Nash Bargaining Optimization of Released Water from a Reservoir Dam under Climate Change Conditions (Case Study: Doiraj Dam)

Document Type : Original Research

Authors
Z. Pourkheirollah
M. Hafezparast Mavaddat
S. E. Fatemi
Department of Water Engineering, Campus of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Razi University, Kermanshah, Islamic Republic of Iran.
10.22034/jast.25.3.747
Abstract
There is a growing demand for solving conflicts among water users and stakeholders under climate change conditions. This study applied ten CMIP5 climate models under the RCP8.5 scenario to simulate Doiraj Reservoir water allocation in Ilam Province. To reduce the uncertainty of climate models, the MOTP method was used by combining different GCM models. To predict reservoir inflow, the IHACRES Rainfall-Runoff model was considered and validated for the 2016 to 2044 time periods. Climate and hydrological indicators were extracted to monitor drought periods in the current and future projections. The WEAP model and the Asymmetric NASH Bargaining Method were used to simulate the water basin system and solve the conflict between stakeholders based on their utility functions, respectively. The results indicated that the rainfall would increase by 17.1 and 11.1% in spring and autumn and decrease by 9.4% in winter in the future projection. Furthermore, the highest temperature and runoff growth rate increased by 1.95°C in September and 6.3% compared to the base period, while demands would be increased by 55.75%. The long-term agricultural deficit are obtained as 10.9 and 10.2% by the WEAP model in the current and future conditions. Finally, the duration curve of reservoir storage showed that 20% of the time, the reservoir storage is empty for the Standard Operation Policy (SOP). By switching to the Nash bargaining policy, not only the minimum storage capacity reached 18 MCM for all the time, but also the effects of climate change would be adapted in the future, and the utility functions of all stakeholders would be satisfied as well.

