Water Resour Manage (2012) 26:33793393

DOI 10.1007/s11269-012-0077-2

Identifying the Criteria Set for Multicriteria Decision

Making Based on SWOT/PESTLE Analysis: A Case
Study of Reconstructing A Water Intake Structure

Zorica Srdjevic & Ratko Bajcetic & Bojan Srdjevic

Received: 8 March 2011 / Accepted: 17 May 2012 /

Published online: 30 May 2012
# Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Abstract This paper proposes an approach for defining the criteria set required for multi-
criteria decision making. An approach is developed for a specific class of water management
problems, and a SWOT/PESTLE analysis is recommended for identifying the internal and
external factors that influence a given water system. The factors are grouped into six
categories: political, economic/financial, social, technical, legal, and environmental (PES-
TLE), and separated afterwards according to their positive or negative influence on the
system. All factors are filtered by a proposed elimination algorithm to identify the non-
inferior factors and declare them as candidates for inclusion into the criteria set. An approach
is applied to the real-life problem of how to define the criteria set and enable the selection of
the optimal reconstruction solution of a water intake structure within a regional hydro-
system in Vojvodina Province, Serbia. To verify the developed approach, an independent
expert is invited to asses all factors identified by the SWOT/PESTLE analysis using the
analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and to rank factors by order of preference. The outcome is
satisfactory because the seven top-ranked factors from AHP completely matched the list of
factors derived from the elimination algorithm.

Keywords SWOT/PESTLE analysis . Elimination algorithm . AHP . Water intake structure

1 Introduction

Strategic planning and management in water management requires the making of many
decisions based primarily on more or less conflicting criteria. Single-criterion optimization is
almost never applicable, and in many instances, multicriteria analysis using the related
optimization tools is required to reach the best solutions. Instead of helplessly searching
for rigorous optimality, pragmatic approaches are developed to search for the best

Z. Srdjevic (*) : B. Srdjevic

University of Novi Sad, Novi Sad, Serbia
e-mail: srdjevicz@polj.uns.ac.rs

R. Bajcetic
Public Water Management Company Vode Vojvodine, Novi Sad, Serbia
3380 Z. Srdjevic et al.

(compromise) solutions. Compensational and not-compensational methods, utility theory,

and other multicriteria instruments are employed to compare alternative solutions across a
given criteria set aimed at reaching the solution that best satisfies the stated goal or goals.
Recently, a structured methodology on how to define the decision-making problem along
with a consistent organization for the decision-making process is a must, and this require-
ment is commonly fulfilled by scientifically verified methods and mathematical tools.
Selecting the decision-making criteria is essential and the most sensitive part of multi-
criteria analysis. Criteria directly influence which alternative is recognized as the best.
Interesting to note is that in pertinent water resource literature, there is not a respectful
scientific coverage of an issue; that is, how to derive which criteria are really relevant to the
decision-making process. In fact, the literature review shows that there is no defined,
scientifically verified, methodology for analyzing and selecting the decision criteria in the
water resource planning and management business. This paper proposes an approach for
how to determine the decision-making criteria: it presents a description of the suggested
methodology based on a combination of SWOT and PESTLE analyses, the two well-known
methods for strategic planning, and discusses the outcomes of its implementation in a real-
life situation; that is, determining the non-inferior set of criteria to be used in a decision-
making process that is aimed at selecting the best technical alternative for reconstructing the
water intake structure within a regional hydro-system in Serbia.
The structure of this paper is the following. After the introduction, Section 2 presents a brief
overview of the SWOT and PESTLE methods. The methodology for identifying the candidate
impact factors derived from the combined SWOT/PESTLE method, and the algorithm for
identifying a non-inferior set of factors is described in Section 3; the non-inferior set of factors
is considered the criteria set for conducting multicriteria analysis and optimization in search of
the best action to improve the overall performance of the analyzed system. Section 4 presents a
case study application of the methodology, and Section 5 gives the concluding remarks.

