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

1. Introduction
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).
sustainable development (Loi n○ 05-12 du 04 août, 2005) into
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 © 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
4
Agenda 21 resolutions were an outcome of the United performance
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
4 score to each objective is presented.
A. Benzerra et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 101 (2012) 46e53
An example application of foreign engineering companies to obtain data. This task
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
also requires cooperation between various administrative depart-
or more criteria are then given in order to assess the level at
ments (various departments of the wilaya (Algerian
which the corresponding function is considered to be fulfilled.
administrative province) including Hydraulics, Environment,
These criteria constitute both a link between the objectives
Health, Population, Urban Planning and Construction; local
and the performance indicators and the reference indices for
services; and the company responsible for drinking water
improving UDS management (Foxon et al., 2002).
management (Algérienne Des Eaux)).
The summary of the themes, objectives and criteria drawn
up by the LGCIE (Laboratory of Civil and Environmental
2.2. Identification of indicators and sustainability criteria Engineering, France), the LRHAE (Laboratory of Applied
Hydraulics and the Environment, Algeria) and ONA managers
UDS sustainability criteria and indicators were identified, in the city of Jijel, (Algeria) is shown in Fig. 1. A set of criteria
inspired by the research dealing with the issue of UDS has been identified (Shuping et al., 2006) in order to help
management in Algeria (Benayada and Kettab, 2005; select the most relevant indicators. The performance
Cherrared et al., 2007; Kettab et al., 2008; Toumi and Chocat, indicators associated with the criteria are not presented in this
2004). Recent government directives on integrating study.
sustainable development into project management (C.N.E.S.,
2000, 2007) and the research literature on achieving
2.3. Performance assessment
sustainability and decision support also formed the basis for this
paper. Defining sustainability requires the analysis of all the
The aim of our methodology is to provide a management
different aspects of a UDS. Hence a descriptive approach is
imple- mented which describes the system in several parts: chart to support the decision-making process. When doing
sanitary, flood protection, environmental, economic and this, we face two contradictory requirements:
service management.
Fig. 1 summarizes the selected themes used in this ● To not lose sight of the multi-dimensional nature of
approach. These themes make it easier for the service sustainability;
manager to identify the levers for a sustainable UDS ● To provide an overall vision of the service provided by the
management. Each theme requires critical analysis and a system.
detailed description. This analysis takes into account both
We used the method of partial aggregation which
UDS operations and the resources available to the Algerian
aggregates the indicators into criteria and then the criteria
management services. The theme is then broken down
into the perfor- mance assessment of objectives. The multi-
further. Each theme is associated with a series of objectives.
dimensional nature of the assessment is preserved at the
An objective represents a priority in terms of the system
objective level.
manager’s operational requirements. Each objective
The main procedure of the method is given as follows:
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

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
C32: Reduce financial losses O14 O3 malfunctions in surface drainage structures
Reduce the UDS’s T1 Improve the
T8 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
O13 its target O4 C10: Reduce contamination
T7
Improve environments by wastewater
T2 Guarantee the health

C31: Measure spending and Economic and and hygiene of users C11: Reduce the discharged
mechanisms for financial Operational
improve its effectiveness pollutant load
funding UDS management status of
C30: Adapt spending O5 C12: Guarantee The TS yield
of UDS UDS UDS
O12 Ensure the correct C13: Minimize overflow pollution
to needs Improve investment T6 sustainability functioning of load (above standards)
C29: Improve the T3 Treatment System
processing of complaints and operating costs Quality of C14: Produce reusable by-products
UDS Institutional (TS) and re-use them
C28: Improve the framework
O11 operation O6 C15: Confine what is not reusable
recording of complaints T5 T4 of UDS
Improve user Ensure the quality and/or dangerous
C23: Manholes relations Structural HR of the design and
O10 quality of management construction of the C16: Improve the collection rate
C24: Gully inlet
UDS UDN
Ensure the C17: Ensure the correct design and
C25: Overflow structure monitoring and O7 construction of wet weather
C26: Network maintenance of O9 Improve the collection structures
structures O8 governance of C18: Ensure reliable services for users
C27: Equipments Guarantee the skills
of the personnel Guarantee the draining services
C19: Improve the connection rate
responsible for the health and safety
Legend: to the TS
C22: Improve staff training UDS of personnel
Ti : Theme i UDS: Urban Drainage System UDN: Urban Drainage Network
Oi : Objective i
Ci: Criterion i
C20: Reduce the number of C21: Improve the protection of personnel
occupational accidents against contamination from wastewater

