This article was downloaded by: [Institutional Subscription Access]On: 21 July 2011, At: 12:19Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of AgriculturalSustainabilityPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscriptioninformation:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tags20

Participatory multi-criteria analysis ofirrigation management alternatives: the caseof the Caia irrigation district, PortugalPaula Antunes a , Vanja Karadzic a , Rui Santos a , Pedro Beça a & AnnaOsann ba CENSE – Center for Environmental and Sustainability Research,Departmento de Ciências e Engenharia do Ambiente, Faculdade de Ciênciase Tecnologia, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Campus de Caparica, 2829-516,Caparica, Portugalb Instituto de Desarrollo Regional, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha,Albacete, Spain

Available online: 15 Jul 2011

To cite this article: Paula Antunes, Vanja Karadzic, Rui Santos, Pedro Beça & Anna Osann (2011):Participatory multi-criteria analysis of irrigation management alternatives: the case of the Caia irrigationdistrict, Portugal, International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 9:2, 334-349

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2011.582358

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that thecontents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulaeand drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall notbe liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of thismaterial.

Participatory multi-criteria analysis ofirrigation management alternatives:the case of the Caia irrigationdistrict, PortugalPaula Antunes1*, Vanja Karadzic1, Rui Santos1, Pedro Beca1 and Anna Osann2

1 CENSE – Center for Environmental and Sustainability Research, Departmento de Ciencias e Engenharia do Ambiente,Faculdade de Ciencias e Tecnologia, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Campus de Caparica, 2829-516 Caparica, Portugal

2 Instituto de Desarrollo Regional, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, Albacete, Spain

This paper presents the development of a participatory multi-criteria analysis (MCA) process for the evaluation of irrigation

management alternatives in the Caia irrigation district, Portugal. The focus is on the design, evaluation and comparison of

irrigation management alternatives in a participatory setting, encouraging direct involvement of actors throughout the

whole process. A framework for participatory MCA was developed that integrates preparatory interviews (actors

selection, understanding the decision context), workshops (alternatives and criteria identification, results discussion)

and a second round of interviews (criteria weighting and alternatives evaluation). This framework combines elements

from the analytical hierarchy process with social multi-criteria evaluation. The use of different participatory techniques

is essential for enabling continuous participation and ensuring that different points of view are taken into account in the

evaluation process. The results obtained allowed the identification and comparison of the most preferred alternatives

and the analysis of the positions of the different actor groups. Social learning was an important outcome: participants

acknowledged that they have gained an improved understanding of the problem and of each other’s viewpoints. The

direct engagement of actors in MCA presents two challenges: actors’ challenge, related to the participation in the

process itself, and analytical challenge, mostly related to the interpretation of the results.

Keywords: irrigation management; social multi-criteria analysis; stakeholder participation; sustainable agriculture

Introduction

Water is a critical issue worldwide, as availableresources diminish in quantity and quality and therange of uses in competing sectors increases. Periodicdroughts and floods exacerbate conflicts and revealthe increasing vulnerability of water uses. Agricul-tural production consumes more freshwater than anyother human activity (Comprehensive Assessmentof Water Management in Agriculture, 2007; Pimentelet al., 1997), so irrigation is vitally important inmeeting the food requirements for a rapidly expand-ing world population (Howell, 2001).

In this context, the need to improve water use effi-ciency in irrigated agriculture is a critical sustainability

concern (Howell, 2001). Improving physical water pro-ductivity in agriculture reduces the need for additionalwater and land in irrigated and rain-fed systems. Thisis a critical response to increasing water scarcity, includ-ing the need to leave enough water to sustain ecosystemsand to meet growing demands for other human needs(Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management inAgriculture, 2007).

Historically, water resources and agriculture pro-fessionals sought to solve challenges raised by wateruse in agriculture by using a technocratic approach.Agricultural water management problems weredetached from their socio-economic and politicalcontext, and it was believed that new technologiesalone could solve them. However, it soon became

*Corresponding author. Email: mpa@fct.unl.pt

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY 9(2) 2011

PAGES 334–349, doi:10.1080/14735903.2011.582358 # 2011 Earthscan | Taylor & Francis Group | an Informa business. ISSN: 1473-5903 (print), 1747-762X (online). www.earthscan.co.uk/journals/ijas

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Inst

itutio

nal S

ubsc

ript

ion

Acc

ess]

at 1

2:19

21

July

201

1

clear that technologies were producing side effects andthat they alone could not respond to increasing globalpressures. Nowadays, the environmental debate hasbecome more holistic, calling for an integrativeapproach to water resources management – takinginto account the complex relationships between technol-ogies, institutions, cultures and practices – and foractive stakeholder participation (Gleick, 2000; Allan,2003; Pahl-Wostl et al., 2008).

The research presented in this paper is based onempirical material collected in the scope of thePLEIADeS1 project that deals with efficient water man-agement for sustainable agriculture in water-scarceenvironments, by introducing new technology (NT) ser-vices: Earth observation (EO), geographical informationsystems (GISs) and information and communicationtechnologies and combining them with participatoryapproaches. New technologies can provide comprehen-sive and timely spatial information to support decision-making and management at farm, district and river basinlevel, thus contributing to improved water governance.The identification of participants’ expectations inrelation to new technologies stimulates discussion andsocial learning. In all PLEIADeS case study areas(nine pilot areas in nine different countries2), the increas-ing water scarcity and its declining quality status requirethe optimization of water use and a change in irrigationmanagement strategies (Urso et al., 2010).

This paper explores the potential of multi-criteriaanalysis (MCA) to structure sustainability problemsand to facilitate the incorporation of actors’ multiplevalues and preferences in decision-making processes.MCA is used for the participatory evaluation of irriga-tion management alternatives in the PLEIADeS Caiapilot area (Guadiana River Basin, Portugal). Themain purpose of the research was twofold: (1) to testthe potential of MCA to support integrated and parti-cipatory water management in agriculture and (2) toevaluate the main issues related to irrigation manage-ment in Caia. The next section describes the theoreti-cal MCA framework and the methods used in thisresearch. In the third section, the proposed methodo-logical approach is presented. The application ofthis approach to the Caia irrigation district is presentedand discussed in the remaining sections.

Background: MCA and participation

Theoretical framework: what is MCA?MCA is a decision-making method used to evaluateproblems, when one is faced with a number of

different alternatives and expectations and wants tofind the ‘preferred’ solution with regard to different,and often conflicting, objectives. The ability ofMCA to deal with complex and unstructured decisionproblems in the sphere of environmental and naturalresource management, which involve a number ofconflicting ecological, environmental, societal andeconomic objectives and multiple interests groups,is widely acknowledged (Paruccini, 1994; Beinatand Nijkamp, 1998; Kiker et al., 2005).

