jem p064 05-06-95 13:31:38

Journal of Environmental Management (1995) 44, 145–161

Optimal Management of Environmental and Land Resources in a

Reservoir Watershed by Multiobjective Programming

Ni-Bin Chang, C. G. Wen, and S. L. Wu

Department of Environmental Engineering, National Cheng-Kung University,

Tainan, Taiwan, Republic of China

Received 20 April 1994

The conflict between environmental protection of reservoir water quality and

the economic development by different uses of land within a watershed is a
problem that constantly confronts public officials in regional planning, as
experienced in many developing countries. This analysis applied multiobjective
linear programming (MOLP) techniques to land resource allocation in order to
evaluate the sustainable strategy of land development in a reservoir region. The
information incorporated into the optimization objectives include economic
benefits characterized by income and employment level, and water quality
impacts related to the total discharges of target pollutants. The constraint set
thereby consists of the limitations of carrying capacity of various land-use
programs and assimilative capacity corresponding to different pollution impacts on
water quality. The practical implementation is assessed by a case study of the
Tweng-Wen reservoir watershed system in Taiwan. By using the compromise
programming technique and the multiobjective simplex method, it shows that
increasing the residential area is a feasible option if pollution can be controlled
properly in these new communities, but livestock husbandry should not be allowed
under any circumstance within the Tweng-Wen reservoir watershed.
Keywords: resource management, watershed, reservoir, multiobjective
programming, Taiwan.

1. Introduction
The water resource issues in the developing countries are usually quite different from
those currently experienced in the industrial world (Brookshire and Whittington, 1993).
The water supply and land management issues in Taiwan are especially acute in the
reservoir area where unexpected drought, soil erosion, nonpoint source pollution,
reservoir eutrophication, and inappropriate development for stock farming or recreation
have continuously lowered the essential level of water quality and quantity. On the
other hand, the rapid increase of population and the driving force of economic growth
further accelerate the need for various land uses within the watershed. To contemplate
the scope of such problems, as experienced in many other developing countries, the
efforts of pursuing integrated optimal planning to achieve the sustainable uses of these
natural resources becomes critical. Many studies have been made of multiobjective
145
0301–4797/95/020145+17 $08.00/0  1995 Academic Press Limited
146 Optimal management by multiobjective programming

land-use planning under various conditions, such as those applied in an industrial

complex, a watershed, a river basin, or even a small island. However, very few of them
focus on the evaluation of the optimal balance between economic development and
environmental quality within a reservoir watershed.
In the literature, Goicoechea and Duckstein (1976) illustrated the use of multi-
objective programming in a watershed land management project without considering
environmental factors. Van and Nijkamp (1976) presented a multiobjective decision
model for optimizing regional development, environmental quality control, and in-
dustrial land use. Das and Haimes (1979) applied multiobjective optimization techniques
in a river basin planning project. Two broad-based planning objectives considered in
their project are economic development and environmental quality. Impacts of both
point and nonpoint source pollutants on water quality were evaluated in its various
land management scenarios. Wright et al. (1983) used a multiobjective integer pro-
gramming model for the land acquisition problem in which an efficient and specialized
algorithm for finding non-inferior solutions of a multiobjective integer program was
also developed. Glover and Martinson (1987) reported multiple-use land planning to
match production objectives with management activities, constrained by resource limits,
budget, and policies. Ridgley and Giambelluca (1992) applied a water-balance simulation
model for calculating groundwater recharge as it varies with land use in a multiobjective
programming framework. This project conducted in Hawaii for land-use plan design
incorporated three objectives related to agricultural land retention, groundwater balance,
and residential population growth. However, environmental impacts were not con-
sidered. Leone and Marini (1993) discussed the correlation between land use and
potential lake alteration in central Italy. The environmental assimilative capacity, lake
state evaluation, mitigative actions, and possible development scenarios were defined
in an integrated approach. However, only an environmental index, represented by the
mean phosphorus concentration, is included in their analysis.
The main purpose of this analysis is to describe the present situation in the field of
incorporating the environmental factors and linking the related land-use allocation into
the reservoir watershed planning process by a multiobjective linear programming
(MOLP) model. Non-inferior solutions and trade-offs among the objectives are examined
for several alternative planning scenarios, using the compromise programming technique
and multiobjective simplex method. The planning framework is applied to the Tweng-
Wen reservoir watershed system in Taiwan. The information, incorporated into the
optimization objectives, includes economic benefits characterized by income and em-
ployment level, and water quality impacts related to the total discharges of nitrogen
(TN), phosphorous (TP), biological oxygen demanding load (BOD), and the sediment
yield from soil erosion. The constraint set thereby consists of the limitations of
carrying capacity with respect to various land-use programs and assimilative capacity
corresponding to different pollution impacts on water quality. Both point and nonpoint
sources are incorporated into the environmental impacts assessment. Final compromised
solutions suggest that increasing the residential area is feasible if pollution can be
controlled properly in these new communities, but that livetock husbandry should not
be allowed under any circumstances within the Tweng-Wen reservoir watershed.

