Next Article in Journal
2D PIV Measurement of Twin Buoyant Jets in Wavy Cross-Flow Environment
Next Article in Special Issue
The Role of Community Champions in Long-Term Sustainable Urban Water Planning
Previous Article in Journal
Coagulation: Determination of Key Operating Parameters by Multi-Response Surface Methodology Using Desirability Functions
Previous Article in Special Issue
Eight Hundred Years of Drought and Flood Disasters and Precipitation Sequence Reconstruction in Wuzhou City, Southwest China
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Allocating Water in the Mekong River Basin during the Dry Season

1
College of Economics and Management, China Three Gorges University, Yichang 443002, China
2
College of Hydraulic and Environmental Engineering, China Three Gorges University, Yichang 443002, China
3
Faculty of Engineering and Architectural Science, Ryerson University, Toronto, ON M5B 2K3, Canada
4
School of Business, Hohai University, Nanjing 210098, China
5
School of Law and Public Administration, China Three Gorges University, Yichang 443002, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Water 2019, 11(2), 400; https://doi.org/10.3390/w11020400
Submission received: 7 January 2019 / Revised: 13 February 2019 / Accepted: 19 February 2019 / Published: 25 February 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Water Management under Global Environmental Change)

Abstract

:
With population numbers increasing and anthropogenic climate change, the amount of available fresh water is declining. This scenario can lead to an increase in the occurrence of water conflicts, especially in transboundary river basins. Prevention strategies to avert water conflicts by designing a fair, efficient, and sustainable water allocation framework are needed. Taking into account the socioeconomic and environmental differences among the riparian countries is one of the most important features an allocation scheme should have. In this article, bankruptcy and bargaining games were used to construct a new weighted water allocation model. The proposed method was applied to allocate the contested water capital of the Mekong River during the dry season. The Mekong River originates in China and flows through Myanmar, Laos, Thailand, Cambodia, and Vietnam. The results of the allocation showed that, except for China and Vietnam, all the other riparian countries get their full claim of the water demand from the river. The water allocation payoffs satisfy individual rationality, Pareto optimality, and maximization of the group utility. Therefore, the allocation outputs from the proposed scheme are self-enforceable and sustainable.

1. Introduction

Water supports various social, economic, and environmental systems. This is main reason why most ancient and modern civilizations are on the banks of rivers. The Nile and Tigris-Euphrates river basins are typical examples. The major water demands are irrigation, domestic, and industrial water demands. Lack of water for these sectors negatively affects these systems, thereby endangering the socioeconomic security of a lot of people and environmental integrity. Therefore, preventing water scarcity is crucial for sustainable development.
With economic development, increasing population, and climate change, the competition for water is becoming more and more intense [1,2,3,4]. These contests are fiercer when water resources are internationally shared [5]. However, universally-accepted international agreements and mechanisms to allocate the water capital of these river basins are yet to exist [6]. There are around 286 internationally shared river basins in the world and approximately 42% of the world’s population lives in these rivers basins [7], hence, implementation of fair, efficient, and sustainable water allocation schemes in these river basins is very important. Water allocation schemes based on optimization models have been suggested as good techniques to increase the efficiency and benefits of shared water resources [8]. Therefore, previous studies applied linear programming, mixed-integer linear programming, dynamic programming, evolutionary computation, and artificial neural networks to attain efficient allocation of disputed water capital [9,10,11,12]. These methods target maximizing the group utility based on the assumption of perfect cooperation, which is not always guaranteed in transboundary water sharing, where each riparian state’s interest matters [13]. Therefore, even though water allocation outputs from multi-objective optimization models are efficient, they can be unrealistic, since these models do not take the strategic interactions among the sharing countries into consideration. These interactions within border-crossing river basins are very complex [14,15,16] and crucial for fair, efficient, and sustainable water sharing within the basins. As a result of this understanding, the strategic interaction among river sharing countries is one of the very important factors that needs to be considered in order to avoid water conflicts [17]. This understanding can be achieved through negotiations or discourses, thereby enabling the stakeholders to make decisions based on complete information.
Discourses on water scarcity are key to shape people’s understanding of its causes, consequences, and interaction among stakeholders [4,15,16]. One element that is crucial to solving any water issue as a result of water-sharing problems under water scarcity is understanding how to maximize each stakeholder’s benefits. Negotiation is one form of discourse that can help to come up with ways to achieve this aim [18]. During negotiations the stakeholders can learn information which might not be revealed by non-cooperative interaction, thereby avoiding the stakeholders’ problem of making water use decisions under uncertainty. This prevents water conflicts and environmental degradation. These discourses or negotiations are based on the social, economic, and environmental differences among the stakeholders. Identifying the actors and their main bargaining elements of negotiations is key for successful concession [4]. In the process, each actor will analyze different courses actions based on the possible strategies of the other stakeholders involved in the water resources-sharing problem. These strategies take into account the historical, present, and future dynamics of social, economic, environmental, and political features of the participating water claimants [19,20,21]. It is very important that negotiations on water sharing within transboundary river basins are contextualized in the broader context, considering national security, regional geopolitics, intersectoral interests, and power asymmetries [22]. The dynamics of these elements over time need to be thoroughly investigated and the insights obtained can help to understand the interests of the different stakeholders [14]. A tool that can integrate all these aspects and identify the interests of each stakeholder is needed for this purpose. Game theory can serve as a tool to capture and integrate these factors that influence the negotiation strategies of the stakeholders in internationally-shared river basins [9].
Game theory is a mathematical method that can be used to capture the strategic interaction among stakeholders claiming a shared scarce resource. Hence, theoretical game models can serve as a tool to analyze cooperative and non-cooperative relationships among riparian countries of water-scarce transboundary river basins [23]. The method has been applied to allocate various scarce shared resources [24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31]. The water resources allocation based on game theory can make up for the shortcomings of multi-objective optimization models (Figure 1).
A theoretical game approach will allow for negotiation and prevent hydro-hegemony [32]. A theoretical game method will take into account the interaction among the riparian countries, thereby enabling us to analyze conflict and cooperation [33]. This is important because it helps to internalize negotiation [34] and issue linkage [35] into an optimized water allocation framework.
In this article, an optimization method was combined with a theoretical game model to solve the water-sharing problem in transboundary river basins. Bankruptcy theory, which is one of the theoretical game approaches, was applied to frame the problem of water scarcity. This theory aimed to find a reasonable allocation pattern among water resource claimants using the available water capital and water claims as limits for efficiency and individual rationality, respectively. Therefore, based on bankruptcy theory, a novel weighted optimization allocation mechanism that satisfied most of the desired features was built. These desired properties were feasibility, efficiency, claim boundedness, equal treatment of equals, scale invariance, and exclusion. Then, the proposed allocation mechanism was demonstrated by using it to allocate the disputed water of the Mekong River basin.