2 SWOT and PESTLE AnalysisBrief Overview

SWOT analysis derives its name from the words strengths (S), weaknesses (W), opportuni-
ties (O), and threats (T). S and W are related to internal factors, and O and T represent system
interactions with an environment. S are positive, and W are negative internal factors.
Opportunities are external factors that have a positive interaction with the system, while
the negative effects to the system environment represent Threats to the system. The result of
the SWOT analysis is a list of factors that can be used for further analysis and for selecting
the decision criteria in the multicriteria analysis of a water management system.
The primary use of SWOT is in the identification of strategic options by linking internal
and external factors that influence the observed system (i.e. the water management system).
Early SWOT applications during the 1960s and 70s in the United States are known for
assisting in making business decisions solely in the field of economics. Today, SWOT
applications are more related to the interaction of the observed system and its environment
and to the decision-making processes where the global goal is defined, while decisions are
expected to be evaluated in the yes or no form. SWOT is also used in situations when it is
necessary to make a decision in a short period of time; in such cases, it is agreed in advance
that the decision maybe is not the best, but is acceptable for implementation.
SWOT is applied in different fields of water management as reported in pertinent literature
for various case studies. For example, SWOT is used to highlight the chances for improving
agricultural water management in irrigated river basins (Molden and Oweis 2007), to identify
A Case Study of Reconstructing A Water Intake Structure 3381

the need to quantify and adapt to water scarcity (Rijsberman 2006), to analyze the potential of
simulation models that contribute to the solution of relatively complex problems in irrigation
and drainage science (Bastiaanssen et al. 2007), and to identify the strengths and weaknesses of
Serbian water management policies (Bajcetic 2008). SWOT is also used as a part of the
combined methodology for transboundary river basin management (Mylopoulos et al. 2008).
The most recent applications include SWOT analysis to derive the objectives and constraints for
optimal water resource management of the Lower Litani River, Lebanon (Doummar et al. 2009)
and for planning of a large dam project (Wasimi 2010).
To overcome the disadvantages of a SWOT analysis indicated by Hill and Westbrook
(1997), and Menon et al. (1999), various modifications of the analysis are suggested. One of
the more popular modifications is the SWOT/PESTLE analysis (Fig. 1) in which the factors
influencing a given system are grouped into six categories: Political, Economic, Social,
Technological, Legal and Environmental (PESTLE). The synergy between SWOT and
PESTLE provides an extensive and more accurate analysis of a complex system and its
multidimensional interaction with the environment. For example, Vorthman (2008) argues
that SWOT serves to recognize the positive and negative internal and external factors of a
system, but that it is necessary to use PESTLE for any further analysis of these factors. An
interesting application of SWOT/PESTLE is given in (Sunje et al. 2010); where SWOT is
used for the analysis of internal factors, and PESTLE for the analysis of the system environ-
ment. Synergy between SWOT and PESTLE is reported also in (Mugabi et al. 2007) for the
strategic planning of water resource use in developing countries, and in (Grigg 2005) for the
analysis of water quality in distributed systems.

3 Identifying Candidate Factors for Criteria

SWOT, PESTLE, and SWOT/PESTLE are usually realized in two global steps. The first step
commonly analyzes the system and recognizes the influence factors, and the second step

Fig. 1 SWOT/PESTLE analysis

3382 Z. Srdjevic et al.

provides recommendations for improvement of the system performance, i.e. how to increase
strengths, eliminate weaknesses, take advantage of all opportunities, and reduce threats. The
methodology proposed in this paper focuses only on the first step. For improvement of the
system performance (the second step), an approach could use multicriteria analysis and
optimization, and rely on the identified best compromise alternative or set of top ranked non-
inferior alternatives; however, this option is out of scope here.
The two major pillars of a developed approach are: a) a detailed SWOT/PESTLE analysis
to identify the factors influencing a given system, their impacts, and their positive or
negative effects on the system; and b) the eliminating algorithm that analyzes the factors
derived by SWOT/PESTLE and identifying a non-inferior set of factors, which are the
candidates for inclusion into a criteria set for further multicriteria analyses (in the second
step of global methodology). The eliminating algorithm is structured not only to enable the
decision-maker to have consistent reasoning about the SWOT/PESTLE factors, but also to
consider their impacts and functional connections with the alternative-solution candidates to
be assessed by multicriteria analysis.
Pillar #1: Identifying the factors by SWOT/PESTLE analysis
A procedure for recognizing the factors that influence a water management system is
graphically presented in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2 Defining the influencing factors with the SWOT/PESTLE analysis

