higher p and lower q)
may not yield feasible alternatives. Similarly, the
selection of very flexible threshold values (lower p
and higher q) may develop a cycle relationship
between any two alternatives (e.g., A > B and B > A).
Thus, the selection of threshold values (p and q) is a
very important issue and should get considerable
attention of the decision maker or analyst. The final
that yields a partial ordering of the alternatives
(Duckstein et al., 1991). ELECTRE II is then used to
obtain a complete ordering.
Constructing Preference Relationships. In the
next step of preference evaluation between the IDs,
two preference diagrams are constructed by ELECTRE
I for use as input into ELECTRE II. These diagrams
represent the strong and weak preference structures of
the decision maker. The strong preference diagram
was constructed from the use of stringent threshold
values (high concordance and low discordance). For
the weak preference diagram, the threshold values
were relaxed by lowering p and increasing q. These
relaxed threshold values can be thought of as lower
restrictions on the system performance that the deci-
sion maker may be willing to accept. The concordance
and discordance matrices shown in Tables 6 and 7
have been superposed to yield Table 8. This table sum-
marizes the information needed to build strong and
weak preference relationships. Preference relation-
ships are only developed when condition shown in
Equation (6) is satisfied for each ID pair.
ci; j  p and di; j  q 6
In most ELECTRE applications, the mean values
of the elements in the concordance and discordance
matrices are used as initial thresholds (Wade et al.,

TABLE 7. Discordance Matrix [d(i, j)].

Districts ID-I ID-II ID-III ID-IV ID-V ID-VI ID-VII ID-VIII ID-IX

ID-I - 0.23 0.10 0.10 0.23 0.15 0.10 0.09 0.15

ID-II 0.82 - 0.10 0.28 0.10 0.15 0.28 0.02 0.82
ID-III 0.82 0.13 - 0.28 0.13 0.09 0.28 0.09 0.82
ID-IV 0.54 0.23 0.10 - 0.23 0.10 0.03 0.02 0.54
ID-V 0.82 0.07 0.00 0.28 - 0.09 0.28 0.09 0.82
ID-VI 0.82 0.13 0.01 0.28 0.13 - 0.28 0.00 0.82
ID-VII 0.54 0.23 0.10 0.00 0.23 0.10 - 0.02 0.54
ID-VIII 0.82 0.23 0.10 0.28 0.23 0.15 0.28 - 0.82
ID-IX 0.00 0.23 0.10 0.07 0.23 0.10 0.07 0.09 -

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION 423 JAWRA

 ZARDARI, CORDERY, AND SHARMA

TABLE 8. Superposition of Concordance and Discordance Indices.

Districts Threshold ID-I ID-II ID-III ID-IV ID-V ID-VI ID-VII ID-VIII ID-IX

ID-I p - 0.57 0.55 0.59 0.51 0.48 0.55 0.68 0.41

q - 0.23 0.10 0.10 0.23 0.15 0.10 0.09 0.15
ID-II p 0.44 - 0.59 0.35 0.44 0.49 0.28 0.58 0.35
q 0.82 - 0.10 0.28 0.10 0.15 0.28 0.02 0.82
ID-III p 0.46 0.42 - 0.38 0.36 0.38 0.31 0.67 0.28
q 0.82 0.13 - 0.28 0.13 0.09 0.28 0.09 0.82
ID-IV p 0.42 0.66 0.63 - 0.63 0.44 0.47 0.73 0.24
q 0.54 0.23 0.10 - 0.23 0.10 0.03 0.02 0.54
ID-V p 0.50 0.57 0.65 0.38 - 0.49 0.34 0.67 0.32
q 0.82 0.07 0.00 0.28 - 0.09 0.28 0.09 0.82
ID-VI p 0.53 0.52 0.63 0.57 0.52 - 0.53 0.70 0.44
q 0.82 0.13 0.01 0.28 0.13 - 0.28 0.00 0.82
ID-VII p 0.46 0.73 0.70 0.54 0.67 0.48 - 0.77 0.28
q 0.54 0.23 0.10 0.00 0.23 0.10 - 0.02 0.54
ID-VIII p 0.33 0.43 0.34 0.28 0.34 0.31 0.24 - 0.24
q 0.82 0.23 0.10 0.28 0.23 0.15 0.28 - 0.82
ID-IX p 0.60 0.66 0.73 0.77 0.69 0.57 0.73 0.77 -
q 0.00 0.23 0.10 0.07 0.23 0.10 0.07 0.09 -

