EnvironmentalScienceandPolicy90(2018)1–10

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Science and Policy

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

A multi expert decision support tool for the evaluation of advanced

wastewater treatment trains: A novel approach to improve urban
sustainability
Seyed M.K. Sadra,b,⁎, Devendra P. Sarojb, Jose Carlos Mierzwac, Scott J. McGraned,e,
George Skouterisf,⁎⁎, Raziyeh Farmania, Xenofon Kazosb, Benedikt Aumeierg,
Samaneh Kouchakih, Sabeha K. Oukib
a
Centre for WATER Systems (CWS), College of Engineering, MATHEMATICS AND PHYSICAL Sciences, HARRISON Building, North PARK ROAD, University of Exeter, Exeter, Devon,
EX4 4QF, United Kingdom
b c
DEPARTMENT of Civil AND ENVIRONMENTAL Engineering, FACULTY of Engineering AND PHYSICAL Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey GU2 7XH, United Kingdom
Polytechnic School, DEPARTMENT of HYDRAULIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL Engineering. Av. ALMEIDA PRADO, 83 - Building, Civil Engineering / PHA BUTANTA 05508-900, University of
SAO PAULO, SAO PAULO, SP, BRAZIL
d
FRASER of ALLANDER Institute, DEPARTMENT of Economics, University of STRATHCLYDE, GLASGOW, G4 0QU, United Kingdom
e
STANFORD Photonics RESEARCH Center, STANFORD University, PALO Alto, CALIFORNIA, USA
f
Centre for SUSTAINABLE MANUFACTURING & Recycling Technologies (SMART), Wolfson School of MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL AND MANUFACTURING Engineering, Loughborough
University, Loughborough, Leicestershire, LE11 3TU, United Kingdom
g
DEPARTMENT of CHEMICAL Process Engineering, RWTH AACHEN University, AACHENER VERFAHRENSTECHNIK, 52074 AACHEN, GERMANY
h
Division of Evolution AND Genomic Sciences, School of BIOLOGICAL Sciences, University of MANCHESTER, MANCHESTER, M13 9 NT, United Kingdom

ARTICLEINFO
ABSTRACT

Keywords:
Wastewater Treatment (WWT) for water reuse applications has been accepted as a strategic solution in im-
Water reuse
Technology selection proving water supplies across the globe; however, there are still various challenges that should be overcome.
Group decision making Selection of practical solutions is then required whilst considering technical, environmental, socio-cultural, and
Membrane technologies financial factors. In this study, a multi expert decision support tool that considers a variety of evaluation criteria
Environmental impacts is proposed to provide a ranking system for competing advanced WWT technologies in terms of their perfor-
mance. Two scenarios of water reuse in the contexts of Brazil and Greece are defined, and evaluation is un-
dertaken based on opinions of water reuse experts. The results prove that the tool would successfully facilitate
rigorous and methodical analysis in evaluation of WWT technologies for water reuse applications with potential
for use under various sets of evaluation criteria, WWT technologies and contexts.

1. Introduction industrial use (Rosegrant et al., 2011). One potential solution to redu-
cing water stress would be the application of water reuse technologies.
The global population has doubled to seven billion people in half a Water reuse both augments opportunities for natural water quality
century, placing considerable pressure on water resources. It is pro- improvement and improves management of competitive water de-
jected that by 2025, 67% of the global population will face significant mands.
water stress and 35% will suffer high constraints in accessing fresh There have already been various configurations of Wastewater
water (Lazarova et al., 2001). Additionally, it is predicted that in the Treatment (WWT) trains (Joksimovic et al., 2006), including mem-
coming decades crowded urban settlements, that will generate heavy brane-assisted technologies, that have been acknowledged as suitable
loads of water pollutants, will form a large proportion of the habitable and reliable solutions regarding the removal of emerging pollutants
world with higher levels of water withdrawal both for domestic and and have been capable of meeting different water reuse standards
(Dogan

⁎
Corresponding author at: Centre for Water Systems (CWS), College of Engineering, Mathematics and Physical Sciences, Harrison Building, North Park Road,
University of Exeter, Exeter, Devon, EX4 4QF, United Kingdom.
⁎⁎
Corresponding author at: Centre for Sustainable Manufacturing & Recycling Technologies (SMART), Wolfson School of Mechanical, Electrical and
Manufacturing Engineering, Loughborough University, Loughborough, Leicestershire, LE11 3TU, United Kingdom.
E-MAIL ADDRESSES: s . m .k . sa d r @ ex et e r. a c . uk (S.M.K. Sadr), g.s .s k oute ris @l boro.a c .uk (G. Skouteris).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.09.006
Received 1 April 2018; Received in revised form 21 August 2018; Accepted 10 September 2018
Availableonline2
4September2018
1462-9011/©2018ElsevierLtd.Allrightsreserved.
 S.M.K. SADR et AL. EnvironmentAlScienceAN
DPolicy90(2018)1–10

Fig. 1. The six phases towards selection of wastewater treatment technologies different water reuse scenarios.

