Journal of Environmental Management 101 (2012) 46e53

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman

Decision support for sustainable urban drainage system management:

A case study of Jijel, Algeria
Abbas Benzerra a, b, d, *, Marzouk Cherrared d, Bernard Chocat a, b, Frédéric Cherqui a, c, Tarik Zekiouk d
a
Université de Lyon, France
b
INSA-Lyon, LGCIE, F-69621 Villeurbanne, France
c
Université Lyon 1, LGCIE, F-69622 Villeurbanne, France
d
LRHAE, Université A. MIRA, Route Targua Ouzemour 06000, Béjaïa, Algeria

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper aims to develop a methodology to support the sustainable management of Urban Drainage
Received 20 May 2011 Systems (UDSs) in Algeria. This research is motivated by the various difficulties that the National Sani-
Received in revised form tation Office (ONA) has in managing this complex infrastructure. The method mainly consists of two
1 January 2012
approaches: the top-down approach and the bottom-up approach. The former facilitates the identifi-
Accepted 9 January 2012
Available online 3 March 2012
cation of factors related to a sustainable UDS, the development priorities and the criteria available to
managers. The latter assesses UDS performance using the weighted sum method to aggregate indicators
or criteria weighted using the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). The method is demonstrated through
Keywords:
Urban drainage systems
its application to the UDS in the city of Jijel, Algeria.
Sustainable management support Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Indicators and sustainability criteria
Performance assessment

1. Introduction sustainable development (Loi n
05-12 du 04 août, 2005) into

In Algeria, as in many other African countries, urban drainage
system (UDS) managers (in this case the National Sanitation Office
e ONA) are facing huge challenges. This situation is the result of the
rushed management of rapid urban development. For a long time,
UDS have been designed for the sole purpose of meeting the pop-
ulation’s basic needs in terms of wastewater and stormwater
transportation. Consequently numerous projects have been
implemented with no overall strategy or coordination. Budgets
have been allocated to building infrastructure, but future
management constraints have neither been taken into account, nor
have developments in the service provided by the UDS been
accurately measured. Various aspects such as the protection of the
environment, economic and financial management, maintenance,
drainage system regulations and design standards, and information
management have been neglected (Cherrared et al., 2007, 2010;
C.N.E.S., 2000).
In Algeria, the National Sanitation Office (ONA) faces the chal-
lenge of taking the government’s recent strategic focus on
* Corresponding author. INSA-Lyon, LGCIE, F-69621 Villeurbanne, France.
Tel.: þ33 04 72 43 64 68.
E-mail addresses: benzerra@yahoo.fr, abbas.benzerra@insa-lyon.fr (A. Benzerra).
account in UDS. It needs to identify the concrete actions which will
result in sustainable management. The multi-dimensional
requirements of a sustainable development approach (economy,
society and environment), as well as the lack of structured meth-
odology and information at various levels of the hierarchy make
this task particularly difficult (Ugwu and Haupt, 2007). This task is
even more difficult for a country such as Algeria which needs to
develop its urban infrastructure in order to increase its economic
growth. In order to achieve sustainable management, it is first vital
that the ONA’s management capacities are improved. Another pre-
requisite for achieving this is that the sustainability of the UDS can
be measured or be quantified. This requires a set of criteria or
indicators for sustainability to be built and approved by
stakeholders.
Our aim is therefore to develop a methodology to measure the
sustainability of Algerian UDS and thereby to help improve how
they are managed and developed. The methodology involves all
partners in the process of choosing the relevant aspects of
sustainable management and in defining the corresponding
objectives.
Since the 1987 report of the Brundtland commission (WCED,
1987), the concept of sustainability has become increasingly
popular. The principle of sustainability can be applied to a variety
of areas, including the sustainable management of UDS. The

