2.2.6. Final Criteria Weights

Following Step 3, each stakeholder determines the importance degree for each selected criterion using linguistic variables (see Appendix B, Table A5). The linguistic variables are fuzzified and defuzzified. The defuzzified weights of the criteria in viewpoints of the stakeholders are presented in Figure 7.


**Figure 7.** The defuzzified weights of the selected criteria in each individual stakeholder's viewpoint.

Finally, the criteria are weighted based on the entropy method. According to Step 4, the stakeholders' power weights are determined by using linguistic variables, which are finally defuzzified. Consequently, the final criteria weights in the individual stakeholders' viewpoints are presented in Figure 8.


**Figure 8.** The final weights of the selected criteria in each individual stakeholder's viewpoint.

The final criteria weights in the group viewpoint are represented in Figure 9.

**Figure 9.** The final weights of the selected criteria in the group viewpoint.

2.2.7. Decision Matrix (Evaluation Matrix)

Regarding Step 5, the decision matrix is formed for evaluating the five water strategies with respect to the 10 selected sustainable criteria (see Table 6). The decision matrix elements are common among the six stakeholders. In the decision matrix, each evaluation value is the influence of implementing each water strategy on each criterion, which is obtained from MODSIM modeling outputs report [81], the data related to the hydrologic report [75], the hydrogeologic and budget reports [76,86], the socioeconomic report [77], and the several demands reports [71,78–80] (see the data source in Table 6). Accordingly, the evaluation matrix of the water strategies with respect to the sustainable development criteria for the Kashafroud watershed is presented in Table 7 (see Appendix C, Table A6).


**Table 7.** Evaluation matrix of the water strategies with respect to the criteria for the Kashafroud watershed.

It is noticeable that, in the decision matrix, some of the criteria, including *C*<sup>3</sup> , *C*<sup>4</sup> , *C*5, *C*7, *C*9, and *C*10, are positive (*C*+), and the other criteria, including *C*<sup>1</sup> , *C*<sup>2</sup> , *C*6, and *C*8, are negative (*C*−).

#### **3. Results**

#### *3.1. Risk Analysis-Based Scores of the Water Strategies*

According to Step 6, the decision matrix is first normalized; then, the weighted normalized decision matrix is formed for each of the stakeholders. Regarding Step 8, the weighted normalized decision matrix associated with each stakeholder is applied to implement the external risk analysis-based aggregation process. The scores of strategies in each stakeholder's viewpoint are calculated in several risk-taking cases. The results are presented in Figures 10 and 11 for the two risk-taking cases of completely risk-averse and completely risk-prone standpoints.

**Figure 10.** Scores of the water strategies in each stakeholder's viewpoint (satisfying all criteria).

**Figure 11.** Scores of the water strategies in each stakeholder's viewpoint (satisfying at least one criterion).

Following Step 9, the scores of water strategies in the viewpoint of a group of stakeholders are calculated based on the two types of EMOWA and IMOWA operators. Figures 12 and 13 represent the scores of strategies in each group viewpoint in several risk-taking attitudes, based on the EMOWA and IMOWA operators, respectively:

**Figure 12.** The external modified ordered weighted averaging (EMOWA) scores of the Kashafroud water strategies in the group viewpoint for the risk cases.

**Figure 13.** The internal modified ordered weighted averaging (IMOWA) scores of the Kashafroud water strategies in the group viewpoint for the risk cases.

#### *3.2. Group Consensus Measurements of the Water Strategies*

Regarding Step 10, the consensus measurements of water strategies in the viewpoint of a group of stakeholders are calculated based on the Euclidean Minkowski's distance-based method two types of EMOWA and IMOWA operators. According to the group decision-making amongst the stakeholders of the Kashafroud watershed, the TLA index is selected as the linguistic variable of "slightly high", which equals a numerical value of 0.800. Accordingly, the consensus measurement of each water strategy is compared with the numerical value of TLA.

Figures 14 and 15 represent the consensus measurements of water strategies in a group viewpoint in the several risk-taking attitudes, based on the EMOWA and IMOWA operators, respectively. The TLA of 0.800 is represented by the dashed line.

**Figure 14.** The EMOWA group consensus measurements of water strategies in the risk cases.

**Figure 15.** The IMOWA group consensus measurements of water strategies in the risk cases.

#### *3.3. The Final Ranking of the Water Strategies*

Finally, according to Step 11, the watershed strategies are ranked based on the group scores calculated by the two types of EMOWA and IMOWA operators in the several risk-taking cases, presented in Table 8. Additionally, the number of criteria that are satisfied in each case are specified [13].