et al., 2016). However, the complexity of the advanced unit processes,

against different criteria. Multi-Criteria Multi-Expert Decision Making
together with solution variety, requires a systematic assessment so as
(MCMEDM) has already been proved to be a useful tool to achieve
optimum solutions are able to be identified and selected. In fact,
rankings based on experts’ judgement (Chen, 2001, 2000). In GDM, the
a practical solution is often rather complex, as a wide range of to find
decision
approaches that are adopted for the aggregation of experts’ opinions
requirements and uncertain conditions should be taken into account
play a major role (Fan and Liu, 2010). Technique for Order of Pre-
(Dheena and Mohanraj, 2011).
ference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) and Analytic
Regulations have also been an important obstacle to water reuse
Hierarchy Process (AHP) are commonly employed in the MCDA
implementation (Casani et al., 2005), as they can significantly affect the
models and tools (especially for GDM) (Agrawal et al., 2016; Behzadian
number and type of solutions and further complicate the process of
decision making. This has recently received more attention from the et al., 2012; Jaiswal and Mishra, 2017; Zyoud et al., 2016). TOPSIS is the
most preferred method when decision problems involve large
stakeholders and a number of regional, national, and international
numbers of criteria and technologies, especially if there are bits of
guidelines or regulations have been established; for example, the
quantitative information in the data (Kalbar et al., 2013); whereas, the
World Health Organisation (WHO) has published a number of
AHP is a quite powerful technique when the criteria function
guidelines on water reuse (for both non-potable and potable water)
autonomously (Behzadian et al., 2012). Hybrid models/tools of
and wastewater management (WHO, 2017, 2006a, 2006b). Another
TOPSIS and AHP have also been developed and applied to different
well-established water reuse guidelines are developed by the US
fields (Ertuğrul, 2011; Jolai et al., 2011; Tavana and Hatami-Marbini,
Environmental Pro- tection Agency (USEPA) (USEPA, 2012). A
2011; Yousefi and Hadi- Vencheh, 2010). To date and to the best of the
number of countries, such as India and China, have issued their own
authors’ knowledge, only few pieces of research focused on fuzzy
national water reuse standards/ regulations (Eldho, 2014; Sadr et al.,
based TOPSIS-AHP group de- cision making (i.e. multi-expert decision
2018; Yi et al., 2011; Zhu and Dou, 2018), however, in many other
making) in wastewater treat- ment and water reuse applications
countries, local regulators still develop their own water reuse
(Kamble et al., 2017; Karahalios, 2017; Zyoud et al., 2016).
standards on a “case-by-case” basis (Casani et al., 2005).
This study builds on the work previously presented by Sadr et al.,
Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) is a well-established
(2015), which adapted an MCMEDM (fuzzy-TOPSIS) for the selection
sion support method that strives to model expert thoughts and rea-
of WWT options in different water reuse situations. In brief, Sadr et al.,
soning, and illustrates modelled results by systematic (Cakir
(2015) addressed a number of critical challenges in water reuse tech-
and Canbolat, 2008), whilst evaluating a number of solutions based on
nology selection; namely: (1) alleviated the challenges of using lin-
a set of criteria (Walker et al., 2015) with respect to economic, en-
guistic variables, (2) incorporated opinions of different stakeholders in
vironmental, social and technical aspects (Sadr et al., 2015). Decisions,
a panel of decision-making, (3) Showed how to deal with numerous
involving various issues, in particular environmental concerns and
water reuse aspects, criteria, and technologies, and finally, (4) sys-
their associated policies and regulations, oblige the participation of
tematised and classified the plethora of information about water reuse
multiple stakeholders, as these decisions may have both local and
scenarios, criteria, and technologies.
global impacts on the environment and/or the society (Kalbar et al.,
In this work, we implemented an improved GDM method via in-
2013). To this end, the aim of any group decision activity is to identify
tegrating fuzzy TOPSIS with AHP for the selection of WWT
the alternatives that are assessed by a set of individuals as the
for non-potable water reuse applications in different contexts with
optimum ones. To achieve a more realistic approach, the experts are
distinct regulations and different geographical, environmental, eco-
asked to assess not only the range of ‘agree-disagree’ but also they are
nomic and demographic conditions. The approach was tested and va-
requested to provide intermediate degrees as well, corresponding to
lidated by application to two case studies: (1) in São Paulo, Brazil, and
partial agreement (Bordogna et al., 1997).
(2) in Herakleion, Greece.
Taking into account the fuzziness in Group Decision Making
(GDM) and the fact that the main contributors are experts, linguistic
values can be employed, instead of numerical ones. These values are 2. Methodology
used both for assigning the weights of criteria and for evaluating
each alternative Based on the lessons learnt from the previous study, we aimed to

2
S.M.K. SADR et AL. EnvironmentAlScienceAN
DPolicy90(2018)1–10
conduct this study in six phases (see Fig. 1). The first phase develops
an improved version of MCMEDM (i.e. IMCMEDM) in order to Table 1
evaluate membrane-assisted water reuse technologies. The second Linguistic Variables (LVs) and Fuzzy Sets (FSs): (a) employed for WWTTs
rating under each criterion, (b) employed for assigning the weights of the
phase in- volves the development of water reuse scenarios in the
criteria (adapted from Sadr et al., (2015)).
contexts of Brazil and Greece. Part of this phase is to identify and
delineate the regions as local for water reuse application. It also LVs and FSs (a) employed for WWTTs rating under each criterion
explores the existing regulations, guidelines and standards for
Linguistic variables Code Fuzzy sets
wastewater treatment and water reuse in those regions and develops a
1 Very poor VP (0.00, 0.00, 0.10)
database that enables the comparison and assessment of alternatives. 2 Poor P (0.00, 0.10, 0.30)
Next two phases, the third and fourth, identify the most important 3 Medium poor MP (0.10, 0.30, 0.50)
water reuse criteria and de- velop a list of possible WWT technologies, 4 Medium M (0.30, 0.50, 0.70)
respectively. The fifth phase involves designing and subsequently 5 Medium good MG (0.50, 0.70, 0.90)
6 Good G (0.70, 0.90, 1.00)
distributing surveys on WWT cri- teria and technologies, whilst the
7 Very good VG (0.90, 1.00, 1.00)
sixth and final phase aims at in- corporating the thoughts of experts LVs and FSs (b) employed for assigning the weights of the criteria.
into the technology selection pro- cess (presented in the Result and Linguistic variables Code Fuzzy sets
Discussion Section). 1 Extremely less Important ELI (0.00, 0.00, 0.11)
2 Strongly less important SLI (0.00, 0.11, 0.22)
3 Moderately less important MLI (0.11, 0.22, 0.33)
2.1. PHASE 1: improved MCMEDM method for multi expert technology
4 Weakly (Slightly) less important WLI (0.22, 0.33, 0.44)
selection 5 Equally important EI (0.33, 0.44, 0.55)
6 Weakly (Slightly) more important WMI (0.44, 0.55, 0.66)
The improved MCMEDM (IMCMEDM) is considered as an 7 Moderately more important MMI (0.55, 0.66, 0.77)
integrated TOPSIS-AHP (i.e. Technique for Order of Preference by 8 Strongly more important SMI (0.66, 0.77, 0.88)
9 Extremely more important EMI (0.77, 0.88, 1.00)
Similarity to Ideal Solution - Analytic Hierarchy Process) with all
details of the TOPSIS model applied for evaluation of WWT
technologies being found in the study of Sadr et al. (2015). The main
The rating of technologies against different criteria and their
advantage of this new approach over the conventional MCMEDM is
weights by k decision makers are computed by Eqs. 6 and 7, respec-
the pair-wise comparison of criteria. Although previous results
tively
⎞ (Chen,
1 2001, 2000): ⎛1 1 1
matched existing water reuse case studies, the evaluation of criteria by ∼
x xP = [∼x + ∼x +…+∼x ] =
1 2 K
K xP, K xP, K
the experts - who have participated
in both surveys - was reported problematic due to lack of an ⎜ K
appropriate
and convenient comparison approach for the evaluation of water reuse ⎝ ∑
1ij p=1 ∑ 2ij
K p=1
criteria. They also indicated that pair-wise comparison of criteria
would ij
K
ij ij ij ∑ K
p=1 3ij⎟⎠
= (x , x , x )
make the evaluation process less biased and more precise, and ease it, 1ij 2ij 3ij
1 1 1 (6)
⎛ 1k
although it would be slightly more time-consuming. The pair-wise W ∑ =Kw∼ = [w∼1 + w∼2+…+w∼ K ] = ∑ w PK, w PK
∑ ,
P⎞
comparison was considered for this study as it will help in improving w
the user’s (water reuse experts or stakeholders) satisfaction and in j ⎜ K
3j ⎟⎠
aj j j j K p=1 2j K
making the IMCMEDM approach more user-friendly. The pair-wise K ⎝ p=1 p=1
=
comparison of criteria results in numerical values corresponding to (w1j, w2j, w3j) 1j (7)

rows (j) and columns i k

where: ∼jx is the rating and aw∼ is the weight of the criterion given by
k
(k):
the j

matrix element: Cjk, where criterion Cj is compared against Ck:

kj = 1 k-expert, who participated in the survey. The defined linguistic vari-
C ables and the corresponding fuzzy sets for evaluation of the criteria are
Cjk (1) presented in Table 1(b).
For diagonal elements, where j = k,we have: The Fuzzy Decision Matrix (FDM) is then normalised (Eqs. 8 and 9)
with a view to ensuring compatibility between qualitative and quanti-
Cjk= C =kj1
And: (2) tative criteria, alleviating the normalisation challenges in the older
versio∼ns of TOSIS models, and achieving the closed interval of [0,1].
n R = [rij ]m×n i = 1,2, …, m j = 1,2, …, n (8)

