Application of the Asymmetric Nash Bargaining Method to Optimal Allocation of Shared Water Resources under Water Bankruptcy Condition

Document Type : Methodologies

Authors

1 Graduate of Master of Water Resources Engineering, Bu Ali Sina University, Hamadan, Iran

2 Professor of Water Science and Engineering, Bu Ali Sina University, Hamadan, Iran

3 PhD in Water Resources Engineering and expert of Zanjan Regional Water Organization, Iran

Abstract

Under conditions of water scarcity due to limited water resources and improper exploitation, management based on the characteristics of flexibility, equity and sustainability of water resources can play an important role in preventing the continuation of the crisis and the reduction of water conflicts. In this study, using a combination of bankruptcy and asymmetric Nash bargaining concepts, the framework was presented for the optimal allocation of shared water resources. The Atrak basin including Golestan, North Khorasan and Razavi Khorasan provinces was considered as a case study. First, water allocation in this basin was done by Nash optimization model in symmetric and asymmetric states. In addition to this model, common methods in the bankruptcy approach were used and compared with Nash bargaining model. The results showed that in terms of different assumptions, the proposed bargaining model is able to cover the results of common bankruptcy laws. Also, the involvement of water production potential in determining water weight can be an important step towards more equitable water allocation. In this case, water allocation of Golestan, North Khorasan and Razavi Khorasan provinces is 138, 902 and 174 million cubic meters per year, respectively. The results of sensitivity analysis indicated that with relative weight change, the percentage of water supply changed. The research findings suggest that the proposed flexible model, by providing negotiation capabilities, can be considered as an effective management tool for solving common problems of shared water resources allocation.

Keywords


کاظمی‌مرشت، پ. و عراقی‌نژاد، ش. 1394. تخصیص آب با استفاده از مدل شکار- شکارچی و مقایسه آن با روش‌های مرسوم حل اختلاف (مطالعه موردی: حوضه آبریز اترک). مجله آب و فاضلاب، 5(26): 3-13.
میرشفیعی، س.، انصاری، ح. و میان‌آبادی، ح.1394. روش‌های نظریه ورشکستگی در تخصیص منابع آبی مشترک (مطالعه موردی: رودخانه اترک). نشریه آبیاری و زهکشی ایران، 4(9): 604-594.
وزارت نیرو، دفتر برنامه‌ریزی کلان آب و آبفا، گزارش مطالعات بهنگام‌سازی طرح جامع آب کشور- حوضه آبریز اترک.
Aumann R.J. and Maschler M. 1985. Game theoretic analysis of a bankruptcy problem from the Talmud. Journal of Economic Theory, 36(2): 195-213.
Ansink E. and Weikard H.P. 2012. Sequential sharing rules for river sharing problems. Social Choice and Welfare, 38(2): 187–210.
Curiel S., Canto J. and Rodriguez L. 1987. A model for the thermal radio continuum emission produced by a shock wave and its application to the Herbig-Haro objects 1 and 2. Revista mexicana de astronomía y astrofísica, 14: 595-602.
Dagan N. and Volji O. 1993. The bankruptcy problem: A cooperative approach. Mathematical Social Sciences, 26(3): 287-297.
Degefu D.M., He W., Yuan L. and Zhoa J.H. 2016. water allocation in transboundary river basins under water scarcity: a cooperative bargaining approach. Water Resources Management, 30(12): 4451-4466.
Fisher F.M., Arlosoroff S., Eckstein Z., Haddadin M., Hamati S.G., Huber-Lee A., Jarrar A., Jayyousi A., Shamir U. and Wesseling H. 2002. Optimal water management and conflict resolution: The Middle East Water Project. Water resources research, 38(11):321-337.
Gallastegui M.C., Inarra E. and Prellezo R. 2003. Bankruptcy of Fishing Resources: The Northern European Anglerfish Fishery. Marine Resource Economics, 17(4): 291–307.
Harsanyi J.C. 1982. A simplified bargaining model for the n-person cooperative game. In: Harsanyi JC (ed) Papers in game theory, Springer, Netherlands, 260(28): 45-70.
Herinckx H.A., Swart S.C., Ama S.M., Dolezal C.D. and King S. 2005. Rearrest and linkage to mental health services among clients of the Clark County mental health court program. Psychiatr Serv, 56: 853–857.
Kucukmehmetoglu M. and Guldmen J .2004. International Water Resources Allocation and Conflicts: the Case of the Euphrates and Tigris. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 36(5):783-801.
Madani K. and Zarezadeh M. 2012. Bankruptcy methods for resolving water resources conflicts. In: Loucks, D.P. (Ed.), World Environmental and Water ResourcesCongress 2012. American Society of Civil Engineers, 3: 2247- 2252.
Mianabadi H., Mostert E., Zarghami M. and Giesen N. 2013. Transboundary water resources allocation using bankruptcy theory; Case Study of euphrates and tigris rivers. "Transboundary Water Management across borders and interfaces: present and future challenges" Conference, Aveiro, Portugal.
Nash Z. 1950. The bargaining problem. Econometrica, 18(2): 155–162.
Nash Z .1953. Two-person cooperative games. Jornal Of Econometrica Society, 21(1): 128–140.
O’Neill B. 1982. A problem of rights arbitration from the Talmud. Mathematical Social Sciences, 2(4): 345–371.
Roozbahani R., Schreider S. and Abbasi B. 2015. Optimal water allocation through a multi-objective compromise etween environmental, social, and economic preferences. Environ. Model. Softw, 64: 18–30.
Wolf A.T. 1999. Criteria for equitable allocations: the heart of international water conflict. Natural Resources, 23(1): 3-30.
Wu Q.L. and Xu N.R. 1996. Improved interactive methods of multi-objective decision-making based on targetsatisfaction degree. Journal of Management in Engineering, 4: 217–222.
Zarezadeh M., Madani K. and Morid S. 2012. Resolving transboundary water conflicts: lessons learned from the Qezelozan-Sefidrood river bankruptcy problem. World Environmental And Water Resources Congress. Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA.
Zarghami M., and Szidarovszky F. 2011. Multi criteria Analysis Applications to Water and Environment Management, Springer Science & Business Media, Berlin, Germany.
CAPTCHA Image