0301-4797/$ e see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.01.027
 A. Benzerra et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 101 (2012) 46e53
Agenda 21 resolutions were an outcome of the United Nation’s
Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED, 1992)
held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil indicated that the concept of
sustainability should be taken into consideration in urban water
management. However, the detailed method of how to apply
sustainability to decision-making in this area is not explained. In
order to make the application of sustainability to urban water
management possible, local Agenda 21 programs were set up at
national (MATE, 2002) and continental level across Africa (NEPAD,
2001). However, the process of translating national sustainability
objectives into practical actions within specific projects remains
challenging.
Over the last few years, many studies have looked at the
methodology for assessing the level of service provided by an UDS.
Most of these studies have focused on developing indicators to
measure the performance of wastewater treatment plants (Lundin
and Morrison, 2002; Quadros et al., 2010) or wastewater treatment
systems (Balkema et al., 2002). Others studied the performance in
terms of service provided (Kolsky and Butler, 2002; Geerse and
Lobbrecht, 2002; Foxon et al., 2002; Matos et al., 2003; Guérin-
Schneider, 2001).
Some studies take a more pragmatic approach to assess the
sustainability of storm drainage networks, in particular by
measuring performance in comparison to alternative techniques
(such as retention and/or infiltration systems) (Ellis et al., 2004;
Barraud et al., 1998; Dechesne et al., 2004; Moura et al., 2006,
2010). Most of these studies focus on the qualitative definition of
indicators in the design phase but not on their quantitative
assessment. Others looked at decision support tools. These fall into
two main categories:
 At structural level: an overall vision of the system is integrated
by focusing on a specific structure. Examples of this category
include the ECOPLUIES project (Moura, 2008) dedicated to
infiltration structures, CARE-S (Saegrov, 2006) and INDIGAU
(Le Gauffre et al., 2007) which focus more specifically on
performance indicators for the assets management of urban
drainage networks;
 At the level of urban water management systems: The DAY-
WATER (Thévenot, 2008) and SUDS projects (Sheffield)
(Kennedy et al., 2007) focus on stormwater control techniques
at the source. The Triple Bottom Line (Taylor et al., 2006) and
SWARD projects (Ashley et al., 2008) focus on the sustainable
management of drainage networks.
None of these projects correspond to the specific situation in
Algeria. However, each one contains relevant and useful elements.
Generally speaking sustainability studies contain finely-tuned
indicators specifically adapted to a certain case. Therefore, locally
defined performance indicators are required for our specific case. It
is important that the methodology is adapted to the national
situation in order to convince the decision-makers that it should be
implemented. In our case, national interests will strongly influence
the methodology used.
Our study is based on the work of LGCIE (Toumi and Chocat,
2004; Chocat et al., 2007; Shuping et al., 2006; Granger et al.,
2010). It also forms part of a commitment to develop a methodo-
logical tool to support the sustainable management of UDS in the
Algerian context. The Algerian UDS is characterized by a lack of
precise data on the drainage network, hydraulic malfunctions
(flooding, dry weather overflow of sanitary sewage), pollution of
the natural environment, the comfort and safety of urban pop-
ulations etc. This paper describes a decision support methodology
for sustainable UDS management. The method used to aggregate
the performance of indicators and assign an overall performance
47
score to each objective is presented. An example application is
shown on the UDS of Jijel, a city in north-eastern Algeria.
2. Methodological approach
The approach first requires the different themes concerning the
sustainable management of the system to be identified. The priority
objectives for the UDS are then set for each theme. Each objective is
made up of a set of criteria, assessed using performance indicators.
This top-down approach makes it easier to describe the selected
objectives and to choose appropriate indicators.
In order to prepare for the discussions regarding the themes
related to UDS sustainability, we first recall the concept of
sustainability including urban water management: a sustainable
urban water system must provide the services required from a long-
term perspective whilst protecting human health and the environ-
ment, with the minimum use of rare resources (Lundin, 1999). In
order to evaluate UDS sustainability we must first answer the
following questions:
 What are the system boundaries and available data for the UDS
under consideration?
 How can useful indicators and sustainability criteria for deci-
sion support be identified?
 How can the raw data collected in the system be translated into
a performance score which can be used later for decision
support?
These three questions are explored in the following subsections
respectively.
The proposed methodology for assessing UDS sustainability is
structured in two main approaches: (i) Identification and descrip-
tion of the UDS indicators (top-down approach) and (ii) assessment
of the UDS’s performance (bottom-up approach). The top-down
approach is to define, in liaison with the system’s manager, the
general requirements the UDS should meet in order to be consid-
ered a sustainable system. These requirements are identified as
themes. These themes are then broken down into objectives.
Criteria are then selected to measure the extent to which these
objectives are met. Finally, the indicators are used to measure the
criteria. The bottom-up approach involves developing aggregation
methods which make it possible to determine an overall score for
the whole system performance from the values obtained from the
indicators.
2.1. System boundaries and data
Currently, cities function using many technical systems
(drinking water, urban drainage, roads etc.). These urban compo-
nents interact with each other in a very complex manner. In this
paper, we only focus on UDS with the aim of obtaining an overall
vision of the system. The system includes not only the urban
drainage network and its components (structures and urban
basins) but also the wastewater treatment plant, the technical and
political organizations that manage the system, the discharge
environment and the city with its associated technical and orga-
nizational systems (Bonièrbale, 2004; Lundin, 1999).
Furthermore, decision support for UDS management requires
several data sets (i.e. from the drainage network, the wastewater
treatment plant, the discharge environment etc.). It is therefore
important when developing such a method to take into account
data availability. This is particularly the case in Algeria as little data
is available due to the absence of a monitoring body. The ONA is
currently training its staff in this area and, in parallel, is using
a group of foreign engineering companies to obtain data. This task
48 A. Benzerra et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 101 (2012) 46e53