1988). In our example, the mean values of concor-
dance, p, and discordance, q, are 0.52 and 0.26
respectively. When the condition shown in Equa-
tion (6) was applied to Table 8 for the mean values,
the dominance relationship (a relationship that shows
one district is preferred to another district) that
results is illustrated in Figure 2.
In some cases, it is possible that cycles or repeti-
tions (For example, Alt. A> and <Alt. B) can exist.
In our study, no repetition or cycle in the prefer-
ence structure was found. However, to construct a
strong preference structure as necessary input for
ELECTRE II application, it was necessary to increase
threshold values from the average concordance and
discordance threshold values. Thus, increments of 10,
20, and 30% in concordance and discordance thresh-
olds were made. The preference relationships devel-
oped from changing threshold values are presented in
Table 9.
The preference relationship obtained by using
average threshold values (p 0.52; q 0.26) looked
overcrowded (too many inward and outward arrows
for a specific node) as many relationships between
any pair of districts were found. Thus, the preference
relationship developed from the use of p = 0.572 and
q = 0.234 threshold values (10% increase in concor-
dance threshold mean value and 10% decrease in dis-
cordance threshold mean value) was considered to be
the weak preference relationship (Figure 2). On the
other hand, the use of the strongest threshold
values (p 0.676; q 0.182) produced a strong
preference relationship (Figure 3). Later, both weak
and strong preference relationships were used in
ELECTRE II operations and a complete ranking of
the nine IDs was developed. An algorithm defining
the ELECTRE II technique can be found in Gershon
et al. (1982).

Application of ELECTRE II

The ranking of alternatives by ELECTRE II is

FIGURE 2. Diagram Showing Weak Preference
Relationship (p 0.572; q 0.234).
completed in three stages. In the first stage, a for-
ward ranking (r*) is obtained. In the second stage, a
reverse ranking of alternatives (r**) is developed. In
the last stage, final ranking which is called the med-
ian ranking (r) is developed. Median ranking is a

JAWRA 424 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION

 AN OBJECTIVE MULTIATTRIBUTE ANALYSIS APPROACH FOR ALLOCATION OF SCARCE IRRIGATION WATER RESOURCES

TABLE 9. Preference Relationships for Different Pairs of Threshold Values.

Type of Preference Changes in Threshold

Relationship Thresholds Values Preference Relationship

Strongest p> and q< by p = 0.676 ID-I > ID-III, ID-IV, ID-VII, ID-VIII
30% of mean q = 0.182 ID-II > None
thresholds ID-III > None
ID-IV > ID-VIII
ID-V > None
ID-VI > ID-VIII
ID-VII > ID-III, ID-VIII
ID-VIII > None
ID-IX > ID-III, ID-IV, ID-VII, ID-VIII
Stronger p> and q< by p = 0.624 In addition to strongest relationship, the following
20% of mean q = 0.206 preference relationships were found.
thresholds ID-III > ID-VIII
ID-IV > ID-III
ID-V > ID-III, ID-VIII
ID-VI > ID-III, ID-VIII
Strong p> and q< by p = 0.572 In addition to stronger relationship, the following
10% of mean q = 0.234 preference relationships were found.
thresholds ID-I > ID-II, ID-V
ID-II > ID-III, ID-VIII
ID-IV > ID-II, ID-V
ID-VII > ID-II, ID-V
ID-IX > ID-I, ID-II, ID-V
Average p and q = mean p = 0.52 Preference relationships are shown in Figure 2
thresholds q = 0.26

Notes: > = increases or dominated to; < = decreases or dominated by.