2. Model formulation
Since 1973, the U.S. Water Resources Council has recommended the inclusion of
national economic development and environmental quality as two essential non-
commensurable objectives in water and related land resource planning. However, one
N.-B. Chang et al. 147

of the major difficulties in formulating a water resource planning model is the integration
of those non-commensurable objectives or constraints. In this analysis, the basic
difficulties are the attempt to include the environmental factors while lacking a precise
methodology as well as the exact quantitative information on the environmental impacts.
In general, three broad-based objectives related to various land-use programs in a
reservoir watershed can be considered and organized as:

1. Economic development:
National economic development;
Employment level;
Growth rates of national income;
Inflation;
Regional economic development;
Direct income;
Market development.
2. Social welfare:
Social equity;
Economic efficiency;
Income redistribution.
3. Environmental protection:
Water quality impacts control;
Discharge of nitrogen;
Discharge of phosphorus;
Increasing biological oxygen demanding load;
Reservoir safety;
Sediment;
Flood impact on dam.
Thus, the objective function is usually prepared to maximize the economic de-
velopment and social welfare, and minimize the environmental impacts simultaneously
in such a multiobjective analytical framework. The essential elements considering the
institutional framework, social, physical, economic, and environmental limitations in
the constraint set can be briefly described as follows.

Socio-economic factors:
Total land available for development in a reservoir watershed;
Legitimately required area for forest conservation;
Financial viability;
Economic feasibility, such as production cost;
Cultural and aesthetic limitations;
Minimum land requirement for regional agricultural development for self-
sufficiency;
Minimum requirements for recreational areas in regional planning;
Minimum requirements for residential areas in regional planning.
Institutional factors:
Required level of wastewater treatment by law and its related costs;
Other limitations by law or regulation, such as land slope constraint in various
land-use programs.
Natural and environmental factors:
Required area for wildlife conservation and various ecological loading;
148 Optimal management by multiobjective programming

Topographical limitations;
Forest and agricultural uses constrained by soil property in the watershed;
Geological limitations in land development;
Meteorological limitations in land development;
Assimilative capacity for various pollutants;
Limitations of water resource use.
The above framework is simply a definition. In the detailed model formulation, by
considering the disparity and potential in the level of applicability, the structure of this
model should not be unnecessarily complicated, although it is worthwhile to calculate
all the well-known environmental and economic factors accurately. Hence, only major
factors directly related to land-use programs are considered in this analysis. It is also
recognized that optimal use of adequate existing data bases and available methods to
enhance the transparency of environmental impacts and economic costs/benefits is
better than the complete avoidance of considerations, although part of the parameter
values or constraints might not be easily quantified. The selected model formulation is
shown in the following case study.

3. Case study
This case study is prepared for illustration only but may provide some realistic solutions
to aid in the future policy making of the Tweng-Wen reservoir watershed management.

3.1.     -  

The Tweng-Wen reservoir, which is a multipurpose reservoir for flood control, hy-
droelectric power generation, irrigation, water supply, recreation, and flow aug-
mentation, is located in the upper stream of the Tweng-Wen river basin. This basin is
slender and sharp and it drains towards the Taiwan Strait. In addition to the Tweng-
Wen reservoir, there are three other smaller reservoirs in this river basin. The geographical
location of this reservoir and its river basin is shown in Figure 1. This reservoir was
designed to store 708 000 000 cubic meters of water with a surface area of 17 square
kilometers. Average rainfall of this area is close to 3000 mm per year. The catchment
area of this reservoir occupies 481 square kilometers of land with a slope over 50% on
average. At present, the watershed is mainly dominated by forest and agricultural land,
and nonpoint sources of pollution play a major role in the total impacts of pollution
loading (i.e. over 90%).
In recent years, soil erosion and sedimentation in the reservoir, soil nutrient runoff
from agriculture land, and reservoir eutrophication have become worse over time.
While the enhancement of land use in the reservoir watershed is emphasized in Taiwan,
an increasing public concern over environmental quality has brought intensive debate
to many similar development programs.

3.2.     