2. Method

The bankruptcy theory describes a state where a limited resource, E , is not enough to fulfill the demands of all agents in the set N asserting their claims c i ( c i = c 1 , c 2 , c 3 , , c n ) [36]. When the available water in the basin is not enough to satisfy the total water demand, the situation is called a water bankruptcy scenario. Therefore, designing a water allocation mechanism during water scarcity can be approached as a bankruptcy problem, since riparian countries’ total water demand is greater than the water available for sharing [6].
0 E i = 1 n c i
Therefore, any mechanism that solves a resource sharing problem stated in Equation (1) by yielding allocation outputs e i ( e i = e 1 , e 2 , e 3 , , e n ) should satisfy Equation (2).
i = 1 n e i = E
Cooperation in resolving water conflict within a transboundary river can result in greater economic, ecological, and political utility [37]. As a result, negotiation among sharing states is often accepted as the best way to solve the water-sharing problem [38,39]. A bargaining game is one of the non-transferable utility games that can be applied to resolve water-sharing problems through negotiation [40]. The Nash bargaining theory is one of the bargaining methods that yields water allocation payoffs that satisfies much-desired properties such as feasibility, invariance under changing utilities, Pareto optimality, and unanimity [41,42]. In this paper, the authors combine the bankruptcy theory with the Nash bargaining game model to capture a water sharing problem in a transboundary river as a non-transferable utility game [43].
The bargaining problem can be represented as B : ( S , D , u 1 , u 2 , , u n ) , where S is the feasibility space S : ( e 1 , e 2 , e 3 , , e n ) , e i represents the water resources allocated to each claimant, while the utility { u i ( S ) , i = 1 , 2 , , n } of each riparian, i , in the feasibility space, S , is u i : S R [44]. It is difficult to accurately determine the utility function of water use because water is related to different social, economic, and environmental systems. Therefore, in this article the utility function is described as a linear interval function [45]:
u i ( e i ) = ( e i d i ) / ( c i d i ) ,
where D = ( d 1 , d 2 , , d n ) represents the disagreement points of each claimant involved in the allocation game. The disagreement point of each riparian country is defined based on the bankruptcy theory [46]:
d i = ( E c ( N / i ) ) = M a x { E c ( N / i ) , 0 } .
The disagreement utility point is u i ( d i ) = 0 . Therefore, for any rational selection s S , the allocation solution should satisfy u i ( d i ) u i ( s ) .
The bargaining power of each riparian region, w i , takes into account the asymmetry among riparian regions in terms of their social, economic, and environmental features [47].
i = 1 n w i = 1 .
The solution set S : ( e 1 , e 2 , e 3 , , e n ) that satisfies the following maximization function allocates the water in a fair and efficient manner.
u N ( s ) = { s S | max [ ( u 1 ( s ) u 1 ( d 1 ) ) w 1 ( u 2 ( s ) u 2 ( d 2 ) ) w 2 ( u i ( s ) u i ( d i ) ) w i ] } s . t . { 0 e i d i e i c i i = 1 n e i E i = 1 n w i = 1