also requires cooperation between various administrative depart-
ments (various departments of the wilaya (Algerian administrative
province) including Hydraulics, Environment, Health, Population,
Urban Planning and Construction; local services; and the company
responsible for drinking water management (Algérienne Des Eaux)).
2.2. Identification of indicators and sustainability criteria
UDS sustainability criteria and indicators were identified,
inspired by the research dealing with the issue of UDS management
in Algeria (Benayada and Kettab, 2005; Cherrared et al., 2007;
Kettab et al., 2008; Toumi and Chocat, 2004). Recent government
directives on integrating sustainable development into project
management (C.N.E.S., 2000, 2007) and the research literature on
achieving sustainability and decision support also formed the basis
for this paper. Defining sustainability requires the analysis of all the
different aspects of a UDS. Hence a descriptive approach is imple-
mented which describes the system in several parts: sanitary, flood
protection, environmental, economic and service management.
Fig. 1 summarizes the selected themes used in this approach.
These themes make it easier for the service manager to identify the
levers for a sustainable UDS management. Each theme requires
critical analysis and a detailed description. This analysis takes into
account both UDS operations and the resources available to the
Algerian management services. The theme is then broken down
further. Each theme is associated with a series of objectives. An
objective represents a priority in terms of the system manager’s
operational requirements. Each objective corresponds to a basic
function of the UDS. It can either be set for a physical phenomenon
or related to activities or organizations. Under each objective, one
or more criteria are then given in order to assess the level at which
the corresponding function is considered to be fulfilled. These
criteria constitute both a link between the objectives and the
performance indicators and the reference indices for improving
UDS management (Foxon et al., 2002).
The summary of the themes, objectives and criteria drawn up by
the LGCIE (Laboratory of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
France), the LRHAE (Laboratory of Applied Hydraulics and the
Environment, Algeria) and ONA managers in the city of Jijel,
(Algeria) is shown in Fig. 1. A set of criteria has been identified
(Shuping et al., 2006) in order to help select the most relevant
indicators. The performance indicators associated with the criteria
are not presented in this study.
2.3. Performance assessment
The aim of our methodology is to provide a management chart
to support the decision-making process. When doing this, we face
two contradictory requirements:
 To not lose sight of the multi-dimensional nature of
sustainability;
 To provide an overall vision of the service provided by the
system.
We used the method of partial aggregation which aggregates
the indicators into criteria and then the criteria into the perfor-
mance assessment of objectives. The multi-dimensional nature of
the assessment is preserved at the objective level.
The main procedure of the method is given as follows:

C1: Overall quality

C2: Suitability for use to produce drinking water
O1
C3: Suitability for use for irrigation
O15 Do not alter water
C4: Suitability for use for fishing
quality of
Prepare for the transition to receiving water O2 C5: Suitability for use for swimming
an integrated urban water Improve the C6: State of eutrophication
management system safety of urban
inhabitants C7: Reduce the risk of accidents resulting from
O14 O3 malfunctions in surface drainage structures
C32: Reduce financial losses T1
Reduce the UDS’s T8 Improve the C8: Limit the risk of flooding
impact on the local UDS inspections comfort of urban
economy in relation to inhabitants C9: Reduce odor pollution
Prospective
its target O4 C10: Reduce contamination
O13 environments
T7 Guarantee the health by wastewater
Improve T2
Economic and and hygiene of users C11: Reduce the discharged
C31: Measure spending and mechanisms for financial Operational
improve its effectiveness funding UDS pollutant load
management status of
O5 C12: Guarantee The TS yield
C30: Adapt spending of UDS UDS UDS
O12 Ensure the correct C13: Minimize overflow pollution
to needs sustainability
Improve investment T6 functioning of load (above standards)
T3 Treatment System
C29: Improve the and operating costs Quality of C14: Produce reusable by-products
processing of complaints UDS Institutional (TS) and re-use them
C28: Improve the O11 operation framework C15: Confine what is not reusable
T4 O6
recording of complaints T5 of UDS and/or dangerous
Improve user Ensure the quality
relations Structural HR of the design and
C23: Manholes quality of management construction of the C16: Improve the collection rate
O10
C24: Gully inlet UDS UDN C17: Ensure the correct design and
Ensure the
C25: Overflow structure monitoring and O7 construction of wet weather
C26: Network maintenance of O9 Improve the collection structures
structures Guarantee the skills O8 governance of C18: Ensure reliable services for users
C27: Equipments Guarantee the draining services
of the personnel C19: Improve the connection rate
responsible for the health and safety
Legend: to the TS
UDS of personnel
C22: Improve staff training C20: Reduce the number of occupational accidents
Ti : Theme i
Oi : Objective i C21: Improve the protection of personnel
Ci: Criterion i against contamination from wastewater
UDS: Urban Drainage System
UDN: Urban Drainage Network

Fig. 1. Summary of the selected themes, objectives and criteria.

