الگوی ارزش‌گذاری اقتصادی در طرح‌های انتقال آب بین حوضه‌ای مبتنی بر روش فرآیند تحلیل شبکه‌ای (ANP)

محورهای موضوعی : مقالات برگرفته از پایان نامه

محمد حسنوی آتشگاه ¹ (گروه مهندسی آبیاری و آبادانی، دانشکده مهندسی و فناوری کشاورزی، پردیس کرج، دانشگاه تهران، ایران)
مهدی یاسی ² (گروه مهندسی آبیاری و آبادانی، دانشکده مهندسی و فناوری کشاورزی، پردیس کرج، دانشگاه تهران، ایران)
ابراهیم امیری تلکدانی ³ (گروه مهندسی آبیاری و آبادانی، دانشکده مهندسی و فناوری کشاورزی، پردیس کرج، دانشگاه تهران، ایران)

تاریخ دریافت : 1399/03/06 تاریخ پذیرش : 1400/02/06 تاریخ انتشار : 1400/02/01

کلید واژه: انتقال آب, ارزش‌گذاری اقتصادی, فرآیند تحلیل شبکه‌ای (ANP), روش دِلفی,

چکیده مقاله :

مقدمه و هدف: شناخت و ارزیابی عوامل مؤثر در طرح‌های انتقال آب بین حوضه‌ای جهت محاسبه شاخص‌های مالی و اقتصادی ضروری است. به دلیل وجود پارامترهای کیفی فراوان در این طرح‌ها و عدم توانایی در کمی‌سازی آ‌ن‌ها،‌ در این تحقیق الگوی ارزش‌گذاری اقتصادی ارائه شده است.. مواد و روش­ها: در این الگو، ابتدا معیارها و شاخص‌های اثرگذار با روش تصمیم‌گیری چند معیاره فرآیند تحلیل شبکه‌ای (ANP) اولویت‌بندی شده، سپس با روش‌های ارزش‌گذاری مستقیم و نسبی، کمّی سازی شده، و در نهایت دو شاخص مالی نسبت فایده به هزینه (BCR) و ارزش فعلی خالص (NPV) اصلاح و محاسبه می شوند. یافته‌ها: نتایج نشان داد که معیار سیاسی و امنیتی، با اختلاف قابل توجهی نسبت به سایر معیارها، در اولویت اول قرار دارد. کاربرد این الگو در ارزیابی اقتصادی مجدد طرح انتقال آب رودخانه چالوس به دشت هراز نشان داد که BCR در نرخ تنزیل‌های 6 و 8 درصد مرتبط طرح اصلی، به ترتیب 2/0 و 14/0 می‌باشد و NPV نیز منفی است. ازاینرو این طرح در حال حاضر و با توجه به کاربرد الگوی ارزش‌گذاری پیشنهادی، اقتصادی نخواهد بود.  بحث و نتیجه‌گیری: به نظر می‌رسد که جنبه سیاسی و امنیتی طرح‌های انتقال آب بین حوضه‌ای از اهمیت قابل توجهی برخوردار است. از طرفی دیگر، کمی‌سازی و ارزش‌گذاری پارامترهای مؤثر نیز می‌تواند کمک شایانی به ارزیابی دقیق‌تر اقتصادی طرح‌های جدید و در حال اجرا کند.

چکیده انگلیسی:

Introduction:Identification and evaluation of effective parameters in Inter-Basin Water Transfer (IBWT) projects are essential for the calculation of financial and economic indicators. Due to many qualitative parameters in these projects and inability to quantify most of them, an integrated economic valuation model is presented in this study. Materials and Methods:In this model, the effective criteria and indicators are first prioritized using Analytic Network Process (ANP) as a Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) method. Then, these criteria and indicators are quantified by two direct and relative valuation methods. Finally, two financial indicators: Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR) and Net-Present Value (NPV) are modified and evaluated. Findings:The results indicated that the political and security criterion is in the first place with significant difference with the others. Also, applying model for economic reassessment of the Chalus Water Transfer Scheme in Iran showed the value of BCR at discount rates of 6% and 8% are to be 0.2 and 0.14, respectively; and NPV is negative. Therefore, this project is not considered to be economically beneficial at its present feature. Conclusion: It seems that political and security issue is very considerable in Inter-Basin Water Transfer (IBWT) projects. On the other hand, quantifying and valuating effective parameters can help more accurate economic analysis for new and ongoing projects

منابع و مأخذ:

1. Bakhtiari M, Fathi Moghaddam A. Inter-basin water transfer and sustainable development. In: Proc. of national conference on inter-basin water transfer (Challenges and Opportunities), Shahrekord Azad University. 2012.

      https://civilica.com/doc/153323

2. Bhattarai M, Molden D, Pant D. Socio-economics and hydrological impacts of inter-sectoral and inter-basin water transfer decisions. Melamchi water transfer project in Nepal. Asian Irrigation in Transition Responding to the Challenges ahead. Asian Institute of Technology. 2002.

       https://hdl.handle.net/10568/38039

3. Cole D, Carver W. Inter-basin transfers of water. Georgia Water Resources Conference. University of Georgia. 2011.

http://www.gwri.gatech.edu/sites/default/files/files/docs/2011/3.5.4Cole.pdf

4. Day JC, Bridger KC, Peet SE, Friesen BF. Northwestern Ontario River Dimensions. Journal of Water Resources. 1982; 18 (2): 297-305.

      https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.1982.tb03974.x

5. Yuexian X, Jialian H. Impact of water transfer on the natural environment in long distance water transfer: a Chinese case study and international experiences. Water Resources. 1983.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309634409_Experiences_and_Consequences_of_Inter- Basin_Water_Transfer_Worldwide

6. Ghassemi F, White I. Inter-basin water transfer: case studies from Australia. United States, Canada, China and India. 1st ed. Cambridge University Press.2007; 435 p.

ttps://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511535697

7. Pittock J, Meng J, Ashok K. Interbasin water transfers and water scarcity in a changing world a solution or a pipedream. Organization of World Wide Fund for Natur. WWF Germany. 2009; 16p.

http://assets.panda.org/downloads/pipedreams18082009.pdf

8.