**Table 8.** The final ranking of water strategies for the Kashafroud watershed in the risk-taking cases.

#### **4. Discussion**

Discussion about the results of the risk-based consensus-based GDSS modeling for the Kashafroud urban watershed is illustrated in four subjects, including 1—importance degrees of the criteria in the viewpoints of the group of stakeholders, 2—scores of water strategies in each stakeholder's viewpoint and the group of stakeholders' opinions, 3—group consensus measurements for the strategies, and 4—final ranking of the water strategies.

According to the results of criteria weights in group viewpoint (Figure 9), the stakeholders' group assigned the most weight to the criteria *C*<sup>7</sup> and *C*1, respectively. In the viewpoint of the group, the priority of the criterion *C*<sup>7</sup> (purified sewerage ratio) in comparison with the other criteria shows that utilization of purified wastewater for some agricultural demands could reduce its withdrawal from groundwater resources, which instead be used to supply the increasing urban potable demand. Additionally, the relative priority of *C*<sup>1</sup> (water stress) emphasizes the importance of a close ratio between water withdrawal and renewable water resources in a semi-arid climate in order to control the withdrawal from other water resources. On the other hand, the group of stakeholders assigns the least weight for the criterion *C*<sup>8</sup> (potable water losses), because the criterion *C*<sup>8</sup> has no significant effect on water stress in comparison with the other factors.

Regarding the results related to the scores of water strategies in each stakeholder's viewpoint (Figures 10 and 11), in the completely risk-averse case, each stakeholder desires to select the strategy that satisfies all criteria. In this conservative viewpoint, half of the stakeholders choose the strategy *S*<sup>3</sup> as the more desirable strategy. These stakeholders have the supply management approach with an emphasis on utilization of purified wastewater for agricultural irrigation and dependency on water transfer from the Doosti Dam. Vice versa, in the completely risk-prone standpoint, each stakeholder desires to select the strategy that satisfies at least one criterion. Therefore, in this nonconservative standpoint, half of the stakeholders choose the strategy *S*<sup>4</sup> as the more desirable strategy. These stakeholders have just the demand management approach while considering the water transfer from the Doosti Dam. As it is expected from the risk analysis results, the scores of strategies in each stakeholder's viewpoint in the completely risk-prone viewpoint (completely optimistic viewpoint) are greater than the scores in the completely risk-averse viewpoint (completely pessimistic viewpoint). The completely optimistic viewpoint emphasizes on a fully positive and fully nonconservative approach of each stakeholder, while the completely pessimistic standpoint emphasizes on a fully negative and a fully conservative approach of each stakeholder.

With respect to the results of the group scores of water strategies (Figures 12 and 13), the group scores of strategies are increased from the completely risk-averse viewpoint to the completely risk-prone standpoint. Risk-averse cases have a conservative viewpoint and emphasize a pessimistic approach from stakeholders in the GDSS process, while the risk-prone cases have a nonconservative standpoint and emphasize an optimistic approach from stakeholders. For several risk-taking cases, the trend of changes for EMOWA scores is almost the same as the trend of changes for IMOWA scores, except for the completely risk-averse case. According to the EMOWA results, in the completely risk-averse viewpoint, strategy *S*<sup>3</sup> is selected as the more desirable strategy by the group. On the other hand, in the completely risk-averse viewpoint of the IMOWA results, strategy *S*<sup>5</sup> is chosen as the more desirable strategy by the group. It means that, for the Kashafroud watershed, the completely risk-averse viewpoint of the EMOWA operator emphasizes a supply management approach with dependency on water transfer from the Doosti Dam, whereas the completely risk-averse viewpoint of the IMOWA operator emphasizes a combined supply-demand management approach with no dependency on water transfer from the Doosti Dam. On the other hand, in accordance with the EMOWA and IMOWA results, in the completely risk-prone standpoint, strategy *S*<sup>4</sup> is chosen as the more desirable strategy by the group. For this watershed, the completely risk-prone viewpoint of the EMOWA and IMOWA operators emphasizes a demand management approach with dependency on the water transfer from the Doosti Dam.