3. Computing Bargaining Power

The riparian countries are different in terms of their water demand, water contribution to river’s main stem and vulnerability to water stress. Therefore, in order to build a holistic allocation mechanism, the social, economic, and environmental elements, as well as their variation through time and space, need to be taken into account. These factors can be incorporated into a water-sharing mechanism in the form of bargaining weight. Previous studies also provided water allocation mechanisms that considered these factors [48,49,50,51].
This section analyzes and develops the comprehensive and rigorous index system for determining bargaining weight of sharing countries in transboundary river basins during water bankruptcy. The indicators were chosen based on the widely known and used The Helsinki Rules on the Uses of the Waters of International Rivers [52] and Convention on the Law of Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses [53]. Although these international water laws are not binding and lack the much-needed enforcement mechanism, they promote equitable distribution of shared water capital without prejudice. Thus, these international rules can serve as guidelines for designing an allocation mechanism which is fair, efficient, and sustainable [54,55]. The following nine indicators (Table 1) were used to build the index for computing bargaining weight of riparian countries sharing a transboundary river [56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70].
The bargaining power is a single exponential parameter in the bargaining game model (Equation (6)). Therefore, it is necessary to convert the calculation of bargaining power into a non-linear optimization problem. The two international water laws do not categorize and prioritize the influencing factors [52,53]. Hence, the authors used a projection pursuit model (PPM) to analyze the multiple variables and determine the bargaining weight. The process follows the following steps [71]:
(1) Standardization: Assume the value of each factor in the allocation framework x * ( i , j ) , in which i = 1 , 2 , , n refers to the riparian countries and j = 1 , 2 , , m refers to the value of the indexes defined in Table 1. The value of each individual index is normalized as follows:
For positive attribution indexes x p ( i , j ) :
x p ( i , j ) = x * ( i , j ) x min ( j ) x max ( j ) x min ( j ) .
For negative attribution indexes x n ( i , j ) :
x n ( i , j ) = x max ( j ) x * ( i , j ) x max ( j ) x min ( j ) .
(2) Construction of projection function: Projection provides the best way to understand the characteristics of the data. It transforms m-dimensional data { x ( i ,   j ) j = 1 , 2 , , m } into one-dimensional data Z ( i ) :
Z ( i ) = j = 1 p a ( j ) x ( i , j ) ,
where projection direction a ( j ) is a unit length vector:
j = 1 p a 2 ( j ) = 1 .
The projection function Q ( a ) can be expressed as:
Q ( a ) = G Z H Z ,
where H Z is the standard deviation of Z ( i ) .
H Z = i = 1 n [ Z ( i ) E ( Z ) ] 2 n 1
G Z is the local density for the projected value of Z ( i ) :
G Z = i = 1 n j = 1 p ( R r ( i , j ) ) u ( R r ( i , j ) ) ,
where R is the radius of the local density. Assuming R = 0.1 H Z [72], r ( i , j ) is the distance between the regions, r ( i ,   j ) = | Z ( i ) Z ( j ) | , u ( t ) is unit step function:
u ( t ) = { 1 , t > 0 0 , t 0 .
(3) Calculation: Different values of a ( j ) correspond to different projection results. The optimal projection direction a * ( j ) satisfies Equation (15):
Max Q ( a * ( j ) ) = G Z H Z .
In turn, a * ( j ) is used in Equation (9) to calculate the values of Z * ( i ) . The bargaining weight ( w i ) is determined by normalizing the set of values of Z * ( i ) . The authors optimized the projection based on a real-coded genetic algorithm (RAGA), which helps to achieve global optimization by reducing the data dimension [72]. The structural framework of RAGA is shown in Figure 2.

4. Case Study

Mekong River (Figure 3) is one of the most well-known transboundary river basins in the world. Its water capital is contested among its riparian countries mainly during the dry season. The river’s estimated length is 4350 km and the basin drains have an area of 79.50 × 104 km2 [73]. The river runs through China, Myanmar, Laos, Thailand, Cambodia, and Vietnam.
The Mekong River basin riparian countries began to negotiate and cooperate more than half a century ago. The Mekong Committee was established in 1957. The Interim Mekong Committee followed with four members (Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, and Vietnam) in 1978. After that, the Great Mekong Sub-Regional Cooperation (GMS) was formed in 1992 with all six riparian countries as members. Then, in 1995, the Mekong River Commission (MRC) was born with the signing of the cooperation agreement for the sustainable development of the river basin. However, despite the long history of negotiation among the sharing countries, clear agreements on how to share the river’s water capital are yet to exist. Reaching a decision on how to allocate water resources is proving to be more difficult with the increasing population number, socioeconomic development, and the impact of climate change. However, the Mekong River basin’s six riparian countries enjoy the deep political trust and healthy cooperation through comprehensive bilateral and multilateral strategic partnerships. The authors believe that the riparian countries are not willing to jeopardize these partnerships just because of the water sharing problem in the Mekong River basin [14,74], hence, it is reasonable to assume the riparian countries have the desire to work together on how to share the river basin’s water capital.

4.1. Data and Modeling

The Mekong River discharges 475 km3 of water annually. The main source of the water supply is precipitation, with nearly 80% of annual rainfall occurring during the wet season. The water availability per capita per year in the basin is about 8000 m3, which is less than the global average [75]. From May to September, the degree of rainfall is high; as the result the water-sharing problem does not exist. However, from the middle of November to the end of April, the average precipitation is less than 300–600 mm, resulting in insufficient water availability [73]. During the dry season, the runoff of the Mekong River basin needs to increase by about 3000 m3/s if it is to meet the water demand of all the riparian countries [76]. Consequently, the water deficit in the dry season is nearly 47.30 km3. The available water during the dry season is 82.26 km3 [73,76]. The annual water withdrawal is used to calculate the water demand of each riparian country during the dry season (Table 2) [76,77].
The data used to calculate the negotiation weight of each riparian country are obtained from the World Bank, AQUASTAT, and published papers [75,78] (Table 3).
The following projection values for the bargaining power of each country were used to solve the projection pursuit model based on RAGA by MATLAB software.
w i = ( 17.34 % , 5.93 % , 26.48 % , 17.32 % , 17.35 % , 15.58 % ) ,
where i = (China, Myanmar, Laos, Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam).
As shown in Figure 4, the strongest bargaining power is that of Laos, while Myanmar has the weakest. Laos has the largest water contribution to the main stem of the river. The country includes the biggest portion of the basin area with a large river runoff and huge ecological water demand. On the other hand, the country’s total freshwater capital, per capita GDP, and water productivity are relatively low compared with the other riparian countries. Myanmar has the lowest bargaining power. This is because the country’s water contribution to the rivers main stem, basin area included with its borders, and irrigated area within the river’s sub-basin are minimal. In addition, the country has a large, internal freshwater capital. The bargaining power difference among the riparian countries is insignificant, especially among China, Thailand, Cambodia, and Vietnam. This can help the riparian countries to adopt better negotiation and cooperative approaches for sharing the river’s water capital.
For this case study, the water allocation optimization problem can be written as:
u N ( s ) = { s S | max [ ( u C H N ( e C H N ) u C H N ( d C H N ) ) w C H N ( u M Y A ( e M Y A ) u M Y A ( d M Y A ) ) w M Y A ( u L A O ( e L A O ) u L A O ( d L A O ) ) w L A O ( u T H A ( e T H A ) u T H A ( d T H A ) ) w T H A ( u C A M ( e C A M ) u C A M ( d C A M ) ) w C A M ( u V I E ( e V I E ) u V I E ( d V I E ) ) w V I E ] } s . t . { 0 e i d i e i c i i = 1 6 e i E i = 1 6 w i = 1 .

