Evaluation matrix.
| Indicator of the Watershed Sustainability Index (WSI) . | Δ1, Change in per capita water availability of the watershed in the last 5 years (m3/inhabitant * year) . | Δ2, Change in BOD5 (last 5 years) . | E.P.I. (Rural and Urban) . | Variation in H.D.I. income (last 5 years) . | Variation in H.D.I. education (last 5 years) . | Per capita water availability (m3/inhabitant * year) . | Average BOD5 of the watershed (mg/l) . | % of watershed with natural vegetation . | M.H.D.I. watershed (population weighted) . | Institutional Capacity in Integrated Water Resources Management (legal and organizational) . | Improvement in efficient water use (last 5 years) . | Improvement in proper water/sewage treatment (last 5 years) . | Evolution in conservation areas (protected areas and good management practices -- BPM) in the last 5 years . | Evolution in M.H.D.I. (last five years) . | Evolution in spending on Integrated Natural Resource Management (last 5 years) . | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Criterion | C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 | C6 | C7 | C8 | C9 | C10 | C11 | C12 | C13 | C14 | C15 | |
| Preference function (type) | 3 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | |
| Weight | The weight of each criterion was defined by each Watershed Committee participanta | |||||||||||||||
| Objective | Mab | Mic | Mi | Ma | Ma | Ma | Mi | Ma | Ma | Ma | Ma | Ma | Ma | Ma | Ma | |
| Subwatershed | Serido (A1) | 11.9 | − 41.0 | 13.3 | 5.6 | 20.4 | 1,409 | 11.7 | 47.0 | 0.64 | Meand | Mean | bade | − 20 | 9.7 | − 20 |
| Pianco (A2) | 3.5 | − 64.7 | − 6.3 | 8.6 | 31.8 | 4,569 | 1.9 | 68.4 | 0.57 | Mean | Mean | bad | − 20 | 15.5 | − 20 | |
| Peixe (A3) | 2.9 | 5.4 | − 23.5 | 6.0 | 28.8 | 1,904 | 1.4 | 48.8 | 0.62 | Mean | Mean | bad | − 20 | 13.6 | − 20 | |
| Pataxó (A4) | 2.9 | − 6.7 | 11.4 | 3.7 | 19.5 | 1,434 | 3.9 | 51.5 | 0.58 | Mean | Mean | bad | − 20 | − 10.8 | − 20 | |
| Paraú (A5) | − 2.1 | − 4.0 | − 17.7 | 5.3 | 25.3 | 7,330 | 6.23 | 43.9 | 0.59 | Mean | Mean | bad | − 20 | 12.4 | − 20 | |
| Média Piranhas Po (A6) | 1.6 | − 100 | − 49.2 | 5.6 | 26.5 | 4,983 | 2.2 | 66.4 | 0.59 | Mean | Mean | bad | − 20 | 12.08 | − 20 | |
| Média Piranhas Pa. Po (A7) | 8.9 | 2.5 | − 25.8 | 4.1 | 24.5 | 3,369 | 1.5 | 67.7 | 0.6 | Mean | Mean | bad | − 20 | 10.74 | − 20 | |
| Média Piranhas Pa (A8) | 4.1 | 365.4 | 50.3 | 5.0 | 29.6 | 4,216 | 2.1 | 74.0 | 0.57 | Mean | Mean | bad | − 20 | 13.42 | − 20 | |
| Espiranhas (A9) | − 0.2 | − 16.5 | 34.4 | 6.0 | 32.1 | 1,547 | 1.9 | 47.6 | 0.58 | Mean | Mean | bad | − 20 | − 15.34 | − 20 | |
| Difusas Baixo P (A10) | 2.7 | 0.1 | 18.8 | 3.8 | 18.3 | 1,832 | 3.0 | 42.0 | 0.62 | Mean | Mean | bad | − 20 | 8.58 | − 20 | |
| Alto piranhas (A11) | 3.7 | 6.8 | 23.4 | 7.1 | 32.6 | 6,713 | 1.6 | 58.9 | 0.55 | Mean | Mean | bad | − 20 | 15.38 | − 20 | |