MCA constitutes both the framework for structur-ing decision problems and a set of methods to generatepreferences among alternatives. MCA has the poten-tial to take into account conflicting, multi-dimensional, incommensurable and uncertain effectsof decisions explicitly (Herath, 2004). It focuses onupgrading the outcome and end result of decision-making processes (Proctor and Drechsler, 2003),where focus is on the ‘decision process’ itself, andnot on a final result (Munda, 2004).

A typical multi-criteria problem (with a discretenumber of alternatives) may be described in the fol-lowing way: considering that A is a finite set of n feas-ible actions (or alternatives) and G is a set of mevaluation criteria (or points of view), it is possibleto built an n × m matrix (P) called the impactmatrix, whose elements pi,j ¼ gj(ai) (i ¼ 1, 2, . . . , n;j ¼ 1, 2, . . . , m) represent the evaluation of alternativei by means of criterion j. An action a1 is evaluated tobe better than action a2 (both belonging to the set A)according to the jth criterion if gj(a1) . gj(a2).

Assuming that it is possible to evaluate eachalternative in relation to each criterion, we canobtain a weak ordering of the alternatives for each cri-terion, ranging from the least to the most preferred. Apossible formulation for the multi-criteria decisionproblem consists of ranking the alternatives accordingto an ordering that is a legitimate synthesis of the cri-teria (Arrow and Raynaud, 1986). Generally, there isno solution optimizing all criteria at the same timeand compromises have to be found. A wide set ofmulti-criteria methods have been developed for thispurpose. These methods have particular featuresregarding information requirements, criteria assess-ment, modelling of preferences and decision rules(see, for instance, Bana e Costa, 1990; Janssen andMunda, 1999; Figueira et al., 2005; Munda, 2008).

The analytic hierarchy process (AHP)AHP, developed by Saaty (1980, 1990), is probablyone of the most widely used MCA methods, namelyin natural resource management applications (Kiker

Participatory MCA of irrigation management alternatives 335

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Inst

itutio

nal S

ubsc

ript

ion

Acc

ess]

at 1

2:19

21

July

201

1

et al., 2005). AHP structures and decomposes adecision-making problem into its constituentelements through the construction of a hierarchy, des-cending from an overall goal to criteria, sub-criteriaand alternatives. AHP is based on the developmentof a series of ‘pairwise comparison matrices’, whichcompare the alternatives at the bottom of the hierarchyin relation to each criterion on the preceding level andthe criteria on relation to the overall objective. Theintensity of preference between alternatives, or impor-tance weights between criteria, is expressed in a quali-tative nine-point scale (Saaty, 1980, 1990).

The right eigenvector of the largest eigenvalue3 ofa pairwise comparison matrix corresponds to theweights or rankings of the matrix elements (seeSaaty (1980, 1990) for a demonstration of this prop-erty). In a pairwise comparison matrix, there arealways a number of redundant comparisons. Thisredundancy is able to neutralize judgement errors,likely to occur during comparisons, and to check theconsistency of a pairwise comparisons matrix. AHPprovides a measure of the inconsistency of a pairwisecomparisons matrix; generally, inconsistency valuesbelow 10 per cent are considered acceptable.

The final relative priorities for the lowest levelelements (i.e. the alternatives) are obtained by weight-ing the various lower level priority vectors by the pri-orities of the parent criteria. These final relativepriorities designate the degree to which each alterna-tive contributes to the main objective. In this way, acompensatory approach is adopted in the AHP,which may be questionable in a sustainabilitycontext (see, for instance, Munda, 2008). However,the principles of AHP can be applied without takingthis linear combination approach to its ultimate conse-quences and therefore avoiding the full compensabil-ity between different criteria categories that representincomparable and therefore ‘non-tradable’ concerns.

AHP can be useful in addressing sustainabilityissues, since it is able to accommodate conflicting,multi-dimensional and incommensurable sets ofobjectives. Furthermore, it has a very strong potentialto be used in a participatory setting; the evaluationprocess constructed in the stepwise manner clearlystimulates learning and allows the integration ofspecific interests of various participants.

MCA in a participatory contextAddressing sustainability problems involves manylayers and kinds of decisions and requires the con-struction of a dialogue process among many actors,individual and collective, formal and informal, local

and not. Although formal and technical methods stillremain a necessary element in these processes, it isnow well recognized that they are not sufficient inthemselves and that participatory and inclusiveapproaches are needed (De Marchi et al., 2000).

Several experiences with the application of MCA inparticipatory contexts are described in the literature.Many of these refer to the application of AHP andother MCA methods to incorporate public preferencesin decision-making processes (see, for instance, Dukeand Aull-Hyde, 2002; Ananda and Herath, 2003;Herath, 2004; Messner et al., 2006; Stagl, 2006) andto the application of the social multi-criteria evalu-ation (SMCE) framework (e.g. De Marchi et al.,2000; Munda, 2004; Gamboa and Munda, 2007;Paneque Salgado et al., 2009). Multi-criteriamethods may provide a powerful framework forpolicy analysis in the context of sustainable develop-ment, since they can accomplish the goals of beinginter- or multi-disciplinary (accounting for the mul-tiple dimensions of sustainability problems), partici-patory (open to all stakeholders) and transparent(Munda, 2003). Stakeholder participation may beincluded in the overall structure of the MCAprocess: alternatives and criteria generation, evalu-ation of alternatives and discussion of results(Antunes et al., 2006).

The subjectivity of MCA, common to every evalu-ation process, must be acknowledged. A possible wayof dealing with this subjectivity is through the designof participatory MCA processes (De Marchi et al.,2000; Munda, 2004, 2008) or by combining MCAwith participatory techniques (Antunes et al., 2006;Kallis et al., 2006). In both cases the use of MCA isclosely connected to participation, as a way of vali-dating the overall structure and framing the analysis(Stirling, 2006). It should however be noted thatparticipation is a necessary condition but may not besufficient for reaching transparency and accountabil-ity (Munda, 2004).

Social multi-criteria evaluationOne way of approaching the issue of participation inMCA is through the adoption of an SMCE frame-work, which defines the concept of evaluation as amixture of representation, assessment and qualitycheck connected with a given policy problem, basedon a specified objective (Munda, 2004, 2008). Forthe purpose of obtaining evaluation criteria, SMCEexamines stakeholders’ objectives and expectations,trying to avoid as much as possible a technocraticapproach or expert language. As various dimensions

P. Antunes et al.336

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Inst

itutio

nal S

ubsc

ript

ion

Acc

ess]

at 1

2:19

21

July

201

1

are taken into account, the main goal is to find abalance between them, aiming at ‘compromise sol-utions’ (Munda, 1995). Weights in SMCE are under-stood as importance coefficients and not as trade-offs.Aggregation conventions used are non-compensatorymathematical algorithms, meaning that criteria withsmaller weights can also be influential, whichexcludes the complete compensability concept.Additional features are social actor analysis and con-flict analysis (equity matrix for consensus seeking).