A Case Study of Reconstructing A Water Intake Structure 3383

It comprises the following activities:

Factors are clustered according to the type of influence: PESTLE analysis.
PESTLE factors are divided by SWOT analysis into two clusters, and identified as
internal and external factors according to the domain of their influence on the system.
Both the internal and external factors can have a positive or negative impact on the system.
The final list of factors along with identification of the positive or negative impact on
the (water management) system is defined.

The final list of factors is separated into:

& positive (+) internal (i) factors: political (Pol,i,+); economic (Ec,i,+); social (Soc,i,+);
technological (Tech,i,+); legislation (Leg,i,+) and environmental (Env,i,+)
& negative () internal (i) factors: political (Pol,i,); economic (Ec,i,); social (Soc,i,);
technological (Tech,i,); legislation (Leg,i,) and environmental (Env,i,)
& positive (+) external (e) factors: political (Pol,e,+); economic (Ec,e,+); social (Soc,e,+);
technological (Tech,e,+); legislation (Leg,e,+) and environmental (Env,e,+)
& negative () external (e) factors: political (Pol,e,); economic (Ec,e,); social (Soc,e,);
technological (Tech,e,); legislation (Leg,e,) and environmental (Env,e,).
Pillar #2: Identification of non-inferior factors (candidates for a criteria set)
Factors identified by the SWOT/PESTLE analysis represent the possible criteria for multi-
criteria analysis. Because the number of factors can be large, a question arises whether all
factors should be included in the criteria list. One of the approaches is to favor the factors that
can increase opportunities and decrease weaknesses in the system. From the domain standpoint,
factors whose effects are more certain should be preferred when making a criteria list.
Following this logic, it is opportune to identify non-inferior factors within a complete set
of factors obtained by the SWOT/PESTLE analysis. A structure of the eliminating algorithm
that analyzes the complete set of factors is given in Fig. 3. The algorithm filters the original
factor list and outputs the factors that are candidates to become criteria for later multicriteria
assessment and evaluation of alternatives.
The first eliminatory condition is whether there is interdependence between the alterna-
tive solutions, that is interdependence between the decision alternatives for a given factor. If
there is no interdependence, the factor should be excluded from the candidate list. If there is
interdependence, next to be checked is whether the factor has a constant value for the
different alternatives. If that is the case, the factor will not be important in multicriteria
analysis because, following the Shannon entropy theory (Shannon and Weaver 1947),
alternatives do not emit information useful for decision making through that particular factor
(criterion). For example, if all alternative solutions for reconstructing the water intake
structure imply the same or very similar energy consumption at the pumping stations, power
consumption should not be selected as a non-inferior factor, and consequently will not enter
the candidate criteria list.
Also, if the factor has a different value for only one alternative and has the same or a very
close value for the others, it can be deducted from the candidate list. Inclusion of such a
factor would result in favoring or disqualifying the alternative with a different value
compared to the others. A similar favoring or disqualifying situation happens when only
two values for a given factor appear for all alternatives.
Following the described elimination principles, the non-inferior factors can be divided
into qualitative and quantitative factors. Those with a positive effect on the system should be
selected as maximizing criteria, while factors with a negative effect should be included in the
3384 Z. Srdjevic et al.

