Multi-criteria analysis for improving strategic environmental assessment of water programmes. A case study in semi-arid region of Brazil Marianna Garfì a, b, * , Laia Ferrer-Martí a , Alessandra Bonoli b , Simona Tondelli c a GRECDH, Technical University of Catalonia, Av Diagonal 647, 08028 Barcelona, Spain b DICMA, University of Bologna, Via Terracini 28, 40131 Bologna, Italy c DAPT, University of Bologna, Viale Risorgimento 4, 40126 Bologna, Italy article info Article history: Received 16 February 2010 Received in revised form 23 August 2010 Accepted 3 October 2010 Available online 28 October 2010 Keywords: Analytic hierarchy process Decision-making Developing countries Environmental sustainability Monitoring Strategic environmental assessment abstract Multi-criteria analysis (MCA) is a family of decision-making tools that can be used in strategic envi- ronmental assessment (SEA) procedures to ensure that environmental, social and economic aspects are integrated into the design of human development strategies and planning, in order to increase the contribution of the environment and natural resources to poverty reduction. The aim of this paper is to highlight the contribution of a particular multi-criteria technique, the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), in two stages of the SEA procedure applied to water programmes in developing countries: the comparison of alternatives and monitoring. This proposal was validated through its application to a case study in Brazilian semi-arid region. The objective was to select and subsequently monitor the most appropriate programme for safe water availability. On the basis of the SEA results, a project was iden- tified and implemented with successful results. In terms of comparisons of alternatives, AHP meets the requirements of human development programme assessment, including the importance of simplicity, a multidisciplinary and flexible approach, and a focus on the beneficiaries’ concerns. With respect to monitoring, the study shows that AHP contributes to SEA by identifying the most appropriate indicators, in order to control the impacts of a project. Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction The Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness (2005) committed donors and their partner countries to reforming the way in which aid is delivered. The aim was to improve effectiveness by harmo- nising efforts and aligning with the priorities of partner countries. Furthermore, to ensure that environmental considerations were taken into account in this new aid context, the declaration encouraged the use of strategic environmental assessment (SEA). SEA can be defined as “the formalized, systematic and compre- hensive process of evaluating the environmental impacts of a policy, plan or programme and its alternatives, including the preparation of a written report on the findings of that evaluation, and using the findings in publicly accountable decision-making” (Therivel, 1992). The adoption of SEA supports the decision-making process through the development and comparison of future scenarios. This helps to ensure that policies and programmes meet sustainable development objectives and that positive synergies between economic and environmental development priorities are established and assessed. In developing countries, where people depend more directly on natural resources than in any other society, SEA has become an essential tool for formulating future development strategies. The application of SEA to development cooperation has benefits for both decision-making procedures and development outcomes (OECD, 2006). It supports more informed decision-making by taking into account environmental aspects and by encouraging a systematic and thorough examination of development options. SEA helps to ensure the sustainability of economic growth, which, in turn, will support political stability and facilitate trans-boundary cooperation around shared environmental resources, thus helping to prevent conflict. SEA is a complex procedure and various decision-making tools can be used within the process especially in the following steps: comparison of alternatives and monitoring. Examples include life cycle assessment (LCA) (Tukker, 2000), cost-benefit analysis (CBA) (Finnveden et al., 2009) and multi-criteria analysis (MCA) (Finnveden et al., 2003). MCA aims to rank a finite number of options on the basis of a set of evaluation criteria and it is a very flexible family of techniques. In fact a multi-criteria tool can be applied for all kinds of impacts, can be made site-time-specific or * Corresponding author. GRECDH, Technical University of Catalonia, Av Diagonal 647, pav F, floor 0, 08028 Barcelona, Spain. Tel.: þ34 934 016 579; fax: þ34 934 015 813. E-mail addresses: marianna.garfi@gmail.com, marianna.garfi@upc.edu (M. Garfì). Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Environmental Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman 0301-4797/$ e see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.10.007 Journal of Environmental Management 92 (2011) 665e675