4.2. Results and Discussion

The optimum water allocation payoffs from the proposed allocation framework and MATLAB software for the dry season showed that, except for China and Vietnam, whose 63.48% and 47.47% of water demand is fulfilled, respectively, all the other riparian countries get their full claim (Table 4 and Figure 5).
The water allocated to Myanmar, Laos, Thailand, and Cambodia is significantly lower than that of China’s and Vietnam’s, however, their water demand is fully met. On the other hand, even though China and Vietnam are awarded most of the river’s water, their water demand is not totally satisfied.
According to Equation (16), in order to achieve rational water allocation and maximum group utility, the following conditions must be met:
{ d i e i c i i = 1 6 e i E ( e i d i ) / ( e j d j ) = w i / w j .
The allocation of water is affected by water demand, bargaining power, and the disagreement point of each riparian country. Individual rationality and maximization of group utility depend on whether or not Equation (17) is satisfied.
As the water demand of riparian countries increases, their disagreement points also will increase. This decreases the possibility of finding an optimal solution for Equation (18). As the number of water-claiming riparian countries increases, the same problem arises. The bargaining powers of the riparian countries also influence the solution of Equation (18):
( e i d i ) / ( e j d j ) = w i / w j .
If Equation (18) can’t be met, due to 0   u i ( e i ) = ( e i d i ) / ( c i d i ) 1 , in order to maximize the group utility, the claim of the country, i L , with the lowest water demand, min { c i } , will be satisfied first. Then, the water-sharing problem is rearranged with the rest of the riparian countries to find the optimal solution for Equation (19):
{ e i L = c i L d { i / i L } e { i / i L } c { i / i L } i = 1 n 1 e i E e i L ( e { i / i L } d { i / i L } ) / ( e { j / i L } d { j / i L } ) = w { i / i L } / w { j / i L } .
For riparian countries with minimal water demand such as Myanmar, Laos, Thailand, and Cambodia, the water allocated to them depends only on their water demand. On the other hand, the water allocated to China and Vietnam is influenced by the water demands and bargaining weights of all the riparian countries. This is because of the large water demands of these two riparian countries.
The authors also conducted sensitivity analysis for the bargaining power and water allocation outputs. This shows how the change in the water demand and bargaining power affect the water allocation payoffs of the riparian countries. The sensitivity analysis for the water demand showed that the allocation to each of the riparian countries is affected by the increase in water demand of the other river sharing countries. This is true only if a riparian country’s water demand does not satisfy the exclusion property. The exclusion property states that if a water demand of the claimant is not larger than the water quantity it can secure through the average distribution of the available water capital, it will be awarded its full claim [38,79]. This is because if the water demand is very low the country should not be held responsible for the water bankruptcy in the river basin. Figure 6 and Figure 7 shown below, as well as Figures S1–S4 in Supplementary Material, shows the sensitivity of the water allocation outputs to the water demands of the Mekong River basin riparian countries.
The sensitivity results for the bargaining power show that as the bargaining power of a country increases, the water allocated to it also increases, but only under the condition that the country’s water demand does not fulfill the exclusion principle. If the water demand is below the water amount it can secure through average distribution, the riparian state will get 100% of its water claim, irrespective of the value of its bargaining power. On the other hand, when the water demand is above what the riparian country can obtain by average distribution, the allocation output and bargaining power have a positive relationship. Hence, an increase in the bargaining power of the riparian country is translated into an increase in the water allocation payoff. Therefore, a decrease in the other riparian countries water allocation payoffs will result. This is a result of the water demands of these riparian countries being greater than the ones they can be rewarded with under the average distribution rule. Figure 8 and Figure 9 shown below, as well as Figures S5–S8 in Supplementary Material, depict the sensitivity of the water allocation outputs to the bargaining powers of the Mekong River basin riparian countries.
Generally, the results of this study show that the following desired properties are fulfilled by the allocation framework: (1) Feasibility; the allocation framework ensures that the total amount of water allocated to the riparian countries is less than or equal to the total available water. (2) Efficiency; the water assigned to be distributed to the sharing countries is completely allotted. (3) Claim boundedness; the maximum water allocated to the riparian countries by the proposed sharing mechanism is bounded by their claim, therefore, the Law of Diminishing Marginal Utility is respected. (4) Equal treatment of equals; the allocation rule treats the riparian countries with equal water demand, bargaining power, and disagreement point equally. (5) Scale in-variance; the allocation rule satisfies scale invariance in water demand and available water. (6) Exclusion; if the amount of water a riparian country can be rewarded with average distribution is greater than its water claim, the riparian will be rewarded its full claim.
This article proposed an allocation mechanism that can yield fair, efficient, and self-enforceable water allocation payoffs. But there is still room for improvement that needs to be addressed through further research. The following three are the main ones: (1) The issue of water quality should be taken into account through further research; (2) the environmental water need also needs to be considered; (3) the impact of anthropogenic climate change on the water allocation outputs should also be quantified; (4) the sensitivity of the allocation outputs to the different dynamic factors needs to be computed in detail through further studies. Addressing these issues through further research will make the proposed allocation framework more fair, efficient, and sustainable.

