Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
McInnes, R; Smith, G.M; Greaves, J; Watson, D; Wood, N; Everard, M (2016)
Publisher: Wiley
Languages: English
Types: Article
Water and land management decisions require consideration of multiple factors. Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) provides a structured, auditable and transparent tool that helps inform and add rigour to multioption decisions. MCDA was used in a payment for ecosystem services (PES) project to evaluate options for delivering good ecological status in Tortworth Brook, Gloucestershire, UK. Following a process of stakeholder engagement, final options considered were: (1) doing nothing; (2) modifying existing sewage treatment works; (3) a single integrated constructed wetland (ICW) targeting multiple ecosystem service outcomes; and (4) catchment wide multiple ICWs. The analysis concluded that the ‘do nothing’ option and modifying the existing works are both likely to provide poor utility and value for money. Both ICW options offered the greatest utility in terms of optimising the benefits to all stakeholders.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Bouchard, C., Abi-Zeid, I., Beauchamp, N., Lamontagne, L., Desrosiers, J., and Rodriguez, M. (2010). Multicriteria decision analysis for the selection of a small drinking water treatment system. Journal of Water Supply: Research and Technology-Aqua, 59(4), 230-242.
    • Bowes, M., Hilton, J., Irons, G. and Hornby, D. (2005) The relative contribution of sewage and diffuse phosphorus sources in the River Avon catchment, southern England: implications for nutrient management. Science of the Total Environment, 344(1), 67-81.
    • Chitsaz, N., and Banihabib, M. E. (2015). Comparison of different multi criteria decisionmaking models in prioritizing flood management alternatives. Water Resources Management, 29(8), 2503-2525.
    • Doody, D., Harrington, R., Johnson, M., Hofman, O. and McEntee, D. (2009) Sewerage treatment in an integrated constructed wetland. Municipal Engineer, 162, 199-205.
    • Dunning, D.J., Ross, Q.E. and Merkhofer, M.W. (2000) Multi-attribute utility analysis; best technology available; adverse environmental impact; Clean Water Act; Section 316(b). Environment Science and Policy, 3:7-14.
    • Farley, J., and Costanza, R. (2010). Payments for ecosystem services: from local to global. Ecological Economics, 69(11), 2060-2068.
    • Smith, S., Rowcroft, P., Everard, M., Couldrick, L., Reed, M., Rogers, H., Quick, T., Eves, C. and White, C. (2013). Payments for Ecosystem Services: A Best Practice Guide. Defra, London. 85pp.
    • Vose, D. (2008) Risk Analysis: a quantitative guide. John Wiley & Sons: Chichester, UK. 735pp.
    • Vymazal, J. (2011) Constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment: five decades of experience. Environmental Science and Technology. 45(1), 61-69.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article