Keywords

Subjects

1. ASCE. 1993. Criteria for evaluation of watershed models. J. Irrigation Drainage Eng. 119(3): 429-442. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9437(1993)119:3(429)
2. Azadi, F., Ashofteh, P.S. and Loáiciga, H. A. 2019. Reservoir Water-Quality Projections under Climate-Change Conditions. Water Resour Manage 33: 401–421.
3. Binaman, J. and Shoemaker, C.A. 2005. An analysis of high-flow sediment event data for evaluating model performance Hydrol Processes. 19: 605-620.
4. Bozorg-Haddad, O., Athari, E., Fallah-Mehdipour, E. and Loáiciga, H. 2018. Real-time water allocation policies calculated with bankruptcy games and genetic programming. Water Supply. 18 (2): 430–449.
5. Coppola, E. 2000. Optimal pumping policy for a public supply well field using computational neural network with decision-making methodology: Doctoral dissertation, Univ. Arizona, 226p.
6. Dagan, N. and Volji, O .1993. The bankruptcy problem: a cooperative bargaining approach. Math Soc Sci. 26(3):287–297.
7. Frisvold, G.B. and Caswell, M.F .2000. Transboundary water management Game‐theoretic lessons for projects on the US–Mexico border, Agric Econ. 24(1):101-111.
8. Fu, J., Zhong, P., Zhu, F., Chen, J., Wu, Y. and Xu, B. 2018. Water Resources Allocation in Trans boundary River Based on Asymmetric Nash–Harsanyi Leader–Follower Game Model. Water, 10(3): 270.
9. Ganji, A., Karamouz, M. and Khalili, D. 2007. Development of stochastic dynamic Nash game model for reservoir operation II. The value of players’ information availability and cooperative behaviors. Adv Water Resour. 30(1):157-168.
10. Giorgi, F., Francisco, R. 2001. Uncertainties in the Prediction of Regional Climate Change. In: Visconti, G., Beniston, M., Iannorelli, E.D., Barba, D. (eds) Global Change and Protected Areas. Advances in Global Change Research, 9. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-48051-4_14
11. Guoyong, L., Qiuhong, T. and Scott, R. 2015. Climate change impacts on metrological, agricultural and hydrological drought in China, Glob Planet Change. 126(2015):23-34.
12. Homayounfar, M., Zomorodian, M., Martinez, ch., and Lai, S.H. 2015. Two Monthly Continuous Dynamic Model Based on Nash Bargaining Theory for Conflict Resolution in Reservoir System. PloS one, 10(12): e0143198. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0143198.
13. IPCC, Summary for policymakers.2013. In: Stocker, T.F., Qin, D., Plattner, G.K., Tignor ,M., Allen, S. K., Boschung, J., Nauels, A., Xia, Y., Bex, V. and Midgley, P.M. Climate Change: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY. USA.
14. Jakeman, A.J. and Hornberger, G.M .1993. How much complexity is warranted in a rainfall-runoff model, Water Resour. Res. 29:2637–2649.
15. Jeong, G., Kang, D. 2021. Hydro-Economic Water Allocation Model for Water Supply Risk Analysis: A Case Study of Namhan River Basin, South Korea. Sustainability. 13(11):6005.
16. Jones, R.N. 2000. Managing Uncertainty in Climate Change Projections– Issues for Impact Assessment. Clim. Change, 45: 403–419
17. Kaini, S., Nepal, S., Pradhananga, S., Gardner, T. and Sharma, A. 2020. Impacts of climate change on the flow of the transboundary Koshi River, with implications for local irrigation. International Int. J. Water Resour. Dev, 37 (6): 929-954.
18. Kalhori, M., Ashofteh, P.S., Moghadam, S,H. 2022. Investigating the effect of uncertainty of AOGCM-TAR and AOGCM-AR5 climate change models on river runoff. Arab J Geosci 15: 1198. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-022-10471-1
19. Kuriqi, A., Pinheiro, A.N., Sordo-Ward, A. and Garrote, L. 2019. Influence of hydrologically based environmental flow methods on flow alteration and energy production in a run-of-river hydropower plant, J. Clean. Prod. 232: 1028-1042.
20. Lambert, S.J. and Boer, G.J. 2001. CMIP1 evaluation and intercomparison of coupled climate models. Clim. Dyn. 17(2-3):83–106.
21. Legates, D.R and McCabe, G.J .1999. Evaluating the use of “goodness-of-fit” measures in hydrologic and hydro climatic model validation, Water Resour. Res, 35(1): 233-241.
22. Leong, W.K. and Lain, S.H. 2017. Application of Water Evaluation and Planning Model for Integrated Water Resources Management: Case Study of Langat River Basin, Malaysia. International Technical Postgraduate Conference. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 210 012024
23. Li, F., Li, H., Lu, W., Zhang, G. and Kim, J.C. 2019. Meteorological Drought Monitoring in Northeastern China Using Multiple Indices. Water. 11(1):71
24. Malka, L., Daci, A., Kuriqi, A., Bartocci, P., Rrapaj, E. 2022. Energy Storage Benefits Assessment Using Multiple-Choice Criteria: The Case of Drini River Cascade. Albania. Energies, 15, 4032.
25. Massah Bavani, A. and Morid, S. 2005. Impacts of climate change on water resources and food production: a case study of Zayandeh-rud - basin, Esfahan, Iran. Journal of Water Resources Research. 1: 40- 47 (In Persian with English abstract).
26. Mehrparvar, M., Ahmadi, A. and Safavi ,H.R. 2019. Resolving water allocation conflicts using WEAP simulation model and non-cooperative game theory. Simulation. 96(1):17-30.
27. Moghadam, S.H., Ashofteh, P.S.and Loáiciga, H.A. 2022. Optimal Water Allocation of Surface and Ground Water Resources Under Climate Change with WEAP and IWOA Modeling. Water Resour. Manag.36: 3181–3205.
28. Mosadegh, E. and Babaeian, I., 2021. Projection Of Temperature And Precipitation For 2020-2100 For Tehran Region Using Post-processing Of General Circulation Models Output And Artificial Neural Network Approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.04619.
29. Naghdi, S., Bozorg-Haddad, O., Khorsandi, M. and Chu, X. 2021. Multi-objective optimization for allocation of surface water and groundwater resources, Science of the Total Environment, 776: 146026.
30. Nash, J.E and Sutcliffe, J.V .1970. River flow forecasting through conceptual models part I – A discussion of principles. Journal of Hydrology, 10: 282–290.
31. Norozi, E., Rostami, N. and Jahangir, M. 2018. Prediction of drought condition during 2018-2037 period under Climate Change Approach (Case study: Ilam and Dehloran Stations).Iranian journal of Ecohydrology, 5(3):977-991(In Persian with English abstract).
32. Ransmeier, J.S. 1942. The Tennessee Valley Authority: A Case Study in the Economics of Multiple Purpose Stream Planning. Vanderbilt University Press. Nashville (Tennessee).
33. Ratner, B., Burnley, C., Mugisha, S., Madzudzo, E., Oeur, I., Mam, K., Rüttinger, L., Chilufya, L., Adriázola, P. 2018. Investing in multi-stakeholder dialogue to address natural resource competition and conflict, Dev Pract. 28:799-812
34. Serrano, R. 2021. Sixty-seven years of the Nash program: time for retirement. 12: 35–48.
35. Sharifazari, S., Sadat-Noori, M., Rahimi, H., Khojasteh, D. and Glamore, W.2021. Optimal reservoir operation using Nash bargaining solution and evolutionary algorithms, Water Sci. Eng. 14(4): 260-268.
36. Van Loon, A.F. 2015. Hydrological drought explained, WIREs Water. 2(4):359-392.
37. Wilby, R.L. and Harris, I. 2006. A framework for assessing uncertainties in climate change impacts: Low-flow scenarios for the River Thames, UK. Water Resour Res.
38. World Bank. 2016. High and Dry: Climate Change, Water, and the Economy, Washington, DC. License: Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 3.0 IGO
39. Zarezadeh, M. 2011. Water Allocation in the Qezelozan-Sefidrood Basin under Climate Change, 20 using Bankruptcy Approach for Conflict Resolution, M. S. thesis, Dep. Of Water Resources Engineering, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.
40. Zarghami, M and Szidarovszky, F. 2011. Multi criteria Analysis Applications to Water and Environment Management. Springer: 95-104.
41. Zheng, H., Chiew, F.H.S., Charles, S. and Podger, G. 2018. Future climate and runoff projections across South Asia from CMIP5 global climate models and hydrological modelling, J. Hydrol.: Reg. Stud, 18: 92-109.
Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology
Volume 25, Issue 3
May and June 2023
Pages 747-765