Decision Support Systems in Water Resources

Management
Faridah Othman 1 and Mahdi Naseri 2
1
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Malaya
2
PhD Student of University of Malaya, Academic Staff of University of Birjand
University of Malaya, 50603 Lembah Pantai, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Email: faridahothman@um.edu.my 1
m_naseri20@perdana.um.edu.my 2

Abstract: The methods and technologies for planning and management of water resource systems have matured
over the past decades. However, relatively few of them have been actually and regularly applied in real world
decisional processes. Developing decision support systems for water resource applications is a complicated and
challenging task. The objective of this paper is to study of the application of decision support systems in water
resources management. The paper is divided in three parts. In the first part, the general definition of reservoir and
Decision Support System (DSS) is presented. The second discussion is devoted to a literature review of DSS related
to water resources management. And finally, two case studies of DSS are presented.

Keywords: Decision Support System, water resource, reservoir.

1. INTRODUCTION water supply, low flow augmentation, hydroelectric power

In the early days of system analysis the focus was on
providing tools for optimization, modeling and simulation for
use by experts (Bruen, 2008). In fact water resources system
faced with different problems (environmental, social,
political, and economical) and different people deals water
resources systems operating. Hence, an appropriate methods
and tools are needed to facilitate decision making processes in
water resources planning and management and to provide
support in negotiations with water users.
2. RESERVOIR
The most important elements of complex water resource
systems are reservoirs. They are used for enhancing waters
ability to generate hydropower and for spatial and temporal
redistribution of water quantity and quality.
2.1 Reservoir Characteristics
generation, navigation, and recreation. There is a multitude of
decision problems ranging from determining optimum
reservoir storage capacity to selecting optimal reservoir
operating policies (Simonovic, 1992). Complex mathematical
descriptions need for different problems and conflicting
reservoir purposes.
The decisions variables, objective functions , and
constraints vary for different types of reservoir problems
(Simonovic, 1992). A proper formulation for these problems
need a trade-offs between conservation purpose (municipal
and industrial water supply hydro electric power generation ,
irrigation, etc) and recreation ,flood control and environment
effects reservoir problems are due to uncertainty in
hydrologic parameters.
Reservoir problems contain inherent uncertainty.
Another important characteristic of reservoir inflow and other
hydrologic variables deal reservoir operation. Regarding
above mentioned making decision is one of the most
important Parts of optimal reservoir operations.

By building a dam, storage created may be used water

conservation such as municipal, industrial, and agricultural
________________________________________
:Corresponding Author
Tel. +60172357091 (Mahdi Naseri)
E-mail address: m_naseri20@perdana.um.edu.my

