## 4 Results and Discussion  
### Results  
Overall, the following 32 pairwise comparison matrices were defined:  
* One matrix for the five criticality areas compared in pairs concerning the time priority objective;
* Five matrices for the nine criticality sub-areas compared in pairs concerning the five criticality areas;
* Nine matrices for the seventeen criticalities compared in pairs concerning the nine criticality sub-areas;
* Seventeen matrices for the ten projects to be implemented compared in pairs concerning the seventeen criticalities.  
The relative weights of the criteria (criticalities), sub-criteria (areas and sub-areas of criticality) and alternatives (projects) were defined using the approximate method in Equation (A3). Furthermore, the consistency of each of the 32 matrices was evaluated by calculating the CI index using Equation (A4), the RCI index was defined using the values reported in Table A2, and the CR index was obtained by dividing the CI by the RCI. The CR index associated with each matrix was then compared with one of the thresholds represented by the inequalities (A5). In cases of imperfect consistency, the decision makers were invited to formulate a partial revision of the pairwise comparisons. Finally, the total score of each alternative was calculated using Equation (A6).  
Figure 4 illustrates the results obtained by the AHP for Scenario 1.  
Figure 5 illustrates the results obtained by the AHP for Scenario 2.  
Figure 4: Time hierarchization of interventions for Scenario 1.  
Analyzing the results obtained for the two scenarios, some patterns emerge.  
First of all, it is possible to state that the critical areas considered a priority by both stakeholders are those relating to purification, distribution and sewerage, as can be seen from the types of intervention which are in the first four positions of both rankings.  
The central band of the hierarchy, on the other hand, has a more marked differentiation for the two points of view: in the scenario of the PdA, the criticality area relating to knowledge of the infrastructures appears; on the other hand, in the reference scenario of the utility, an intervention that impacts management criticalities is preferred. The latter occupy the lowest level of the hierarchy drawn up by the EGA. Lastly, on behalf of the manager, less importance is given to critical issues regarding knowledge of the infrastructure.  
As for the merits of the individual project activities, for both scenarios, the following patterns emerge:  
* A shared priority for Tasks 7, 1 and 5;
* A lesser importance attributed to Interventions 4 and 11.  
Table 3 illustrates the time schedule which summarizes the results of this phase.  
In the phase of the formulation of the judgment on the temporal urgency, we proceeded by respecting the indications emerging from the concordances of the two economic actors (the EGA and water operator), basically favoring public objectives and safeguarding the operator's expressions of preference when not in open conflict with collective ambitions.  
Figure 5: Time hierarchization of interventions for Scenario 2.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{r c} \hline \hline
**Intervention ID** & **Intervention Description** \\ \hline
7 & Adaptation of purification plants \\
1 & Rehabilitation of deteriorated water network \\
5 & Rehabilitation of the deteriorated sewerage system \\
10 & Replacement of user meters \\
3 & Adaptation of distribution systems \\
9 & Adoption of management software \\
2 & Implementation/modernization of remote-control services \\
6 & Adjustment of manholes \\
4 & Creation of water districts \\
11 & Adaptation of the collection system \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: Shared time schedule of interventions.