 A. Benzerra et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 101 (2012) 46e53
 Step 1: to assign each indicator a value that contributes to the
criterion;
 Step 2: to aggregate the indicators for each criterion in order to
measure the overall performance of the criterion;
 Step 3: to aggregate the criteria to measure the level at which
the objectives are met;
 Step 4: to assess the level of satisfaction with regard to
a specific theme using the assessment results for each
objective.
We have maintained a multi-criteria assessment for the last step
but have chosen to use an aggregation procedure for the second
and third steps. This method requires a common scale for assessing
the criteria and objectives in order to then manipulate them using
simple operators (sums, averages, etc.). It is therefore important to
first transform the estimated value for each indictor (indicator
status) in order to give it a score on a standardized performance
scale.
2.3.1. Performance scale
The performance assessment starts by converting the values of
indicators to performance values in certain scale. The scale should
be defined finite, quantitative and scalar. The scale from 0 to 1 has
been chosen in our case with 1 representing the best performance
and 0 representing the worst. In order to transform the initial
measurement of indicators into scores between 0 and 1, perfor-
mance functions should be built first using standards and, where
these are not available, the ONA experts’ recommendations.
Fig. 2 shows an example of the performance function for the TSS
(Total Suspended Solids) indicator to assess the quality of the
discharge environment according to the SEQ-eau (Water Quality
Assessment System) (Babut et al., 2003). This performance function
corresponds to one of the indicators in criterion C4 of objective O1
(Fig. 1). When the concentration of TSS is less than or equal to
50 mg/l the performance values vary linearly between 0.6 and 1;
when the TSS is above the threshold of 150 mg/l, the performance is
zero. Performance functions of this type were built for each
indicator.
2.3.2. Selected aggregation method
The most frequently applied aggregation methods include:
complete, partial and local aggregation (Roy and Bouyssou, 1993;
Ben Mena, 2000). Complete aggregation is used in our case study
based on the single criterion. Complete aggregation seems the most
appropriate method for aggregating all the indicators correspond-
ing to one common criterion. This corresponds to the context of our
study and the ranking of the criteria and objectives developed
(Fig. 1). Furthermore, this choice does not compromise the multi-
criteria nature of the overall assessment as the scores assigned to
each objective are still available. There are a wide variety of
complete aggregation methods, such as:
Fig. 2. Performance function TSS for the assessment of water quality in the discharge
environment.
49
 Pairwise comparison (Limayem and Yannou, 2004);
 Weighted sum (Roy and Bouyssou, 1993);
 Multi-Attribute Unity Theory (MAUT) developed by Keeney
and Raiffa in 1976 (Bryhn et al., 2009);
 Or other mathematical functions such as that developed by
Nassar et al. (2003), etc.
The weighted sum method is used for its clarity and simplicity. It
is a widely used method amongst the aforementioned techniques
(Ben Mena, 2000). The main drawbacks of this method are: I) the
possible compensation between indicator scores in some situations
and II) its high sensitivity to changes in scale. The compensation is
acceptable as the aggregation is implemented between elements of
the same nature (belonging to the same objective). The second
drawback is reduced when the same scale is used to assess all the
scores to be aggregated, as is the case here. The performance of
criterion Cj is assessed using the following equation:
X
n
PCj ¼ PIji $wji (1)
i¼1
where: PCj: performance value of criterion Cj; n: the number of
indicators considered in criterion Cj; PIji: performance value of
indicator Ii in criterion Cj; wji: value of weight factor for indicator Ii
in criterion Cj.
The aggregation approach is similarly implemented for the
objective assessments.
2.3.3. Weighting method
In this study, the weight was calculated using the AHP method.
AHP is a multi-criteria decision support method which allows
decision-makers to specify the relative importance of different
elements. In the case of a complex problem such as our case study,
the method is applied in a hierarchical manner from the indicator
level up to the objectives level.
The AHP method is based on pairwise comparisons of judgment.
It integrates the importance of the criteria and the indicators into
one overall score for the objective. Although AHP method is widely
used (Ramanathan, 2001; Herath, 2004; Ugwu et al., 2006; Ugwu
and Haupt, 2007; Hajkowicz, 2008), it has also been criticized
(Al-Harbi, 2001). The main criticisms are:
 The addition of new indicators can change the ranking of
existing indicators;
 The weights are calculated without taking into account varia-
tions in the scale of the indicators.
However, according to the conclusions of previous studies
(Harker and Vargas, 1987; Pérez, 1995; Al-Harbi, 2001), and given
the precautions that are taken to overcome the drawbacks (same
scalar scale for all assessments) this method is well adapted to our
objectives.
The procedure for the AHP method is summarized as follows:
1) Define the problem and determine its objectives;
2) Develop the hierarchical structure of the problem:
 1st level: define the various objectives for the problem;
 2nd level: select the criteria for each objective;
 3rd level: assign indicators to each criterion.
3) Construct the decision matrix (see below).
The decision matrices are composed of elements aij. The
element aij represents the order of preference between indicator/
criterion i and indicator/criterion j. The values of aij are assessed
using pairwise comparison (Table 1).
50 A. Benzerra et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 101 (2012) 46e53

Table 1 Table 3
Pairwise comparison for preferences in AHP (Al-Harbi, 2001). Average daily values for the pollution indicators in the receiving water (ONA, 2009).