1772
 APIEMS 2008 Proceedings of the 9th Asia Pasific Industrial Engineering & Management Systems Conference
2.2 Reservoir Purposes
Generally, in large multi-purpose reservoir, the total
reservoir storage is divided into three major portions: (1) the
dead storage; (2) the active storage; and (3) the flood control
storage. The active storage capacity is the major source of
different water demands (municipal, industrial, and irrigation
water supply). The flood control storage capacity is used to
conservation of downstream against flood damage by
reduction of flood peaks.
2.3 Reservoir Management and Operations
During the last 30 years one of the most important effort
on water resource studies is the development o optimization
techniques and models for planning and management of
complex water resources systems. These models may involve
hundreds of decision variables and constraints. A set of
feasible solution is determined using those techniques to meet
the objective functions in the mathematical, optimization
model.
3. Decision Support Systems Definitions
The concept of Decision Support Systems (DSS)
emerged in the 1970s when it was proposed for computerized
systems providing assistance in dealing with semi-structured
and unstructured problems (Mysiak et al., 2005).
Development of DSS is closely related to computers. The area
of DSS has expanded by rapid development of computers
technology and related research.
Definitions of DSS in the field of water resources have
provided in different texts and papers and even defined in
different ways depending on the authors point of view (Barsa
and Grusseb, 2008).
The DSS has four primary characteristics: (Mittra, 1986)
1) It helps decision-makers at the upper levels.
2) It is flexible and responds quickly to managers questions.
3) It provides what if scenarios
4) It takes into account the special requirement of decision
makers.
A general definition of DSS was provided as:
Computer-based tools having interactive ,and modeling
characteristics to address specific problems and assite
individuals in their study problems and search for solution of
their management problems (Loucks and Docosta, 1991).
Another definition focus on the main purpose of such
system: the support to decision makers in solving problems
Nusa Dua, Bali INDONESIA December 3rd 5th, 2008
that are poorly or insufficiently structured (Guariso and
Werthner, 1989).
Sprague and Carlson (1982) presented definition of DSS:
interactive computer based system that help decision makers
utilize data and models to solve unstructured problems.
According to bruen (2008), definition of DSS: all
decision on policy and measures requires the system
approach to decision making and a computer-based decision
support system with multi-criteria analyses capability. It must
have access to the best information on available measures and
it must be able to interact with stakeholders and to incorporate
them in the decision analyses.
kok and wind (2003) present a define to DSS as: DSS is
a computerbased system which helps decision makers to
confront ill-structured problems through direct information
with data and analyses models.
According to Simonovic and Bender (1996), specific
requirements of a DSS for sustainable management of water
resources are: problem identification, problem formulation,
adaptability, facilitation, and interaction.
Jamieson and Fedra (1996), declared the aim has been to
develop a comprehensive DSS for river basin planning,
capable of addressing a wide spectrum of issues such as the
following: determining the limits of sustainable development;
evaluating the impact of new environmental legislation;
deciding what, where and when new resources should be
developed; and assessing the environmental impact of water
related developments.
Despite the numerous DSS developed for waters
resources management, the need to further develop decision
support tools in this field is widely recognized.
4. Application of Decision Support System in
Water Resources Management
The decision variables, objective functions, and
constraints vary for different types of reservoir problems.
Reservoir problems contain inherent uncertainty. The random
nature of reservoir inflow and other related hydrologic
variables is another important characteristic of reservoir
analysis. The concept of reservoir reliability is probably one
of the most important aspect involved in making meaningful
decisions regarding reservoir conservation storage and release
policies (Simonovic, 1992). He discussed a decision support
system model namely REZES. REZES, is an intelligent
decision support system for reservoir analysis. In this model
the reservoir analysis process is divided into four major
phase: (1) problem identification and formulation, (2) model
1773
 APIEMS 2008 Proceedings of the 9th Asia Pasific Industrial Engineering & Management Systems Conference
selection, (3) data preparation and computation, and (4)
presentation and evaluation of result.
A decision support system to determine reservoir
releases in an uncertain environment during the dry season
was developed by Huang (1996). This model consists: (1) a
hydrologic model: that forecasts long-term inflows to the
reservoir. (2) An optimization model: dynamic programming
(DP) is applicable to this case to identify feasible solutions.
For a given inflow hydrograph predicted by the