Following the results of group consensus measurements (Figures 14 and 15), the consensus measurements of all water strategies in several risk-taking cases are higher than the selected TLA, except for the strategy *S*<sup>3</sup> in the completely risk-averse viewpoint (which has a consensus measurement with a really small distance to the selected TLA of 0.800). Therefore, a final group agreement amongst the stakeholders was reached. Additionally, according to the results of Figures 14 and 15, it is observed that the group consensus measurements have an increasing trend from a completely risk-averse viewpoint to a completely risk-prone standpoint. It is therefore more difficult to achieve group consensus by satisfying all criteria by the water strategies in the completely risk-averse viewpoint than accomplishing a group consensus by satisfying just one criterion by the strategies in the completely risk-prone standpoint. In addition, changing the Minkowski's parameter of *q* from 1 to infinity, the deviation and conflict between the individual and group viewpoints about the water strategies increased, which caused a decrease of group consensus measurements on strategies. After the achievement of the group consensus, the final ranking of water strategies can be implemented to determine the more desirable strategy in several risk-taking cases in both the EMOWA and IMOWA operators.

Consequently, according to the results of group scores achieved by the EMOWA and IMOWA operators, the final ranking of water strategies is determined in several risk-taking cases (Table 8). Regarding the EMOWA results, in the three risk-prone cases, the strategy *S*<sup>4</sup> is selected as the more desirable water strategy. In the neutral risk and the two risk-averse cases, the strategy *S*<sup>5</sup> is chosen as the more desirable strategy. Additionally, in the completely risk-averse case, the strategy *S*<sup>3</sup> is selected as the more desirable strategy. In accordance with the IMOWA results, in the three risk-prone cases, the strategy *S*<sup>4</sup> is selected as the more desirable water strategy, while, in the neutral risk and the three risk-averse cases, the strategy *S*<sup>5</sup> is chosen as the more desirable strategy.

#### **5. Conclusions**

In modeling the GDSS for effective urban watershed management, there are numerous stakeholders and beneficiaries with several opinions and preferences that should be used to evaluate water strategies with respect to sustainable development criteria for selecting the more desirable water strategy. The stakeholders' group may have several risk-taking attitudes, each of which risk-taking cases is related to satisfying the number of criteria by water strategies. The risk-taking attitudes vary from a completely risk-averse viewpoint to a completely risk-prone standpoint. The completely risk-averse viewpoint (completely conservative opinion) believes that all criteria should be satisfied by water strategies, while the completely risk-prone standpoint (completely nonconservative opinion) believes that at least one criterion can be satisfied by strategies. The other risk-taking attitudes are expressed between these two limited risk-taking cases. Accordingly, for analyzing the effect of risk-taking cases on the selection of the more desirable water strategy, the risk-based consensus-based GDSS model should be developed for effective urban watershed management.

In this research, in order to select the more desirable water strategy for the Kashafroud watershed, the risk-based EMOWA and IMOWA operators were proposed in the two types of external and internal aggregations to calculate the group scores of water strategies with respect to the criteria. These operators consider the importance degrees of criteria, the risk-taking degrees of the stakeholders' group, and the stakeholders' power weights simultaneously. Additionally, the group consensus-seeking process was implemented based on the weighted Minkowski's method, in which the group consensus measurements for strategies have been calculated using the squared mean deviation between the individual and group viewpoints of stakeholders. Finally, the ranking of the water strategies was determined in several risk-taking attitudes of the group of stakeholders with respect to the EMOWA and IMOWA scores for the strategies.

Therefore, the proposed methodology, including the main phases of water strategies' scoring, group consensus measuring, and the water strategies' ranking, was successfully developed for the study area of the Kashafroud watershed. The scoring results related to the EMOWA and IMOWA operators represents that the group scores of the water strategies are dependent on the risk-taking attitudes of the stakeholders within the watershed. Accordingly, for each strategy, the group scores in the risk-prone cases (at least one, a few, and some of the criteria satisfied by the strategies) are greater than the group scores in the risk-averse situations (many, most, and all of the criteria satisfied by the strategies). In addition, the group consensus measuring results shows that the final agreement among the stakeholders for all strategies was almost fully achieved. According to the findings of each strategy, the group consensus measurements in the risk-prone cases are greater than the group consensus measurements in the risk-averse situations. Finally, regarding the ranking results of strategies, for the risk-averse viewpoint in the EMOWA results, the group of stakeholders has a conservative approach and tend to select the strategy of *S*<sup>3</sup> as a supply management strategy, which satisfies all sustainable development criteria, while, in the IMOWA results with the risk-averse viewpoint, the group of stakeholders tends to choose the strategy of *S*<sup>5</sup> as a combined supply-demand management strategy. For the risk-prone standpoint in both EMOWA and IMOWA results, the group of stakeholders have a nonconservative approach and like to select the strategy of *S*<sup>4</sup> as a demand management strategy, which satisfies at least one sustainable development criteria.