Forward Ranking. The first step in the forward

FIGURE 3. Diagram Showing Strong Preference
Relationship (p 0.676; q 0.182).
blend of the forward and reverse rankings (Gershon
et al., 1982). In this example, a complete ranking of
IDs was developed from the use of weak and strong
preference relationships shown in Figures 2 and 3
respectively.
ranking is to identify all nodes in the strong prefer-
ence relationship (Figure 3) that have no precedents
(nodes having no arrow directed into the node). In
this example, these nodes were I, II, V, VI, and IX
(where I, II, V, VI, and IX represent ID-I, ID-II, ID-
V, ID-VI, and ID-IX respectively). These nodes were
defined as the preferred districts and were placed in
Set A (Table 10).
Next, the nodes that had no precedents in weak
preference relationship (Figure 2) were identified. In
this example, those nodes were I, VI, and IX. These
nodes were placed in Set B. Then, the nodes that
had no precedents in both preference relationships
(strong and weak) were identified and placed in Set
C. These nodes were: ID-I, ID-VI, ID-IX. The ele-
ments of Set C were then assigned Rank 1.
The next step consisted of reducing weak (Fig-
ure 2) and strong (Figure 3) preference relationships
by eliminating those nodes that were contained in Set
C. The arrows originating at these nodes were also
eliminated. In the next iteration, the reduced strong
and weak preference relationships were again exam-
ined to identify the nodes that had no precedents.
Those nodes comprised new Set A and Set B data,
and the procedures outlined above were repeated.
The next set of nodes in Set C received Rank 2. This
iterative procedure was continued until all nodes of

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION 425 JAWRA

 ZARDARI, CORDERY, AND SHARMA

TABLE 10. Forward and Reverse Rankings.

Forward Ranking Reverse Ranking

Reverse
Iter. Set A Set B Set C Rank r* Iter. Set A Set B Set C Rank r Rank r**

1 I, II, V, VI, IX I, VI, IX I, VI, IX 1 1 II, III, V, VIII VIII VIII 1 6

2 II, III, IV, V, VII IV, VII IV, VII 2 2 II, III, IV, V, VI III III 2 5
3 II, III, V, VIII II, V II, V 3 3 II, IV, V, VI, VII II, V, VI II, V, VI 3 4
4 III, VIII III III 4 4 IV, VII IV, VII IV, VII 4 3
5 VIII VIII VIII 5 5 I, IX I I 5 2
6 IX IX IX 6 1

strong and weak preference relationships were elimi-
nated and all districts were ranked.
Reverse Ranking. The first step in reverse rank-
ing was to reverse the direction of all arrows in both
preference relationships (strong and weak). The
remaining steps were identical to the steps outlined
in the forward ranking with one difference: the alter-
native that was ranked last is now ranked first, and
the remaining alternatives were ranked in reverse
order. In our study, the rank of each district obtained
in both forward and reverse ranking processes is pre-
sented in Table 10.
Final Ranking. Upon completion of the forward
and reverse ranking, an average of the two rankings
is calculated for each alternative. Thus, if alternative
i was ranked first in the forward ranking and second
in the reverse ranking, its average ranking is 1.5.
The final stage of ELECTRE II is to order the alter-
natives with respect to their average rankings. The
application of above process for this example has
established a complete ranking of IDs and is shown
in Table 11.
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
The weak and strong preference relationships
shown in Figures 2 and 3 respectively were devel-
oped from the use of concordance and discordance
matrices. In the weak preference relationship,
values 10% stronger than the mean values of
concordance and discordance (p 0.572; q 0.234)
were used. In the strong preference relationship,
the concordance mean value was increased by 30%
and discordance mean value was decreased by 30%
(i.e., p 0.676; q 0.182). The results indicate that
using the five water allocation attributes, ID-IX is
the most often preferred district to receive scarce
water, followed by ID-I. On the other hand,
ID-VIII is the least preferable district. Therefore,
the district selected as deserving highest preference
for water allocation by ELECTRE methodology
is district IX followed by districts I, IV, VI, and
VII.
The final ranking obtained from the use of ELEC-
TRE I and II can be confirmed by looking at Table 5
(payoff matrix) with hindsight. This shows that ID-IX
has the highest part-worth scores for two important
attributes (i.e., FAMILY and INCOME). The relative
weights for FAMILY and INCOME were 17.0 and
41.0% respectively. On the other hand, ID-VIII (the
least preferred district) has the lowest part-worth
scores for the important water allocation attributes
(FAMILY, INCOME, and QUALITY), which put this
district in the last (ninth) position (marked with
Rank 6). This qualitative inspection indicates that
the ranking of IDs produced in this study from the
use of ELECTRE provides an objective basis for
assigning preferences for allocation of the scarce
water resource.

TABLE 11. Final Ranking of Irrigation Districts.