aforementioned hydrologic model, a sequence of releases in
the dry season from reservoir is solved by (DP) where the
releases are decision variable. (3) a fuzzy decision model:
because a solution that is the best in the final choice is of
concern, the fuzzy decision model was linked to the
optimization model through the choice among noninferior
solution.
Simonovic and Bender (1996) declared, evaluation
criteria in decision support systems are usually expressed in a
very abstract form, for example, maximization of net benefits,
minimization of negative environmental effects,
maximization of social well-being of people, etc. Also
Sustainable water-resource management was divided to a
number of semi-structured and non-structured problems by
Simonovic and Bender (1996). A management problem which
can be well formulated in an algorithmic way (a computer
program) is called well structured. Decisions in this case are
straightforward because alternative solutions are known. If
the management problem involves lack of data or knowledge,
non-quantifiable variables, and a very complex description,
then it is called semi- or non-structured.
Reitsma (1996) discussed a decision support systems
(DSS) model on Colorado River. In the case of the Colorado
River, the overall approach has been decomposed into six
aspects or layers. The layers, although sometimes
interacting in very complex ways, separate the management
of the Colorado River into different spheres of influence, each
governed and represented by its own set of authorities.
Perhaps the most powerful set of constraints with which the
Annual Operating Plan (AOP) has to comply is represented
by the legal layer, comprising relevant laws, court decrees
and treaties. These are backed by federal and inter-state
authorities and cannot be changed by AOP participants
themselves.
Araujo, de Abreu et al. (2000) prasnted An important
decision procedure model that is expected when long-term
water stress is found in a certain region: what should be done,
increase water offer (how much, where...), decrease the
demand (how much, where...) or a combination of both? To
help answer that question a Decision Support System (DSS)
Nusa Dua, Bali INDONESIA December 3rd 5th, 2008
was under design: several water offer prices were investigated
as well as some water demand prices. The main water sources
investigated were: bulk surface water, groundwater
(crystalline or sediment bedrock) and reuse water. The first
phase of the DSS design is the base studies phase, when unit
costs for several water offer possibilities are calculated for the
eleven hydrographic regions. The second phase, called
algorithm design, consists on the analysis of the constraints in
the pilot areas, as well as the formal design of the decision
support system itself. The third and last step is the
application.
Novak and Ragsdale (2002) introduced a decision
support methodology for solving stochastic multi-criteria LP
problems and provides an example of how Microsoft Excel
can be used to implement this methodology. The flexibility
provided by Visual Basic for Applications (VBA), allows
developers and practitioners to write code directly in Excel
modules and worksheets using the Visual Basic editor
included with Excel. VBA statements can be written to
perform both complex and simple mathematical functions and
formatting within an Excel workbook.
The Environmental Impact Assessment procedure can be
formalized in a five-stage toward decision support system as
follow, (1)Indicator specification: the strategic goals are
translated into operational criteria and the latter into physical
and economical indicators, which can be then quantitatively
computed. The operational criteria reflect concerns and
priorities of the stakeholders, they should be defined by
interacting with them. (2) Model identification: the
components (catchments, reservoirs, channels, water users,
etc.) associated with a given structural configuration of the
water system are described by mathematical models. (3)
Alternative identification: all the feasible structural and/or
normative actions are first quantified and then combined in all
possible way. (4) Alternative evaluation: for each alternative,
the values of the indicators are assessed by simulating the
behavior of the system. (5) Alternative comparison and
negotiation: the preference systems of the stakeholders are
identified. Then, the alternative proposals are compared
according to multi-attribute and negotiation aid techniques.
All these actions help the decision maker to select a
compromise decision (Soncini-Sessa et al., 2003).
Quinn and Hanna (2003) described the development of a
comprehensive flow and salinity monitoring system and
application of a decision support system (DSS) to improve
management of seasonal wetlands in the San Joaquin Valley
of California. The rationale for developing a DSS was to
provide a set of analytical tools that assist in computation of
The Grassland Water District wetland water requirements,
1774
 APIEMS 2008 Proceedings of the 9th Asia Pasific Industrial Engineering & Management Systems Conference
estimation of wetland salinity load in seasonal wetlands and
in the selection of best management practices.
Simon et al. (2004) compared two decision support
system models which are designed to obtain a clear decision.