Fig. 3 Elimination algorithm for selecting non-inferior factors as candidates for the criteria set

subset of minimizing criteria. If a qualitative factor cannot be mathematically formalized, it

is either scaled to receive a numerical value or simply deleted from the criteria list. If
possible, the qualitative factor can be further separated into sub factors of having a positive
or negative impact, and be selected as maximizing or minimizing criterion according to the
impact.
The final stage in defining the criteria set is to set a measuring system for the factors
(criteria). Certain factors (criteria) are directly measurable. For example, the technical factor
defined as power generation or energy consumption per unit of delivered water volume is
described in metric units, while investment, the aggregate price or operating costs that are
examples of economic factors (criteria), is described in monetary units.
A Case Study of Reconstructing A Water Intake Structure 3385

In some cases, the candidate criteria do not have measurement units, and different
approaches are applicable, such as using binary answers (yesno; 10; worksdoes not
work), applying probabilities, or using absolute or relative scales for scoring.
To verify the described method for identifying the candidate list of the SWOT/PESTLE
factors that will be used as a criteria set in further analyses of alternative solutions to the
problem, we recommend using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) (Saaty 1980). With the
help of AHP logic, the initial set of factors can be assessed within each of the six global
categories of PESTLE factors (political, economic, social, technical, legal and environmen-
tal) to derive the local priorities of factors within a category. By evaluating the importance of
the categories, again with the help of AHP, the final synthesis produces factor utilities and
enables a ranking of all factors. The comparison of the top ranked factors (derived by AHP)
and non-inferior factors (derived by the elimination algorithm) is straightforward.
The verification procedure based on the AHP method is simple, because the factors are
clustered into PESTLE categories, and pair-wise comparisons are performed only for one
category at a time. Worthy to mention is that a pair-wise comparison of PESTLE categories
can be avoided if a direct weighting of categories is done, assuming that the weights sum to
one.

4 Case Study Application

The proposed approach is applied to a real decision-making problem: to identify the criteria
set for multicriteria assessment of several reconstructing technical solutions aimed to
improve the water intake structure in Bezdan, Vojvodina Province, Serbia.

4.1 Description of the Severna Backa Regional Hydro-System

Irrigation in the Severna Backa region in Vojvodina Province (Serbia) can be improved by
constructing/reconstructing the Severna Backa regional hydro-system. The eastern part of
the system can be supplied with water from the Tisza River by means of the two existing
pumping stations (PS), PS-Adorjan and PS-Ada. The western and southern part will take
water from the Danube River via the Danube-Tisza-Danube hydro-system (Fig. 4).
The water intake structures for the western and southern part of the region are located
near two small cities, Bezdan and Bogojevo. The canals of PrigrevicaBezdan and Vrbas
Bezdan are supplied by two water intake structures near the Bezdan canal node. The water
intake from the PrigrevicaBezdan channel (see the lower zone, Fig. 5) consists of the canal
gate Bezdan and PS-Bezdan 4 that is planned to be built near the canal gate. This water
intake structure will supply water to users directly from the Danube-Tisza-Danube system.
The water intake structure of the Vrbas-Bezdan canal (see the upper zone, Fig. 5) is
planned to be built on the most upstream part of the Vrbas-Bezdan canal, i.e. near the canal-
Danube River junction. This water intake is of interest in this case study application.
According to the strategy for developing irrigation in Vojvodina Province, it is necessary
to ensure that 84 m3/s of water will be available for irrigating 210,000 ha in the Backa
region. Additional water demands are defined in the project of constructing the regional
hydro-system for Severna Backa. After completion of the system, it will supply an additional
64 m3/s of water for irrigating 148,000 ha of new land on the Telecka plateau. Out of the
total amount of water to be taken, 35 m3/s would be supplied by the VrbasBezdan canal.
Presently, it is possible to pump 12 m3/s by PS-Bezdan 2; therefore, the water deficit is
23 m3/s.
3386 Z. Srdjevic et al.

