Prioritization of Strategic Policies for Water Right Harvesting of Iranian Boundary Rivers by AHP and ANP Method

The geographical map of the countries shows that the political boundaries are not aligned with the water basins. The existence of transboundary rivers has led to divergences over the water availability of these rivers in many countries. Competition and conflict have been created for gaining more profit. What makes the competition over the border waters more serious is the nature of the international relations of the upstream and downstream Countries that transform water use into political leverage. In Iran, the limitation of fresh water resources and the need to plan for the proper utilization of diverse water resources capacities, highlight the importance of obtaining the right of transboundary rivers. This part of the water is effective in preventing pressure on internal resources, some natural damage caused by drought and water scarcity, and some internal conflicts between basins. Considering the research done on transboundary rivers, which have often been politically or geographically examined, So far, no research has been conducted on the development and prioritization of strategic policies for the extraction of the water rights of Iranian transboundary rivers. In this study, the strategic policies that the government can adopt to obtain the water-right of the Iranian transboundary rivers were determined based on the expertise of experts in the fields of water sciences, environment, geomorphology, political sciences and middle managers of the water industry. To this aim, a questionnaire was prepared in with 5 Criterion and 12 strategies. Then, its validity was evaluated by the relevant experts. After conversion of qualitative values to 20 quantitative questionnaires, the reliability of the questionnaire was confirmed by Cronbach's alpha in SPSS statistical software. This coefficient was calculated 0.735. The AHP method was then prioritized by Export Choice software. The ANP method was prioritized in the MATLAB programming environment. Then, the results of both methods were compared. In the sensitivity analysis by the Three Antifilo method, the numerical value of the most sensitive criterion was calculated and then the weight of the other criteria was modified accordingly. The threshold percentage and change in weight of the criteria were determined. Afterward, the sensitivity coefficient of the criteria was calculated and the numerical value of the most sensitive criterion was modified. The other criterion was modified based on the modified critical criterion. To analyze the sensitivity of strategic policies the fallowing steps were taken: First, numerical values of threshold weight and its percentage and critical degree were calculated; Second, sensitivity coefficients of strategic policies, which are the inverse of the most critical strategies, were calculated and compared; Third, The numerical value of the most sensitive strategy was corrected; and at the last step of this method, the values of each strategic policy were normalized to the most sensitive criterion. The results showed that the two criteria of benefit and timing with weight of 26.26 and 0.13 were in the first and last priority, respectively. The final prioritization was similar in both ways, except in the second, fourth and ninth strategy of the initial table. The strategy of controlling more outflows from the country and applying pressure to reduce tariffs for importing high-quality virtual water into the country, in the AHP method with 11.88% and in the ANP method with 11.08%, placed as first priority. In addition, A11 strategy was the last priority with 8.17% by AHP and 6.11% by ANP. Also, profitability with the coefficient of 0.185 was introduced as the most sensitive criterion. Based on it, the weight of the other criteria was modified. Therefore the prioritization of the criteria remained unchanged in comparison with the results of the sensitivity analysis of strategies based on each criterion separately. It showed that the most sensitive strategic policy is the strategy of cooperating with neighboring countries for better access to seawater, changing the pattern of cultivation with low water requirement and thriving in other economic potentials of the neighboring country to reduce the tendency for highly water-intensive activities. Its regarding coefficient was 0.178 which is the highest value, based on the profitability criterion. In the final step after normalizing the weights of the strategies according to the critical criterion, the prioritization of the strategies with little change in weights also remained unchanged. Advancing the first policy will be effective in short term, but will not entail economic costs, and it may create political strain on the diplomatic relations of the two countries. Advancing the second priority will be more time consuming, but not, economically and politically costly. Like the first priority, the second can improve Iran's political standing in the region, while it can cost diplomatic means on the country. The last priorities are the strategic policies that are economically costly for the country and have a negative impact on the other two countries' relations.