Nine scenarios were characterized by four indicators: 1- (Q)
reduction of the discharge in a river section, 2- (P) difference
of phosphorus from target concentration, 3- (N) concentration
of total nitrogen, and 4- (S) short-term pollution. Participation
of the stakeholders is implemented in two ways. First by a
weighting scheme of the indicators, which implements the
stakeholders defined importance of indicators in the process
of decision making. Second, by the selection of a preference
function for each indicator. The preference function maps the
range of indicator values to the interval [0, 1].
Chandramouli and Deka (2005) developed a decision
support model (DSM) using the artificial neural networks
(ANN) for optimal operation of a reservoir in south India. The
DSM developed is a combination of a rule based expert
system and ANN models, which are trained using the results
from deterministic single reservoir optimization algorithm. A
simulation model uses the rules derived by the different
DSMs according to users choice for every fortnight. The
selected DSM that is linked to the simulation model will give
the decision for the release during that time period.
Decision support system has been developed since the
1970s to help tackle semi-structured and unstructured
decision problems. Despite their popularity, the success of
DSS development is uncertain and many computerized
decision-support tools have failed when dealing with complex
and unstructured problems (Mysiak et al., 2005) They
described the development methodology and progress of
mDSS, a decision support system model for water resource
management, namely MULINO. This DSS model consist of
three part, the first prototype of mDSS (mDSS1) implemented
the user interface, In the second mDSS release (mDSS2),
decision methods dealing (at a simple level) with preference
uncertainty and the aggregation of group preferences, and The
final decision (choice) may be analyzed through numerical
and visual approaches.
Quinn, Jacobs et al. (2005) designed a decision support
system and implemented over the next three years to assist in
the control and management of episodes of low dissolved
oxygen (DO) in a Deep Water Ship Channel (DWSC), located
near Stockton, California. The DSS integrates three
information technology functions. The first part is the
collection and management of data on flow, pollution loads
and water quality. The second part is the simulation model
which can forecast critical dissolved oxygen depletion in the
DWSC and determine management actions necessary to
Nusa Dua, Bali INDONESIA December 3rd 5th, 2008
improve dissolved oxygen concentrations. The third part is
the graphical user interface, which facilitates the computer
simulations and posting of the forecasted dissolved oxygen
and remedial measures to a stakeholder group for
implementations. The purpose of the GUI is to assist
stakeholders who make operational decisions, manipulate
icons or menu options that represent application software,
files containing data, and/or operating system commands.
Pallottino et al. (2005) applied the scenario analysis
framework to water resources problems and investigate its
effectiveness with respect to traditional approaches. Scenario
analysis can model many real problems where decisions are
based on an uncertain future, whose uncertainty is described
by means of a set of possible future outcomes, called
scenarios. Their proposal is to embed an evolution of the
water resources scenario analysis tool into a DSS that allows
in depth investigation of the robustness of the solution and, if
necessary, refinement of decisions. Moreover, the proposed
DSS allows weight tuning phases that the water resources
manager can use to refine the relative importance that he
should assign to each single scenario.
Bruen (2008) briefly traced the on-going movement of
decision support methodology and the associated computation
tools from a position in which they were complex and
required specialist users and stand-alone computers to a
position in which the complexity is hidden behind easy-to-use
Graphical User Interfaces. He believe the classical paradigm
for such a systematic approach to decision making contains
the following five steps: 1) Definition of objectives 2)
Establish measures of effectiveness 3) Generation of
alternatives 4) Evaluation of alternatives 5) Decision or
recommendation.
Barsa and Grusseb (2008) presented a method based on a
participatory approach involving a decision support system
and a simulation game to improve discussions between
stakeholders and to facilitate the emergence of acceptable
compromise solutions. They identified three main actors in
the study zone who had different interests: the dam
administrator, who had to balance his accounts and is
interested in water consumption and water pricing; the
manager of the sugar factory, who was interested in the
quantity of sugar beet produced; and finally, the farmers, who
were interested in improving their income. In addition,
extension services provided data collected at the farm level
that corresponded to more intensive production. To facilitate
negotiation between the three actors, they established
different scenarios with different cropping plans and different
levels of intensification.
1775
 APIEMS 2008 Proceedings of the 9th Asia Pasific Industrial Engineering & Management Systems Conference