5. Conclusions

The allocation of scarce water resources within transboundary river basins has a complex and dynamic nature. In this paper, bankruptcy theory, bargaining games, and optimization algorithms were used to construct a new weighted theoretical game water allocation scheme. In addition, using well-known international rules, a novel water allocation framework that is capable of determining the bargaining powers of riparian countries in any international river basin was built.
The theory of bankruptcy was applied to establish a model that captures the water scarcity and strategic interaction among the riparian countries in a water-scarce river basin. The proposed scheme has the following novel characteristics: (1) The model takes into account the heterogeneous features of the riparian countries, which makes it more reasonable and realistic; (2) the allocation model satisfies the basic principles of individual rationality and group rationality; (3) it is a fair, reasonable, and self-adaptive water allocation framework that yields self-enforceable water allocation outputs. Furthermore, the proposed allocation model satisfies feasibility, efficiency, claim boundedness, equal treatment of equals, scale in-variance, and exclusion. The fact that the proposed allocation system fulfills these properties proves that it is consistent. Therefore, the allocation framework can be applied to allocate water in other transboundary river basins too.
The model was used to distribute the Mekong River basin’s water among the riparian states during the dry season. The optimal solution obtained lies on the Pareto Frontier. In addition, the sensitivity of the water allocation outputs to the water demand and the bargaining power of the riparian countries were determined. Subsequently, how the water allocation outputs were influenced by water demand, the disagreement point, and the bargaining power of each riparian state were elaborated. The results depict that the water allocation outputs are barely sensitive to the water demands, disagreement points, and bargaining powers of most riparian countries because their water demands are very minimal. China and Vietnam are the two countries which have water demands, disagreement points, and bargaining powers that significantly affect the water allocation outputs.
In general, this paper establishes a water resource allocation model that takes into account the strategic interaction among transboundary river basins’ riparian countries based on their socioeconomic and environmental status. Hence, the authors believe that this work is one step further in the efforts to find a water allocation method that is fair, efficient, and sustainable.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/11/2/400/s1: Figure S1: The sensitivity of the water allocation outputs to the water demand of China, Figure S2: The sensitivity of the water allocation outputs to the water demand of Thailand, Figure S3: The sensitivity of the water allocation outputs to the water demand of Cambodia, Figure S4: The sensitivity of the water allocation outputs to the water demand of Vietnam, Figure S5: The sensitivity of the water allocation outputs to the bargaining power of China, Figure S6: The sensitivity of the water allocation outputs to the bargaining power of Thailand, Figure S7: The sensitivity of the water allocation outputs to the bargaining power of Cambodia, Figure S8: The sensitivity of the water allocation outputs to the bargaining power of Vietnam.

Author Contributions

L.Y., W.H., Z.L., and D.M.D. proposed the research ideas and methods, conducted the analysis, and wrote the manuscript. M.A., Z.Z. and X.W. are responsible for data collection, manuscript draft revision, and creation of the figures and forms.