The methodology described in this paper combineselements of AHP, namely the hierarchical approach toproblem structuring and the eigenvalue method tocompute weights and alternative rankings, with con-cepts of SMCE in order to develop a participatoryapproach for the multi-criteria evaluation of alterna-tive irrigation management options in the Caia pilotarea in Portugal. Additionally, the SMCE approachwas used to perform an analysis of the positions ofthe different stakeholder groups regarding thealternatives.

Adopted methodology

The proposed approach for MCA combines someelements of SMCE and AHP with the methodologyproposed in Antunes et al. (2006), involving the fol-lowing key stages:

† institutional analysis: actors identification, charac-terization of the legal and institutional framework;

† framing the decision: reaching a commonly agreedproblem statement;

† defining key objectives and criteria: identifyingwhat values matter most to the participants in thisparticular situation;

† establishing alternatives and considering the rel-evant constraints;

† identifying consequences: that is the most impor-tant impacts that can affect the stated objectivesand associated uncertainties;

† evaluating the desirability of the consequencesaccording to the proposed criteria;

† ranking of alternatives applying an aggregationprocedure;

† social impact analysis, discussing the implicationsof each alternative for the main actor groups.

Figure 1 illustrates how these steps are connected andthe intervention of participatory techniques. Theapproach is based on the actors’ involvement through-out the whole evaluation process, namely in theidentification of alternatives, definition of evaluationcriteria, evaluation of results, and revision of alterna-tives and criteria. Various participatory techniques canbe combined, including interviews, participant obser-vation, workshops and in-depth group discussions, inan iterative process. By doing so, the analyst team hasthe opportunity to continuously re-evaluate initiallyestablished objectives, alternatives and criteria.

AHP is used to structure the evaluation process.This is done through the development of a hierarchicalmodel of the decision problem and the computation ofthe criteria weights and alternatives rankings, basedon pairwise comparisons of alternatives and criteriaprovided by the actors. The process is developed in

Figure 1 | Proposed approach to participatory MCASource: Adapted from Kallis et al. (2006); Paneque et al. (2009)

Participatory MCA of irrigation management alternatives 337

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Inst

itutio

nal S

ubsc

ript

ion

Acc

ess]

at 1

2:19

21

July

201

1

a stepwise manner, using participatory workshops (todefine the main objective, alternatives and criteria)and interviews (to determine criteria importancewith respect to the main objective, sub-criteria impor-tance with respect to higher level criteria, and tocompare alternatives regarding each criterion).

This analysis is complemented with an evaluationof alternatives, following the SMCE methodologyprinciples. An actor impact matrix is producedbased on the analysis of the narratives of the differentactor groups regarding each alternative collectedduring the interview process. A final ranking andcomparison of the alternatives is used as a basis fordiscussion with actors in a final workshop.

In the following sections, the results of the appli-cation of this approach to a case study dealing withimproved water use efficiency in irrigated agricultureare presented.

Application of the participatoryMCA framework

The case study: irrigation managementin Caia, Portugal

The Caia River (Portugal) is located near the borderbetween Portugal and Spain (Figure 2). It is a sub-basin (572 km2) of the transboundary GuadianaRiver Basin. The pilot area Aproveitamento Hidroa-grıcola do Caia is located along the Caia River inthe municipalities of Campo Maior (2900 inhab)and Elvas (4337 inhab). The irrigation districtcovers 7271ha, corresponding to the perimeterwhere water reaches by gravity (9000ha, includingalso properties where water can be delivered bypumping). The water source is the Caia reservoir,with a storage capacity of 200million m3. The con-struction of the dam took place between 1963 and1967. Since 1968 water and irrigation infrastructuremanagement has been governed by a farmers’ associ-ation ‘Associacao de Beneficiarios do Caia –ABCaia’, which is responsible for operation andmaintenance of the distribution system from the reser-voir along the irrigation canals to farmers’ properties.ABCaia charges water to farmers and provides techni-cal support on water use and management issues,using information technologies, namely a GIS.

Agriculture represents for most years around 80–90 per cent of total water use. The typical irrigationseason lasts from March/April to October. Otherimportant uses are hydro-electricity production anddownstream release, important in winter (January

and February). Domestic use represents about 10 percent of the total, providing water to Campo Maiorand Elvas.

The distribution system is gravitational and sup-ported by open lined channels. The scheme is com-posed of a main conveyance canal, which close toCampo Maior and Elvas divided into two distributioncanals (about 7km from the dam). Secondary canalsderive from these and further connect to farmers’properties. Two pumping stations support thegravity distribution network. The irrigation networkis operated by a rotation delivery schedule with flex-ible frequency and flow rate and fixed duration(diurnal or nocturnal). Water is delivered on

Figure 2 | Location of the area of interest (Guadiana RiverBasin)

P. Antunes et al.338

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Inst

itutio

nal S

ubsc

ript

ion

Acc

ess]

at 1

2:19

21

July

201

1

demand, depending on farmers’ orders, with one-dayadvance time. Water delivered generally matchesrequests. However, as reported by many farmers, theexisting gravity distribution network leads to signifi-cant water losses by evaporation. Operational lossesare large and on-farm application efficiency seemsto be very poor (water that is not desired flowsthrough the drainage system or is carried over in thecanal). Some farmers have constructed small pondsto temporarily store water for later use, with thepurpose of saving water and decreasing requests, asan adaptation to the characteristics of existing infra-structure. Some farmers pump water to higher plotsand to land outside the irrigation perimeter, whenauthorized by ABCaia. The most typical irrigationtechniques are pivot and drip, depending on thecrops (e.g. maize, wheat and sunflower usually bythe centre pivot system, and tomato and intensiveolive tree cultivation using the drip system).

MCA workflowThe workflow adopted in the MCA process for theevaluation of irrigation management alternatives inCaia comprised the following stages (Figure 3):

Stage 1: decision context and problemframingThe main objective of the initial stage of the processwas to understand the decision context of irrigationmanagement in Caia (institutional, political, social,

ecological and economic). This context is made ofmultiple perceptions, knowledge, values and prefer-ences, which frame the problem. A stakeholder analy-sis report, including a historical timeline of events andthe study of the legal and institutional framework, wasprepared by conducting participant observation,in-depth interviews and consultations, as well asthrough collection of published information fromdiverse sources (Antunes et al., 2008). During thisfirst round of semi-structured interviews, actors wereinvited to express their views about agricultural andwater-related issues, which allowed the mapping oftheir concerns, preferences and values. At the end ofeach interview, participants were asked to identifyother actors they thought should be included in theprocess. The list of the main actors that were activelyinvolved is given in Figure 4.