5. Case studies

Two case studies as examples have been selected for

presentation: 1) management of the water resources system of
Athens using DSS, and 2) DSS for optimal management of
irrigated area in Tunisia. The case studies are intentionally
short to avoid exceeding of the article.

5.1 Case study 1

5.1.1 Description of the problem

A DSS study was done by koutsoyannis et.al. (2003) for

management of the water resource system of Athens. The
Athenss water resource system is a complex system. The
system covers an area of around 4000 km2 and includes
surface water and ground water resources. In this area there is
four reservoirs, 15 pump station, more than 100 boreholes and
four water treatment plants (WTP).
The main objective of the system is to provide water to
the Greater Athens area through the four WTP. Each WTP
serves one subarea of Athens. The water demand of Greater
Athens increase annual. Due to a long period of drought and
facing to the water deficit the government forced to take sever
measures in order to reduce water consumption. A
considerable increase in the water price, some management
measures reduced water consumption by a third. Fig. 1: The components of the DSS for the management of the
The water resource system also supplies other uses such Athens water resource system. (Koutsoyiannis et al.,
as agricultural and water supply to nearby towns and 2003)
environment demand of river. The normal operation of the
water resource system relies to several decisions, which are
concerned with different allocations to the demands from the The model can give answers to questions such as the
different reservoir or groundwater resources and conveyance fallowing:
of water through the different conduit branches. Hence What is the maximum total withdrawal from the
operation rule curve and optimal water allocation schedule is hydro system, for a given hydrologic regime and a
needed. given reliability level?
What is the minimum failure probability in
5.1.2 DSS components and application achieving a given set of operational goals, for a
given hydrologic regime?
The DSS for the management of the Athens water What is the minimum cost to achieve a given set of
resource system consists of several components. Three of the operational goals, for a given hydrologic regime and
basic components, namely the database, the GIS, and the a given reliability level?
telemetric system compose the information subsystem of the What are the consequences of modifications in the
DSS. Two other components, the stochastic hydrologic hydro system, and the impacts of different
simulator castalia and the hydro system simulator and management policies or hydro climatic scenarios?
optimizer hydronomys, contain the models of the DSS How could the system respond to unusual events
(Fig.1). The DSS procedure steps are as fallow: such as conduits damages or an intense increase of
1) Stochastic simulation and forecasting of hydrologic inputs. water demand for a specific period?
2) Simulation and optimization of the hydro system.

Nusa Dua, Bali INDONESIA December 3rd 5th, 2008

1776
 APIEMS 2008 Proceedings of the 9th Asia Pasific Industrial Engineering & Management Systems Conference
Simulation
The system simulation model represents the operation of
the hydro system in an accurate manner, handling all physical
constraints and trying to satisfy the operational targets that are
imposed from the manager of the system. Applying model, a
number of operational targets can be defined by the user from
one of the following categories:
Water consumption targets (water supply, irrigation
etc,).
Minimum flow preservation and maximum flow in
selected aqueducts and time periods.
Minimum and maximum reservoir storage.
In this stage decision maker can impose different decision and
run the model, if the result do not satisfy operational targets,
the manager can change and manipulate the parameters.
Optimization
Knowing the desired release values may not be sufficient
for the specification of all systems flux variables because the
flows in the network can be conveyed via multiple paths, each
one having a different cost. Therefore, a flow allocation
problem arises, demanding to strictly satisfy all the physical
constraints of the system, handling all the operational targets
according to a predefined priority series and minimize the
total water conveyance cost. Fig. 2 shows the flow chart of
the optimization process.
Fig. 2: Flow chart of the optimization process. (Koutsoyiannis
et al., 2003)
5.2 Case study 2
5.2.1 Description of the problem
A DSS model for optimal management of irrigated area
in Tunisia was developed by (Bars and Grusseb, 2008).
Nusa Dua, Bali INDONESIA December 3rd 5th, 2008
Tunisia is located on the southern shore of the Mediterranean
Sea and the Tunisia government is especially concerned about
water management because it is reaching the limits of its
resources. In the past, the Tunisian government invested
heavily in irrigation and today its main efforts are focused on
improving management of its irrigated area. It should be
noted that, in an irrigated area, with the disappearance of
subsidies and a slight increase in the price of water, farmers
incomes decrease. In the study area, the cultivation of sugar
beet was formerly encouraged. This crop is a big water
consumer with no competitive production costs. The total area
under sugar beet was 4900 ha and comprised 1500 farmers. In
such a system, the interests of the different actors
(administration, sugar factory, dam manager and farmers)
diverge over time. Administration wants to increase sugar
production and improve water availability. Dam
administrators must manage the water resources and restrict
use to avoid shortages and to obtain satisfactory revenues.
The sugar factory must ensure its supply of sugar beet.
Farmers want a better income. The Tunisian government
prefers to valorize water resources in a more general way. To
build a negotiation framework for production choices in
accordance with water availability, different potential
solutions have to be evaluated before searching for negotiable
solutions. To facilitate the dialogue between the different
stakeholders, Olympe model was used to design an area
model to simulate different scenarios.
5.2.2 DSS components and application
Olympe software (Attonaty et al., 2005) can integrate
both economic and technical aspects (e.g. crop management)
of farm operations and externalities (e.g. nitrate leaching).
Modeling with Olympe (Le Bars and Snoeck, 2007) enables
the consequences of different scenarios envisaged by the
farmer or by the authorities to be forecast (Fig. 3). Using a
model that simulates the consequences of certain aspects of its
management enables the model to learn and modify or
confirm its decision parameters. Consequently, it can evaluate
the relevance of its parameters with regard to its projects and
to the future development of the farm concerned. This tool
allows us:
To obtain a database on operating systems;
To evaluate the consequences of investing in,
getting rid of, or adding an input/output per crop, a
change in a crop schedule, a change in crop
management, etc;
To enter unknown factors in the simulation and to
assess the consequences of unforeseen events for the
1777
 APIEMS 2008 Proceedings of the 9th Asia Pasific Industrial Engineering & Management Systems Conference
results of the project (price fluctuations, climatic
factors, changing market trends).
Fig. 3: Modeling under Olympe and co-construction of the
model. (Bars and Grusseb, 2008)
The Olympe software allows groups of farms to be
constructed by a matrix made of the number of farmers
classified as one type. The simulator acts by highlighting the
impact of changes on the crops or management methods but
does not allow the strategies and courses of action of the
various stakeholders to be represented. In order to model the
complete operation of the system, it is important to
understand and formalize the stakeholders rules for decision-
making as well as the laws that govern these rules. the
different types of years were qualified, not only by rainfall
amount but also by the water resources available in the dam.
In order to allocate frequencies to these years, rainfall records
for 33 years were analyzed. Three main actors in the study
zone who had different interests were identified: the dam
administrator, who has to balance his accounts and is
interested in water consumption and water pricing; the
manager of the sugar factory, who is interested in the quantity
of sugar beet produced; and finally, the farmers, who are
interested in improving their income. In addition, extension
services provided data collected at the farm level that
corresponded to more intensive production. To facilitate
negotiation between the three actors, different scenarios with
different cropping plans and different levels of intensification
were established.
Scenario 1: intensification in sugar beet cultivation.
The sugar factory plays an important role in this region
and is trying to increase sugar beet yield. Different more
intensive techniques are known but require more water, and
this presents problems. Different scenarios with increasing
Nusa Dua, Bali INDONESIA December 3rd 5th, 2008
levels of intensification were simulated. The summary results
reveal the advantage of intensification for the sugar factory
and for the water supplier, who both increase their revenues.
However, the water supplier faces the risk of not being able to
provide the amount of water needed every year. In contrast,
farmers who are obliged to intensify their crops do not benefit
from their efforts as their income increases very little.
Scenario 2: sugar beet is no longer grown.
Following the first simulations, the farmers and the dam
administrator questioned the interest of continuing to grow
sugar beet. To this end, with local agronomists lists of
different crop rotations including pulses and field vegetables
were drew up. The results, showed a considerable decrease in
water consumption. The dam administrator is interested in
this solution because his income is slightly lower and he can
consider selling water to other irrigated zones. Farmers are
also interested as they discover that not growing sugar beet
does not decrease their income very much. The results of
these simulations demonstrated the interest of intensification.
Scenario 3: consequences of different levels of intensification
Two levels of intensification with different cropping
plans were simulated. The results showed the interest of
intensifying or no longer growing sugar beet for the dam
manager and for farmers. To survive, the sugar factory has to
increase sugar beet prices, but cannot do so without
decreasing its production costs or receiving a big grant-in-aid.
The increase in sugar price would entail a loss of its outlets.
Scenario 4: sensitivity of price variations.
The above-mentioned results were directly produced by
the model. But they were based on price hypotheses and are
therefore questionable. Another simulator function to perform
a sensitivity analysis was used: the gross product from other
crops was progressively decreased until the results achieved
with sugar beet were reached. This analysis showed that for
the different intensive variants the sensitivity is weak: the
gross product has to be reduced by 3145% with
intensification to obtain the same income as with sugar beet.
For an outside observer, the results seem clear; sugar beet
should no longer be grown. In practice, the decision is
incumbent upon the local actors: the model only offers
elements for negotiation. It is based on a farm typology and a
detailed analysis. The design of a global model of the zone
and its validation by comparison to existing global data
showed the limits of individual interviews and
complementary interviews concerning the actual cropping
areas and irrigation practices were in fact required. Once this
model was satisfactorily validated, it was interrogated, and
1778
 APIEMS 2008 Proceedings of the 9th Asia Pasific Industrial Engineering & Management Systems Conference
informed the different actors of the progressive consequences
of changes in crop rotation and in levels of intensification.
REFERENCES
ARAUJO, J. C., DE ABREU, C., DOELL, P.,
HAUSCHILD, M. & BARBOSA, C. (2000) Basis for a
Decision Support System (DSS) forWater Resources
Management in Brazilian Semi-Arid. German-Brazilian
Workshop on Neotropical Ecosystems Achievements and
Prospects of Cooperative Research. Hamburg.
BARS, M. L. & GRUSSEB, P. L. (2008) Use of a
decision support system and a simulation game to help
collective decision-making in water management. computers
and electronics in agriculture, 62, 182189.
BARSA, M. L. & GRUSSEB, P. L. (2008) Use of a
decision support system and a simulation game to help
collective decision-making in water management. computers
and electronics in agriculture, 62, 182189.
BRUEN, M. (2008) Systems Analysis a new
paradigm and decision support tools for the water framework
directive. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 12, 739
749.
CHANDRAMOULI, V. & DEKA, P. (2005) Neural
network based decision support model for optimal reservoir
operation. Water Resources Management, 19, 447-464.
GUARISO, G. & WERTHNER, H. (1989)
Environmental decision support system, Chichester, U.K.,
Ellis Horwood Limited Publishers.
HUANG, W.-C. (1996) Decision support system for
reservoir operation. Water Resources Bulletin, 32, 1221-1232.
JAMIESON, D. G. & FEDRA, K. (1996) The 'Water
Ware' decision support system for river basin planning. 1.
Conceptual design. journal of Hydrology, 177, 163-175.
KOK, J.-L. D. & WIND, H. G. (2003) Design and
application of decision-support systems for integrated water
management: lessons to be learnt. Physics and Chemistry of
the Earth, 28, 571-578.
Nusa Dua, Bali INDONESIA December 3rd 5th, 2008
KOUTSOYIANNIS, D., KARAVOKIROS, G.,
EFSTRATIADIS, A., MAMASSIS, N., KOUKOUVINOS,
A. & CHRISTOFIDES, A. (2003) A decision support system
for the management of the water resource system of Athens.
hysics and Chemistry of the Earth, 28, 599-609.
LOUCKS, D. P. & DOCOSTA, J. R. (1991)
Decision support system: Water resources Planning, Berlin,
Germany, Springer-Verlag.
MITTRA, S. S. (1986) Desision support system:
Tools and techniques, New York, U.S.A., John Wiley &
Sons.
MYSIAK, J., GIUPPONI, C. & ROSATO, P. (2005)
Towards the development of a decision support system for
water resource management. Environmental Modelling &
Software, 20, 203-214.
NOVAK, D. C. & RAGSDALE, C. T. (2002) A
decision support methodology for stochastic multi-criteria
linear programming using spreadsheets. Decision Support
Systems, 36, 99-116.
PALLOTTINO, S., SECHI, G. M. & ZUDDAS, P.
(2005) A DSS for water resources management under
uncertainty by scenario analysis. Environmental Modelling &
Software, 20, 1031-1042.
QUINN, N. & HANNA, W. (2003) A decision
support system for adaptive real-time management of
seasonal wetlands in California. Environmental Modelling &
Software, 18, 503-511.
QUINN, N., JACOBS, K., CHEN, C. W. &
STRINGFELLOW, W. T. (2005) Elements of a decision
support system for real-time management of dissolved oxygen
in the San Joaquin River Deep Water Ship Channe.
Environmental Modelling & Software, 20, 1495-1504.
REITSMA, R. F. (1996) Structure and support of
water-resources management and decision-making. Journal of
Hydrology, 177, 253-268.
SIMON, U., BRUGGEMANN, R. & PUDENZ, S.
(2004) Aspects of decision support in water management
example Berlin and Potsdam (Germany) I- spatially
differentiated evaluation. Water Research, 38, 1809-1816.
SIMONOVIC, S. & BENDER, M. (1996)
Collaborative planning-support system: an approach for
1779
 APIEMS 2008 Proceedings of the 9th Asia Pasific Industrial Engineering & Management Systems Conference

determining evaluation criteria. Journal of Hydrology, 177,

237-251.

SIMONOVIC, S. P. (1992) Reservoir system

analysis: closing gap between theory and practice. Journal of
Water Resources Planning and Management 118, 262-280.

SONCINI-SESSA, R., CASTELLETTI, A. &

WEBER, E. (2003) A DSS for planning and managing water
reservoir systems. Environmental Modelling & Software, 18,
395-404.

SPRAGUE, R. H. & CARLSON, E. D. (1982)

Building effective decision support system, Englewood Cliffs,
NJ, USA, Prentice-Hall.

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES

Faridah Othman is a senior Lecturer in Department of Civil

and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering at
University of Malaya. She received a Doctoral Degree from
the University of Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK in 2001. Her
field of specialization is computational and environmental
hydraulics, flood and urban drainage, water supply and
distribution network, and river modeling. Her email address is
faridahothman@um.edu.my

Mahdi Naseri is a PhD student in Department of Civil and

Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering at
University of Malaya and academic staff of University of
Birjand His email address is
m_naseri20@perdana.um.edu.my

Nusa Dua, Bali INDONESIA December 3rd 5th, 2008

1780