TWj = ∑ Cjk ∼
K=1 (3) where: R is the normalised matrix of the fuzzy decision, and rij is equl
to:
where: TWj denotes total score for the j-row. To normalize the fuzzy ∼ ⎛ x2i x3ij ⎞ *
number, the sum of scores of all rows is required: i x 1ij j i ij
1i 2i 3ij
j

j j
r = ⎜ * , * , * ⎟ = (r , r , r ) C j = max C
Sum = ∑n TWj = (Sum1 , Sum2,Sum3) ⎝C1j C 2jC 3j ⎠ (9)
j=1
(4) In this step, the weights ar e incorporated into the normalized FDM
∼
where: Sum1, Sum2, and Sum3 are the three elements of a triangular (Eq. 10). Each element (vij) is calculated by using Eq. 11
fuzzy number. (∼Anag∼nostopoulos et al., 2008):

The importance of each criterion based on each expert’s evaluation

can beTWcalculated
TWas follows:
TW 1i , r2ij 2i , r3ij
W=⎜ k, k, k ⎟ , a ∈ {1, 2, 3} j3i w j w
vij = rij ⊗ wj = (r1ij, r2ij, r3ij) ⊗
k ⎛ 1J 2J 3J j
aj
⎝ Sum1 Sum2 Sum⎞3 ⎠ ≥0,w ≥0
(5)

3
 V∼ = [∼vij ]m×n∼i = 1,2, …, m j = (10)
S.M.K. SADR et AL. EnvironmentAlScienceAN
1,2, …, n DPolicy90(2018)1–10
(w1ij, w2ij, w3ij) 1i
(11)
(r1ij ), r1ij
where: A and k denote the order of elements in a triangular fuzzy w
where: ⊗ represents multiplication in a fuzzy environment. It is note-
number and the numbers given by each expert, respectively.
worthy that the weights given (by the experts) to the evaluation
The linguistic variables and their attributed fuzzy sets that are re-
criteria very much depend on and are affected by the context and its
quired to rate the WWT technologies under the evaluation criteria are
environ- mental, social and technical conditions. The weights may also
presented in Table 1(a).
be in- fluenced by water reuse regulations and guidelines implemented
in the

region of interest.
schemes; although no quality standards were proposed.
Once
fuzzy the fuzzy positive-ideal−
negative-ideal solution (A = solutio−nA(+−= (D −1+, D2+, , D+n,) ) and There is a guideline from the Brazilian Association of Technical
Standards, NBR 13, 969, which does focus on water re-use applications
1 D 2 ,
…(D ,)), are defined, the
D n

vertex method is used to calculate the distance D (. , .) of each alter- in a few sections (ABNT, 1997). In particular, Section 6 specifies gen-
native from A+ and A−: …,
eral orientation for implementing local water reuse schemes and also
Di = ∑ D (v˘ij, v˘ j ) [(v˘ − + ) + (v˘ − + ) + (v˘ − + 2 tended application. Comparing the local water quality standard in NBR
=+ + 1 2 2
n 1ij v˘1j 2ij v˘2j 3ij v˘
3j ) ] proposes four classes of non-potable water reuse, according to its in-
3
j=1 (12) 13,969 with quality standards in other international guidelines (USEPA,
Di = ∑ D (v˘ij, v˘ j )
[(v˘1ij−v˘1j )2 + (v˘2ij−v˘2j )2 + reuse application in urban areas. Due to the growing rate of water
= 3 ˘3ij ˘3j 2
− j=+n 1 −
(v −v ) ]
1 − − −
2012; WHO, 2017, 2006a), this standard can hardly be accepted for any
(13) consumption and increasing interest in water recycling and reuse, a
+++ − − − −
water reuse scheme was developed by Sabesp in 2002. It enforced
where: v˘j = (v˘1j , v˘2j, v˘3j ) = (1,1, 1) and v˘j = (v˘1j , v˘2j, v˘3j ) = (0,0, 0) SPMR to use treated effluent for public place washing, parks, gardens,
j = 1,2, …, n.
when and sportive field irrigation, and was regulated by Decree n° 44,128
(São Paulo, 2012), which states that the water companies especially
Finally, the overall performance of all WWT trains (representing water suppliers should be consulted with regard to the standards of
their scores and ranks) is calculated by the closeness coefficient (CCi) the physical, chemical and microbiological properties of reused water
using Eq. 14 (Chen, 2000): (Coroado, 2012). In 2005, the Sao Paulo City Hall mandated a more
D −i comprehensive law in the “Municipal Program for Water Conservation
CCi = i = 1,2, …, m and Rational Use in Households and Buildings”.
+
Di + Di − (14)
with CC ranging from 0 to 1. High value of CC indicates better
i i In addition, many industries started to plan the implementation of
performance of the ith technology, whereas a smaller value points out water reuse schemes by developing their own guidelines proposing
that the ith solution does not perform well. development, increased focus on quantity rather than quality resulted
In this study, the mathematical model has been incorporated into in deterioration in water quality. As the implementation of water re-
the IMCMEDM tool. The IMCMEDM is a stand-alone decision support cycling and reuse schemes are currently of importance, suitable and
tool with a user-friendly Graphical User Interface (GUI) developed in reliable WWT technologies should be implemented to ensure
a MATLAB environment. More information on the GUI is provided in promotion and protection of public health and the environment.
the Supplemental Online Material (SOM).
2.2.1.1. WATER reuse LEGISLATION AND guidelines in SAO PAULO,
2.2. PHASE 2: defining WATER reuse
no specific waterSCENARIOS
reuse guidelines have been BRAZIL. Although
officially developed in Brazil, there are few general policies related to
Prior to defining water reuse scenarios, we considered two real water reuse; the most relevant one was passed on November 2005 by
case studies of water reuse from different regions with different the National Council of Water Resources, Resolution nº 54. This
environ- mental,
focusessocial,
only ondemographic,
the definitionslegislative andwater
of permitted technological
reuse regulation
conditions. The final ranking of the treatment trains can significantly categories and general procedures for management of water reuse
vary de- pending on these conditions. Here first, the geographical and
environ- mental situations in each scenario (region) are discussed. We
then in- vestigated the water reuse legislation in both cases to ensure
that the defined scenarios do not come into conflict with local
regulations (especially environmental).