| Indicator of the Watershed Sustainability Index (WSI) . | Δ1, Change in per capita water availability of the watershed in the last 5 years (m3/inhabitant * year) . | Δ2, Change in BOD5 (last 5 years) . | E.P.I. (Rural and Urban) . | Variation in H.D.I. income (last 5 years) . | Variation in H.D.I. education (last 5 years) . | Per capita water availability (m3/inhabitant * year) . | Average BOD5 of the watershed (mg/l) . | % of watershed with natural vegetation . | M.H.D.I. watershed (population weighted) . | Institutional Capacity in Integrated Water Resources Management (legal and organizational) . | Improvement in efficient water use (last 5 years) . | Improvement in proper water/sewage treatment (last 5 years) . | Evolution in conservation areas (protected areas and good management practices -- BPM) in the last 5 years . | Evolution in M.H.D.I. (last five years) . | Evolution in spending on Integrated Natural Resource Management (last 5 years) . | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Criterion | C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 | C6 | C7 | C8 | C9 | C10 | C11 | C12 | C13 | C14 | C15 | |
| Preference function (type) | 3 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | |
| Weight | The weight of each criterion was defined by each Watershed Committee participanta | |||||||||||||||
| Objective | Mab | Mic | Mi | Ma | Ma | Ma | Mi | Ma | Ma | Ma | Ma | Ma | Ma | Ma | Ma | |
| Subwatershed | Serido (A1) | 11.9 | − 41.0 | 13.3 | 5.6 | 20.4 | 1,409 | 11.7 | 47.0 | 0.64 | Meand | Mean | bade | − 20 | 9.7 | − 20 |
| Pianco (A2) | 3.5 | − 64.7 | − 6.3 | 8.6 | 31.8 | 4,569 | 1.9 | 68.4 | 0.57 | Mean | Mean | bad | − 20 | 15.5 | − 20 | |
| Peixe (A3) | 2.9 | 5.4 | − 23.5 | 6.0 | 28.8 | 1,904 | 1.4 | 48.8 | 0.62 | Mean | Mean | bad | − 20 | 13.6 | − 20 | |
| Pataxó (A4) | 2.9 | − 6.7 | 11.4 | 3.7 | 19.5 | 1,434 | 3.9 | 51.5 | 0.58 | Mean | Mean | bad | − 20 | − 10.8 | − 20 | |
| Paraú (A5) | − 2.1 | − 4.0 | − 17.7 | 5.3 | 25.3 | 7,330 | 6.23 | 43.9 | 0.59 | Mean | Mean | bad | − 20 | 12.4 | − 20 | |
| Média Piranhas Po (A6) | 1.6 | − 100 | − 49.2 | 5.6 | 26.5 | 4,983 | 2.2 | 66.4 | 0.59 | Mean | Mean | bad | − 20 | 12.08 | − 20 | |
| Média Piranhas Pa. Po (A7) | 8.9 | 2.5 | − 25.8 | 4.1 | 24.5 | 3,369 | 1.5 | 67.7 | 0.6 | Mean | Mean | bad | − 20 | 10.74 | − 20 | |
| Média Piranhas Pa (A8) | 4.1 | 365.4 | 50.3 | 5.0 | 29.6 | 4,216 | 2.1 | 74.0 | 0.57 | Mean | Mean | bad | − 20 | 13.42 | − 20 | |
| Espiranhas (A9) | − 0.2 | − 16.5 | 34.4 | 6.0 | 32.1 | 1,547 | 1.9 | 47.6 | 0.58 | Mean | Mean | bad | − 20 | − 15.34 | − 20 | |
| Difusas Baixo P (A10) | 2.7 | 0.1 | 18.8 | 3.8 | 18.3 | 1,832 | 3.0 | 42.0 | 0.62 | Mean | Mean | bad | − 20 | 8.58 | − 20 | |
| Alto piranhas (A11) | 3.7 | 6.8 | 23.4 | 7.1 | 32.6 | 6,713 | 1.6 | 58.9 | 0.55 | Mean | Mean | bad | − 20 | 15.38 | − 20 | |
aThe weights were established by interviewing the members of the Watershed Committee and in this sense each distinct weight forms a different scenario.
bMaximize.
cMinimize.
dAverage.
eBad.