Fig. 4 Water supply of Severna Backa regional hydro-system

4.2 Alternative Water Intakes

The water deficit that exists in the system could be provided directly and indirectly
from the Danube River (the water regime is favorable during the vegetation period,

Fig. 5 Upper and lower zone of the Bezdan water intake

A Case Study of Reconstructing A Water Intake Structure 3387

Fig. 6 Possible direct and indirect intakes for the Severna Backa regional hydro-system

because there are high water levels in July and August) from the following locations
(Fig. 6):
a) Baracki Dunavac is connected with the Danube River, 600 m upstream from the Bezdan
lock, and there are two pumping stations, PS-Bezdan 1 and PS-Bezdan 2. Baracki
Dunavac supplies the existing pumping stations with water, but does not have a
sufficient cross-sectional area nor sufficient depth for the necessary discharge of water.
b) Direct water intake on the Danube River could be designed for even higher return
periods than required. Setting the pumps with a variable peak in the bed of the Danube
River ensures their operation in different conditions, including extreme and hazardous.
The possible location of new pumping stations is immediately upstream from the
Bezdan canal lock. This canal lock can also be considered as a possible direct water
intake, because it is located next to the junction of the VrbasBezdan canal and the
Danube River.
c) PS-Bezdan 1. Revitalisation of PS-Bezdan 1 assumes digging the supply canal,
increasing the canals cross-sectional area, construction work on the pumping
station, construction of the water intake, electrical and mechanical installations,
and purchase of generators and equipment for the pumping station and transform-
er station. The estimated total price for the PS-Bezdan 1 revitalization is 1,25
106 . The construction of a new pumping station is also planned near the
existing one. The new pumping station should use the same supply canal and
transformer station as the old one. The total price for constructing the new
pumping station is estimated to be 1,18106 .
d) PS-Bezdan 2. For revitalization of PS-Bezdan 2, it is planned to dig the supply canal,
increase the cross-sectional area, lower the level of the pumping position by depleting
the canal bed, and increasing pumping from 12 m3/s to 15 m3/s. The estimated price for
achieving this is 0,645106 .
e) PS-Bezdan 3. This is a new pumping station to be constructed upstream of the Bezdan
lock. The price for construction work and necessary equipment is estimated to be 3,86
3388 Z. Srdjevic et al.

106 . The operating level of this pumping station will provide intake of water even
during the 20-year return period of low flows.
f) Bezdan Lock. This lock has a double upstream gate, which is presently out of order. To
meet the target flow of 6 m3/s, it is necessary to fully reconstruct both segments of the
gate. The reconstruction is economically justified only if the whole facility is recon-
structed, with an estimated total price of 1,30106 . Regarding the water intake, the
Bezdan lock should be used for about 70 days in the JuneAugust period when irrigation
activities are most intense.

4.3 SWOT/PESTLE Analysis

Technically and technologically, the Bezdan water intake structure is a water system represented
by objects and pumping facilities, management policies, technical standards, and rules of
operation. From a legal and economic standpoint, the system respects the legal norms, regula-
tions, and laws; and operates in a complex market environment, has costs, and can make a profit.
The environment of the system is represented by the systems users, various activities
related to the system, local authorities, society, and human resources that will or will not
benefit from the system.
The PESTLE analysis identified and systematically divided all relevant factors into two
groups: internal and external. The SWOT analysis defined whether the factors have positive,
negative, or both effects on the system, as presented in Table 1.

4.4 Identifying the Non-inferior Set of Factors by Use of an Elimination Algorithm

All factors given in Table 1 are analyzed with the algorithm presented on Fig. 3. Several
examples illustrate its application. The filtering process applied to the political factors
showed that changes to the development policy within the system may affect significantly
the Bezdan water intake system. However, because changes in the development policy will
have almost the same effect no matter which alternative is chosen, this factor was considered
as an inferior one and excluded from the list of candidate criteria. A similar reasoning also
excluded the factor related to the influence of the EU, especially of the countries in the
Danube basin, on the Danube River area of protection and management. The influence of the
Gornje Podunavlje natural reserve stakeholders is different for different reconstructing
alternatives. This factor is considered as non-inferior and is included in the list of candidates
to be adopted as criteria.
A detailed analysis followed by filtering the factors from Table 1 through the algorithm
resulted in a list of seven relevant factors:
1. The Influence of the Stakeholders in the Gornje Podunavlje Natural Reserve (e,)
2. The Price of Constructing and/or Reconstructing the System (i,)
3. The Maintenance Costs of the Bezdan Water Intake Structure (i,)
4. The Maintenance Costs of the Danube-Tisza-Danube and Regional Hydro-System (e,)
5. The need to reduce the amount of mud in the water intake structure, the Danube-
Tisza-Danube network, and the regional hydro-system (i,e;+)
6. The Increase of Dissolved Oxygen in the Water (e,+) and
7. The Changes of Global Conditions, Level of Protection, and Boundaries of Protected
Areas (e,)
In later analyses, these factors are adopted as a criteria set. The minimizing criteria were
factors 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7. The factors 5 and 6 are declared to be maximization criteria. Worthy
A Case Study of Reconstructing A Water Intake Structure 3389