Numerical rating Verbal judgments of preferences Pollution indicators Unit Value

1 Equal preference Dissolved oxygen (O2) mg/l 5.33
3 Moderate preference Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) mg/l 123.12
5 Strong preference Nitrate (NO3) mg/l 46.18
7 Very strong preference Nitrite (NO2) mg/l 0.48
9 Absolute preference Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) mg/l 24.36
Ammonium (NH4) mg/l 6.3
Phosphate (PO4) mg/l 0.5
Total phosphorous (Pt) mg/l 6.2
Generally speaking, the values for aij are identified using ques- Total Suspended Solids (TSS) mg/l 4363.67
tionnaires filled out by representatives of the stakeholders Temperature (T
)

C 28
pH e 6.9
involved. In this case study, given the manager’s lack of knowledge Phenol index (C6H5OH) mg/l 0.016
regarding priority indicators and criteria, we have evaluated the Mineral oils mg/l 0.58
values for aij ourselves. The matrix is then completed as follows: Foam mg/l 0.63
ajj ¼ 1 and aji ¼ 1/aij (reciprocal value). Fecal streptococci (FS) U/100 ml 4941
Total coliform bacteria (T-coli) U/100 ml 13,738
Escherichia coli (E. coli) U/100 ml 11,437
4) To calculate the relative importance (weight) of each criterion Dry residue mg/l 2238.4
with regard to its contribution to the objective. The procedure Sodium (Na) mg/l 296.6
is as follows: Chlorine (Cl) mg/l 337.67
 The values in each column are summed; Sulfate (SO4) mg/l 364.27
Arsenic (As) mg/l 32.1
 Each element in the matrix is divided by the sum of its
Zinc (Zn) mg/l 4866.23
column (normalization); Copper (Cu) mg/l 1173.21
 The average for each element in a row of the matrix is Lead (Pb) mg/l 69.67
calculated. The averages represent the weight vector Chromium (Cr) mg/l 36.93
(eigenvector). Nickel (Ni) mg/l 403.05
Mercury (Hg) mg/l 0.933
5) To check the degree of consistency between the preferences. Cadmium (Cd) mg/l 3.625
The consistency index (CI) is determined with the following
formula using eigenvalue lmax:

4. Results and discussion

CI ¼ ðlmax  nÞ=ðn  1Þ
where: n: Matrix size.
Consistency can be checked using the consistency ratio CR
CR ¼ CI=RI
where: RI: Random Index shown in Table 2.
If CR < 0.10, the assignment of judgments is acceptable, if not
the procedure should be reviewed (Al-Harbi, 2001).
3. Case study
We applied this methodology to the UDS in Jijel, Algeria. Jijel is
located on the north-eastern coast of Algeria. It covers a surface
area of 6238 ha and has 135,000 inhabitants. The city is equipped
with a public drainage network which services 94% of the pop-
ulation. The rest of the city is serviced by private systems. Of the
total public drainage network 92% is a combined network and 8% is
a separate network. The total length of the network is around
113 km. The capacity of the WWTP (wastewater treatment plant) is
30,000 m3/day or 150,000 population equivalent (ONA, 2009). A
significant proportion of the network (around 25%) is not con-
nected to the WWTP. The average dry weather flow for the WWTP
is approximately 9400 m3/day. The volume of sanitary sewage
(untreated) directly discharged into the environment in dry
weather is around 3000 m3/day.
(2)
An example is presented in this paper to evaluate the objective
“Do not alter water quality of receiving water”. This objective is
assessed by integrating six associated criteria, four of which
concern water usage (Fig. 1):
(3)
 Overall chemical quality;
 Suitability for use for drinking water production;
 Suitability for use for irrigation;
 Suitability for use for fishing;
 Suitability for use for swimming;
 State of eutrophication.
The assessment of these different criteria depends on several
indicators. As previously stated, only the indicators actually avail-
able on the study site are taken into account. In this case study
measurements of the water’s pollution indicators are available
(Table 3). These measurements are used to assess indicator
performance.
The representativeness of the data needs to be validated.
Firstly, the pollution indicators are not sufficiently stringent. The
European Union’s Water Framework Directive (EC, 2000) iden-
tified 33 pollutants as priority targets for environmental quality
standards regarding to the chemical quality of bodies of water.
Secondly, the measurements were collected over one single
sampling campaign carried out in June 2008. Furthermore, there
is no detailed information on the conditions in which the
samples were taken. It is important that the reliability of the

Table 2
Random Index (RI) values (Al-Harbi, 2001).

