Towards a smart decision-making for the sustainable management of environmental waters

DOLORES GUTIÉRREZ CACCIABUE; ABDENUR ARAOS MACARENA; VERÓNICA RAJAL

Chapel Hill, Raleigh, Carolina del Norte

Simposio; 19th International Symposium on Health-Related Water Microbiology (WaterMicro 2017); 2017

International Water Association (IWA)

Systematic monitoring of aquatic environments is carried out worldwide toassess their quality. This involves the measurement of differentvariables, which are indicative of water pollution. The presence ofmicroorganisms mainly pathogens is of great concern because they areresponsible for the 80% of the waterborne diseases. Due to the inability ofmeasuring each of the pathogens present, the use of bacterial indicators hasbeen established by legislation. Some guidelines also include physicochemical variables.Despite the importance of monitoring, data obtained are valuable for experts inthe field, but lacks of importance for the population that uses water bodies, becominga potential risk. For a global consciousness, it would be convenient to usetools that help understanding the current situation in a clearer and easily way.Multicriteria Decision Analysis(MCDA) are methodologies that allow making decisionstaking into account bothscientific discoveries and stakeholders priorities. Their purpose is to choosebetween different alternatives based on multiple criteria and know which one isthe best. The aim of this work was to apply two MCDAmethodologies in order to assess the impact caused by qualitative andquantitative variables on the quality of aquatic environments (AEs) in Salta,Argentina. The MCDAs methodologies chosen were: Analytical Hierarchical Process (AHP) andMulti-Attribute Utility Theory(MAUT). The alternatives analyzed were AEs previously monitored: Arenales Riverdivided in two AEs: upstream and downstream due to their differences inquality; La Caldera and Vaqueros Rivers and Campo Alegre Reservoir. Also, eachAE was divided in wet and dry season. Therefore, ten alternatives wereconsidered. Then, criteria (or attributes for MAUT) and sub-criteria (showed inparenthesis) were selected: Qualitative: effluent receptor (industrial anddomestic), recreational uses (primary and secondary contact), resourceacceptability, general impacts (presence of trash, washing clothes and cars, wildlifeimpact); Quantitative: a Water Quality Index (WQI), calculated with nine variables:four physicochemical (Temperature, dissolved oxygen, turbidity, pH) and fivemicrobiological (total and fecal coliforms, Escherichiacoli, enteroccocci, Pseudomonasaeruginosa). AHP was solved using Expert Choice 11 Inc. and MAUT throughthe Generic Multi-Attribute Analysis.Besides some differences that these MCDAs have interms of calculation of global utilities or objectives functions andsensitivity analysis, both of them showed similar results. The AE that sufferedthe greater decrease on its quality was the Arenales River downstream duringwet season and the criteria whichinfluenced the most was the effluent receptor. However, depending on theactivities developed on each AE and the season studied, the impact of eachcriterion differ between them. These resultswill be useful on decision-making to reach an integrated management of waterresources.