Irrigation Districts

Type of Rankings ID-I ID-II ID-III ID-IV ID-V ID-VI ID-VII ID-VIII ID-IX

Forward ranking, r* 1 3 4 2 3 1 2 5 1
Reverse ranking, r** 2 4 5 3 4 4 3 6 1
Average ranking, r 1.5 3.5 4.5 2.5 3.5 2.5 2.5 5.5 1
Final ranking 2 4 5 3 4 3 3 6 1

JAWRA 426 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION

 AN OBJECTIVE MULTIATTRIBUTE ANALYSIS APPROACH
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
The application of CA, which is widely used in anal-
ysis of marketing strategies, and the use of its results
as input into a multiattribute decision-making model
to provide objective (without being assumption depen-
dent) guidance for optimal allocation of a scarce water
resource is a new development for water resources
management. It has been shown that qualitative and
quantitative input data can be used together to pro-
vide a sound objective basis for decisions based on a
large number of attributes. Here, the qualitative data
have been scaled against the quantitative data using
CA. This technique has allowed the relative benefits of
both qualitative and quantitative attributes to be
assessed. This information was then put into a multi-
criteria analysis model (ELECTRE) to obtain the
best outcome for the described water allocation prob-
lem. In this study ELECTRE was modified in that one
of the original decision criteria was simplified so as to
remove the subjectivity of its inputs and to improve
the reliability of ranking of IDs. The implicit attribute
weights were obtained by face-to-face interviews with
62 decision makers involved in farm management
practices. The relative importance of attributes pro-
duced from the use of CA has been shown to be reli-
able when a tradeoff between five water allocation
attributes was made.
On the basis of the results obtained in this study,
we conclude that ELECTRE I can be used for short-
listing the IDs to be preferred for water allocation
and ELECTRE II can then be applied to determine
the ranking of those short listed districts. As a very
limited number of attributes were used and a ranking
of only nine IDs were developed in this study, the
conclusions drawn here should be used carefully until
they are confirmed in a larger study. If many more
attributes were considered and a higher number of
IDs were to be ranked, it is possible to confirm the
potential benefits of using ELECTRE as an objective
multiattribute decision-making model for a range of
water resources applications.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Comments and suggestions given by the editor of this journal
and two anonymous reviewers of this journal are acknowledged
with thanks.
LITERATURE CITED
Bandaragoda, D.J., 1998. Design and Practice of Water Allocation
Rules: Lessons From Warabandi in Pakistans Punjab. Research
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION
FOR ALLOCATION OF SCARCE IRRIGATION WATER RESOURCES
Report 17. International Water Management Institute, Colombo,
Sri Lanka.
Benayoun, R., B. Roy, and N. Sussman, 1966. Manual de Reference
du Programme Electre. Note De Synthese Et Formation. Note
25. Direction Scientifique SEMA, Paris.
Bouyssou, D., 1986. Some Remarks on the Notion of Compensation in
MCDM. European Journal of Operational Research 26:150-160.
Buchanan, J. and D. Vanderpooten, 2007. Ranking Projects for an
Electricity Utility Using ELECTRE III. International Transac-
tions in Operational Research 14:309-323.
Clemen, R., 1996. Making Hard Decisions (Second Edition). Dux-
bury Press, Belmont, Massachusetts.
Duckstein, L., B. Bobee, and F. Ashkar, 1991. A Multiple Criteria
Decision Modeling Approach to Selection of Estimation Tech-
niques for Fitting Extreme Floods. Stochastic Hydrology and
Hydraulics 5:227-238.
Duckstein, L., M. Gershon, and R. Mcaniff, 1982. Model Selection
in Multiobjective Decision Making for River Basin Planning.
Advances in Water Resources 5:178-184.
Field, A., 2003. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS for Windows.
Sage Publications, London.
Gershon, M., L. Duckstein, and R. Mcaniff, 1982. Multiobjective
River Basin Planning With Qualitative Criteria. Water
Resources Research 18(2):193-202.
Gill, M.A., M.H. Chaudhary, and S.N. Afzal, 2004. Note On:
Conservation of Water Resources in Pakistan. Pakistan Journal
of Water Resources 8(1):131-142.
Hair, J.F., W.C. Black, B. Babin, R. Anderson, and R. Tatham,
2006. Multivariate Data Analysis (Sixth Edition). Prentice Hall,
Pearson, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
Hobbs, B.F., 1980. A Comparison of Weighting Methods in Power
Plant Siting. Decision Sciences 11:725-737.
Huber, J.C., 2005. Conjoint Analysis: How We Got Here and Where
We Are (An Update). Sawtooth Software Research Paper Series,
Duke University, Durham, North Carolina.
Hussain, R.Z. and R.A. Young, 1985. Estimates of the Economic
Value of Productivity of Irrigation Water in Pakistan From
Farm Surveys. Water Resources Bulletin 21(6):1021-1027.
IWMI, 2005. Reducing Poverty Through Integrated Management of
Groundwater and Surface Water. Water Policy Briefing, Issue
13 (February). International Water Management Institute,
Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Jacek, Z., 2007. The Comparison of Multiobjective Ranking
Methods Applied to Solve the Mass Transit Systems Decision
Problems. http://www.iasi.cnr.it/ewgt/16conference/ID154.pdf,
accessed November 14, 2007.
Kijne, J.W., R. Barker, and D.J. Molden, 2003. Water Productivity
in Agriculture: Limits and Opportunities for Improvement,
Published by CABI, 332 pages.
Louviere, J.J., D. Hensher, and J. Swait, 1993. Handling Large
Numbers of Attributes in Conjoint Applications: Who Says
Existing Techniques Cant Be Applied? But If You Want an
Alternative, How About Hierarchical Choice Experiments?
Paper presented to the American Marketing Associations
Advanced Research Techniques (ART) Forum, Beaver Creek,
Colorado.
Milani, A.S., A. Shanian, and C. El-lahham, 2006. Using Different
ELECTRE Methods in Strategic Planning in the Presence of
Human Behavioral Resistance. Journal of Applied Mathematics
and Decision Sciences 2006:1-19. Article ID 10936.
Naumann, F., 2002. Quality-Driven Query Answering for
Integrated Information Systems. In: Lecture Notes in Computer
Science 2261, G. Goos, J. Hartmanis, and J. van Leeuwen
(Editors). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, pp. 1-66.
Noguchi, H. and H. Ishii, 2000. The Application of Rank Ordinal
Data Using DEA Model to Conjoint Analysis. Mathematica
Japonica 51(1):21-34.
427 JAWRA
 ZARDARI, CORDERY, AND SHARMA