Matrix size 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
RI 0.00 0.00 0.58 0.90 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.45 1.49 1.51 1.53 1.56 1.57 1.59
 A. Benzerra et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 101 (2012) 46e53 51

Fig. 3. Performance of indicators for criteria C1eC6.

data is established prior to implementing the methodology in
order to ensure its effectiveness. However, due to the lack of
data, the data actually available has been used to explain the
methodology.
The performance functions established are used to convert
concentration values into scores between 0 and 1 (see Fig. 2). This
operation assigns a score to each indicator (Fig. 3). For the pairwise
comparison phase the degree of toxicity of the parameters is taken
into account. The performance indicator scores are aggregated
using Eq. (1) with corresponding weight values (Fig. 4). The judg-
ments of preference assigned to the criteria matrices and the
studied objective matrices are acceptable as their consistency ratios
are less than 0.1 (Table 4).
As can be seen in Fig. 5, the criterion C3 shows good perfor-
mance (PC3 ¼ 0.719), while all the other criteria show relatively
poor performances (PC1 ¼ 0.427; PC2 ¼ 0.294; PC6 ¼ 0.229;
PC4 ¼ 0.220 and PC5 ¼ 0.159). As a result, the overall performance
score for objective O1 is quite low: PO1 ¼ 0.357. Therefore, ONA
managers should undertake measures to improve the water quality
of the receiving water. For example, they could start to reduce the
discharged pollutant load and increase the proportion of the
wastewater network connected to WWTP.

Fig. 4. Weighted hierarchy for the studied objective.

52 A. Benzerra et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 101 (2012) 46e53

Table 4
Consistency ratios for the selected matrices.
Criteria
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6
Matrix size (n) 7 15 11 11 6 6
Eigenvalue (lmax) 7.255 15.540 11.658 11.268 6.273 6.198
Consistency Index (CI) 0.042 0.039 0.066 0.027 0.055 0.040
Consistency Ratio (CR) 0.032 0.025 0.044 0.018 0.044 0.032
Fig. 5. Performance of criteria for objective O1.
5. Conclusion and further research
This paper presents a methodology developed to support
sustainable UDS management. The themes, objectives and criteria
developed are well adapted to local specificities including the
difficulty in acquiring precise data on the drainage network,
pollution in the discharge environment and the risk of waterborne
diseases etc. It is particularly focused on making the best use of
existing infrastructure.
The methodology employs a structured approach to draw up
and implement indicators, criteria and objectives. A top-down
descriptive approach (from objectives to criteria to indicators) is
developed in order to facilitate the definition of themes related to
UDS sustainability, priority objectives for the managers, and
appropriate criteria. A bottom-up approach is then used to produce
a performance score for element of each level.
The methodology has been applied to a real case study in
Algeria. The results provide interesting information that is useful to
the Algerian UDS managers. It provides a set of indicators which are
important for operational applications. It also identifies the objec-
tives requiring improvement and the criteria and indicators
responsible for this. This therefore allows managers to focus studies
in order to understand the main reasons for the quality failures
observed.
However, the method developed has only been validated in
principle. The differences between the methodologies used in the
literature and in our case study have not been compared. Clearly
feedback from the different UDS stakeholders is needed to back up
the results obtained from this method. This work will be done in
a future study when more data becomes available.
References
Al-Harbi, K.M.Al-S., 2001. Application of the AHP in project management. Interna-
tional Journal of Project Management 19, 19e27.
Ashley, R., Blackwood, D., Butler, D., Jowitt, P., Davies, J., Smith, H., Gilmour, D.,
Oltean-Dumbrava, C., March 2008. Decision support for sustainable option
selection in integrated urban water management. ASCE Journal of Environ-
mental Engineering 134, 200e209.
Babut, M., Bonnet, C., Bray, M., Flammarion, P., Garric, J., Golaszewski, G., October
2003. Developing environmental quality standards for various pesticides and
priority pollutants for French freshwaters. Journal of Environmental Manage-
ment 69 (2), 139e147.
Balkema, A.J., Preisig, H.A., Otterpohl, R., Lambert, F.J.D., 2002. Indicators for the
sustainability assessment of wastewater treatment systems. Urban Water 4 (2),
153e161.
Objective Barraud, S., Azzout, Y., Crès, F.-N., 1998. Méthodologie d’aide à la décision pour la
conception et la sélection de techniques alternatives en assainissement pluvial.
O1
Journal of Decision Systems 7, 69e86.
6 Benayada, L., Kettab, A., 2005. Problématique de l’eau en Algérie: Nécessité d’une
6.344 gestion intégrée de la ressource en eau dans la perspective d’un développement
0.069 durable. Algerian Journal of Technology. 1111e357X, Number Special. An
0.055 International Publication of Engineering Sciences.
Ben Mena, S., février 2000. Introduction aux méthodes multiCritères d’aide à la
décision. Biotechnologie, Agronomie, Société et Environnement, pp. 83e93.
Bonièrbale, T., 15 décembre 2004. Eléments pour l’évaluation de la qualité envi-
ronnementale des systèmes d’assainissement urbains. Thèse de doctorat. Uni-
versité de Marne la Vallée, 285 pp.
Bryhn, A.C., Jiménez, A., Mateos, A., Ríos-Insua, S., June 2009. Multi-attribute
analysis of trophic state and waterfowl management in Ringkøbing Fjord,
Denmark. Journal of Environmental Management 90 (8), 2568e2577.
Cherrared, M., Chocat, B., Benzerra, A., 2007. Problématique et faisabilité du
développement durable en matière d’assainissement urbain. In: 6ème Confér-
ence Internationale sur les techniques et stratégies durables pour la gestion des
eaux urbaines par temps de pluie, NOVATECH du 25 au 28 juin 2007, Lyon,
France.
Cherrared, M., Zekiouk, T., Chocat, B., 2010. Durabilité des systèmes d’assainisse-
ment algériens, étude de l’aspect fonctionnel du système de la ville de Jijel. In:
7ème Conférence Internationale sur les techniques et stratégies durables pour
la gestion des eaux urbaines par temps de pluie, NOVATECH du 27 juin au 1er
juillet 2010, Lyon, France.
Chocat, B., Ashley, R., Marsalek, J., Matos, M.R., Rauch, W., Schilling, W., Urbonas, B.,
2007. Toward the sustainable management of urban storm-water. Indoor and
Built Environment 16 (3), 273e275.
C.N.E.S., 2000. L’eau En Algérie: Le Grand défi de demain. B.O. N
9, pp. 105e149.
XVème session plénière, Alger, 15e16 Mai 2000. In: Travaux de la Commission
Aménagement du Territoire et de L’Environnement.
C.N.E.S., 2007. Rapport national sur le développement humain. Réalisé en coopér-
ation avec le Programme des Nations Unies pour le développement PNUD,
Algérie, 105 pp.
Dechesne, M., Barraud, S., Bardin, J.-P., 2004. Indicators for hydraulic and pollution
retention assessment of stormwater infiltration basins. Journal of Environ-
mental Management 71, 371e380.
EC, 23 October 2000. Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council N

2000/60/EC Establishing a Framework for Community Action in Field of Water
Policy. European Union, Luxembourg.
Ellis, J.B., Deutsch, J.-C., Mouchel, J.-M., Scholes, L., Revitt, D., 2004. Multicriteria
decision approaches to support sustainable drainage options for the treatment
of highway and urban runoff. Science of the Total Environment 334e335,
251e260.
Foxon, T.J., McIlkenny, G., Gilmour, D., Oltean-Dumbrava, C., Souter, N., Ashley, R.,
Butler, D., Pearson, P., Jowitt, P., Moir, J., 2002. Sustainability criteria for decision
support in the UK water industry. Journal of Environmental Planning and
Management 45 (2), 285e301.
Geerse, J.M.U., Lobbrecht, A.H., 2002. Assessing the performance of urban drainage
systems: “general approach” applied to the city of Rotterdam. Urban Water 4,
199e209.
Granger, D., Caradot, N., Cherqui, F., Chocat, B., 2010. Comment gérer durablement
un système de gestion des eaux urbaines?. In: 7ème Conférence Internationale
sur les techniques et stratégies durables pour la gestion des eaux urbaines par
temps de pluie. NOVATECH du 27 juin au 1er juillet 2010, Lyon, France.
Guérin-Schneider, L., 2001. Introduire la mesure de performance dans la régulation
des services d’eau et d’assainissement en France. Instrumentation et organi-
sation. Thèse de gestion. ENGREF, 447 pp.
Hajkowicz, S.A., September 2008. Supporting multi-stakeholder environmental
decisions. Journal of Environmental Management 88 (4), 607e614.
Harker, P.T., Vargas, L.G., 1987. The theory of ratio scale estimation: Saaty’s analytic
process. Management Science 33 (11), 1383e1403.
Herath, G., 2004. Incorporating community objectives in improved wetland
management: the use of the analytic hierarchy process. Journal of Environ-
mental Management 70, 263e273.
Kennedy, S., Lewis, L., Sharp, E., Wong, S., 2007. Sustainable urban drainage systems
(SUDS) e more than a drainage solution?. In: 6ème Conférence Internationale
sur les techniques et stratégies durables pour la gestion des eaux urbaines par
temps de pluie, NOVATECH du 25 au 28 juin 2007, Lyon, France.
Kettab, A., Mitiche, R., Bennaçar, N., 2008. De l’eau pour un développement durable:
enjeux et stratégies. Revues des Sciences de l’Eau 21 (2), 247e256.
Kolsky, P., Butler, D., 2002. Performance indicators for urban storm drainage in
developing countries. Urban Water 4, 137e144.
Le Gauffre, P., Joannis, C., Vasconcelos, E., Breysse, D., Gibello, C., Desmulliez, J.J.,
2007. Performance indicators and multi-criteria decision support for sewer
asset management. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, ASCE 13 (2), 105e114.
Limayem, F., Yannou, B., 2004. Generalization of the RCGM and LSLR pairwise
comparison methods. Computers and Mathematics with Applications 48,
539e548.
Loi n
05-12 du 04 août, 2005. Utilisation, gestion et développement durable des
ressources en eau. Journal Officiel de la République Algérienne 60, 24. http://
www.joradp.dz/JO2000/2005/060/F_Pag.htm.
 A. Benzerra et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 101 (2012) 46e53
Lundin, M., 1999. Assessment of the environmental sustainability of urban water
systems. Licentiate thesis. Chalmers Univ. of Technology, Goteborg, Sweden.
http://www.esa.chalmers.se/publications/PDF-files/Lic/Tep_1999_7.PDF
Lundin, M., Morrison, G.M., 2002. A life cycle assessment based procedure for
development of environmental sustainability indicators for urban water
systems. Urban Water 4, 145e152.
MATE, Ministère de l’Aménagement du Térritoire et de Environnement, 2002. Plan
National d’Actions pour l’Environnement et le Développement Durable (PNAE-
DD), 110 pp. République Algérienne Démocratique et Populaire. http://www.
mate.gov.dz/index.php?option¼com_
content&task¼view&id¼288&Itemid¼218.
Matos, R., Cardoso, A., Ashley, R., Duarte, P., Molinari, A., Schulz, A., 2003. Perfor-
mance Indicators for Wastewater Services. Manuel of Best Practice Series. IWA
Publishing, London, ISBN 9781900222907, 192 pp.
Moura, P.M., 2008. Méthode d’évaluation des performances des systèmes d’infil-
tration des eaux de ruissellement en milieu urbain. Thèse de l’Institut National
des Sciences Appliquées, Lyon, France.
Moura, P.M., Baptista, M.B., Barraud, S., 2006. Comparison between two method-
ologies for urban drainage decision aid. Water Science & Technology 54 (6e7),
493e499.
Moura, P.M., Barraud, S., Baptista, M., Malard, F., 2010. Méthode d’aide à la décision
pour le suivi au cours du temps de systèmes d’infiltration des eaux. In: 7ème
Conférence Internationale sur les techniques et stratégies durables pour la
gestion des eaux urbaines par temps de pluie, NOVATECH du 27 juin au 1er
juillet 2010, Lyon, France.
Nassar, K., Thabet, W., Beliveau, Y., September 2003. A procedure for multi-criteria
selection of building assemblies. Automation in Construction 12 (5), 543e560.
NEPAD New Partnership for African Development, 2001. In Lusaka e Zambia. http://
www.nepad.org.
ONA, Juillet 2009. Etude de diagnostic et de réhabilitation du système d’assai-
nissement de 12 villes (lot-4: Guelma e Jijel), Rapport d’évaluation qualitative
et quantitative des flux réels (sous mission B301), 210 pp.
Pérez, J., June 1995. Some comments on Saaty’s AHP. Management Science 41 (6),
1091e1095.
53
Quadros, S., João Rosa, M., Alegre, H., Silva, C., 2010. A performance indicators
system for urban wastewater treatment plants. Water Science & Technology 62
(10), 2398e2407.
Ramanathan, R., 2001. A note on the use of the analytic hierarchy process for
environment impact assessment. Journal of Environmental Management 63 (1),
27e35.
Roy, B., Bouyssou, D., 1993. Aide MultiCritère à la Décision: Méthodes et Cas.
Collection Gestion, Economica, ISBN 2-7178-2473-1, 695 pp.
Saegrov, S., 2006. Computer Aided Rehabilitation of Sewer and Storm Water
Networks e CARE-S. IWA Publishing, Avril, ISBN 9781843391159, 160 pp.
Shuping, L., Siuqing, L., Chocat, B., Barraud, S., 2006. Requirements for sustainable
management of urban water systems. In: 1st UNESCO/UNEP training course on
sustainability in water management for urban and rural development, Shangai,
China, June 23e27, 2006, pp. D-14-11eD-14-23.
Taylor, C., Fletcher, T., Peljo, L., June 2006. Triple-bottom-line assessment of
stormwater quality projects: advances in practicality, flexibility and rigour.
Urban Water Journal 3 (2), 79e90.
Thévenot, D.R., 2008. DayWater: an Adaptive Decision Support System for Urban
Stormwater Management. IWA Publishing, London, ISBN 9781843391609, 280
pp.
Toumi, A., Chocat, B., 2004. L’assainissement en Algérie: problématique. La Houille
Blanche 6, 130e136.
Ugwu, O.O., Haupt, T.C., February 2007. Key performance indicators and assessment
methods for infrastructure sustainability e a South African construction
industry perspective. Building and Environment 42 (2), 665e680.
Ugwu, O.O., Kumaraswamy, M.M., Wong, A., Ng, S.T., March 2006. Sustainability
appraisal in infrastructure projects (SUSAIP). Part 1. Development of indicators
and computational methods. Automation in Construction 15, 239e251.
UNCED United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Agenda 21,
1992. http://www.habitat.igc.org/agenda21.
WCED World Commission on Environment Development, 1987. Our common
future. Published as annex to General Assembly, document A/42/427-
Development and International Co-operation: Environment, August 2, 1987.
http://www.un-documents.net/wced-ocf.htm.