2.2.1. CASE study 1: SAO PAULO, BRAZIL

Sao Paulo Metropolitan Region (SPMR) is located in the east of
Brazil (Figure S1 in the SOM). The predominant climate is tropical-wet
and it consists of 39 municipalities aggregating approximately 20 mil-
lion inhabitants, which is 48% of the state population, (SEADE, 2012).
Water reuse is becoming increasingly critical in Latin America, espe-
cially in large, populous cities with water management having become
a significant challenge, mainly due to high rate of urbanisation that is
not evenly distributed (Morihama et al., 2011). In SPMR, water re-
sources are traditionally provided by surface water sources (91%),
while groundwater sources are fundamental as a complement to the
region’s water supply (Coroado, 2012). In the early stages of regional

4
S.M.K. SADR et AL. EnvironmentAlScienceAN
DPolicy90(2018)1–10
specific quality standards. This approach resulted in individual agree-
ments among the reuse water users and suppliers. The most
remarkable agreement was the one between the AQUAPOLO Project
and the CAPUAVA Industrial Complex, which resulted in a reuse
water quality standard that would only be complied if advanced
wastewater treat- ment technologies were applied. In this case the
restrictions imposed for the industries, because of fresh water scarcity
challenges in the SPMR and by the industries for the water suppliers,
driven the decision- making process for the definition of the final
wastewater treatment arrangement using advanced technologies.

2.2.1.2. Defining A SCENARIO of WATER reuse APPLICATION in SAO

PAULO, BRAZIL. In SPMR, there are a number of water reuse projects
and programmes - (e.g., Sabesp, AQUAPOLO). In this study, we
focused on the AQUAPOLO Project, which appears to be a suitable
one for testing and validating the IMCMEDM approach.
AQUAPOLO is one of the largest WWT plants in Latin America
where 1 m3 s−1 of effluent is treated by Membrane Bioreactor (MBR)
and Reverse Osmosis (RO) units. It is then distributed to the
CAPUAVA petrochemical complex in Maua city (Ambiental, 2011).
More information on this case study is provided in the SOM (Table
S1). This project aimed to establish sustainable practices of water
reuse (Coroado, 2012), and based on the fact that water reuse
practices have become critical for Sao Paulo, the following scenario
was considered: Scenario 1: WWT through advanced technologies
(membrane-assisted) for industrial water reuse, e.g., cooling towers.

2.2.2. CASE study 2: HERAKLEION, Greece

The study focuses on Herakleion, which is the fourth largest city
in Greece and is located at the north of Crete. Crete is about 8336 km2
with approximately 600,000 residents (Figure S2 in the SOM). Greece
is considered as a water-stressed country (EEA, 2005). In the early
1990s, total water consumption was reported about 5500 million
m3 y−1, while this amount increased to 7150 million m3y−1 in 2000,
indicating an increase of 3% each year (EEA, 2005). Furthermore, fresh
water resources are unevenly distributed with some regions suffering
from water scarcity particularly in summer due to low precipitation
and high demand (Tsagarakis et al., 2004). To tackle the problem, the
country is compelled to use alternative water resources alongside an
appropriate water management methods. To this end, an established
framework for community action in the field of water policy was
introduced via the implantation of the European Union Water
Framework Directive (WFD) stating that for communities of more
than 2000 population equivalent, collection and treatment (up to
secondary treatment) of wastewater is

5
 Fig. 2. Membrane assisted WWT trains shortlisted and employed in this study.

required.
2.3. PHASE 3: JustifiCATION of the EVALUATION CRITERIA

2.2.2.1. WATER reuse LEGISLATION AND guidelines in Greece. In 2011, the Depending on the water reuse scenario, the number of criteria and
Greek parliament adopted legislation (354B/2011) to exploit treated weights of each selected criterion are different. Sweetapple et al., (2014)
wastewater as a renewable resource. Specifically, the legislation refers evaluated five criteria (objectives) in their research, Joksimovic et al.,
to the following water reuse purposes (Greek Gazette, 2011): 1) WWT (2006) considered eight criteria, Flores-Alsina et al., (2008) and Sadr et
for irrigation including both restricted and unrestricted irrigation, 2) al., (2016) considered nine, and finally Sadr et al., (2015) em- ployed
recharge of underground aquifers and reduction in seawater intrusion, ten criteria. However, regardless of the number of evaluation criteria,
3) urban reuse, and 4) wastewater reuse for industrial activities. it is imperative to consider the following aspects: (1) economic,
According to Bixio et al., (2006), 23 million m3 d−1 of wastewater (2) technical, (3) social and (4) environmental. As this study im-
is reused in Greece, representing around 10% of total WWT plant plemented an improved version of MCMEDM model developed by
(WWTP) effluent. Freshwater, currently used for agricultural purposes, Sadr et al., 2015, similar evaluation criteria will be considered (See
can be retained for high-priority applications (Aggelides et al., 2005). Figure S3, in the SOM).

2.2.2.2. Defining A SCENARIO of WATER reuse APPLICATION in 2.4. PHASE 4: justifiCATION of the WWT TRAINS
HERAKLEION, Greece. The operation of Herakleion Wastewater
Treatment Plant (WWTP) started in 1996 and it is going to operate Each WWT train comprises a number of unit processes, which can
until its environmental terms expire in June 2020. The WWTP, be categorised into the four standard stages of treatment: 1) Primary
currently serving the municipalities of Herakleion and Gazi, meets the Treatment (PT) 2) Secondary Treatment (ST) 3) Tertiary Treatment
demands of about 200,000 inhabitants. Domestic wastewater is (TT) and 4) Disinfection (DI). There are various unit processes to be
primarily conveyed to the plant through the sewerage system, whilst considered in each stage, therefore, a large number of WWT trains can
tanker trucks serve a small portion of the population (7000 people). It be formed by different unit processes. Joksimović, (2006) calculated
is worth noting that the Herakleion plant is a municipal WWTP and the number of possible WWT technologies for different water reuse
does not treat industrial wastewater (YPEKA, 2012). purposes, e.g. 190 treatment trains for irrigation re-use and 149 for
The current WWTP includes the following units (EDEYA, 2015): indirect-potable water re-use. Considering the availability of technol-
screens (pore size: 9 mm), two units of aerated grit chambers, two ogies and feasibility of their installation, operation and maintenance in
Primary Sedimentation Tanks (PST), a selection tank, five chambers the targeted regions, ten WWT technologies have been shortlisted for
and six agitators, two lines of two aerobic-anoxic tanks per line, two the final evaluation by the water re-use experts in this study (Fig. 2).
Secondary Sedimentation Tanks (SST), and disinfection with NaOCl
(15%) in channels at the perimeter of SST, with treated effluent being
discharged at sea (Kazos, 2013). Recently, an expansion of the WWTP 2.5. PHASE 5: EVALUATION by WATER re-use experts
has been proposed to help meet the demands of an additional 30,000
people. The expansion will be based on membrane technologies, in Based on the description and characteristics of the defined
particular, MBRs are planned to be implemented (Kazos, 2013). The scenarios and the proposed mathematical approach of the IMCMEDM,
redeveloped WWTP is going to treat 36,000 m3 d−1, corresponding to two questionnaires (as part of the IMCMEDM tool) were prepared and
194,000 people (EDEYA, 2015). The expected characteristics of effluent dis- tributed to a number of wastewater engineers and water reuse
after the adaptation are provided in the SOM (Table S2). The following experts (from both the academia and industry) in Brazil and Greece.
scenario is then defined for reuse of the WWTP effluent in Herakleion: The par- ticipants were selected based on the contexts (scenarios) and
Scenario 2: WWT using membrane technology for unrestricted agri- their areas of expertise. In this study, similar to many other TOPSIS-
cultural irrigation in Herakleion. based GDM approaches, a number of experts were invited (three in
Scenario 1 and four in Scenario 2) and all experts were regarded as
equally qualified
Table 2
The colour-coded fuzzy ratings of the treatment trains (T1 to T10) against different decision criteria (C1 to C10) by three WWT and water reuse experts (E1, E2,
and E3) for Scenario 1. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this table, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5
E1 E2 E3 E1 E2 E3 E1 E2 E3 E1 E2 E3 E1 E2 E3
T1 G G G G G G G G G G G G VG MG MG
T2 G G G G G G G G G MG MG MG G G G
T3 VG VG VG G G G G G G G M M VG VG VG