Reed, T.B., 1995. Reduction in the Burden of Waiting for Public

Transit Due to Real-Time Schedule Information: A Conjoint
Analysis Study. Proceedings in Conjunction with the Pacific
Rim TransTech Conference, 6th International VNIS. A Rido
into the Future, 30th July-2nd August, Seattle, Washington,
pp. 83-89.
Roy, B., 1971. Problems and Methods With Multiple Objective
Functions. Mathematical Programming 1(2):239-266.
Shanian, A. and O. Savadogo, 2006. A Material Selection Model
Based on the Concept of Multiple Attribute Decision Making.
Materials and Design 27(4):329-337.
Smith, S.M. and G.S. Albaum, 2004. Measurement and Scaling in
Marketing Research. Fundamentals of Marketing Research. Sage
Publications, London.
SPSS Inc., 2002. SPSS 11.5 for Windows. SPSS Inc., Chicago, Illi-
nois.
Tecle, A., 1992. Selecting a Multicriterion Decision Making Tech-
nique for Watershed Resources Management. Water Resources
Bulletin 28(1):129-140.
Von Winterfeldt, D. and D. Edwards, 1986. Decision Analysis and
Behavioral Research. Cambridge University Press, New York.
Wade, D.C., I. Golan, A. Kazakov, and M. Kress, 1988. A Case
Study of a Non-Compensatory Approach to Ranking Transporta-
tion Projects. The Journal of the Operational Research Society
39(10):901-910.
WAPDA, 1990. Trading of Canal and Tubewell Water for Irrigation
Purposes. Watercourse Monitoring and Evaluation. P&I Organi-
zation, Lahore, Pakistan, Planning Division (unpublished).
Zardari, N.H., 2008. An Improved Multicriterion Analysis Approach
to Avoid Subjectivity in Irrigation Water Allocation Decisions.
PhD Dissertation, School of Civil and Environmental Engineer-
ing, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Zardari, N.H. and I. Cordery, 2006. Estimation of Irrigation Water
Productivity Within a Rigid Rotational Delivery System. In:
Young Researchers 2006, R. Stuetz and L. Teik-Thye (Editors).
Proceedings of Young Researchers Conference, May 24-26, 2006,
at Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, pp. 189-196.
Zardari, N.H. and I. Cordery, 2009. Water Productivity in a Rigid
Irrigation Delivery System. Water Resources Management
23:1025-1040.
Zeleny, M. (Editor), 1982. Multiple Criteria Decision Making.
McGraw Hill, New York, New York.

JAWRA 428 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION