IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i4p1286-d318947.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Strategic Insights into the Cauvery River Dispute in India

Author

Listed:
  • Ajar Sharma

    (Department of Systems Design Engineering, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1, Canada)

  • Keith W. Hipel

    (Department of Systems Design Engineering, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1, Canada)

  • Vanessa Schweizer

    (Department of Knowledge Integration, Faculty of Environment, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1, Canada)

Abstract

For hundreds of years, conflicts in water sharing have existed all around the globe. Cauvery River, in the southern part of India, has been in the midst of such conflict for the last 130 years. Historically, the conflict has been about the right to use water and the states/provinces in conflict have used the water from the river for agricultural purposes. Due to industrialization in the late 1980s and increasing population, water availability in the region has become stressed. Climate change has exacerbated the region’s water availability issues. Faltering rainfall has caused unrest in the region, and the traditional methods of water sharing are dwindling under political pressure. Without a climate change strategy, the governments of these states will never be able to solve this complex issue at hand. The Graph Model for Conflict Resolution (GMCR) is applied to understand the nuances of this conflict. It models the preferences of the decision-makers (the states of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka) and the common option (goal) they can reach to potentially solve the conflict. Fuzzy preferences along with option prioritization is also applied to this conflict in order to account for the uncertainties in the decision-makers’ preferences. The purpose of this paper is to nudge decision-makers in a productive direction to overcome the long-impending political standoff, while introducing a new methodology of looking into this old conflict.

Suggested Citation

  • Ajar Sharma & Keith W. Hipel & Vanessa Schweizer, 2020. "Strategic Insights into the Cauvery River Dispute in India," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-26, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:4:p:1286-:d:318947
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/4/1286/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/4/1286/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. P. B. Anand, 2007. "Capability, Sustainability, and Collective Action: An Examination of a River Water Dispute," Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(1), pages 109-132.
    2. Coase, R H, 1981. "The Coase Theorem and the Empty Core: A Comment," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 24(1), pages 183-187, April.
    3. Paweł Ziemba, 2019. "Towards Strong Sustainability Management—A Generalized PROSA Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-29, March.
    4. Roy Brouwer & David Pearce (ed.), 2005. "Cost–Benefit Analysis and Water Resources Management," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 3057.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Robyn Horan & Pawan S. Wable & Veena Srinivasan & Helen E. Baron & Virginie J. D. Keller & Kaushal K. Garg & Nathan Rickards & Mike Simpson & Helen A. Houghton-Carr & H. Gwyn Rees, 2021. "Modelling Small-Scale Storage Interventions in Semi-Arid India at the Basin Scale," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-28, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Griewald, Yuliana & Rauschmayer, Felix, 2013. "Exploring a nature-related conflict from a capability perspective," UFZ Discussion Papers 7/2013, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Division of Social Sciences (ÖKUS).
    2. Paweł Ziemba & Mateusz Piwowarski & Kesra Nermend, 2023. "Remote Work in Post-Pandemic Reality—Multi-Criteria Evaluation of Teleconferencing Software," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-20, June.
    3. Paweł Ziemba, 2022. "Application Framework of Multi-Criteria Methods in Sustainability Assessment," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(23), pages 1-18, December.
    4. Massimiliano Vatiero, 2018. "Transaction and transactors’ choices: what we have learned and what we need to explore," Chapters, in: Claude Ménard & Mary M. Shirley (ed.), A Research Agenda for New Institutional Economics, chapter 11, pages 97-108, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. Rubén Raedo, 2021. "Urban Sustainability Deficits: The Urban Non-Sustainability Index (UNSI) as a Tool for Urban Policy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-25, November.
    6. Pagano, Ugo & Vatiero, Massimiliano, 2015. "Costly institutions as substitutes: novelty and limits of the Coasian approach," Journal of Institutional Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(2), pages 265-281, June.
    7. Fuentes, Rolando & Blazquez, Jorge & Adjali, Iqbal, 2019. "From vertical to horizontal unbundling: A downstream electricity reliability insurance business model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 796-804.
    8. Remig, Moritz C., 2017. "Structured pluralism in ecological economics — A reply to Peter Söderbaum's commentary," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 533-537.
    9. Mario Biggeri & Jean-Francois Trani & Parul Bakhshi, 2009. "Le teorie della Disabilità: una Reinterpretazione Attraverso l'Approccio delle Capability Amartya Sen," Working Papers - Economics wp2009_04.rdf, Universita' degli Studi di Firenze, Dipartimento di Scienze per l'Economia e l'Impresa.
    10. Ko, Il-Dong, 1988. "Issues in the control of stock externality problems with inflexible policy measures," ISU General Staff Papers 198801010800009859, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    11. Alex Robson, 2014. "Transaction costs can encourage Coasean bargaining," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 160(3), pages 539-549, September.
    12. Jingang Zhao, 2018. "A Reexamination of the Coase Theorem," The Journal of Mechanism and Institution Design, Society for the Promotion of Mechanism and Institution Design, University of York, vol. 3(1), pages 111-132, December.
    13. Imen Zaabar & Raul Arango-Miranda & Yvan Beauregard & Marc Paquet, 2021. "A Sustainable Multicriteria Decision Framework for Obsolescence Resolution Strategy Selection," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-16, August.
    14. Ballet, Jérôme & Bazin, Damien Jérôme Albert & Komena, Boniface K., 2020. "Unequal capabilities and natural resource management: The case of Côte d’Ivoire," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    15. Tan, Xiujie & Dong, Hanmin & Liu, Yishuang & Su, Xin & Li, Zixian, 2022. "Green bonds and corporate performance: A potential way to achieve green recovery," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 59-68.
    16. Hurwicz, Leonid, 1995. "What is the Coase Theorem?," Japan and the World Economy, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 49-74, May.
    17. Rajapakshe, Sisira & Termansen, Mette & Paavola, Jouni, 2022. "Valuing Water Service Improvements through Revealed Preference: Averting Behaviour Method," MPRA Paper 115623, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Silvestre García de Jalón & Aline Chiabai & Alyvia Mc Tague & Naiara Artaza & Amaia de Ayala & Sonia Quiroga & Hanneke Kruize & Cristina Suárez & Ruth Bell & Timothy Taylor, 2020. "Providing Access to Urban Green Spaces: A Participatory Benefit-Cost Analysis in Spain," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(8), pages 1-20, April.
    19. Goldberg, Victor P., 1983. "Production functions, Transactions Costs and the New Institutionalism," Working Papers 229120, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.
    20. Irina Vinogradova, 2019. "Multi-Attribute Decision-Making Methods as a Part of Mathematical Optimization," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 7(10), pages 1-21, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:4:p:1286-:d:318947. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.