Table 1 Internal and external factors affecting the water intake system Bezdan

SWOT Internal factors Impact External factors Impact

P Change of development policy within +, Influence of the stakeholders in the

the system
E Change of economic conditions within +,
the system
Price of constructing and/or
reconstructing the system
Maintenance costs of the Bezdan
water intake structure
S Change of social conditions within the +,
system
Increase in the number of employees
in the system
Raising the educational level of
employees in the system
T Capacity of the system
Quality of the construction
Qualification level of employees
L Changes in the internal legislation
Compliance and enforcement of the
legislation
E Reducing the amount of mud in the
water intake structure, the Danube-
Tisza-Danube network, and the
regional hydro-system
Gornje Podunavlje natural reserve
Influence of EU and especially +,
countries in the Danube basin on the
Danube River area of protection and
management
Global and local changes in economic +,
conditions
Economic development of system +
environment under the influence of the
system
Development of new activities in +
environment
Maintenance costs of the Danube- +
Tisza-Danube and regional
hydro-system
Global and local social changes +,
+ Social development of the local +
community
+ Prevention of population loss related to
migration
Increase in the number of employees in +
local communities
Improvements in education of the local +
community population
+ General technical and technological +,
+ changes
+
+, General changes in legislation +,
+
+ Increase of dissolved oxygen in the +
water
Changes of global conditions, the level
of protection, and boundaries of the
protected areas
Impact of pollutants on ecosystems,
land, water, and air
Noise impact on flora and fauna
Violation of the visual scenery of the
Gornje Podunavlje natural reserve

0 negative impact
+ 0 positive impact

to mention is that in the case where the factor has both a positive and negative influence, it is
important how this impact is mathematically modeled. For example, the external influence
of the Gornje Podunavlje natural park stakeholders on the water intake structure can be
3390 Z. Srdjevic et al.

understood as criterion to be minimized; on the other hand, if this impact is understood as an

opportunity for the local staff to control the structure operation, then related criterion should
be maximized.

4.5 Verification with the AHP

The results obtained by the SWOT/PESTLE analysis and the application of the filtering
algorithm, represented by the list of factors/possible criteria, are compared with an analogous
list derived by an independent expert who used the AHP method to evaluate the complete list
of SWOT/PESTLE factors. Credibility of experts opinion is assumed because expert has a
long and rich experience in water structure design and construction, as well as the managing
experience. The modified procedure presented in (Kurttila et al. 2000) is used by the
decision maker, and an interesting result is obtained.
In the first step, the expert compared in a pair-wise manner the PESTLE global categories
of factors (political, economic, social, technical, legal, and environmental). Saatys scale is
used to judge semantically the mutual importance of categories, and the eigenvector method
is applied to elicit their weights. The results presented in Table 2 show that the top scoring
group of factors is environmental, followed by the economic and political groups. The other
categories are, in the experts opinion, significantly less important.
In the second step, the expert made pair-wise comparisons of the factors within each
PESTLE category, and by the eigenvector method, the local weights of factors within the
categories are computed. The final global weights of factors shown in Table 3 are computed
following the standard AHP weighting synthesis, i.e. by multiplying the categories weights
by the local factors weights.
The seven most important factors (with the highest global importance weights) for the
construction/reconstruction of the Bezdan water intake system, according to expert opinion,
are:
1. Increase of dissolved oxygen in the water (0.187)
2. Reduction in the amount of mud in the water intake structure, Danube-Tisza-Danube
system, and regional hydro-system (0.128)
3. Influence of the Gornje Podunavlje natural reserve stakeholders (0.110)
4. Maintenance costs related to Danube-Tisza-Danube and the regional hydro-system
(0.101)
5. Maintenance costs of the Bezdan water intake structure (0.067)
6. Change in definition, level of protection, and boundaries of protected areas (0.062)
7. Price of constructing and/or reconstructing the system (0.055)

Table 2 Importance weights for

the PESTLE categories of factors PESTLE category Importance weights

Political 0.147
Economic 0.279
Social 0.052
Technical 0.044
Legal 0.032
Environmental 0.445
A Case Study of Reconstructing A Water Intake Structure 3391

Table 3 Global weights of PESTLE factors

PESTLE Category PESTLE factors Local Global

category weights weights weights
of factors of factors

Political 0.147 Change of development policy within the system 0.171 0.025
Influence of the stakeholders in the Gornje Podunavlje natural reserve 0.750 0.110
Influence of EU and especially countries in the Danube basin on the 0.078 0.011
Danube River area of protection and management
Economic 0.279 Change of economic conditions within the system 0.059 0.016
Global and local changes in economic conditions 0.033 0.009
Price of constructing and/or reconstructing the system 0.199 0.055
Economic development of the systems environment under the influence 0.080 0.022
of the system
Maintenance costs of the Bezdan water intake structure 0.242 0.067
Development of new activities in the environment 0.023 0.006
Maintenance costs of the Danube-Tisza-Danube and regional 0.363 0.101
hydro-system
Social 0.052 Change of social conditions within the system 0.049 0.002
Global and local social changes 0.024 0.001
Increase in the number of employees in the system 0.325 0.017
Social development of the local community 0.034 0.001
Raising the educational level of employees in the system 0.097 0.005
Prevention of population loss related to migration 0.171 0.009
Increase in the number of employees in local communities 0.220 0.011
Improvements in the education of the local community population 0.080 0.004
Technical 0.044 Capacity of the system 0.571 0.025
General technical and technological changes 0.062 0.002
Quality of construction 0.257 0.011
Qualification level of employees 0.110 0.004
Legal 0.032 Changes in internal legislation 0.178 0.005
General changes in legislation 0.058 0.002
Compliance and enforcement of the legislation 0.763 0.024
Environment 0.445 Reducing the amount of mud in the water intake structure, the 0.288 0.128
Danube-Tisza-Danube network, and the regional hydro-system
Increase of dissolved oxygen in the water 0.420 0.187
Changes of global conditions, level of protection and boundaries 0.140 0.062
of protected areas
Impact of pollutants on ecosystems, land, water, and air 0.088 0.039
Noise impact on flora and fauna 0.034 0.015
Violation of visual scenery of the Gornje Podunavlje natural reserve 0.030 0.013

All seven top ranked factors match the list of non-inferior factors (possible criteria)
obtained by the methodology based on SWOT/PESTLE and the elimination algorithm.
The only difference is that the verification procedure based on the AHP methodology, unlike
the previous one, indicates a mutual importance of factors, which, if normalized to sum to
one, can be directly used in further multicriteria analyses.
In general case of AHP application, next step would be to assess all six alternative water
intakes across seven top ranked factors to select the optimal solution. This is however out of
scope of the paper and would not be further elaborated.
3392 Z. Srdjevic et al.