Stage 2: alternatives and criteriaIn the second step, alternatives and criteria were ident-ified in participatory workshops. Two workshopswere organized at ABCaia headquarters, planned asa one-day (first workshop) and a half-day event(second workshop). The first workshop was attendedby 23 participants, from a total of 40 invited. From thesame number of invitations to the second workshop,19 people participated.

Two objectives were established for the first work-shop: first, to frame the irrigation managementproblem in Caia, taking as a starting point a problem

Figure 3 | MCA workflow

Participatory MCA of irrigation management alternatives 339

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Inst

itutio

nal S

ubsc

ript

ion

Acc

ess]

at 1

2:19

21

July

201

1

statement that was formulated based on informationcollected during the interviews in stage 1; second, togenerate alternatives (problem solutions). At thebeginning of the workshop, participants were guidedthrough the assessment process and the objectives ofthe MCA. In the morning session, they were splitinto ‘round table’ groups of about seven participantsand asked to create a list of the main problems.During the break, the facilitators drafted a jointproblem definition:

Inappropriate irrigation infrastructure results invast water losses and water quality decrease. Highproduction costs, mainly water price increase andlow market yield of cultivated crops, generate adecrease in agricultural water productivity. Weakinstitutional support to technology development/transfer results in low technology uptake byfarmers.

This problem statement served as an introduction forthe afternoon session, where the same groupsworked to propose solutions to the identified pro-blems. Next, the analyst team used this inventory ofsolutions to sketch a preliminary set of alternatives.Alternatives were further analysed and discussedduring the second workshop. Participants wereinvited to eventually identify new alternatives or toreformulate those initially proposed. The followingalternatives were finally established:

Business as usual (BAU). Non-intervention: BAUrepresents the current situation in Caia: the existing dis-tribution system and irrigation scheduling results inwater losses and water quality decrease. The waterordering system, related to the distribution system, iscomplex: irrigation hours are over estimated andthere is no possibility of cancelling water orders. Man-agement rules and differences in water distribution pro-cedures (properties wholly or partly included, oroutside the irrigation perimeter, and users who are notfarmers are paying different prices and have differentwater availability limits) make functioning of thesystem complicated, do not promote efficient wateruse and are not feasible in the long run.

Rehabilitation of the existing irrigation system(REHAB): Increased water use efficiency is achievedby reducing water losses and operational costs. Reha-bilitation of the existing system includes irrigationcanals recovery, construction of water reservoirsalong the irrigation network, watergate automatiza-tion and construction of flow rate balance tanks.Some components of rehabilitation are alreadybeing implemented (e.g. lining of irrigation canals,construction of small water reservoirs) and costs canbe partially supported by farmers.

Modernization/substitution of the existing irriga-tion system (MOD): This alternative implies a shiftto a more advanced irrigation system, namely thesubstitution of the existing distribution system ondemand with a system under pressure.

Adoption of improved irrigation technologies(TECH): This alternative is based on the promotionof technology development and transfer,which could foster agricultural water use efficiency.Technology transfer is connected to the technologycharacteristics: it should be affordable, effective,easy to apply, easy to operate and easy tomaintain with local resources. Activities related totechnology development and technology transferwould be supported by ABCaia and basin authoritiesor by farmers.

Integrated water resources management (IWRM):This alternative assumes an improvement in water gov-ernance in Caia. It accommodates the design of a multi-functional irrigation system in which social, cultural,technical and political capital, as well as skilledfarmers and well-equipped irrigation managers, worktogether to improve water management. Based onthe existing water distribution infrastructure,including traditional and new irrigation technologies,improved relations between administrative bodies,mainly at a local and regional level, better com-munication and information sharing increasedfarmers’ participation in water management andcapacity building (hands-on familiarization with tech-nology and sharing experience between farmers andirrigation managers).

Figure 4 | Main actors in the Caia pilot area

P. Antunes et al.340

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Inst

itutio

nal S

ubsc

ript

ion

Acc

ess]

at 1

2:19

21

July

201

1

Changes in agricultural practices and crop adjust-ment (CROP): This alternative includes integratedcrop and resource management practices, that is,switching from high to low water-consuming crops,improved nutrient management, as well as optimaltiming for planting and harvesting. The implemen-tation of this alternative depends on incentives givento farmers for changing current crops selection, thestate of the Caia reservoir and fluctuation of agricul-tural product prices on world markets.

Alternatives differ in relation to which aspect ofirrigation management is addressed: operational/infrastructural (rehabilitation and modernization),technological (technology transfer to farmers), politi-cal/institutional (integrated water management) andagricultural practices (crop adjustment).

Following the discussion on alternatives, theanalyst team presented a list of 24 possible evaluationcriteria (the full list of criteria is presented in Appen-dix). Participants were asked to select the most rel-evant criteria for evaluation in the Caia case, and todiscuss their importance. Towards the end of thesecond workshop, participants selected the criteria(6) and sub-criteria (13) presented in Table 1 to evalu-ate the alternatives.

Stage 3: evaluation of alternativesThe evaluation proceeded with a second round ofinterviews: interviewees were supplied with a briefingsheet (describing each alternative and the criteria list)and a very simple rating sheet (designed to evaluateeach alternative, showing the criteria and with spacefor the individual ratings and notes). Intervieweeswere asked about the impact of each alternative,whether it meets objectives (explained by criteria),which criteria are the most relevant and how the pro-posed alternative compares to others. Each alternativewas then rated on a scale from very good–good (thealternative has a positive impact, meets objectives),sufficient, to bad–very bad (negative impact) foreach criteria category. Relative importance (priority)of the criteria was ascertained during the interviewsin a pairwise comparison process.

Multi-criteria analysisExpert ChoiceTM 11 software4 was used for organiz-ing and treating information from the MCA evalu-ation process. The priorities assigned to eachalternative and the criteria weights are the result ofthe second workshop and second round of interviews.

Criteria weighting is usually a highly discussed partof MCA, as stakeholders’ values and priorities differ.However, in this case, participants agreed on thecriteria priorities (and disagreed on alternatives evalu-ation; issue further discussed in social impact analysissection, as well as in the discussion section). Figure 5summarizes the priorities assigned to the criteria in theCaia case. The inconsistency ratio is 0.03, which isquite acceptable. Within irrigation system perform-ance, water productivity was considered the most rel-evant sub-criterion, while in economic performancefinancial costs were considered more important thaneconomic productivity of water. Technical and oper-ational feasibility was considered the most relevantsub-criterion within feasibility, followed by politicaland institutional feasibility and then economic feasi-bility. Adaptation and resilience rates are relativelylow, with the security of water supply much moreimportant than flexibility. Surprisingly, social per-formance is the least important criterion for the Caiaparticipants, with employment considered more rel-evant than social equity.

A pairwise comparison of the alternatives was per-formed to determine relative preference with respectto each criterion (e.g. looking at BAU vs. rehabilita-tion: which is preferable regarding water productivityand what is the intensity of preference). Based on thecriteria priorities and the alternatives evaluation

Table 1 | Evaluation criteria for the Caia pilot area

Criteria Sub-criteria

Irrigation systemperformance

Water productivity

Irrigation consumptive usecoefficient

Environmentalperformance

Nitrate pollution

Sustainability of water use

Economic efficiency Economic productivity of water

Financial costs

Social performance Employment

Social equity

Feasibility Technical and operationalfeasibility

Political and institutionalfeasibility

Affordability

Adaptation andresilience

Flexibility

Security and reliability of watersupply

Participatory MCA of irrigation management alternatives 341

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Inst

itutio

nal S

ubsc

ript

ion

Acc

ess]

at 1

2:19

21

July

201

1

regarding criteria, the most preferred alternative,applying the AHP aggregation procedure, is ‘MOD’followed closely by ‘IWRM’. Rehabilitation is ratedrelatively low, with the maintenance of BAU as theworst option.

Using an Expert Choice, performance sensitivitygraph (Figure 6), with criteria on the X-axis, criteriapriorities on the left Y-axis and alternatives prioritiesrelative to each criterion on the right Y-axis, it is poss-ible to see how alternatives perform overall, as well asfor each criterion. ‘Modernization’ performs bestglobally, and is by far the best on irrigation systemperformance, environmental performance, as wellas on adaptation and resilience. ‘Improved water man-agement’ performs best for economic and social per-formance, as well as regarding feasibility. Figure 7shows how these two alternatives compare againstthe decision criteria.

The two preferred alternatives address differentaspects of irrigation management: modernizationcovers the operational problem (water losses due tothe existing distribution system), while integratedwater management relates to the political/institutionaldimension. When thinking in the long term, the effec-tiveness of a system modernization, and its adequate

functioning, depends on adequate management,change in water allocation and pricing rules, andimproved communication among different stakeholdersand governance levels. In this way, the two alternativesmay be considered more as complementary in the longterm, than really alternative courses of action.

A sensitivity analysis was performed to gain aninsight into how alternatives ranking would changewith variations in criteria priorities. For example, asmall increase (from 0.27 to 0.37) in the weight of‘Economic efficiency’ leads to a change in alternativesranking, with ‘Improved water management’ becomingthe most preferred alternative. If the priority of ‘Econ-omic efficiency’ continues to increase (to 0.5), ‘Tech-nology transfer’ becomes the second scoring option.

Social impact analysisAs a complement to the application of AHP to obtaina ranking of alternatives, the discourses of the threemajor actor groups (see Figure 4) were analysed. Aqualitative analysis of actors’ preferences was per-formed, based on information obtained during thesecond round of interviews (16 interviews) withfarmers (7), public officials (4) and researchers/scien-tists (5). Table 2 shows the narratives of the different

Figure 5 | Priority graph for the criteria in Caia pilot, Portugal

Figure 6 | AHP results (performance sensitivity graph)

P. Antunes et al.342

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Inst

itutio

nal S

ubsc

ript

ion

Acc

ess]

at 1

2:19

21

July

201

1

actors regarding the alternatives. Differences in theperceptions of these actors are fundamental in under-standing and characterizing the irrigation manage-ment problem in Caia. Major disagreements inresponses are evident between farmers, public auth-orities and researchers in regard to alternativesREHAB, MOD and IWM. Farmers’ responses werefurther subdivided into two groups, as there was asignificant difference in opinions for some alterna-tives. Positions regarding the alternatives can be sum-marized in the following:

Farmers: There is no uniform perception amongfarmers regarding alternatives evaluation. This isrelated to the fact that some farmers had alreadyinvested in the irrigation system rehabilitation(REHAB) (e.g. by constructing storage ponds ontheir properties). Using their assets and knowledge,these farmers have adapted to the existing situation,adjusting their practices. Aware of water losses withthe current distribution system, they found the wayto save water for later reuse, thus minimizing costs.Understandably, this group of farmers arguesagainst modernization of the system, as costs ofwater and energy are expected to increase, addingto existing costs for repaying rehabilitationinvestments.

Early in 1991 ABCaia developed constructionplans for system modernization (MOD). The majorityof farmers supported ABCaia efforts to substitute thesystem, hoping the problem would be solved in thismanner and for everyone equally. Even thoughABCaia did not receive the expected financialsupport from the water authorities, many of thefarmers (those that did not invest in REHAB) continueto believe that MOD is the only feasible option. Forthem REHAB is not sustainable in the long term,but results in vast water losses and increases the differ-ences among the farmers’ community.

Farmers agree that the IWRM alternative seems tooidealistic and politically unfeasible. They articulatelack of convictions in improved relations among

administrative entities, or increased farmers’ partici-pation in irrigation management.

Public officials: Representatives from public auth-orities coincided in their evaluation of all alternativesexcept on IWM, where their influence and support ismost expected. While some of them believe in thisalternative, others express their doubts, arguing thatthe core of the problem is related to the institutionalsetting as well as lack of communication betweenpublic bodies. Being part of an institutional structure,they are aware of its complexity and difficulty tochange established norms, procedures and regu-lations. Thus, looking back at farmers’ responses,their reasoning and lack of expectations in IWRMseem justified.

Aware of institutional complexity problems, publicofficials defend rather smaller, less costly and compli-cated changes, favouring the REHAB alternative asthe one that can be implemented by farmers them-selves. The MOD alternative on the other hand, andfor the same reasons, is perceived as the least favour-able option.

Researchers: In contrast, and unanimously,researchers defend IWM as being able to promote effi-cient water use and recover Portuguese agriculture; itis perceived as a low-cost alternative able to bringabout large improvement. A further increase inproduction costs (particularly water price) addition-ally emphasizes farmers’ ‘economic rationality’ andcalls for greater farmer involvement in watermanagement.

Scientists were more reserved regarding the twoother alternatives: REHAB and MOD. MOD is ratedeither very positively or very negatively, especiallyregarding costs and employment. Awareness of lackof institutional support for the implementation ofthis alternative additionally contributes to its negativerating. REHAB, although considered feasible, is per-ceived as not having a long-term impact.

An evaluation of the process was performed byemail consultations and telephone interviews, askingparticipants to identify the most positive and negativeaspects of the process, as well as the occurrence of anysignificant changes in opinion during the process.

Discussion

AHP results show that in this case modernization ofthe irrigation system in Caia, implying the substitutionof the existing ‘on demand’ system with a systemunder pressure, is the preferred alternative.

Figure 7 | Head-to-head graph

Participatory MCA of irrigation management alternatives 343

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Inst

itutio

nal S

ubsc

ript

ion

Acc

ess]

at 1

2:19

21

July

201

1

Table 2 | Social impact matrix

Alternatives Actor groups

Farmers Farmers Public authorities Experts/scientists

No investment inrehab

Investment in rehab

BAU Very bad Very bad Bad Very bad

Any change betterthan actual situation

‘If we thought that theproblem does not existand that irrigation inthe Caia perimeterfunctions well wewouldn’t make anyinvestments in thefirst place’

‘Something needs to bedone’

BAU is not profitable.Requires change atseveral levels

REHAB Bad/Moderate Good Very good Moderate/good

Water losses stillremain high

‘It is not very expensiveand it makes a lot ofdifference’

Currently the mostpreferable, combinedwith TECH and CROP

Improves currentsituation, but notsignificantly. Lacks largelong-term impact

It is not sustainablein the long term

‘We have proof thatour upgrades work’

MOD Very good Bad Very bad Moderate

‘If there ismoney . . ..this is theideal solution’

Relevant only in thefuture, 7–8 years, asthis is the paybackperiod of investmentmade

Least favourable option Strong positive impactson water and economicproductivity, but verynegative on costs andemployment

‘We would have highinitial costs, butwater use efficiencymay significantlyincrease’

‘Very expensive andwe doubt the technicalfeasibility of thisalternative’

Complicated, economicallyand politically

Farmers cannot bearcosts

‘This is a step prior tointegrated watermanagement’

Farmers should decideif the system should bechanged or not

Sooner or later it will resultin the same problems iffarmers’ practices do notchange

TECH Moderate Bad Bad

‘If the system does not change radically (MOD)this alternative is useless’

Farmers are already slowlyoptimizing, depending ontheir needs and abilities

Level of technologyadoption is low

‘We do not spend without thinking’ Farmers do not seecurrent water prices tocompensate theapplication of technologiesthat would increase wateruse efficiency

Farmers are slowlyoptimizing, depending ontheir needs and abilities

Continued

P. Antunes et al.344

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Inst

itutio

nal S

ubsc

ript

ion

Acc

ess]

at 1

2:19

21

July

201

1

However, the social impact matrix also shows that thisalternative is rather controversial, as it depends onfunding for the required infrastructure, and shouldinclude improved water governance.

The joint presentation of the alternatives rankingobtained with AHP with the qualitative analysis ofthe different actor groups positions was perceivedby participants in the third workshop (PLEIADeSInfoDay) as very positive: instead of fosteringdispute over one selected alternative, choices areclarified, identifying important conflicts acrossobjectives and among actors from different groups,which is the main source of complexity in thisproblem.

The application of participatory MCA in an actionresearch context, such as the case described herein,

raises two different challenges that we refer to as‘actors challenge’ and ‘analysis challenge’. The‘actors challenge’ is related to the process itself andthe engagement of stakeholders. This participatoryprocess was mainly research driven, which impliesthat research, even though policy relevant, has nodirect link with actual decision-making (Pahl-Wostl,2005). A process developed in this context may leadto the self-exclusion of some actors who questionthe relevance of their participation, and thus introducea bias in the results. The issue of recruitment andrepresentativeness in participatory processes is animportant concern that has been discussed in theliterature (see, for instance, O’Neill, 2001; Davieset al., 2005). The analyst team tried to overcomethis problem by a careful facilitation and organization

Table 2 | Continued

Alternatives Actor groups

Farmers Farmers Public authorities Experts/scientists

No investment inrehab

Investment in rehab

‘Technology can contribute, but farmers willalways follow their intuition’

Farmers are interested inusing advancedtechnologies only whenirrigating has a directinfluence on the quality(and price) of the product

IWRM Very bad Moderate Very good

Unrealistic, too ideal Unrealistic, too ideal Low-cost alternative

Not feasible: implementation is difficult Even thoughimplementation is difficult,alternative is important,and should be combinedwith TECH

Big and fastimprovement: ‘a way torecover our agriculture‘

No improvement in relation to the TECHalternative

Increases significantlyfarmers’ participation inirrigation management

CROP Moderate Moderate Moderate

Does not depend on water use, but on subsidiesand water availability in the Caia reservoir

Does not depend on wateruse but on subsidies andpolicies

Does not depend onwater use, but on marketprice

Additional solution: reduction of the irrigationarea (depends on the property dimension andirrigation systems)

Needs to be combined withother alternatives

Choice of culturesadditionally linked totradition and familyrelations

Needs to be combined with other alternatives Needs to be combinedwith some otheralternative

Participatory MCA of irrigation management alternatives 345

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Inst

itutio

nal S

ubsc

ript

ion

Acc

ess]

at 1

2:19

21

July

201

1

of the process, using various participatory techniques,ensuring continuity, and informing actors beforehandwhat benefits they could expect.

On the other hand, the evaluation of such a processis complex as it cannot be assessed in terms of‘success’ or ‘failure’. The ‘analysis challenge’ isrelated to this concern – how to interpret theresults. As is evident from the literature (Vissohet al., 2007), different interpretations and social con-structions of the problem result in different problemframings and attitudes to problem solving. Still,despite these differences, as long as actors share,or at least accept, each other’s problem definition,learning can occur, in the sense of self-reflectingand changing conceptions (Stoefs and Mathijs,2009). Many outcomes and overall importance ofthe process for the farmers’ community and agricul-tural sustainability have to do with learning, the con-struction of new framings and knowledge networks(Hare et al., 2006).

The results obtained in an MCA process are highlydependent on the way in which the process is con-structed and framed (Munda, 2004), as well as onthe adopted methods for impact evaluation and aggre-gation. The final results and the selection of a pre-ferred alternative often do not demonstrateindividual and collective thinking throughout theprocess. The participatory approach that wasadopted allowed for the perception of the process byparticipants as a process and not as the manipulationof data to obtain a final ranking of alternatives. Allactors have declared that they have learned, referringin particular to having gained a ‘social insight’ into theirrigation management problem. They also stated thatthe process helped them to better understand theproblem, mainly the correlation between economic,environmental and social aspects. Participantsbecame aware of the diversity of valid opinions andcan identify viewpoints expressed in the interestsand framings of other social groups. Now they canfurther think of how to overcome the differences,and how to reach a solution that can satisfy divergentinterests.

The process design ensured regular interactionamong actors. As reported by some farmers, theyhad an opportunity for the first time to speak abouttheir problems and discuss solutions with decisionmakers from regional and national levels. Finally,the use of diversified participatory techniqueshelped keep participants motivated and willing to ded-icate time to the process (especially relevant for thefarmers’ community).

Conclusions

In this paper a framework for participatory MCA ofirrigation management alternatives was developedand tested in a pilot area in Caia irrigation district, Por-tugal. The combination of elements from AHP withSMCE proved to be very fruitful, allowing the useof the hierarchical decision model and analytical frame-work of AHP to structure the problem and evaluatecriteria and alternatives, and apply a social impactanalysis inspired in SMCE concepts to discuss differ-ences between actor groups.

The results obtained enabled the identification andcomparison of the most preferred alternatives and theanalysis of the positions of the different actor groupstowards the different alternatives. Social learning wasan important outcome of the process: participantsacknowledged having gained an improved understand-ing of the problem and of each other’s viewpoints.

One of the main features of this framework is thecombination of different participatory techniques,where individual expression of interests and valuesalternates with workshops of collaborative groupwork between the different actors. In this way, it ispossible to capture individual differences in opinions,while, at the same time, fostering social learning and acommon understanding of sustainability problems.

Acknowledgements

The research presented in this paper was funded by theEuropean Commission under the FP6 program,through the project PLEIADeS – Participatory multi-Level EO-assisted tools for Irrigation water manage-ment and Agricultural Decision-Support (contractGOCE 037095). The authors also wish to acknowl-edge the intense and fruitful collaboration of actorsfrom the Caia pilot area who participated in theMCA process. The supporting role of DGADR(Direccao Geral de Agricultura e DesenvolvimentoRural) and in particular of ABCaia that enabled theestablishment of a trust-based relationship withfarmers and other actors and hosted the participatoryworkshops and other project activities was fundamen-tal to the success of this research. The comments fromfour anonymous reviewers contributed significantlyto improve the paper.

Notes

1. Participatory multi-Level EO-assisted tools for Irrigationwater management and Agricultural Decision-Support,

P. Antunes et al.346

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Inst

itutio

nal S

ubsc

ript

ion

Acc

ess]

at 1

2:19

21

July

201

1

European Commission FP6 Research Project (contractGOCE 037095) www.pleiades.es.

2. Portugal, Spain, Italy, Greece, Turkey, Morocco,Mexico, Peru and Brazil.

3. Eigenvector and eigenvalue are linear algebra concepts.Formally, if A is a matrix, a non-null vector x is an

eigenvector of A if there is a scalar l such that Ax ¼lx. The scalar l is said to be an eigenvalue of A corre-sponding to the eigenvector x.

4. Expert ChoiceTM is a multi-objective decision supporttool based on AHP methodology (www.expertchoice.com).

References

Allan, J. A., 2003, IWRM/IWRAM: A New SanctionedDiscourse?, Occasional Paper 50, SOAS Water Issues StudyGroup, School of Oriental and African Studies/King’s CollegeLondon, University of London.

Ananda, J., Herath, G., 2003, ‘The use of analytic hierarchyprocess to incorporate stakeholder preferences into regionalforest planning’, Forest Policy and Economics 5, 13–26.

Antunes, P., Santos, R., Videira, N., 2006, ‘Participatorydecision making for sustainable development – the useof mediated modeling techniques’, Land Use Policy 23,44–52.

Antunes, P., Santos, R., Karadzic, V., Beca, P., Perdigao, A.,Chinita, A., Chinita, S., 2008, Stakeholder Analysis Report.Caia Case Study, Guadiana River Basin, Portugal. WorkPackage 1 Report, PLEIADeS Project. Faculdade deCiencias e Tecnologia, Universidade Nova de Lisboa.

Arrow, K., Raynaud, H., 1986, Social Choice and MulticriterionDecision Making, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Bana e Costa, C. A. (ed.), 1990, Readings in Multiple CriteriaDecision Aid, Springer, Heidelberg.

Beinat, E., Nijkamp, P. (eds), 1998, Multicriteria Evaluation inLand-Use Management: Methodologies and Case Studies,Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.

Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management inAgriculture, 2007, Water for Food, Water for Life: AComprehensive Assessment of Water Management inAgriculture, Earthscan, London and International WaterManagement Institute, Colombo.

Davies, B., Blackstock, K., Rauschmayer, F., 2005,‘“Recruitment”, “composition” and “mandate” issues indeliberative processes: should we focus on argumentsrather than individuals?’, Environment and Planning C:Government and Policy 23, 599–615.

De Marchi, B., Funtowicz, S., Cascio, S. L., Munda, G., 2000,‘Combining participative and institutional approaches withmulticriteria evaluation. An empirical study for water issues inTroina, Sicily’, Ecological Economics 34, 267–282.

Duke, J., Aull-Hyde, R., 2002, ‘Identifying public preferencesfor land preservation using the analytic hierarchy process’,Ecological Economics 42, 131–145.

Figueira, J., Greco, S., Ehrgott, M. (eds), 2005, Multiple CriteriaDecision Analysis, State of the Art Surveys, Springer,New York.

Gamboa, G., Munda, G., 2007, ‘The problem of windfarmlocation: a social multi-criteria evaluation framework’,Energy Policy 35, 1564–1583.

Gleick, P., 2000, ‘The changing water paradigm. A look attwenty-first century water resources development’, WaterInternational 25, 127–138.

Hare, M. P., Barreteau, O., Beck, M. B., Letcher, R. A., Mostert,E., Tabara, J. D., Ridder, D., Cogan, V., Pahl-Wostl, C., 2006,‘Methods for stakeholder participation in watermanagement’, in: C. Giupponi, A. J. Jakeman, D.Karssenberg, M. P. Hare (eds), Sustainable Management ofWater Resources: An Integrated Approach, Edward Elgar,Cheltenham.

Herath, G., 2004, ‘Incorporating community objectives inimproved wetland management: the use of the analytichierarchy process’, Journal of Environmental Management70, 263–273.

Howell, T., 2001, ‘Enhancing water use efficiency in irrigatedagriculture’, Agronomy Journal 93, 281–289.

Janssen, R., Munda, G., 1999, ‘Multi-criteria methodsfor quantitative, qualitative and fuzzy evaluationproblems’, in: J. van den Bergh (ed.), Handbook ofEnvironmental and Resource Economics, Edward Elgar,Cheltenham.

Kallis, G., Videira, N., Antunes, P., Guimaraes Pereira, A.,Spash, C., Coccossis, H., Corral Quintana, S., del Moral, L.,Hatzilacou, D., Lobo, G., Mexa, A., Paneque, P., Pedregal,B., Santos, R., 2006, ‘Participatory methods forwater resources planning and governance’,Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 24,215–234.

Kiker, G., Bridges, T., Varghese, A., Seager, T., Linkov, I., 2005,‘Application of multicriteria decision analysis inenvironmental decision making’, Integrated EnvironmentalAssessment and Management 1(2), 95–108.

Messner, F., Zwirner, O., Karkuschke, M., 2006, ‘Participationin multi-criteria decision support for the resolution of a waterallocation problem in the Spree River basin’, Land Use Policy23(1), 63–75.

Munda, G., 1995, Multicriteria Evaluation in a FuzzyEnvironment, Theory and Applications in EcologicalEconomics, Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg.

Munda, G., 2003, ‘Between science and democracy: the role ofsocial multicriteria evaluation (SMCE)’, Newsletter of theEuropean Working Group on Multicriteria Aid for Decisions,Series 3, no. 7, Springer.

Munda, G., 2004, ‘Social multi-criteria evaluation:methodological foundations and operationalconsequences’, European Journal of Operational Research158(3), 662–677.

Munda, G., 2008, Social Multi-Criteria Evaluation for aSustainable Economy, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg.

O’Neill, J., 2001, ‘Representing people, representing nature,representing the world’, Environment and Planning C:Government and Policy 19, 483–500.

Pahl-Wostl, C., 2005, ‘Actor based analysis and modelingapproaches’, The Integrated Assessment Journal 5(1),97–118.

Pahl-Wostl, C., Tabara, D., Bouwen, R., Craps, M., Dewulf, M.,Mostert, E., Ridder, D., Taillieu, T., 2008, ‘The importance ofsocial learning and culture for sustainable watermanagement’, Ecological Economics 64, 484–495.

Paneque Salgado, P., Corral Quintana, S., Guimaraes Pereira,A., Moral Ituarte, L., Pedregal Mateos, B., 2009,‘Participative multi-criteria analysis for the evaluationof water governance alternatives. A case study inCosta del Sol (Malaga)’, Ecological Economics 68,990–1005.

Paruccini, M. (ed.), 1994, Applying Multi Criteria Aid forDecision to Environmental Managemen, Kluwer AcademicPublishers, Dordrecht.

Participatory MCA of irrigation management alternatives 347

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Inst

itutio

nal S

ubsc

ript

ion

Acc

ess]

at 1

2:19

21

July

201

1

Pimentel, D., Houser, J., Preiss, E., White, O., Fang, H.,Mesnick, L., Barsky, T., Tariche, S., Schreck, J., Alpert, S.,1997, ‘Water resources: agriculture, the environment andsociety’, BioScience 47(2), 97–106.

Proctor, W., Drechsler, M., 2003, ‘Deliberative multi-criteriaevaluation: a case study of recreation and tourism options inVictoria, Australia’, in: European Society for EcologicalEconomics, Frontiers 2 Conference, 11–15 February,Tenerife.

Saaty, T. L., 1980, The Analytic Hierarchy Process,McGraw-Hill International, New York.

Saaty, T. L., 1990, ‘How to make a decision: the analytichierarchy process’, European Journal of OperationalResearch 48, 9–26.

Stagl, S., 2006, ‘Multicriteria evaluation and publicparticipation: the case of UK energy policy’, Land UsePolicy 23, 53–62.

Stirling, A., 2006, ‘Analysis, participation and power:justification and closure in participatory multi-criteriaanalysis’, Land Use Policy 23, 95–107.

Stoefs, E., Mathijs, E., 2009, ‘Framing as strategy for effectivecommunication about fair trade products in Flanders’,International Journal for Agricultural Sustainability 7(4),223–234.

Urso, G. D., Richter, K., Calera, A., Osann, M. A., Escadafal, R.,Garatuza-Pajan, J., Hanich, L., Perdigao, A., Tapia, J. B.,Vuolo, F., 2010, ‘Earth observation products for operationalirrigation management in the context of the PLEIADeSproject’, Agricultural Water Management 98, 271–282.

Vissoh, P. V., Mongbo, R., Gbehounou, G., Hounkonnou, D.,Ahanchede, A., Roling, N., Kuyper, T. W., 2007, ‘The socialconstruction of weeds: different reactions to an emergentproblem by farmers, officials and researchers’, InternationalJournal for Agricultural Sustainability 5(2&3), 161–175.

Appendix | Complete list of initial criteria, presented at the second workshop in the Caia pilot

Criteria Sub-criteria Units Description

Irrigation systemperformance

Water productivity ton/m3 Relation between biomass (crop) and water supplied

Irrigation consumptiveuse coefficient

Adimensional Relation between water deficit (evapotranspiration –precipitation) and water supplied

Environmentalperformance

Nitrate pollution mg NO3/l Nitrate concentration in surface and groundwater

Water quality mg O2/l BOD of water

Sustainability of wateruse

Adimensional Degree of renewability of the water source (e.g. recharge/withdrawal of groundwater resources)

Erosion risk ton/ha Year Erosion risk in the system – estimated applying theuniversal soil loss equation

Biodiversity Qualitative Flow requirements for downstream ecosystems

Provision of ecosystem services

Soil salinization Qualitative Risk of soil salinization

Economicefficiency

Economic productivityof water

E/m3 Relation between the value of product and the volume ofwater supplied

Financial costs E/year Total costs (i.e. entire irrigation system), includinginvestment costs of infrastructure/technologies(annualized), operation and maintenance costs

Socialperformance

Employment Number ofjobs

Direct and indirect local employment resulting fromimplementation: permanent jobs/temporary jobs (duringconstruction)

Communityparticipation

Qualitative Degree of community acceptance and willingness tosupport alternative implementation, including womenparticipation

Social equity Qualitative Distribution of costs and benefits among different socialgroups

Rural livelihoods Qualitative Effect on changing behaviours and traditional practices.Effects in social networks

Continued

P. Antunes et al.348

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Inst

itutio

nal S

ubsc

ript

ion

Acc

ess]

at 1

2:19

21

July

201

1

Appendix | Continued

Criteria Sub-criteria Units Description

Feasibility Technical andoperational feasibility

Qualitative Technology and equipment availability; fitting into alreadyexisting irrigation infrastructure; ease of application,operation and maintenance; existing skills for operationand maintenance

Political andinstitutional feasibility

Qualitative Degree of institutional complexity for alternativeimplementation

Affordability Qualitative Feasibility from the economic point of view; relationbetween costs and the capacity to pay

Adaptation andresilience

Vulnerability Qualitative Exposure to contingencies and stresses (e.g. climatechange) and the capacity to cope with them viaauto-adjustments

Flexibility Qualitative Capacity of the system to operate satisfactorily underdifferent conditions

Security and reliabilityof water supply

Qualitative Capacity to secure continuous water supply

Participatory MCA of irrigation management alternatives 349

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Inst

itutio

nal S

ubsc

ript

ion

Acc

ess]

at 1

2:19

21

July

201

1