Funding

The work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 71874101) and The Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC. DG NO.443130).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Salman, S.M. The Helsinki rules, the UN watercourses convention and the Berlin rules: Perspectives on international water law. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 2007, 23, 625–640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Tony, A. Virtual Water: Tackling the Threat to Our Planet’s Most Precious Resource, 1st ed.; I.B.Tauris: London, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  3. Antonelli, M.; Greco, F. The Water We Eat: Combining Virtual Water and Water Footprints, 1st ed.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  4. Hussein, H. Lifting the veil: Unpacking the discourse of water scarcity in Jordan. Environ. Sci. Policy 2018, 89, 385–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Degefu, D.M.; He, W.; Yuan, L.; Min, A.; Zhang, Q. Bankruptcy to surplus: Sharing transboundary river basin’s water under scarcity. Water Resour. Manag. 2018, 32, 2735–2751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Degefu, D.M.; He, W.; Yuan, L.; Zhao, J.H. Water allocation in transboundary river basins under water scarcity: A cooperative bargaining approach. Water Resour. Manag. 2016, 30, 4451–4466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. The Transboundary Waters Assessment Programme (TWAP). The Global Transboundary River Basins. Available online: http://twap-rivers.org/#home (accessed on 12 April 2018).
  8. Fu, J.; Zhong, P.A.; Zhu, F.; Chen, J.; Wu, Y.N.; Xu, B. Water resources allocation in transboundary river based on asymmetric Nash–Harsanyi Leader–Follower game model. Water 2018, 10, 270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Madani, K. Game theory and water resources. J. Hydrol. 2010, 381, 225–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Fayaed, S.S.; El-Shafie, A.; Jaafar, O. Reservoir-system simulation and optimization techniques. Stoch. Environ. Res. Risk Assess. 2013, 27, 1751–1772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Madani, K.; Hooshyar, M. A game theory-reinforcement learning (GT–RL) method to develop optimal operation policies for multi-operator reservoir systems. J. Hydrol. 2014, 519, 732–742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Nafarzadegan, A.R.; Vagharfard, H.; Nikoo, M.R.; Nohegar, A. Socially-optimal and Nash Pareto-Based alternatives for water allocation under uncertainty: An approach and application. Water Res. Manag. 2018, 32, 2985–3000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Han, Q.; Tan, G.; Fu, X.; Mei, Y.; Yang, Z. Water resource optimal allocation based on Multi-Agent game theory of Hanjiang River Basin. Water 2018, 10, 1184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Hussein, H. Politics of the Dead Sea Canal: A historical review of the evolving discourses, interests, and plans. Water Int. 2017, 42, 527–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Alatout, S. Bringing abundance into environmental politics: Constructing a Zionist network of water abundance, immigration, and colonization. Soc. Stud. Sci. 2009, 39, 363–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Feitelson, E. Implications of shifts in the Israeli water discourse for Israeli-Palestinian water negotiations. Political Geogr. 2002, 21, 293–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Zeitoun, M.; Mirumachi, N. Transboundary water interaction I: Reconsidering conflict and cooperation. Int. Environ. Agreem. 2008, 8, 297–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Degefu, D.M.; He, W. Allocating Water under Bankruptcy Scenario. Water Resour. Manag. 2016, 30, 3949–3964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Alatout, S. Water balances in Palestine: Numbers and political cultures in the Middle East. In Water Balances in the Eastern Mediterranean, 1st ed.; Brooks, D., Mehmet, O., Eds.; International Development Research Centre: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2000; pp. 59–84. [Google Scholar]
  20. Alatout, S. Imagining Hydrological Boundaries, Constructing the Nation State: A ‘Fluid’ History of ISRAEL, 1936–1959. Ph.D. Thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  21. Alatout, S. Towards a bio-territorial conception of power: Territory, population, and environmental narratives in Palestine and Israe. Political Geogr. 2006, 25, 601–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Hussein, H. Yarmouk, Jordan, and Disi basins: Examining the impact of the discourse of water scarcity in Jordan on transboundary water governance. Mediterr. Politics 2018, 1, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Von, N.J.; Morgenstern, O. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  24. Rogers, P. A game theory approach to the problems of international river basins. Water Resour. Res. 1969, 5, 749–760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Suzuki, M.; Nakayama, M. The cost assignment of the cooperative water resource development: A game theoretical approach. Manag. Sci. 1976, 22, 1081–1086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Dufournaud, C.M. On the mutually beneficial cooperative scheme: Dynamic change in the payoff matrix of international river basin schemes. Water Resour. Res. 1982, 18, 764–772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Dinar, A.; Ratner, A.; Yaron, D. Evaluating cooperative game theory in water resources. Theor. Decis. 1992, 32, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Wang, L.Z.; Fang, L.; Hipel, K.W. Water resources allocation: A cooperative game theoretic approach. J. Environ. Inform. 2003, 2, 11–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Wu, X.; Whittington, D. Incentive compatibility and conflict resolution in international river basins: A case study of the Nile Basin. Water Resour. Res. 2006, 42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Kampragou, E.; Eleftheriadou, E.; Mylopoulos, Y. Implementing equitable water allocation in transboundary catchments: The case of river Nestos/Mesta. Water Resour. Manag. 2007, 21, 909–918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Kucukmehmetoglu, M. An integrative case study approach between game theory and Pareto frontier concepts for the transboundary water resources allocations. J. Hydrol. 2012, 450, 308–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Zeitoun, M.; Mirumachi, N.; Warner, J. Transboundary water interaction II: The influence of “soft” power. Int. Environ. Agreem. 2011, 11, 159–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Hussein, H. An Analysis of the Discourse of Water Scarcity and Hydropolitical Dynamics in the Case of Jordan. Ph.D. Thesis, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  34. Hussein, H.; Grandi, M. Dynamic political contexts and power asymmetries: The cases of the Blue Nile and the Yarmouk Rivers. Int. Environ. Agreem. 2017, 17, 795–814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Conker, A. The power struggle in the layer of transnational hydropolitics: The case of the Ilisu dam project. Eurasian J. Soc. Sci. 2016, 4, 14–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. O’Neill, B. A problem of rights arbitration from the Talmud. Math. Soc. Sci. 1980, 2, 345–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Grey, D.; Sadoff, C. Beyond the river: The benefits of cooperation on international rivers. Water Policy 2002, 4, 389–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Houba, H.; Laan, G.V.D.; Zeng, Y. International environmental agreements for river sharing problem. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2015, 62, 855–872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Rahaman, M. Principles of international water law: Creating effective transboundary water resources management. Int. J. Sustain. Soc. 2009, 1, 207–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Degefu, D.M.; He, W.; Yuan, L. Monotonic bargaining solution for allocating critically scarce transboundary water. Water Resour. Manag. 2017, 31, 2627–2644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Giménez-Gómez, J.-M.; Osório, A.; Peris, J.E. From bargaining solutions to claims rules: A proportional approach. Games 2015, 6, 32–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Gallastegui, M.C.; Iñarra, E.; Prellezo, R. Bankruptcy of fishing resources: The northern European anglerfish fishery. Mar. Resour. Econ. 2002, 17, 291–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Dagan, N.; Volij, O. The bankruptcy problem: A cooperative bargaining approach. Math. Soc. Sci. 1993, 26, 287–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Nash, J. The bargaining problem. Econometrica 1950, 18, 155–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Wang, X.; Zhang, Y.; Zeng, Y.; Liu, C. Resolving trans-jurisdictional water conflicts by the Nash bargaining method: A case study in Zhangweinan canal basin in north China. Water Resour. Manag. 2013, 27, 1235–1247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Curiel, I.J.; Maschler, M.; Tijs, S.H. Bankruptcy games. Math. Methods Oper. Res. 1987, 31, 143–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Harsányi, J.C. A Simplified bargaining model of the n-person cooperative game. Int. Econ. Rev. 2008, 4, 194–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Mimi, Z.A.; Sawalhi, B.I. A decision tool for allocating the waters of the Jordan River Basin between all riparian parties. Water Resour. Manag. 2003, 17, 447–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Daoudy, M. Hydro-hegemony and international water law: Laying claims to water rights. Water Policy 2008, 10, 89–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Vinogradov, S.; Wouters, P.; Jones, P. Transforming Potential Conflict into Cooperation Potential: The Role of International Water Law; UNESCO: Paris, France, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  51. Eckstein, G. Water scarcity, conflict and security in a climate change world: Challenges and opportunities for international law and policy. Wis. Int. Law J. 2009, 27, 409–461. [Google Scholar]
  52. The Helsinki Rules on the Uses of the Waters of International Rivers. Available online: https://web.archive.org/web/20070625012949/http://webworld.unesco.org/water/wwap/pccp/cd/pdf/educational_tools/course_modules/reference_documents/internationalregionconventions/helsinkirules.pdf (accessed on 15 January 2018).
  53. Convention on the Law of Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses. Available online: http://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/8_3_1997.pdf (accessed on 15 January 2018).
  54. Tian, X.; Kong, L. Development of international water law. J. Ecol. Water Resour. 2012, 30, 34–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Feng, Y.; He, D.; Bao, H. Impact of development of international water law on integrated and coordinated development of international drainage basins. Resour. Sci. 2000, 22, 81–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Diebel, M.W.; Maxted, J.T.; Nowak, P.J.; Vander, Z.M.J. Landscape planning for agricultural nonpoint source pollution reduction I: A geographical allocation framework. Environ. Manag. 2008, 42, 789–802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Shi, B.; Lu, H.W.; Ren, L.X.; He, L. A fuzzy inexact two-phase programming approach to solving optimal allocation problems in water resources management. Appl. Math. Model. 2014, 38, 5502–5514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Lautze, J.; Kirshen, P. Water allocation, climate change, and sustainable water use in Israel/Palestine: The Palestinian position. Water Int. 2009, 34, 189–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Zhong, P.; Yang, Z.; Cui, B.; Liu, J. Eco-environmental water demands for the Baiyangdian Wetland. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng. 2008, 2, 73–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Roozbahani, R.; Schreider, S.; Abbasi, B. Optimal water allocation through a multi-objective compromise between environmental, social, and economic preferences. Environ. Model. Softw. 2015, 64, 18–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Bakker, K. The “Commons” Versus the “Commodity”: Alter-globalization, anti-privatization and the human right to water in the global south. Antipode 2007, 39, 430–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Wang, X.J.; Zhang, J.Y.; He, R.M.; Wang, Y.C. Study on the evolution law of water utilization structure and regulating approach in Yulin City. China Popul. Resour. Environ. 2011, 21, 61–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Smakhtin, V.; Revenga, C.; Döll, P. A pilot global assessment of environmental water requirements and scarcity. Water Int. 2004, 29, 307–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Fang, L.; Nuppenau, E.A. A Spatial Model (SWAM) for water efficiency and irrigation technology choices using GAMS—A case study from Northwestern China. In Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Conference on Global Economic Analysis, Washington, DC, USA, 17–19 June 2004. [Google Scholar]
  65. Dridi, C.; Khanna, M. Irrigation technology adoption and gains from water trading under asymmetric information. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2005, 87, 289–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Elmusa, S.S. Towards an equitable distribution of the common Palestinian-Israeli waters: An international water law framework. Stud. Environ. Sci. 1994, 58, 451–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Zilberman, D.; MacDougall, N.; Sha, F. Changes in water allocation mechanisms for California agriculture. Contemp. Econ. Policy 1994, 12, 122–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Gleick, P.H. The human right to water. Water Policy 1998, 1, 487–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Davidson, B.; Malano, H.; Nawarathna, B.; Maheshwari, B. The hydrological and economic impacts of changing water allocation in political regions within the peri-urban South Creek catchment in Western Sydney I: Model development. J. Hydrol. 2013, 499, 339–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Babel, M.S.; Gupta, A.D.; Nayak, D.K. A model for optimal allocation of water to competing demands. Water Resour. Manag. 2005, 19, 693–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Zhang, X.L.; Ding, J.; Li, Z.Y.; Jin, J.L. Application of new projection pursuit algorithm in assessing water quality. China Environ. Sci. 2000, 20, 187–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Jin, J.L.; Yang, X.H.; Ding, J. Real coding based acceleration genetic algorithm. J. Sichuan Univ. (Eng. Sci. E) 2000, 32, 20–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. State of the Basin Report. Available online: http://www.mrcmekong.org/assets/Publications/basin-reports/MRC-SOB-report-2010full-report.pdf (accessed on 10 February 2017).
  74. Do, K.H.P.; Dinar, A. The role of issue linkage in managing noncooperating basins: The case of the Mekong. Nat. Resour. Model. 2014, 27, 492–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Overview of the Hydrology of the Mekong Basin. Available online: http://www.mekonginfo.org/assets/midocs/0001968-inland-waters-overview-of-the-hydrology-of-the-mekong-basin.pdf (accessed on 12 February 2017).
  76. Tang, H.X. Water resources in the Lancang-Mekong river basin and analysis on the present situation of its utilization. Yunnan Geogr. Environ. Res. 1999, 11, 16–25. [Google Scholar]
  77. Claudia, R. Optimal Water Allocation in the Mekong River Basin; Center for Development Research: Bonn, Germany, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  78. Zhou, T.; Zhou, C.; Yu, F.; Zhao, Y. Spatial and temporal distribution characteristics analysis of meteorological drought in Lancang–Mekong River Basin. Water Resour. Power 2011, 6, 4–7. [Google Scholar]
  79. Mianabadi, H.; Mostert, E.; Pande, S.; van de Giesen, N. Weighted bankruptcy rules and transboundary water resources allocation. Water Resour. Manag. 2015, 29, 2303–2321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Conceptual map of water allocation using game theory.
Figure 1. Conceptual map of water allocation using game theory.
Water 11 00400 g001
Figure 2. The structural framework of real-coded genetic algorithm (RAGA).
Figure 2. The structural framework of real-coded genetic algorithm (RAGA).
Water 11 00400 g002
Figure 3. Mekong River basin (Source: State of the Basin Report 2010, MRC).
Figure 3. Mekong River basin (Source: State of the Basin Report 2010, MRC).
Water 11 00400 g003
Figure 4. The bargaining powers of the Mekong River basin riparian countries.
Figure 4. The bargaining powers of the Mekong River basin riparian countries.
Water 11 00400 g004
Figure 5. Water allocation payoffs from the proposed allocation scheme.
Figure 5. Water allocation payoffs from the proposed allocation scheme.
Water 11 00400 g005
Figure 6. The sensitivity of the water allocation outputs to the water demand of Myanmar: (a) The sensitivity of the water allocation outputs of China, Myanmar, Thailand and Vietnam to the water demand of Myanmar; (b) The sensitivity of the water allocation outputs of Laos and Cambodia to the water demand of Myanmar.
Figure 6. The sensitivity of the water allocation outputs to the water demand of Myanmar: (a) The sensitivity of the water allocation outputs of China, Myanmar, Thailand and Vietnam to the water demand of Myanmar; (b) The sensitivity of the water allocation outputs of Laos and Cambodia to the water demand of Myanmar.
Water 11 00400 g006
Figure 7. The sensitivity of the water allocation outputs to the water demand of Laos: (a) The sensitivity of the water allocation outputs of China, Laos, Thailand and Vietnam to the water demand of Laos; (b) The sensitivity of the water allocation outputs of Myanmar and Cambodia to the water demand of Myanmar.
Figure 7. The sensitivity of the water allocation outputs to the water demand of Laos: (a) The sensitivity of the water allocation outputs of China, Laos, Thailand and Vietnam to the water demand of Laos; (b) The sensitivity of the water allocation outputs of Myanmar and Cambodia to the water demand of Myanmar.
Water 11 00400 g007
Figure 8. The sensitivity of the water allocation outputs to the bargaining power of Myanmar: (a) The sensitivity of the water allocation outputs of China, Thailand and Vietnam to the bargaining power of Myanmar; (b) The sensitivity of the water allocation outputs of Myanmar, Laos and Cambodia to bargaining power of Myanmar.
Figure 8. The sensitivity of the water allocation outputs to the bargaining power of Myanmar: (a) The sensitivity of the water allocation outputs of China, Thailand and Vietnam to the bargaining power of Myanmar; (b) The sensitivity of the water allocation outputs of Myanmar, Laos and Cambodia to bargaining power of Myanmar.
Water 11 00400 g008
Figure 9. The sensitivity of the water allocation outputs to the bargaining power of Laos: (a) The sensitivity of the water allocation outputs of China, Thailand and Vietnam to the bargaining power of Laos; (b) The sensitivity of the water allocation outputs of Myanmar, Laos and Cambodia to bargaining power of Laos.
Figure 9. The sensitivity of the water allocation outputs to the bargaining power of Laos: (a) The sensitivity of the water allocation outputs of China, Thailand and Vietnam to the bargaining power of Laos; (b) The sensitivity of the water allocation outputs of Myanmar, Laos and Cambodia to bargaining power of Laos.
Water 11 00400 g009
Table 1. Factors used to build the framework for calculating the bargaining power.
Table 1. Factors used to build the framework for calculating the bargaining power.
IndicatorsIndexesAttribute
GeographicalWatershed areaPositive
HydrologicalMulti-year average flowPositive
ClimateAverage annual rainfallPositive
Economic and social needsIrrigated areaPositive
Electricity demandPositive
PopulationPopulation densityPositive
Water quantityWatershed contributionPositive
Ecological needsForest cover ratePositive
Cost of alternatives, availability, and increasing water use efficiencyWater productivityNegative
Internal renewable freshwater resourcesNegative
May cause harm to other countriesPer capita gross domestic productNegative
Table 2. Water demand of riparian countries of the Mekong River basin during the dry season (2015).
Table 2. Water demand of riparian countries of the Mekong River basin during the dry season (2015).
CountriesChinaMyanmarLaosThailandCambodiaVietnam
Water demand (km3)100.990.990.297.180.2719.84
Table 3. Social, economic, and environmental data of the Mekong River basin riparian countries (2015).
Table 3. Social, economic, and environmental data of the Mekong River basin riparian countries (2015).
IndexesUnitChinaMyanmarLaosThailandCambodiaVietnam
Area104 km216.502.4020.2018.4015.506.50
Annual average precipitationmm64520911834162219041821
Average annual water quantitym3/s24103005270256028601660
Forest cover rate%55.7044.5081.3032.1053.6047.60
Internal renewable freshwater resourceskm3112.721003190.40224.50120.60359.40
Watershed population densitypeople/km2462433147107366
Flow contribution%16235181811
Electricity demand103 MW114.301.590.6525.610.4020.00
Irrigated area104 hm251.608.6030.1012934.40180.60
Water productivity$/m314.902.302.806.706.801.80
Per capita gross domestic product$485011521752610010651963
Table 4. Water allocation payoffs from the proposed allocation scheme.
Table 4. Water allocation payoffs from the proposed allocation scheme.
CountriesWater Demand
(km3)
Disagreement Point
(km3)
Bargaining PowerWater Allocation
(km3)
China100.9953.7017.34%64.43
Myanmar0.9905.93%0.99
Laos0.29026.48%0.29
Thailand7.18017.32%7.18
Cambodia0.27017.35%0.27
Vietnam19.84015.58%9.10

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Yuan, L.; He, W.; Liao, Z.; Degefu, D.M.; An, M.; Zhang, Z.; Wu, X. Allocating Water in the Mekong River Basin during the Dry Season. Water 2019, 11, 400. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11020400

AMA Style

Yuan L, He W, Liao Z, Degefu DM, An M, Zhang Z, Wu X. Allocating Water in the Mekong River Basin during the Dry Season. Water. 2019; 11(2):400. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11020400

Chicago/Turabian Style

Yuan, Liang, Weijun He, Zaiyi Liao, Dagmawi Mulugeta Degefu, Min An, Zhaofang Zhang, and Xia Wu. 2019. "Allocating Water in the Mekong River Basin during the Dry Season" Water 11, no. 2: 400. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11020400

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop