IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/eurphb/v94y2021i5d10.1140_epjb_s10051-021-00107-w.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Game-theoretic-based modelling of Krishna waters dispute: equilibrium solutions by Metagame Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Durga Prasad Panday

    (University of Petroleum and Energy Studies)

  • Rakesh Khosa

    (Indian Institute of Technology Delhi)

  • Rathinasamy Maheswaran

    (MVGR College of Engineering)

  • K. Ravikumar

    (VNR Vignana Jyothi Institute of Engineering and Technology)

  • Ankit Agarwal

    (Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee
    GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences)

Abstract

Conflicts are inevitable concerning sharing of the resources. Most of the time, due to the opacity of the conflict resolution technique, players involved do not accept the final solution. Therefore, any method adopted for resolving a conflict should involve players to get the equilibrium solution. Besides, the conflict resolution technique needs to be transparent, and the procedure must be the same for all the players involved. Metagame Analysis has the potential to accommodate the above conditions. In this study, we have discussed Metagame Analysis and its application to resolve India’s Krishna river basin dispute. Since the environment is an integral part of the river ecosystem, it has also been included as a conflict resolution player. We have also defined and derived Fair and Equitable (F&E) allocation in this regard, considering the factors that form the basis for their right as a rightful owner of the resource. The factors considered for F&E allocation are drainage area, cultivable area, and virgin runoff. The derived F&E allocation is then selected as one of the options for the Metagame Analysis. Metagame Analysis is carried out using two scenarios before and after Andhra Pradesh’s reorganization (in 2014). In scenario 1, equilibrium outcomes are 454, 458, and 469. Our results show that excessive demands may harm the water allocation if it violates the total flow. Outcome 469 is the F&E outcome in which all the players are going for cooperated negotiations which maximize their share. Outcomes 454 and 458 are those outcomes in which Karnataka is benefitted as it is getting its first option share. AP’s demand cannot be accommodated in any strategy as it exceeds the total flow, while there is a strategy available in which Karnataka’s first option can be sustained. The paper shows that the game-theoretic-based techniques can solve real-world disputes and that too as complex as water sharing. Graphic abstract

Suggested Citation

  • Durga Prasad Panday & Rakesh Khosa & Rathinasamy Maheswaran & K. Ravikumar & Ankit Agarwal, 2021. "Game-theoretic-based modelling of Krishna waters dispute: equilibrium solutions by Metagame Analysis," The European Physical Journal B: Condensed Matter and Complex Systems, Springer;EDP Sciences, vol. 94(5), pages 1-12, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:eurphb:v:94:y:2021:i:5:d:10.1140_epjb_s10051-021-00107-w
    DOI: 10.1140/epjb/s10051-021-00107-w
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1140/epjb/s10051-021-00107-w
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1140/epjb/s10051-021-00107-w?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brañas-Garza, Pablo & Molis, Elena & Neyse, Levent, 2021. "Exposure to inequality may cause under-provision of public goods: Experimental evidence," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    2. Takahashi, Masao Allyn & Fraser, Niall M. & Hipel, Keith W., 1984. "A procedure for analyzing hypergames," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 111-122, October.
    3. Jorge Alcalde-Unzu & María Gómez-Rúa & Elena Molis, 2021. "Allocating the costs of cleaning a river: expected responsibility versus median responsibility," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 50(1), pages 185-214, March.
    4. Marsh, Michael T. & Schilling, David A., 1994. "Equity measurement in facility location analysis: A review and framework," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 74(1), pages 1-17, April.
    5. Sanjay Bhattacherjee & Palash Sarkar, 2021. "Weighted voting procedure having a unique blocker," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 50(1), pages 279-295, March.
    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. K. Ravikumar & Rakesh Khosa & Ankit Agarwal, 2021. "Metagame analysis of Cauvery River dispute incorporating interannual variability in virgin runoff potential of the basin," The European Physical Journal B: Condensed Matter and Complex Systems, Springer;EDP Sciences, vol. 94(8), pages 1-12, August.
    2. Durga Prasad Panday & Rakesh Khosa & Rathinasamy Maheswaran & K. Ravikumar & Ankit Agarwal, 2021. "Game theoretic-based modelling of Krishna waters dispute: equilibrium solutions by hypergame analysis," The European Physical Journal B: Condensed Matter and Complex Systems, Springer;EDP Sciences, vol. 94(6), pages 1-11, June.