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

 Step 1: to assign each indicator a value that contributes
● ● Pairwise comparison (Limayem and Yannou, 2004);
to the criterion;
● Weighted sum (Roy and Bouyssou, 1993);
Step 2: to aggregate the indicators for each criterion in
● ● Multi-Attribute Unity Theory (MAUT) developed by Keeney
order to measure the overall performance of the criterion;
and Raiffa in 1976 (Bryhn et al., 2009);
● Step 3: to aggregate the criteria to measure the level at
● Or other mathematical functions such as that developed by
which the objectives are met;
Nassar et al. (2003), etc.
● Step 4: to assess the level of satisfaction with regard to
a specific theme using the assessment results for each
The weighted sum method is used for its clarity and
objective.
simplicity. It is a widely used method amongst the
aforementioned techniques (Ben Mena, 2000). The main
We have maintained a multi-criteria assessment for the last
drawbacks of this method are: I) the possible compensation
step but have chosen to use an aggregation procedure for the
between indicator scores in some situations and II) its high
second and third steps. This method requires a common scale
sensitivity to changes in scale. The compensation is acceptable
for assessing the criteria and objectives in order to then
as the aggregation is implemented between elements of the
manipulate them using simple operators (sums, averages, etc.).
same nature (belonging to the same objective). The second
It is therefore important to first transform the estimated value
drawback is reduced when the same scale is used to assess
for each indictor (indicator status) in order to give it a score
all the scores to be aggregated, as is the case here. The
on a standardized performance scale.
performance of criterion Cj is assessed using the following
equation:
2.3.1. Performance scale
The performance assessment starts by converting the values X
n
of indicators to performance values in certain scale. The scale PCj ¼ PIji$wji (1)
should be defined finite, quantitative and scalar. The scale i¼1
from 0 to 1 has been chosen in our case with 1 representing
where: PCj: performance value of criterion Cj; n: the number
the best performance and 0 representing the worst. In order
of indicators considered in criterion Cj; PIji: performance value
to transform the initial measurement of indicators into scores
of indicator Ii in criterion Cj; wji: value of weight factor for
between 0 and 1, perfor- mance functions should be built first
indicator Ii in criterion Cj.
using standards and, where these are not available, the ONA
The aggregation approach is similarly implemented for the
experts’ recommendations.
objective assessments.
Fig. 2 shows an example of the performance function for
the TSS (Total Suspended Solids) indicator to assess the
2.3.3. Weighting method
quality of the discharge environment according to the SEQ-
In this study, the weight was calculated using the AHP
eau (Water Quality Assessment System) (Babut et al., 2003).
method. AHP is a multi-criteria decision support method
This performance function corresponds to one of the indicators
which allows decision-makers to specify the relative
in criterion C4 of objective O1 (Fig. 1). When the
importance of different elements. In the case of a complex
concentration of TSS is less than or equal to 50 mg/l the
problem such as our case study, the method is applied in a
performance values vary linearly between 0.6 and 1; when
hierarchical manner from the indicator level up to the
the TSS is above the threshold of 150 mg/l, the performance is
objectives level.
zero. Performance functions of this type were built for each
The AHP method is based on pairwise comparisons of
indicator.
judgment. It integrates the importance of the criteria and the
indicators into one overall score for the objective. Although
2.3.2. Selected aggregation method
AHP method is widely used (Ramanathan, 2001; Herath, 2004;
The most frequently applied aggregation methods include:
Ugwu et al., 2006; Ugwu and Haupt, 2007; Hajkowicz, 2008),
complete, partial and local aggregation (Roy and Bouyssou, 1993;
it has also been criticized (Al-Harbi, 2001). The main
Ben Mena, 2000). Complete aggregation is used in our case
criticisms are:
study based on the single criterion. Complete aggregation seems
the most appropriate method for aggregating all the indicators
● The addition of new indicators can change the ranking of
correspond- ing to one common criterion. This corresponds to
existing indicators;
the context of our study and the ranking of the criteria and
● The weights are calculated without taking into account
objectives developed (Fig. 1). Furthermore, this choice does
varia- tions in the scale of the indicators.
not compromise the multi- criteria nature of the overall
assessment as the scores assigned to each objective are still However, according to the conclusions of previous studies
available. There are a wide variety of complete aggregation (Harker and Vargas, 1987; Pérez, 1995; Al-Harbi, 2001), and
methods, such as: 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).
Fig. 2. Performance function TSS for the assessment of water quality in the
discharge environment.
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).
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,
Numerical rating Verbal judgments of preferences
2009). Pollution indicators Unit Value
1 Equal preference
3 Moderate preference Dissolved oxygen (O2) mg/l 5.33
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 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) mg/l 4363.67
ques- tionnaires filled out by representatives of the Temperature (T○) ○
C 28
stakeholders involved. In this case study, given the manager’s pH e 6.9
lack of knowledge regarding priority indicators and criteria, we Phenol index (C6H5OH) mg/l 0.016
Mineral oils mg/l 0.58
have evaluated the values for aij ourselves. The matrix is then
Foam mg/l 0.63
completed as follows: 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
4) To calculate the relative importance (weight) of each Escherichia coli (E. coli) U/100 ml 11,437
criterion with regard to its contribution to the objective. Dry residue mg/l 2238.4
Sodium (Na) mg/l 296.6
The procedure is as follows: Chlorine (Cl) mg/l 337.67
● The values in each column are summed; Sulfate (SO4) mg/l 364.27
● Each element in the matrix is divided by the sum of its Arsenic (As) mg/l 32.1
column (normalization); Zinc (Zn) mg/l 4866.23
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
5) To check the degree of consistency between the Mercury (Hg) mg/l 0.933
preferences. The consistency index (CI) is determined Cadmium (Cd) mg/l 3.625

with the following formula using eigenvalue lmax:

CI ¼ ðlmax — nÞ=ðn — 1Þ (2) 4. Results and discussion

An example is presented in this paper to evaluate the

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
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

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.
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
 Fig. 3. Performance of indicators for criteria C1eC6.

data is established prior to implementing the methodology in

studied objective matrices are acceptable as their consistency
order to ensure its effectiveness. However, due to the lack of
ratios are less than 0.1 (Table 4).
data, the data actually available has been used to explain the
As can be seen in Fig. 5, the criterion C3 shows good
methodology.
perfor- mance¼ (PC3 0.719), while all the other criteria show
The performance functions established are used to convert
relatively poor performances¼ (PC1 0.427;¼ PC2 0.294; PC6
concentration values into scores between 0 and 1 (see Fig.
¼ PC4 0.220 and PC5 0.159). As¼a result, the overall
0.229;
2). This operation assigns a score to each indicator (Fig. 3). For
performance score for objective O1 is ¼ quite low: PO1 0.357.
the pairwise comparison phase the degree of toxicity of the
Therefore, ONA managers should undertake measures to
parameters is taken into account. The performance indicator
improve the water quality of the receiving water. For example,
scores are aggregated using Eq. (1) with corresponding weight
they could start to reduce the discharged pollutant load and
values (Fig. 4). The judg- ments of preference assigned to
increase the proportion of the wastewater network connected
the criteria matrices and the
to WWTP.

Fig. 4. Weighted hierarchy for the studied objective.

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
Objective 4 (2), 153e161.
Barraud, S., Azzout, Y., Crès, F.-N., 1998. Méthodologie d’aide à la décision pour
O1 la conception et la sélection de techniques alternatives en assainissement
6 pluvial. Journal of Decision Systems 7, 69e86.
6.344 Benayada, L., Kettab, A., 2005. Problématique de l’eau en Algérie: Nécessité d’une
gestion intégrée de la ressource en eau dans la perspective d’un
0.069
développement durable. Algerian Journal of Technology. 1111e357X, Number
0.055
Special. An 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.
 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&task ¼ view&id 288&Itemid
¼ 218.
¼ Networks e CARE-S. IWA Publishing, Avril, ISBN 9781843391159, 160 pp.
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.
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
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.