5 Conclusions

Identifying a relevant set of criteria to be used for assessing alternatives and selecting the
most desired one is one of the most important issues in any multicriteria analysis and
optimization. However, in the water sector, there are numerous factors that internally and
externally affect the planning, design, staging, and control of any given water system. One of
the most common problems is making the decision of which technical solution to adopt for
constructing or reconstructing the multipurpose water intake facilities within a hydro-
system. In this paper, we propose an approach to this problem based on the identification
of the external and internal factors that influence the planned actions within a given water
system. The approach is based on a SWOT/PESTLE analysis of the systems interactions
internally and within its environment. To take into account all aspects of the problem, factors
are grouped according to the domain of their effects: political, economic/financial, social,
technical, legal, and environmental. The factors are further clustered according to their
positive or negative influence on the system. Once listed, all factors are critically evaluated
by the developed algorithm to obtain a candidate set of factors that may be used as the
criteria set in later multicriteria analyses aimed at selecting the best among different
alternatives.
The proposed approach anticipates relevant influences within the system and from the
system environment, and leads to an unbiased adoption of the criteria set to be used at later
stages of the decision-making process. The real case study of selecting the optimal construction
and reconstruction alternative for the Bezdan water intake structure in Serbia is used to illustrate
the concept. To check the validity of the results obtained, all factors identified by the SWOT/
PESTLE analysis are evaluated independently by the invited expert in water structure design
and construction. The AHP methodology is applied to compute the global categories weights,
local factors weights, and to synthesize all information into the final ranking of all factors. The
top ranked seven factors completely matched the list produced by combined use of the SWOT/
PESTLE analysis and the elimination algorithm. Therefore, the approach suggested in this
paper can be considered as being justified. Worthy of mention is that the presented approach is
more efficient than ranking the SWOT/PESLE factors with the AHP; in fact, the expert
performed a relatively large number of pair-wise comparisons (91 in total), but for proof-
of-concept purposes, this effort has also been justified.

Acknowledgements This work was supported in part by Serbian Ministry of Education and Science and
Provincial Secretariat for Science and Technological Development of Vojvodina Province.

References

Bajcetic M (2008) Water management economy in publicprivate partnership. Prometej, Novi Sad
Bastiaanssen WGM, Allen RG, Droogers P, DUrso G, Steduto P (2007) Twenty-five years modeling irrigated
and drained soils: state of the art. Agric Water Manag 92:111125
Doummar J, Massoud MA, Khoury R, Khawlie M (2009) Optimal water resources management: case of
Lower Litani River, Lebanon. Water Resour Manag 23:23432360
Grigg NS (2005) Institutional analysis of infrastructure problems: case study of water quality in distribution
systems. J Manag Eng 21:152158
Hill T, Westbrook R (1997) SWOT analysis: its time for a product recall. Long Range Plan 30:4652
Kurttila M, Pesonen M, Kangas J, Kajanus M (2000) Utilizing the analytic hierarchy process_AHP.in SWOT
analysisa hybrid method and its application to a forest-certification case. For Policy Econ 1:4152
A Case Study of Reconstructing A Water Intake Structure 3393

Menon A, Bharadwaj SG, Adidam PT, Edison SW (1999) Antecedents and consequences of marketing
strategy making. J Mark 63:1840
Molden D, Oweis TY (2007) Pathways for increasing agricultural water productivity. In: Molden D (ed) Water
for food, water for life, a comprehensive assessment of water management in agriculture. Earthscan,
London, pp 279314
Mugabi J, Kayaga S, Njiru C (2007) Strategic planning for water utilities in developing countries. Util Policy
15:18
Mylopoulos Y, Kolokytha E, Kampragou E, Vagiona D (2008) A combined methodology for transboundary
river basin management in Europe. Application in the NestosMesta catchment area. Water Resour
Manag 22:11011111
Rijsberman FR (2006) Water scarcity: fact or fiction. Agric Water Manag 80:522
Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New York
Shannon CE, Weaver W (1947) The mathematical theory of communication. The University of Illinois Press,
Urbana
Sunje A, Causevic E, Ahmetspahic E, Cero E, Hodzic S (2010) Development strategy of ZenicaDoboj
Canton for period 20102020, Forma, Zenica, Bosna i Hercegovina (in Bosnian)
Vorthman RG Jr (2008) Toward best-practices program management. Sigma 8. Noblis, Falls Church
Wasimi SA (2010) Planning for a large dam project: the case of Traveston Crossing dam. Water Resour Manag
24:29913015
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.