    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. Durga Prasad Panday & Rakesh Khosa & Rathinasamy Maheswaran & K. Ravikumar & Ankit Agarwal, 2021. "Game theoretic-based modelling of Krishna waters dispute: equilibrium solutions by hypergame analysis," The European Physical Journal B: Condensed Matter and Complex Systems, Springer;EDP Sciences, vol. 94(6), pages 1-11, June.
    2. Karsu, Özlem & Morton, Alec, 2015. "Inequity averse optimization in operational research," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 245(2), pages 343-359.
    3. Argyris, Nikolaos & Karsu, Özlem & Yavuz, Mirel, 2022. "Fair resource allocation: Using welfare-based dominance constraints," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 297(2), pages 560-578.
    4. Michael Johnson & David Turcotte & Felicia Sullivan, 2010. "What Foreclosed Homes Should a Municipality Purchase to Stabilize Vulnerable Neighborhoods?," Networks and Spatial Economics, Springer, vol. 10(3), pages 363-388, September.
    5. Sengul Orgut, Irem & Freeman, Nickolas & Lewis, Dwight & Parton, Jason, 2023. "Equitable and effective vaccine access considering vaccine hesitancy and capacity constraints," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    6. Mandell, Marvin B. & Becker, Les R., 1996. "A model for locating automatic external defibrillators," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 51-66, March.
    7. Maria Bruni & Domenico Conforti & Nicola Sicilia & Sandro Trotta, 2006. "A new organ transplantation location–allocation policy: a case study of Italy," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 9(2), pages 125-142, May.
    8. Ohad Eisenhandler & Michal Tzur, 2019. "A Segment-Based Formulation and a Matheuristic for the Humanitarian Pickup and Distribution Problem," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(5), pages 1389-1408, September.
    9. Caggiani, Leonardo & Camporeale, Rosalia & Ottomanelli, Michele, 2017. "Facing equity in transportation Network Design Problem: A flexible constraints based model," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 9-17.
    10. Raphael Koster & Jan Balaguer & Andrea Tacchetti & Ari Weinstein & Tina Zhu & Oliver Hauser & Duncan Williams & Lucy Campbell-Gillingham & Phoebe Thacker & Matthew Botvinick & Christopher Summerfield, 2022. "Human-centred mechanism design with Democratic AI," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 6(10), pages 1398-1407, October.
      • Raphael Koster & Jan Balaguer & Andrea Tacchetti & Ari Weinstein & Tina Zhu & Oliver Hauser & Duncan Williams & Lucy Campbell-Gillingham & Phoebe Thacker & Matthew Botvinick & Christopher Summerfield, 2022. "Human-centered mechanism design with Democratic AI," Papers 2201.11441, arXiv.org.
    11. Michael P. Johnson & Arthur P. Hurter, 2000. "Decision Support for a Housing Mobility Program Using a Multiobjective Optimization Model," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(12), pages 1569-1584, December.
    12. Davis, Lauren B. & Sengul, Irem & Ivy, Julie S. & Brock, Luther G. & Miles, Lastella, 2014. "Scheduling food bank collections and deliveries to ensure food safety and improve access," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 175-188.
    13. Filippi, C. & Guastaroba, G. & Speranza, M.G., 2021. "On single-source capacitated facility location with cost and fairness objectives," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 289(3), pages 959-974.
    14. Theophilus Dhyankumar Chellappa & Ramasubramaniam Muthurathinasapathy & V. G. Venkatesh & Yangyan Shi & Samsul Islam, 2023. "Location of organ procurement and distribution organisation decisions and their impact on kidney allocations: a developing country perspective," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 321(1), pages 755-781, February.
    15. Chong Hyun Park & Gemma Berenguer, 2020. "Supply Constrained Location‐Distribution in Not‐for‐Profit Settings," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 29(11), pages 2461-2483, November.
    16. Fontaine, Pirmin & Crainic, Teodor Gabriel & Gendreau, Michel & Minner, Stefan, 2020. "Population-based risk equilibration for the multimode hazmat transport network design problem," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 284(1), pages 188-200.
    17. Rongbing Huang, 2016. "A short note on locating facilities on a path to minimize load range equity measure," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 246(1), pages 363-369, November.
    18. Boffey, Brian & Galvao, Roberto & Espejo, Luis, 2007. "A review of congestion models in the location of facilities with immobile servers," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 178(3), pages 643-662, May.
    19. Jens Gudmundsson & Jens Leth Hougaard, 2021. "River pollution abatement: Decentralized solutions and smart contracts," IFRO Working Paper 2021/07, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics, revised Oct 2021.
    20. Valencia-Toledo, Alfredo & Vidal-Puga, Juan, 2023. "A linear model for freight transportation," MPRA Paper 119301, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:spr:eurphb:v:94:y:2021:i:5:d:10.1140_epjb_s10051-021-00107-w. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.