Only six categories of land-use programs (i.e. six decision variables), including forest,
agricultural land, residential area, grass land, stock farming area, and recreational area,
are considered in this analysis. In addition, increasing employment level and direct
income by land development are included as the economic indicators in the objective
N.-B. Chang et al. 149

Tweng-Wan Reservoir

Wu-San-Tow Reservoir

Taiwan Strait
Nan-Hwa Reservoir

Jing-Men Reservoir

Taiwan 5 0 5 10 15
km

Figure 1. The geographical location of the Tweng-Wen reservoir and its river basin.

function. The types of environmental impacts selected in this analysis for control as
part of land use planning have to reflect directly the needs in the current watershed,
which consist of the water quality impacts related to the total discharges of nitrogen
(TN), phosphorus (TP), biological oxygen demanding load (BOD), and the sediment
yield from soil erosion.
Much physical, environmental, and economic data for land resource and reservoir
management has to be compiled to build up the objective function. For instance,
various supporting submodels of point and nonpoint sources of pollution, soil erosion,
and their effect on reservoir water quality have to be investigated in advance. For the
purpose of forecasting soil erosion, several previous studies had to be investigated and
various estimation formula, including the Universal Soil Loss Equation (Wischemeir
and Smith, 1978), are applied in this analysis. Economic database information is mainly
collected from government agencies. Final selections of each parameter value or
submodel need to be reviewed by many disciplines. After such a series of environmental
and economic investigations, the coefficients of the six objective functions are listed in
Table 1 in which the impacts of point and nonpoint sources of pollution reflecting the
current uncontrolled situation are each illustrated as follows.
The above objective functions have to be optimized and coordinated with site
specific information, such as the specified value of land availability, required minimum
forest area, required residential and recreational area, soil property and land slope
limitations, as well as the assimilative capacity of various pollutants loading. In the
case of the determination of assimilative capacity, traditional water quality models and
the standards of lake eutrophication used in Taiwan and Japan are considered. Other
 150

T 1. Determination of parameter values in the objective (uncontrolled source)

Agricultural Residential Grass Stock

Forest land area land farming Recreational
(X1) (X2) (X3) (X4) (X5) use (X6)

Z1 (kg/ha/yr)
Point source — — 66·50 — 38 527·80 18·67
Nonpoint source 1·04 1·73 2·89 0·29 2·89 1·25
Total 1·04 1·73 69·40 0·29 38 531·00 19·92
Z2 (kg/ha/yr)
Point source — — 389·20 — 153 908·30 110·30
Nonpoint source 15·50 25·80 43·00 4·30 43·00 18·60
Total 15·50 25·80 432·20 4·30 153 951·00 128·90
Z3 (kg/ha/yr)
Point source — — 973·00 — 384 771·00 275·83
Nonpoint source 91·4 152·00 253·90 25·40 253·90 109·80
Total 91·4 152·00 1227·00 25·40 385 025·00 385·60
Z4 (ton/ha/yr) 104·20 383·00 263·10 52·80 263·10 96·20
Z5 (capita/ha) 1·60 1·13 102·2 0·00 47·0 2·49
Z6 (104 $/ha) 23·14 16·72 1628·9 0·00 11 998·5 172·08

Where the six objectives considered in this analysis:

Z1: the objective function of total discharge of phosphorus;

Z 2: the objective function of total discharge of nitrogen;
Z 3: the objective function of total discharge of biological oxygen demanding load;
Z 4: the objective function of total discharge of sediment yield;
Z 5: the objective function of increasing employment level by land development;
Z 6: the objective function of increasing income by land development;

and the six decision variables are defined as:

X1 (ha): the optimal area prepared for forest conservation;

X2 (ha): the optimal area allowed for agricultural development;
X3 (ha): the optimal area for residential use in regional development;
X4 (ha): the optimal area prepared for grass land;
X5 (ha): the optimal area allowed for stock farming;
Optimal management by multiobjective programming

X6 (ha): the optimal area prepared for recreation.

N.-B. Chang et al. 151

parameter values are determined according to the government law and regulation, as
well as economic evaluation reports. For instance, 35 778 in the sixth objective function
is the required minimum area for forest conservation in the Tweng-Wen reservoir
watershed. Hence, this preparation for the case without point and non-point sources
of pullution control eventually leads to a model with the first four objective functions
to be minimized and the last two objective functions to be maximized under ten
constraints as listed below:

Min Z1(x)=1·04X1+1·73X2+69·40X3+0·29X4+38 531·00X5+19·92X6

Min Z2(x)=15·50X1+25·80X2+432·20X3+4·30X4+153 951·00X5+128·90X6
Min Z3(x)=91·40X1+152·00X2+1227·00X3+25·40X4+385 025·00X5+385·60X6
Min Z4(x)=104·20X1+383·00X2+263·10X3+52·80X4+263·10X5+96·20X6
Max Z5(x)=1·6X1+1·13X2+102·20X3+0·00X4+47·00X5+2·49X6
Max Z6(x)=23·14(X1−35 778)+16·72X2+1628·91X3+0·00X4+11 998·46X5+172·08X6

Subject to:

a. Land availability constraint: The maximum area allowed in developing various land-
use programs is 46 280 ha in this watershed, which is obtained by the subtraction of
the surface area of the reservoir from the entire watershed area.
X1+X2+X3+X4+X5+X6=46 280
b. Forest area constraint: Government regulation requires that the minimum forest area
should be no less than 35 778 ha in this watershed for the purpose of natural resource
conservation.
X1[35 778·00
c. Soil property constraint: The land is categorized into six soil groups in Taiwan and
the first four groups are adequate for the agricultural uses. Thus, 2166·3 ha is the
summation of the area of these first four groups of land in this watershed.
X2Ζ2166·30
d. Minimum agricultural area constraint: According to the current population level in
this region, the minimum agricultural area for self-sufficiency is 164·2 ha.
X2[164·20
e. Minimum residential area constraint: According to the regional development plan,
the minimum required residential area for the estimated population is 42·7 ha.
X3[42·70
f. Land slope constraint: Government regulation requires that the maximum slope
allowed for further development of those uses of agriculture, housing, and stock farming
is 28·7° (i.e. 55%). This generates an area of 4994·4 ha in the Tweng-Wen reservoir
watershed where such a land-use program can proceed.
X2+X3+X5Ζ4994·40
g. Minimum recreational area constraint: According to the regional development plan,
the minimum recreational area required is 137·7 ha.
X6[137·70
152 Optimal management by multiobjective programming

h. Phosphorus impact constraint: In this case, the critical level of eutrophication is

considered and 30 lg/l of total phosphorus concentration was used, based on the
Japanese Standard because the Taiwan Standard is much higher and the actual erosion
is pretty serious in this watershed. Thus, the assimilative capacity can be calculated as
63·5×103 kg/year by the selected water quality (lake eutrophication) model.
1·04X1+1·73X2+69·40X3+0·29X4+38 531·00X5+19·92X6Ζ63·5×103
i. Nitrogen impact constraint: In this case, the critical level of eutrophication is con-
sidered, which is also based on the Japanese Standard. Thus, the assimilative capacity
can be calculated as 640×103 kg/year by the selected water quality model.
15·50X1+25·80X2+432·20X3+4·30X4+153 951·00X5+128·90X6Ζ640×103
j. Biological oxygen demand impact constraint: In this case, the second level of water
quality standard used in Taiwan is considered and the assimilative capacity can be
calculated as 7·1×106 kg/year by the selected water quality model.
91·40X1+152·00X2+1227·00X3+25·40X4+385 025·00X5+385·60X6Ζ7·1×106
k. Non-negativity constraint:
X1, X2, X3, X4, X4, X5, X6[0

A joint approach in both point and nonpoint source pollution is emphasized given
the fact that the anticipated land-use programs would be mainly agricultural, residential,
recreational, and even stock farming in this watershed. Hence, both the development
and improvement of techniques for controlling point and nonpoint source pollution
are considered in future water pollution control policies, and a different set of objective
functions is prepared in which the removal efficiency and its related engineering costs
for both point and nonpoint sources are assumed. Only the land use activities within
the agricultural, forest, and grass sectors have been considered as nonpoint source
contributors. This estimate is prepared for further analysis, as shown in Table 2. In such
a situation, the fifth and sixth objectives have also been modified by the corresponding
predictions of engineering costs, such as wastewater treatment for point source control
and embankment for nonpoint source control, as well as their direct impacts on
economic income and employment level.

3.3.  

In Tecle’s study (1992), 15 techniques are evaluated in terms of 24 criteria, forming an
evaluation matrix of criteria versus alternative multiobjective decision making (MCDM)
techniques. The compromise programming, using the criteria of minimum distance
from the ideal solution, is observed to be ranked first in solving various multiobjective
water resource problems. Thus, the non-inferior solutions and trade-offs among the
objectives in this analysis are accordingly examined using compromise programming
techniques. Due to the use of non-commensurable formats and units in those objectives,
rescaling is needed before the optimization analysis is performed so that their values
are all confined to a given range, such as [0, 1]. Several scaling functions described in
the literature can be applied. The recommended scaling function in this analysis is:

Z∗k (x)−Zk(x)
Z=
Z∗k
 N.-B. Chang et al.

T 2. Determination of parameter values in the objective (controlled source)

Agricultural Residential Grass Stock

Forest land area land farming Recreational
(X1) (X2) (X3) (X4) (X5) use (X6)

Z1 (kg/ha/yr)
Point source — — 53·20 — 30 882·00 18·67
Nonpoint source 0·66 1·10 1·83 0·18 1·83 0·80
Total 0·66 1·10 55·03 0·18 38 883·83 19·47
Z2 (kg/ha/yr)
Point source — — 311·40 — 123 127·00 110·30
Nonpoint source 9·83 16·36 27·26 2·73 27·26 11·79
Total 9·83 16·36 338·66 2·73 123 154·26 122·09
Z3 (kg/ha/yr)
Point source — — 145·95 — 57 716·00 275·83
Nonpoint source 57·95 96·37 160·97 16·10 160·97 69·61
Total 57·95 96·37 306·92 16·10 57 866·97 345·44
Z4 (ton/ha/yr) 66·10 242·80 166·80 33·50 166·80 61·10
Z5 (cap/ha) 1·77 1·3 102·4 0·17 47·2 2·66
Z6 (104 $/ha) 22·07 12·79 1589·3 −0·54 11 794·30 171·09

The six objectives and six decision variables are listed in Table 1.
153
154 Optimal management by multiobjective programming

in which the Z∗k (x) is the maximum value of each individual objective which can be
obtained from the payoff table. Hence, the compromise programming problem is
equivalent to solve the following dimensionless function which is just the relative
measure of the decision maker’s preference:

G] A BH
p a 1/a
Z∗k (x)−Zk(x)
Min da=Min pak
k=1
Z∗k (x)
where
1<a<∞, pak>0
and
p

] p =1
k=1
a
k

The parameter “p” represents the total number of objectives, and pak is the corresponding
weight of each objective. For a=1 (i.e. which is the case of d1), the problem becomes
a linear program and the LINDO software package can be employed as a solver in
this analysis. While a=2 (i.e. which is the case of d2), the solution will be the non-
inferior feasible solution which is closest to the ideal solution Z∗k in terms of a weighted
geometric distance. In this situation, the GINO software package can be employed. If
a=∞ (i.e. which is the case of dx), the model can be transformed into a linear
programming model in which the largest weighted deviation determines the preferred
solution and the situation among trade-off mechanics turns out to be not only competitive
but noncompensatory. The initial effort for solving this model is to apply the solution
technique of compromise programming in the case in which the point and nonpoint
source pollution are uncontrolled in the watershed; and the weight of each objective is
assumed to be equally important in the initial decision making profile. Then, the impacts
by applying pollution control strategies on the reduction of pollutant loading and the
influence of economic development are to be considered and the model will be solved
again by compromise programming.
Besides, for the purpose of sensitivity analysis, the multiobjective simplex method
is also applied to detect the robustness of this model. A FORTRAN program was
adapted from Zeneley (1974) and further modified as a PC version for this analysis.
However, additional solution sets can also be generated based on the multiobjective
simplex method. Final comparison may be placed upon the differences of planning
scenarios between the schemes of applying a single objective and multiple objectives in
dealing with such a complex water resource planning issue.

3.4.    

Because of the need for the maximum value of each individual objective to achieve the
rescaling operation, the objectives in this model are thus manipulated separately
corresponding to the same constraint set; and the sets of optimal solution are shown
in Table 3. However, the solution sets suggest that only two broad-based planning
objectives—economic development and environmental quality—need to be considered
independently because only two types of solutions emerge in the initial pay-off table,
as shown in Table 3, and non-inferior solutions do not exist within these two broad-
based groups. Hence, Table 4 shows two sets of optimal solutions for the Tweng-Wen
reservoir watershed system; and the payoff table is therefore established.
 N.-B. Chang et al.

T 3. The optimal solution in the case of the inclusion of each individual objective independently

Objective Forest Agricultural Residential Grass Stock

function land land area land farming Recreational
value Zk (X1) (X2) (X3) (X4) (X5) use (X6)

Z1 −46 135 35 778 164·2 42·7 10 157·4 0 137·7

Z2 −638 677 35 778 164·2 42·7 10 157·4 0 137·7
Z3 −3 658 556 35 778 164·2 42·7 10 157·4 0 137·7
Z4 −4 351 748 35 778 164·2 42·7 10 157·4 0 137·7
Z5 62 453 35 778 164·2 45·8 10 154·3 0 137·7
Z6 928 938 35 778 164·2 45·8 10 154·3 0 137·7
155
156 Optimal management by multiobjective programming

T 4. The payoff table for the case of uncontrolled pollution in compromise programming

Z1 Z2 Z3 Z4 Z5 Z6

I −46 135 −638 677 −3 658 556 −4 351 748 62 137 923 901
II −46 349 −640 000 −3 662 281 −4 352 400 62 453 928 938
Z∗k −46 135 −638 677 −3 658 556 −4 351 748 62 453 928 938

T 5. The optimal solution of compromise programming

Agricultural Residential Grass Stock

Forest land area land farming Recreational
X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 use X6

d1∗ 35 778 164·2 45·8 10 154 0 137·7

d2∗∗ 35 896 164·2 42·7 10 039 0 137·7
dx∗ 35 778 164·2 44·7 10 155 0 137·7

∗, solved by the LINDO software package.

∗∗, solved by the GINO software package.

T 6. The dx solution based on two different combinations of objectives

Agricultural Residential Grass Stock

Forest land area land farming Recreational
X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 use X6

I, V 35 837 164·2 44·24 10 096·5 0 137·7

I, VI 35 832 164·2 44·39 10 102·2 0 137·7
II, V 35 778 164·2 44·63 10 155·5 0 137·7
II, VI 35 778 164·2 44·70 10 155·4 0 137·7
III, V 35 778 164·2 45·28 10 154·8 0 137·7
III, VI 35 778 164·2 45·32 10 154·8 0 137·7
IV, V 35 778 164·2 45·79 10 154·3 0 137·7
IV, VI 35 778 164·2 45·79 10 154·3 0 137·7
I–VI 35 778 164·2 44·70 10 155·4 0 137·7

Alternative land management and control policies are therefore generated by the
allowed land-use activities and watershed characteristics. Table 5 lists the optimal
solutions using a compromise programming scheme. It shows that different values of
the exponent adopted in the compromise programming model do not obviously influence
the final optimal solution. Additional solution sets, generated by using the multiobjective
simplex method, also show similar results. By considering the fact that the objectives
in this analysis do not compensate each other, the solution set of dx is chosen as the
basis for further analysis. Table 6 thus demonstrates that the solution sets would not
differ much if only one objective in each broad-based group of objectives was selected
to form a simplified model. Once artificial control of either point or nonpoint sources
are included, the solutions would suggest quite a different profile, as shown in Table
N.-B. Chang et al. 157

T 7. The dx solution based on two different combinations of point or nonpoint source
control

Agricultural Residential Grass Stock

Forest land area land farming Recreational
PC NPC X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 use X6

X X 35 837 164·2 44·70 10 155·40 0·00 137·7

O X 36 095 164·2 45·80 9837·40 0·00 137·7
X O 45 870 164·2 108·00 0·00 0·00 137·7
O O 45 837 164·2 140·80 0·00 0·00 137·7
CS 38 015 6045·0 438·00 1059·00 0·00 119·3

PC, point source control is selected.

NPC, nonpoint source control is selected.
CS, current situation of land use in this watershed.
O, inclusion of this control policy.
X, exclusion of this control policy.

T 8. Sensitivity analysis of the dx solution by varying the weight of objectives

Agricultural Residential Grass Stock

Forest land area land farming Recreational
px2 px6 X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 use X6

0·00 1·00 35 778 164·2 45·79 10 154·3 0 137·7

0·25 0·75 35 778 164·2 45·54 10 154·6 0 137·7
0·33 0·67 35 778 164·2 45·30 10 154·8 0 137·7
0·50 0·50 35 778 164·2 44·70 10 155·4 0 137·7
0·67 0·33 35 778 164·2 43·90 10 156·2 0 137·7
0·75 0·25 35 778 164·2 43·39 10 156·7 0 137·7
1·00 0·00 35 778 164·2 42·70 10 157·4 0 137·7

7. Larger residential areas and forest are then allowed by dramatically reducing the
area of grass land. Therefore, corresponding trade-offs for each alternative plan and
the selection of final land management and pollution control strategy with respect to
water quality desired, engineering or production cost, economic productivity, and other
technical limitations can be achieved by the decision maker.

3.5.  

In the planning process, the decision maker may address various weight distributions
and such impacts need to be further tested. Table 8 therefore lists one such scenario in
which different combinations of weights are simulated to detect the sensitivity in decision
making. The solution sets reveal that there are no large differences in these cases with
different weight distributions and that the decision maker’s preference would not
obviously distort the final alternative selection. By using the multiobjective simplex
method, the allowable changes of corresponding resources in such an optimization
158 Optimal management by multiobjective programming

T 9. Sensitivity analysis of resource availability based on the dx solution in the multiobjective
optimization model

Constraint set Initial value Allowable range

Total available land for development 46 280 45 936–46 322

Lower bound of forest area 35 778 35 739–35 817
Upper bound of agriculture land 164·2 −x–172·67
Lower bound of agriculture land 2166·3 172·70–+x
Lower bound of residential area 42·7 −x–45·4
Land availability bounded by slope 4994·4 234·80–+x
Lower bound of recreational area 137·7 130·85–138·43
Assimilative capacity of TP 63 500 46 332–+x
Assimilative capacity of TN 640 000 639 695–640 536
Assimilative capacity of BOD 7 100 000 3 662 833–+x

T 10. Sensitivity analysis of resource availability based on the dx solution in the single
objective optimization model (objectives 1–4)

Constraint set Initial value Allowable range

Total available land for development 46 280 36 227–46 588

Lower bound of forest area 35 778 19 566–35 896
Upper bound of agriculture land 164·2 0–225·75
Lower bound of agriculture land 2166·3 164·20–+x
Lower bound of residential area 42·7 −x–45·8
Land availability bounded by slope 4994·4 210·00–+x
Lower bound of recreational area 137·7 0–148·32
Assimilative capacity of TP 63 500 46 389–+x
Assimilative capacity of TN 640 000 638 677–746 192
Assimilative capacity of BOD 7 100 000 3 662 272–+x

T 11. Sensitivity analysis of resource availability based on the dx solution in the single
objective optimization model (objectives 5–6)

Constraint set Initial value Allowable range

Total available land for development 46 280 36 123–46 588

Lower bound of forest area 35 778 0–35 896
Upper bound of agriculture land 164·2 0–225·75
Lower bound of agriculture land 2166·3 164·20–+x
Lower bound of residential area 42·7 −x–45·8
Land availability bounded by slope 4994·4 206·90–+x
Lower bound of recreational area 137·7 0–148·32
Assimilative capacity of TP 63 500 46 135–+x
Assimilative capacity of TN 640 000 638 677–+x
Assimilative capacity of BOD 7 100 000 3 658 556–+x

system can be shown, as in Table 9. It is observed that the allowable changes of the
initial available resources do present big differences between single and multiple
objective programming models, as is evident from Tables 10 and 11. This implies that the
N.-B. Chang et al. 159
5
4·8
4·6 Multiple objectives

Forest area (ha × 10 )

4 4·4 Single objective

4·2
4
3·8
3·6
3·4
3·2
3
–16 –14 –12 –10 –8 –6 –4 –2 0
Coefficient (kg/ha)

Figure 2. The variations of parameter values versus the relative change of decision variables in a single (the
second objective) and multiobjective programming model.

3·593

3·591

3·589 Multiple objectives

Forest area (ha × 10 )
4

Single objective
3·587

3·585

3·583

3·581

3·579

3·577

3·575
20 25 30 35 40 45 55 55
Coefficient (104 $/ha)

Figure 3. The variations of parameter values versus the relative change of decision variables in a single (the
sixth objective) and multiobjective programming model.

sensitivity to resource availability may be an overwhelming factor in the multiobjective

programming model.
However, it can be verified here that the change of some specific coefficients would
create much less impact on the final optimal solutions generated by a multiobjective
programming model compared with those solutions in a single objective programming
model. In order to illustrate this result, the second and sixth objectives are selected for
further comparison with the results obtained from the multiobjective programming
scheme. It is shown in Figures 2 and 3 that, by varying the input value of a selected
coefficient in a narrow range, the final optimal solutions would change gradually in the
multiobjective programming model, while the changes in a single objective programming
model could be very sensible.