T4 G G G G G G G G G MG M M G G G

T5 G G G G G G MG MG MG MG M M G G G
T6 VG VG VG VG VG VG VG VG VG MG MP MP G M M
T7 MG G VG MG MG MG MG MG MG G G G VG VG VG
T8 G G G G G G G G G M M M VG VG VG
T9 MG MG MG MG M MG MG MG MG M M M VG G G
T10 MG MG MG MG MG G MG MG MG MG MG MG VG VG VG
C6 C7 C8 C9 C10
E1 E2 E3 E1 E2 E3 E1 E2 E3 E1 E2 E3 E1 E2 E3
T1 VG MG MG VG G G VG VG VG G G M MG MP MP
T2 G G G G G G G MG MG G G M G MG MG
T3 VG G VG G G G G MG M G G M G MP MP
T4 G MG G G G G G M MP G G M G MG MG Linguistic Code
variables
T5 VG VG VG M M M G MP P G MG M VG G G
Very poor VP
T6 G M G VG VG VG VG MG MG VG G M MG MP MP
Poor P
T7 VG VG VG M M M G G G MG MG M VG VG VG
Medium poor MP
T8 G G G MG MG MG M M M MG MG M MG M M
T9 G G G M M M M MP MP MG MG M VG G G
Medium M

T10 G G G M M M M M M MG MG M VG VG VG Medium good MG

Good G
Very good VG

and competent (Agrawal et al., 2016; Behzadian et al., 2012; Chen, highest value being the best technology (Fig. 3(a)). For this scenario, T2
2001; Jaiswal and Mishra, 2017; Tavana and Hatami-Marbini, 2011; (PT → iMBR
Zyoud et al., 2016).
Expert responses were incorporated into the IMCMEDM tool to
build decision-making matrices for different scenarios (Phase 6).
Table 2 illustrates the experts’ responses (in Scenario 1) for the ap-
praisal of WWT trains against different decision criteria. The colour-
coded ratings in Table 2 shows that generally the technology ratings
(under each criterion) are similar for all the experts. However, there
were few disparities between the given rates as well, for example, the
rating of T5 against C8 (land requirement) were different, where Ex-
perts 1, 2 and 3 assigned the rates of Good (G), Medium Poor (MP) and
Poor (P) to T5 respectively. On the other hand, the pair-wise compar-
ison of the decision criteria were more diverse among the experts as
expected (see Tables S3 to S9, in the SOM). This is due to the fact that
each expert generally has different priorities and preferences. Again
this is where a powerful GDM, such as the proposed approach, can
merge the experts’ opinions into one decision matrix and help the
decision makers finalise a decision. General responses of the experts
for com- parison of technologies with respect to each criterion for
Scenario 2 are also colour-coded and summarised in the SOM, Table
S10.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. SCENARIO 1: WWT through ADVANCED technologies (MEMBRANE

technology) for INDUSTRIAL WATER reuse, e.g. cooling towers in SAO
PAULO, BRAZIL

As this scenario is defined based on a successful project that is

under operation for several years, it is used here to validate the
IMCMEDM model/tool. As mentioned in Section 2.1, the ranking
system is formed based on CCi using Eq. 14, with the option with the
(anaerobic → anoxic → aerobic → MF/UF) → DI) and T7 (PT →
iMBR (anoxic → aerobic → Microfiltration (MF)/Ultrafiltration (UF)
→ Na- nofiltration (NF)/Reverse Osmosis (RO) → DI) obtained the
top CCs (0.3879 and 0.3835, respectively) and therefore, they are
identified as the preferred options. The least preferred technology is
T9 with a score of 0.3313.
The sequence of the closeness coefficients represents the main
concerns in this scenario observed by the experts in Brazil. Previous
studies have reported emergent concerns over the performance of
conventional treatment technologies in terms of removing emerging
(Arriaga et al., 2016). The WWT train at AQUAPOLO is contaminants
comprised of preliminary treatment, PT, MBR, DI and RO. T7, the 2nd
best technology, is basically an MBR tailed by NF or RO, followed by
DI. It is interesting that RO is occasionally employed, for instance
when total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration of the effluent is very
high. Considering occasional implementation of RO in AQUAPOLO,
T2, the 1st option selected by the IMCMEDM model, is very similar to
the wastewater technology configuration in AQUAPOLO.
The result can also be more extensively analysed by the criteria
contribution bar chart (Fig. 3(b)). The dissimilarity of coloured bars
illustrates that the technologies with high CCs generally have high
performance under different evaluation criteria. This means that if an
alternative obtains high rates (scores) for many or even all evaluation
criteria, it is most likely to be among the alternatives with the highest
performance and rankings. Fig. 3(a) and (b) show that T1, T2 and T7
perform well whereas T5, T6, and T9 are shown to be the least
preferred technologies. All the preferred alternatives have smaller
footprint, which is mainly attributed to the exclusion of
sedimentation tanks (ST). T7 is shown to perform well in contaminant
removal (C10). In spite of its low contribution in CAPEX (C1), OPEX
(C2) and energy consumption (C3), T7 is shown to be the 2 nd best
solution as it performs well under C4, C5, and C10.
 Fig. 3. Results on Water Reuse Scenario 1 - AQUAPOLO: (a) the IMCMEDM bar chart (b) criteria contribution of various WWT systems.

3.2. SCENARIO 2: WWT using MEMBRANE technologies for

T4 are the preferred technologies, whilst T6 is the least preferred. T3
unrestricted AGRICULTURAL IRRIGATION in HERAKLEION, Greece
and T4 perform well with respect to C1, C2, and C3. T5, T7, T9 and T10
are considered as technologies with high OPEX; this is mainly asso-
In this scenario, treatment systems were evaluated against the de-
ciated with high energy consumption of NF/RO. These technologies
fined criteria. Fig. 4(a) illustrates that T3 and T4, which both are are also characterised by large footprint and high investment (capital)
Conventional Activated Sludge Processes (CASP), obtain the highest
ex- penditure.
CC (0.3594 and 0.3441, respectively). T6 received the lowest score of T2 consists of fewer treatment unit processes (compared to the
0.1843. It can be inferred that the experts believe that CASP are reliable
other WWT technologies), which resulted in a smaller footprint. It is
and effective enough in terms of contaminant removal for non-potable
note- worthy that, although T5 does not perform well under C1 and
water reuse purposes with similar WWT trains having already been
C2, it does show high performance within the rest of the evaluation
suggested in previous studies and projects (Norton-Brandão et al.,
criteria and therefore, it is among the technologies with the best
2013; Judd and Judd, 2011; Melin et al., 2006). Fig. 4(b) shows that
performance. T5, a technology leading to very high effluent quality,
T3 and
attained high
 Fig. 4. Results on Water Reuse Scenario 2 - Herakleion: (a) the IMCMEDM bar chart (b) criteria contribution of various WWT systems.

score reflecting the water quality concerns that are associated with
human health and environmental issues. Hence, T5 should be con- 4. Conclusions and implications
sidered in locations with relatively high environmental awareness and
willingness to pay. The results of this scenario pointed that Modifications and improvements were made to the MCMEDM
participants from Greece do not consider MBR as their 1 st option, in model that has been previously presented by Sadr et al. in 2015. The
particular, when CASP are available. new improved model (IMCMEDM) was incorporated into a decision
support tool with a user-friendly GUI. The tool, which integrates
TOPSIS with AHP, provided a ranking system for comparing WWT
3.3. Sensitivity ANALYSIS trains in terms of their performance. Two scenarios of water reuse and
WWT in the contexts of Brazil and Greece were proposed with respect
It can be seen in the results provided in Sections 3.1 and 3.2 that to ten criteria in order to select reliable options within a set of ten pre-
generally the closeness coefficients were relatively lower in Scenario 1 shortlisted WWT trains. The decision-making process was first con-
compared to those in Scenario 2. This shows that the performances of ducted by the development and distribution of two questionnaires to a
the WWT trains are generally closer to that of the ideal solution (de- number of participants from different areas of expertise from both
fined based on the TOPSIS approach) in Scenario 2. The closeness academia and the industry. Then, the collected data formed the deci-
coefficient values of each alternative very much depend on the experts’ sion matrices used in the IMCMEDM tool. Hence, the tool provides a
preference and priorities, which are defined based on both the context streamlined and robust framework in order to guide decision makers
and the experts’ opinions and interests. To this end, in order to explore in the decision process. Notably, the contributions of designated
the sensitivity of the values of closeness coefficient (i.e. the distance of experts in the field is formalised and thus standardised. This fact
each alternative from the ideal solution with respect to different cri- renders the de- cision process significantly less vulnerable to personal
bias as long as an appropriate (or a manageable) number of experts is
teria) to changes in the experts’ weightings, a two-at-a-time sensitivity
involved. Fur- thermore, the user-friendly GUI levels an important
analysis was performed in both Scenarios 1 and 2. The sensitivity
analysis was focused on the weights of the evaluation criteria (namely: barrier for im- plementation by policy decision makers. A first scenario
C1: capital cost; C2: O & M Cost; C3: energy consumption; C4: en- regarding water reuse in Sao Paulo, Brazil, was proposed based on an
vironmental Impact; C5: community acceptance; C6: adaptability; C7: existing industrial water reuse project to validate the tool. The results
ease of construction and deployment; C8: land requirement; C9: level of this scenario coincided with the project in Sao Paulo. Next, a second
of complexity and C10: water quality). The overall weight of each cri- sce- nario that focussed on water reuse applications in Greece was in-
terion were changed by ± 20% in each scenario (see Fig. 5). vestigated and it showed that CASPs are still more prevalent than
MBRs in this region. This represents a clear evidence that technology
Fig. 5 and Figure S4 (in the SOM) shows that the closeness
pre- ference very much depends upon the context, and/or pertains to
coeffi- cients in Scenario 1 are more sensitive to changes in criteria
the socio-technical background of the decision makers. It thus
weightings compared to those in Scenario 2. The highest sensitivity
highlights
in Scenario 1 can be seen for T8 (PT + Chemically Enhanced
Primary Treatment (CEPT) + MF/UF + DI), which was among the the importance of consulting with local experts in order to cover the
least preferred tech- nologies in this scenario; this was observed social and regulatory context appropriately. It also confirms the fact
when C5 (i.e. community acceptance) was changed (see Figures S12 that selecting the panel of decision makers is an important process.
and S13, in the SOM). This is due to the fact that all the experts In both scenarios, the participants assigned the highest weights for
rated this treatment train ‘Medium’, which is generally lower than capital cost, operation and maintenance cost, and energy consumption.
the rates of other technologies with re- spect to this criteria (see Although we observed that criteria weighing of the above criteria were
Table 2). The least sensitivity in Scenario 1 was seen in the value of rather independent from the two presented scenarios, we expect that
criteria ranking depends on the location in general (i.e. footprint is
T2’s closeness coefficient (+0.050 and -0.034), whilst the highest was
more restricting in urban context). Hence, future work will extend the
observed in that of T8 (+0.248 and -0.115). In Scenario 2, T3 (+0.250
and -0.215) and T6 (+0.189 and -0.150), re- spectively, showed the scenario settings to rural areas in order to account for that. Future work
highest sensitivity to the changes of criteria weights. In this will concentrate on further application of this flexible tool to different
scenario, closeness coefficients were significantly im- pacted by the sets of evaluation criteria, WWT technologies and contexts.
variation in C1; where sensitivity to the (simultaneous) alteration In this study, technologies were relatively assessed with respect to
different criteria (e.g. CAPEX, OPEX and energy consumption). Future
of C1 - C6, C1 – C7 and C1 – C2 presented the highest changes
studies can incorporate the results of more-in-depth cost assessment
among the others, whereas, in Scenario 1, alterations of C10
and life cycle assessment into this tool. Such attempts would give de-
resulted the highest variations in the result; for example, A
cision makers more confidence in the results of the tool. Having in-
simultaneous in- crease in the weights of C10 and C6 (20% each)
vestigated the process of decision making and technology selection for
increased closeness coefficients by 0.072 (on average).
water reuse schemes in different contexts with distinct regulations and
The variations and differences shown in the sensitivity analysis of
different geographical, environmental, economic and demographic si-
Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 support the fact that the results of such GDM
tuations, the outcomes of this piece of research would contribute sub-
tools, to a certain extent, depend on the experts’ opinions and pre-
stantively to the application of WWT technologies (especially mem-
ferences. Therefore, the process of selecting experts is of high im-
brane assisted technologies) for different water reuse scenarios.
portance as to determine how suitable or relevant their expertise is; this
introduces a new approach in which a weight is assigned to each
expert Acknowledgements
(based on their knowledge and experience or some other factors) in the
group decision making process (Pang et al., 2017; Yang et al., 2017;
Yue, 2012). However, this is out of the scope of the current study, but The authors would like to acknowledge all the water reuse experts
would be a good addition for future research. In this study, similar to from Greece and Brazil who participated in the surveys. The authors
several other GDM approaches (Agrawal et al., 2016; Behzadian et al., are particularly thankful to The Environmental Odebrecht (Brazil) for
2012; Kalbar et al., 2013; Ren and Liang, 2017), all experts were re- providing data to the AQUAPOLO Project.
garded as equally important and pertinent. The design of the survey
(questionnaire) or the tool (which contains the survey) would have
Appendix A. Supplementary data
meaningful impacts on the results of the study (Bowling, 2005; Jonker
and Kosse, 2009; Nardi, 2018).
Supplementary material related to this article can be found, in the
online version, at doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.09.006.
Fig. 5. Sensitivity of closeness coefficients in each scenario to a two-at-a-time alteration of criteria weights ( ± 20%) for the wastewater treatment trains
evaluated in this study.

References
Bowling, A., 2005. Mode of questionnaire administration can have serious effects on
data quality. J. Public Health 27, 281–291.
ABNT, 1997. Tanques sépticos: unidades de tratamento complementar e disposição final https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdi031.
dos efluentes líquidos (No. NBR 13969). Cakir, O., Canbolat, M.S., 2008. A web-based decision support system for multi-criteria
Aggelides, S., Karamanos, A., Londra, P., 2005. Non-conventional water use in Greece. inventory classification using fuzzy AHP methodology. Expert Syst. Appl. 35,
Non-Conventional Water Use: WASAMED Project CIHEAM / EU DG. 1367–1378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2007.08.041.
Agrawal, V., Tripathi, V., Seth, N., 2016. B-school selection by fuzzy TOPSIS and AHP. In Casani, S., Rouhany, M., Knøchel, S., 2005. A discussion paper on challenges and lim-
Innovative Solutions for Implementing Global Supply Chains in Emerging Markets. itations to water reuse and hygiene in the food industry. Water Res. 39, 1134–1146.
IGI Global, Hershey, PA, USA, pp. 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2004.12.015.
Ambiental, A., 2011. Projeto AQUAPOLO, Ano 1, no 1. Chen, C.-T., 2000. Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy
Anagnostopoulos, K., Doukas, H., Psarras, J., 2008. A linguistic multicriteria analysis en- vironment. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 114, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-0114(97)
system combining fuzzy sets theory, ideal and anti-ideal points for location site se- 00377-1.
lection. Expert Syst. Appl. 35, 2041–2048. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2007.08. Chen, C.-T., 2001. A fuzzy approach to select the location of the distribution center.
074. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 118, 65–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-0114(98)00459-X.
Arriaga, S., de Jonge, N., Nielsen, M.L., Andersen, H.R., Borregaard, V., Jewel, K., Coroado, 2012. Technologies for water recycling and reuse in Latin American context:
Ternes, T.A., Nielsen, J.L., 2016. Evaluation of a membrane bioreactor system as assessment, decision tools, and implementable strategies under an uncertain future
post- treatment in waste water treatment for better removal of micropollutants. (No. Deliverable.2.1:). Report on the Context of the Areas, Workshop Structure, and
Water Res. 107, 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2016.10.046. Development. FP7 - ENV.2011.3.1.1-1,.
Behzadian, M., Khanmohammadi Otaghsara, S., Yazdani, M., Ignatius, J., 2012. A Dheena, P., Mohanraj, G., 2011. Multicriteria decision-making combining fuzzy set
state-of the-art survey of TOPSIS applications. Expert Syst. Appl. 39, 13051–13069. theory, ideal and anti-ideal points for location site selection. Expert Syst. Appl. 38,
https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2012.05.056. 13260–13265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.04.144.
Bixio, D., Thoeye, C., De Koning, J., Joksimovic, D., Savic, D., Wintgens, T., Melin, T., Dogan, E.C., Yasar, A., Sen, U., Aydiner, C., 2016. Water recovery from treated urban
2006. Wastewater reuse in Europe. Desalin. Integr. Concepts Water Recycl. 187, wastewater by ultrafiltration and reverse osmosis for landscape irrigation. Urban
89–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2005.04.070. Water J. 13, 553–568. https://doi.org/10.1080/1573062X.2014.992917.
Bordogna, G., Fedrizzi, M., Pasi, G., 1997. A linguistic modeling of consensus in group EDEYA, 2015. Wastewater Treatment Plant of Heracleion. Municipal Enterprise for Water
decision making based on OWA operators. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. - Part and Sewage of Heracleion [WWW Document]. URL. (Accessed 24 February 2015).
Syst. Hum. 27, 126–133. https://doi.org/10.1109/3468.553232. http://www.deyah.gr/index.php/menuitembioclearance.
EEA, 2005. The European Environment; State and Outlook. European Environment
 Agency (EEA). 58, 339–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2017.04.039.
Eldho, T.I., 2014. Indian Standards in Wastewater Treatment –An Overview. German São Paulo, 2012. Decreto no 44,128, 19 de Novembro de 2003, que Regulamenta a
Association for Water, Wastewater and Waste, Hennef, Germany. utilização, pela Prefeitura do Município de São Paulo, de água de reúso, não potável,
Ertuğrul, İ., 2011. Fuzzy group decision making for the selection of facility à que se refere a Lei no 13,309, de 31 de janeiro de 2002. In Coroado.
location. Group Decis. Negot. 20, 725–740. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726- Ren, J., Liang, H., 2017. Multi-criteria group decision-making based sustainability
010-9219-1. mea- surement of wastewater treatment processes. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev.
Fan, Z.-P., Liu, Y., 2010. A method for group decision-making based on multi-granularity 65, 91–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2017.04.008.
uncertain linguistic information. Expert Syst. Appl. 37, 4000–4008. https://doi.org/ Rosegrant, M.W., Cai, X., Claine, S.A., 2011. Food Policy Report, Global Water Outlook to
10.1016/j.eswa.2009.11.016. 2025 Averting an Impending Crisis. IWMI.
Flores-Alsina, X., Rodríguez-Roda, I., Sin, G., Gernaey, K.V., 2008. Multi-criteria eva- Sadr, S.M.K., Saroj, D.P., Kouchaki, S., Ilemobade, A.A., Ouki, S.K., 2015. A group deci-
luation of wastewater treatment plant control strategies under uncertainty. Water sion-making tool for the application of membrane technologies in different water
Res. 42, 4485–4497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2008.05.029. reuse scenarios. J. Environ. Manage. 156, 97–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Greek Gazette, 2011. Technical Report (No. 2/354-08/03/2011). jenvman.2015.02.047.
Jaiswal, A., Mishra, R.B., 2017. Cloud Service Selection Using TOPSIS and Fuzzy TOPSIS Sadr, S.M.K., Mashamaite, I., Saroj, D., Ouki, S., Ilemobade, A., 2016. Membrane
With AHP and ANP. Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference on Machine assisted technology appraisal for water reuse applications in South Africa. Urban
Learning and Soft computing, ICMLSC’ 17. ACM 136–142. https://doi.org/10.1145/ Water J. 16, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/1573062X.2014.994008.
3036290.3036312. Sadr, S.M.K., Johns, M., Memon, F.A., Morley, M., Savic, D., 2018. Development and
Joksimović, D., 2006. Decision Support System for Planning of Integrated Water Reuse application of a user-friendly decision support tool for optimization of wastewater
Projects (PhD Engineering). University of Exeter, Exeter, UK. treatment technologies in India. Presented at the 13th International Conference on
Joksimovic, D., Kubik, J., Hlavinek, P., Savic, D., Walters, G., 2006. Development of an Hydroinformatics, HIC2018 1–10.
integrated simulation model for treatment and distribution of reclaimed water. SEADE, 2012. Consumidores de energia elétrica, in Coroado. Fundação Sistema Estadual
Desalin. Integr. Concepts Water Recycl. 188, 9–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal. de Análise de Dados (SEADE).
2005.04.097. Sweetapple, C., Fu, G., Butler, D., 2014. Multi-objective optimisation of wastewater
Jolai, F., Yazdian, S.A., Shahanaghi, K., Azari Khojasteh, M., 2011. Integrating fuzzy treatment plant control to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Water Res. 55, 52–62.
TOPSIS and multi-period goal programming for purchasing multiple products https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2014.02.018.
from multiple suppliers. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 17, 42–53. Tavana, M., Hatami-Marbini, A., 2011. A group AHP-TOPSIS framework for human
https://doi.org/10.1016/j. pursup.2010.06.004. spaceflight mission planning at NASA. Expert Syst. Appl. 38, 13588–13603. https://
Jonker, N., Kosse, A., 2009. The Impact of Survey Design on Research Outcomes: A Case doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.04.108.
Study of Seven Pilots Measuring Cash Usage in the Netherlands (No. Working Paper No. Tsagarakis, K.P., Dialynas, G.E., Angelakis, A.N., 2004. Water resources management
221/2009; JEL-codes: C42, D12, E41). De Nederlandsche Bank, Amsterdam, The in Crete (Greece) including water recycling and reuse and proposed quality
Netherlands. criteria. Agric. Water Manag. 66, 35–47.
Judd, S., Judd, C., 2011. The MBR Book: Principles and Applications of Membrane https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2003.09.004.
Bioreactors for Water and Wastewater Treatment, second edition. Elsevier Ltd, USEPA, 2012. Guidelines for Water Reuse (No. EPA/600/R-12/618). United States
OXford, UK. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Washington D. C., USA.
Kalbar, P.P., Karmakar, S., Asolekar, S.R., 2013. The influence of expert opinions on Walker, D., Jakovljević, D., Savić, D., Radovanović, M., 2015. Multi-criterion water
the selection of wastewater treatment alternatives: a group decision-making quality analysis of the Danube River in Serbia: a visualisation approach. Water Res.
approach. J. Environ. Manage. 128, 844–851. 79, 158–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2015.03.020.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.06.034. WHO, 2006b. A Compendium of Standards for Wastewater Reuse in the Eastern
Kamble, S.J., Singh, A., Kharat, M.G., 2017. A hybrid life cycle assessment based fuzzy Mediterranean Region. No. WHO-EM/CEH/142/E. World Health Organisation
multi-criteria decision making approach for evaluation and selection of an appro- (WHO), cairo, Egypt.
priate municipal wastewater treatment technology. Euro-Mediterr. J. Environ. Integr. WHO, 2006a. WHO | Guidelines for the Safe Use of Wastewater, Excreta and Greywater,
2 (9). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41207-017-0019-8. vol. 4 World Health Organisation (WHO) No. ISBN: 92 4 154685 9.
Karahalios, H., 2017. The application of the AHP-TOPSIS for evaluating ballast water WHO, 2017. WHO | Potable Reuse; Guidance for Producing Safe Drinking-water (No.
treatment systems by ship operators. Transp. Res. Part Transp. Environ. 52, 172– ISBN: 978-92-4-151277-0). World Health Organisation (WHO).
184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2017.03.001. Yang, Q., Du, P., Wang, Y., Liang, B., 2017. A rough set approach for determining weights
Kazos, X., 2013. Study of Memrbane Technology for Municipal Wastewater Treatment of decision makers in group decision making. PLoS One 12, e0172679. https://doi.
and Reuse Using Multicriteria Decision Analsysis for Herakleion, Greece (M.SC. org/10.1371/journal.pone.0172679.
Dissertation). University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, UK. Yi, L., Jiao, W., Chen, X., Chen, W., 2011. An overview of reclaimed water reuse in
Lazarova, V., Levine, B., Sack, J., Cirelli, G., Je ffrey, P., Muntau, H., Salgot, M., Brissaud, China. J. Environ. Sci. 23, 1585–1593. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1001-
F., 2001. Role of water reuse for enhancing integrated water management in Europe 0742(10)60627-4.
and Mediterranean countries. Water Sci. Technol. 43, 25–33. Yousefi, A., Hadi-Vencheh, A., 2010. An integrated group decision making model and
Melin, T., Jefferson, B., Bixio, D., Thoeye, C., De Wilde, W., De Koning, J., van der its evaluation by DEA for automobile industry. Expert Syst. Appl. 37, 8543–8556.
Graaf, J., Wintgens, T., 2006. Membrane bioreactor technology for wastewater https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2010.05.021.
treatment and reuse. Desalin. Integr. Concepts Water Recycl. 187, 271–282. YPEKA, 2012. Sewage Treatment Plants - Monitoring Database Operation, Heracleion
https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.desal.2005.04.086. Crete [WWW Document]. Spec. Water Secr. - YPEKA. URL. (accessed 2.24.15).
Morihama, A.C.D., Brites, A.P., Sosnoski, A., Amarco, C., Pereira, M.C.S., Tominaga, E.M. http://ypeka.plexscape.com/Services/Pages/View.aspx?xuwcode=GR431001017.
S., André, J.C., Yazaki, L.F.O.L., Barros, M.T.L., Bucalém, M., Mukai, P., Lucci, R.M., Yue, Z., 2012. Approach to group decision making based on determining the weights of
(2011). São Paulo City Urban Drainage Master Plan, ACQUA E CITTÀ - 4° experts by using projection method. Appl. Math. Model. 36, 2900 –2910. https://doi.
CONVEGNO NAZIONALE DI IDRAULICA URBANA, Venezia, 21 - 24 giugno. org/10.1016/j.apm.2011.09.068.
Nardi, P.M., 2018. Doing Survey Research: A Guide to Quantitative Methods. Zhu, Z., Dou, J., 2018. Current status of reclaimed water in China: an overview. J.
Routledgehttps://doi.org/10.4324/9781315172231. Water Reuse Desalin. 8, 293–307. https://doi.org/10.2166/wrd.2018.070.
Norton-Brandão, D., Scherrenberg, S.M., van Lier, J.B., 2013. Reclamation of used Zyoud, S.H., Kaufmann, L.G., Shaheen, H., Samhan, S., Fuchs-Hanusch, D., 2016. A fra-
urban waters for irrigation purposes – a review of treatment technologies. J. mework for water loss management in developing countries under fuzzy environ-
Environ. ment: integration of Fuzzy AHP with Fuzzy TOPSIS. Expert Syst. Appl. 61, 86–105.
Manage. 122, 85–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.03.012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2016.05.016.
Pang, J., Liang, J., Song, P., 2017. An adaptive consensus method for multi-attribute
group decision making under uncertain linguistic environment. Appl. Soft
Comput.