Rezaei M, Basirzadeh H.A. Evaluation of water transfer project aspect of national security with an emphasis on sustainable development and land use planning, River Engineering. In: Proc. of Ninth International Seminar. Shahid Chamran University. Ahvaz. 2011.

https://www.sid.ir/FileServer/JF/70313980420.pdf

9. Samadi Boroujeni H, Saeedinia M. Study on the impacts of inter-basin water transfer: northern Karun. Journal of African Agricultural Research. 2013; 8 (18):25-34.

https://academicjournals.org/journal/AJAR/article-full-text-pdf/F0ECD7A36692.pdf

10. Arab S, Hashemi S.R. Consequences of inter-basin water transfer schemes. In: Proc. Of Second National Conference on Water Crisis. Shahrekord University. 2013.

       https://civilica.com/doc/305825/

11. Chang N, When C, Chen Y. 1997. A fuzzy multi-objective programming approach optimal management of the reservoir watershed. European journal of operational research. 1997; 99 (2): 289-302.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(96)00019-7

12. Zarghami M. Uncertain criteria in ranking interbasin water transfer projects in Iran. 73rd Annual meeting of ICOLD. Tehran. 2005.

       https://civilica.com/doc/126489/

13. Jahanbin S, Radmanesh N, Ghodsi M. Prioritizing and managing the most effective environmental, social and economic parameters in optimal utilization of inter-Basin Water transfer projects using AHP model. In: Proc. Of national conference on inter-basin water transfer (challenges and opportunities). Shahrekord Azad University. 2012.

       https://civilica.com/doc/360263/

14. Saaty TL. Decision making with dependence and feedback: the analytic network process. 2th ed. RWS Publications. Pittsburgh. 1996; 370p.

 http://www.cs.put.poznan.pl/ewgmcda/pdf/SaatyBook.pdf

15. Rahimi M, Solaimani K. Remote sensing and GIS based assessment groundwater

potential zones mapping using multi-criteria decision making technique. Iranian Journal of Watershed Management Science and Engineering. 2017; 10 (35): 27-38.

       http://jwmsei.ir/article-1-433-en.pdf

16. Karamouz M, Moahedi S.A, Ahmadi A. Economic assessment in development of operating policies for inter-basin water transfer. Water Resources Research. 2007; 3 (2): 10-25.

       DOI:10.1061/ASCEIR.1943-4774.0000140

17. Halabiyan A.H, Shabankari M. Water Resources Management in Iran (case study: challenges of water transfer from Beheshtabad to Zayandehrood). 4th International Congress of Islamic World Geographers. Zahedan. Sistan and Baluchestan University. 2011.

       https://civilica.com/doc/82847/

18. Parhizkari A, Taghizadeh H, Shokat Fadaee M, Mahmoud A. Evaluation of the economic impacts of inter-basin water transfer on the pattern of farming and income status of farmers in the basin of Origin. Journal of Agricultural Economics and Development. 2015; 26 (3): 19-33.

https://dx.doi.org/10.22067/jead2.v0i0.48794

19. Simons DB, Li RM, Fullerton W. Theoretically derived sediment transport equations for Pima County, Arizona: Prepared for Pima County DOT and Flood Control District. Tucson. AZ. Simons, Li and Assoc. 1981.

https://www.engr.colostate.edu/~pierre/ce_old/classes/CE716/Geomorphic,%20Hydrologic,%20Hydraulic%20and%20Sediment%20Concepts.pdf

20. Decree of the Iran Cabinet of Ministers. Executive Regulation, Article B of the 12 th Law on Increasing the Productivity of the Agriculture and Natural Resources Sector. 2003.

https://frw.ir/02/Fa/News/News.aspx?nwscid=&nwsId=25064

21. Decree of the Iran Cabinet of Ministers. Social and Cultural Development Program of the Islamic Republic of Iran (Environmental Crimes). 2000.

    https://rc.majlis.ir/fa/law/show/121296

22.

Decree of the Iran Cabinet of Ministers. Executive Regulation Article 134 of the Third Economic, Social and Cultural Development Program of the Islamic Republic of Iran (Agricultural Jihad). 2005.

https://rc.majlis.ir/fa/law/show/123943

23. Decree of the Iran Cabinet of Ministers. Tariff for groundwater and groundwater supply services. All Regional Water Companies and Khuzestan Water and Power Organization. 2018.

http://www.smrw.ir/SC.php?type=static&id=413

24. Optimal utilization plan of Chalus river water resources. Second Stage Studies, Final Report of Chalus River Transfer Canal. Mahab Ghodss consulting Engineering Co. 2013.

        http://www.mzrw.ir/

25. Zarghami M, Szidarovszky F. Revising the OWA operator for multi criteria decision making problems under uncertainty. Elsevier. 2009; 198 (1): 259-265.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2008.09.014

26. Loucks D. Water Resource Systems Planning and Management. Springer. 2017.

        http://link.springer.com/978-3-319-44234-1