4. Discussion
Several alternative planning scenarios in the above analysis have provided necessary
information for the decision maker in selecting the most desirable management plan
160 Optimal management by multiobjective programming

for the Tweng-Wen reservoir watershed. Overall, final compromised solutions suggest
that increasing the residential area is feasible if pollution can be controlled properly in
these new communities, but livestock husbandry can not be allowed under any cir-
cumstance within the Tweng-Wen reservoir watershed. A more practical approach can
be gained through an interactive procedure in this analysis, in which the decision maker
may proceed from one non-inferior solution to another by comparing each land
management alternative and evaluating trade-offs between individual goals. But, the
inherent complexity in comparing the environmental impacts of very different natures
to the technico-economic values in this analysis may decrease the confidence in applying
its optimal solutions. However, such an analysis is significant specifically for those
developing countries with a highly populated community and limited land space,
although the decision makers usually tend to ignore such a dilemma.
A more complex analytical system is needed in the future because Taiwan is also
evolving from a development of land-use in watershed and conservation of reservoir
water quality to a water economy (water right trade-off) and river basin system planning
by a conjunctive surface-ground water reallocation. Further extension work can be
focused on the combination with fuzzy systems theory and welfare economics in such
an application. Therefore, a fuzzy multiobjective linear or mixed integer programming
model with adequate value functions related to various water consumptions could be
an advanced tool in solving future water resource problems in developing countries
(Wright et al., 1983; Xiang et al., 1992). Further, the modeling efforts can be combined
with a geographical information system (GIS) to help decision makers evaluate the
socio-economic and ecological impacts of various planning scenarios in the framework
of a decision support system (DSS) (Stansbury et al., 1991).

5. Conclusions
This study has led to an intellectually appealing approach for integrated watershed
resource management. Social, physical, economic, environmental, and institutional
considerations are tied together to find the comprehensive solutions and support
guidelines in the water resources and water quality regional planning in a watershed
area. Based on the methodology used in this analysis, in order to maintain the essential
quality of water supply and achieve regional development targets, the decision maker
would thereby optimally manage watersheds so that soil erosion, point and nonpoint
source pollution can be reduced to a required level while regional income and em-
ployment levels can be maximized simultaneously.

References
Brookshire, D. S. and Whittington, D. (1993). Water resources issues in the developing countries. Water
Resource Research 29(7), 1883–1888.
Cohon, J. L. (1978). Multiobjective Programming and Planning. San Diego: Academic Press.
Das, P. and Haimes, Y. Y. (1979). Multiobjective optimization in water quality and land management. Water
Resource Research 15(6), 1313–1322.
Glover, F. and Martinson, ?. (1987). Multiple-use land planning and conflict resolution by multiple objective
linear programming. European Journal of Operational Research 28, 343–350.
Goicoechea, A. and Duckstein, L. (1976). Multiobjective programming in watershed management: a study
of the Charleston watershed. Water Resource Research 12(6), 1085–1092.
Goodman, A. S. (1984). Principles of water resources planning. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Leone, A. and Marini, R. (1993). Assessment and mitigation of the effects of land use in a lake basin (Lake
Vicoin in central Italy). Journal of Environmental Management 39, 39–50.
N.-B. Chang et al. 161
Loucks, D. P., Stedinger, J. R. and Haith, D. A. (1981). Water Resource Systems Planning and Analysis. New
York: Prentice-Hall.
Ridgley, M. A. and Giambelluca, T. W. (1992). Linking water-balance simulation and multiobjective
programming: land-use plan design in Hawaii. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 19,
317–336.
Stansbury, J., Woldt, W. and Bogardi, I. (1991). Decision support system for water transfer evaluation. Water
Resource Research 27(4), 443–451.
Tecle, A. (1992). Selecting a multicriterion decision making technique for watershed resource management.
Water Resource Bulletin 28(1), 129–140.
Van, D. A. and Nijkamp, P. (1976). A Multiobjective Decision Model for Regional Development, Environmental
Quality Control and Industrial Land Use. Papers of the Regional Science Association, Vol. 36, pp. 35–57.
Water Resources Council (1973). Principles and standards for planning water and related land resources,
Federal Registration, 38 (174), Part III, 24,77,24,869, 10 September.
Wischmeier, W. H. and Smith, D. D. (1978). Predicting rainfall erosion losses—a guide to conservation planning.
Agricultural Handbook 537, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., USA.
Wright, J., ReVell, C. and Cohon J. (1983). A multiobjective integer programming model for the land
acquisition problem. Regional Science and Urban Economics 13, 31–53.
Wu, S. L. (1993). Evaluation of land-use programs in a reservoir watershed by multiobjective programming.
Masters thesis, Graduate Institute of Environmental Engineering, National Cheng-Kung University,
Tainan, Taiwan.
Xiang, W. N., Gross, M., Fabos, J. G. and MacDougall, E. B. (1992). A fuzzy-group multicriteria decision
making model and its application to land-use planning. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design
19, 61–84.
Zeleny, M. (1974). Linear Multiobjective Programming, pp. 197–220. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Zeleny, M. (1976). Multiple Criteria Decision Making. New York: McGraw-Hill.