Besides the advantages of the proposed risk-based consensus-based GDSS model in this study, there are some issues that should be improved in future studies, which include:


For future studies, it is suggested to develop this proposed risk-based consensus-based GDSS model for any other watershed management by generating several water strategies based on the stakeholders' group consensus, which considers the combination of agricultural, industrial, and environmental demands and climate changes conditions. Furthermore, a conflict resolution process among stakeholders within the risk-based consensus-based GDSS process for resolving the probable conflicts of preferences among the watershed stakeholders should be analyzed. Additionally, an analysis of the varieties of the Minkowski's parameter and its effect on the group consensus measurement should be studied for future research.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, R.J.S. and A.P.N.; methodology, R.J.S.; software, R.J.S.; validation, R.J.S. and A.P.N.; formal analysis, R.J.S.; investigation, R.J.S. and A.P.N.; resources, R.J.S.; data curation, R.J.S. and A.P.N.; writing—original draft preparation, R.J.S.; writing—review and editing, A.P.N.; visualization, R.J.S. and A.P.N.; supervision, A.P.N.; project administration, R.J.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This research received no external funding.

**Acknowledgments:** The authors would like to acknowledge the collaboration between the researchers of the Civil Engineering Department at Hakim Sabzevari University and the Department of Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering at Michigan State University for developing this paper. Additionally, the first author would like to thank the support from the Khorasan Razavi Regional Water Company for this research. In addition, the authors would like to thank Toossab Consultant Company for providing the real data related to the study area of the Kashafroud watershed.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflicts of interest. In addition, the funder had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analysis, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

#### **Appendix A**

*A.1. The Average 40-Year Long-Term Hydrological and Hydrogeological Budget of Kashafroud (1975–2015)*

The summary of the results related to the average 40-year long-term hydrological and hydrogeological budget for the Kashafroud watershed (1975–2015) are presented in Table A1 [74–77].

**Table A1.** Long-term hydrological and hydrogeological budget of the Kashafroud watershed [74–77].


*A.2. The Estimated Water Consumptions and Predicted Water Demands for Kashafroud by the 2040 Vision*

Additionally, for several urban, agricultural, industrial, and environmental water demands of the Kashafroud watershed, the current water consumptions have been specified, and the water demands by the 2040 vision have been predicted, which are presented in Table A2 [71,78–80].

**Table A2.** Water consumptions and water demands for the Kashafroud watershed by 2040 [71,78–80].


#### **Appendix B**

#### *B.1. Sample Questionnaire for the Selection of the Final Criteria*

(1) Firstly, please overview the definitions of the initial criteria. After that, overview Table A3 containing the sustainable development objectives and the relevant initial criteria. Ultimately, give your viewpoint about the importance degree of each of the following criteria for the decision-making process and water resources planning and management in the study area of the Kashafroud urban watershed. (Please mark √ as a linguistic importance degree for each criterion within just one of the 4th to 12th columns of the table, according to the name of the criterion and the description of that corresponding criterion.)

• Please note that, in Table A3, the 21 initial criteria (taking into account the sustainability objectives including water resources sustainability, environmental sustainability, economic sustainability, and social sustainability) are specified and defined. Choose your priorities so that you can ultimately choose from all four objectives to be included in the final decision-making process.

Definitions of criteria:



**Table A3.** Sample questionnaire for the linguistic importance degrees of the initial criteria.

NI: no importance, VLI: very low importance, LI: low importance, SLI: slightly low importance, MI: moderate importance, SHI: slightly high importance, HI: high importance, VHI: very high importance, and PI: perfect importance.

#### *B.2. Stakeholders' Individual Viewpoints about the Importance Degree of the Initial Criteria*


**Table A4.** The linguistic importance degrees of the initial criteria in the individual's viewpoints.

#### *B.3. Sample Questionnaire for Weighting the Final Criteria*

(2) Please overview the Table A5 containing the final selected criteria. Give your viewpoint about the importance degree (linguistic weight) of each of the following criteria for the decision-making process and water resources planning and management in the study area of the Kashafroud urban watershed. (Please mark √ as a linguistic importance degree for each criterion within just one of the 4th to 12th columns of the table, according to the name of the criterion and the description of that corresponding criterion.)

**Table A5.** Sample questionnaire for the linguistic importance degrees of the final criteria.

