IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/waterr/v31y2017i13d10.1007_s11269-017-1746-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Ultimatum Game Theory Based Approach for Basin Scale Water Allocation Conflict Resolution

Author

Listed:
  • Ershad Oftadeh

    (Islamic Azad University)

  • Mojtaba Shourian

    (Shahid Beheshti University)

  • Bahram Saghafian

    (Islamic Azad University)

Abstract

Increasing water consumption via competitive demands has resulted in serious water conflicts and the subsequent environmental crisis in the Gavkhouni Watershed with the Gavkhouni swamp in the most downstream located in the central part of Iran. In this research, a two-player ultimatum game theory approach is adopted to not only address the water conflicts with the purpose of environmental reclamation of the drying swamp, but also to ensure economic satisfaction for the upstream landowners and farmers. The Ministry of Energy (MoE) and its subsidiary regional water authority represent the responsible organizations for providing water while the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) is the primary body in charge of water consumption in the watershed. MoE and MoA are considered as two players in the game, whereas MoE has more power than MoA in terms of allocating water. Five strategies are studied namely: 1 and 2) decreasing water allocation to irrigated agriculture as much as the annual shortage of the Gavkhouni swamp with and without compensation to MoA (D-L), 3 and 4) decreasing water allocation to irrigated agriculture twice as much the annual shortage of the swamp with and without compensation for MoA (D-2 L) and 5) giving up Gavkhouni swamp’s reclamation plan (D). Moreover, three scenarios regarding the relations between environmental and agricultural utilities are designated. According to the results, D-2 L with paying compensation to MoA is chosen as the best alternative in scenario 1 when the environmental utility was assumed to be greater than the agricultural utility. Ultimatum Game Theory has no final solution for scenarios 2 and 3 where the environmental utility is considered to be equal and smaller than agricultural utility. The swamp’s annual environmental water shortage as 324 million cubic meters is supplied by application of both strategies D-L and D-2 L. Ultimatum Games are efficient in assessment of water conflicts to resolve them through careful and planned negotiations.

Suggested Citation

  • Ershad Oftadeh & Mojtaba Shourian & Bahram Saghafian, 2017. "An Ultimatum Game Theory Based Approach for Basin Scale Water Allocation Conflict Resolution," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 31(13), pages 4293-4308, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:waterr:v:31:y:2017:i:13:d:10.1007_s11269-017-1746-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s11269-017-1746-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11269-017-1746-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11269-017-1746-y?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. Parrachino, Irene & Zara, Stefano & Patrone, Fioravante, 2006. "Cooperative game theory and its application to natural, environmental, and water resource issues : 1. basic theory," Policy Research Working Paper Series 4072, The World Bank.
    2. Tansa George Massoud, 2000. "Fair Division, Adjusted Winner Procedure (AW), and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 44(3), pages 333-358, June.
    3. Dinar, Ariel & Hogarth, Margaret, 2015. "Game Theory and Water Resources Critical Review of its Contributions, Progress and Remaining Challenges," Foundations and Trends(R) in Microeconomics, now publishers, vol. 11(1-2), pages 1-139, June.
    4. Zara, Stefano & Dinar, Ariel & Patrone, Fioravante, 2006. "Cooperative game theory and its application to natural, environmental, and water resource issues : 2. application to natural and environmental resources," Policy Research Working Paper Series 4073, The World Bank.
    5. Martin J. Osborne & Ariel Rubinstein, 1994. "A Course in Game Theory," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262650401, December.
    6. Parrachino, Irene & Dinar, Ariel & Patrone, Fioravante, 2006. "Cooperative game theory and its application to natural, environmental, and water resource issues : 3. application to water resources," Policy Research Working Paper Series 4074, The World Bank.
    7. Kagel, John H. & Kim, Chung & Moser, Donald, 1996. "Fairness in Ultimatum Games with Asymmetric Information and Asymmetric Payoffs," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 100-110, March.
    8. Rob J.H.M. van der Veeren, Richard S.J. Tol, 2003. "Game theoretic analyses of nitrate emission reduction strategies in the Rhine river basin," International Journal of Global Environmental Issues, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 3(1), pages 74-103.
    9. Adams, Gregory & Rausser, Gordon & Simon, Leo, 1996. "Modelling multilateral negotiations: An application to California water policy," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 97-111, July.
    10. Thaler, Richard H, 1988. "The Ultimatum Game," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 2(4), pages 195-206, Fall.
    11. Arora, V.K. & Singh, Harbakhshinder & Singh, Bijay, 2007. "Analyzing wheat productivity responses to climatic, irrigation and fertilizer-nitrogen regimes in a semi-arid sub-tropical environment using the CERES-Wheat model," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 94(1-3), pages 22-30, December.
    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. Mingjing Guo & Ziyu Jiang & Yan Bu & Jinhua Cheng, 2019. "Supporting Sustainable Development of Water Resources: A Social Welfare Maximization Game Model," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(16), pages 1-15, August.

    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. Stefano Moretti & Fioravante Patrone & Ariel Dinar & Safwat Abdel-Dayem, 2016. "Sharing the Costs of Complex Water Projects: Application to the West Delta Water Conservation and Irrigation Rehabilitation Project, Egypt," Games, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-23, July.
    2. Moradi, Sohrab & Limaei, Soleiman Mohammadi, 2018. "Multi-objective game theory model and fuzzy programing approach for sustainable watershed management," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 363-371.
    3. Hurt, Wesley & Osório, António (António Miguel), 2014. "A Sequential Allocation Problem: The Asymptotic Distribution of Resources," Working Papers 2072/237596, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Department of Economics.
    4. Osório, António (António Miguel), 2016. "A Sequential Allocation Problem: The Asymptotic Distribution of Resources," Working Papers 2072/266574, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Department of Economics.
    5. Hadi Tarebari & Amir Hossein Javid & Seyyed Ahmad Mirbagheri & Hedayat Fahmi, 2018. "Multi-Objective Surface Water Resource Management Considering Conflict Resolution and Utility Function Optimization," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 32(14), pages 4487-4509, November.
    6. Alvarez, Isabelle & Zaleski, Laetitia & Briot, Jean-Pierre & de A. Irving, Marta, 2023. "Collective management of environmental commons with multiple usages: A guaranteed viability approach," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 475(C).
    7. van den Brink, René & He, Simin & Huang, Jia-Ping, 2018. "Polluted river problems and games with a permission structure," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 182-205.
    8. Dinar, Ariel & Farolfi, Stefano & Patrone, Fioravante & Rowntree, Kate, 2006. "TO NEGOTIATE OR TO GAME THEORIZE: Negotiation vs. Game Theory Outcomes for Water Allocation Problems in the Kat Basin, South Africa," Working Papers 60888, University of Pretoria, Department of Agricultural Economics, Extension and Rural Development.
    9. Handgraaf, Michel J.J. & Dijk, Eric van & Wilke, Henk A.M. & Vermunt, Riel C., 2004. "Evaluability of outcomes in ultimatum bargaining," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 95(1), pages 97-106, September.
    10. Mehran Homayounfar & Sai Lai & Mehdi Zommorodian & Amin Oroji & Arman Ganji & Sara Kaviani, 2015. "Developing a Non-Discrete Dynamic Game Model and Corresponding Monthly Collocation Solution Considering Variability in Reservoir Inflow," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 29(8), pages 2599-2618, June.
    11. Binmore, Ken & McCarthy, John & Ponti, Giovanni & Samuelson, Larry & Shaked, Avner, 2002. "A Backward Induction Experiment," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 104(1), pages 48-88, May.
    12. Grundel, S. & Borm, P.E.M. & Hamers, H.J.M., 2011. "A Compromise Stable Extension of Bankruptcy Games : Multipurpose Resource Allocation," Discussion Paper 2011-029, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    13. Fellner, Gerlinde & Guth, Werner, 2003. "What limits escalation?--Varying threat power in an ultimatum experiment," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 80(1), pages 53-60, July.
    14. Soesja Grundel & Peter Borm & Herbert Hamers, 2013. "Resource allocation games: a compromise stable extension of bankruptcy games," Mathematical Methods of Operations Research, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research (GOR);Nederlands Genootschap voor Besliskunde (NGB), vol. 78(2), pages 149-169, October.
    15. Meraj Sohrabi & Zeynab Banoo Ahani Amineh & Mohammad Hossein Niksokhan & Hossein Zanjanian, 2023. "A framework for optimal water allocation considering water value, strategic management and conflict resolution," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 1582-1613, February.
    16. Soesja Grundel & Peter Borm & Herbert Hamers, 2019. "Resource allocation problems with concave reward functions," TOP: An Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research, Springer;Sociedad de Estadística e Investigación Operativa, vol. 27(1), pages 37-54, April.
    17. Marco Rogna, 2016. "Cooperative Game Theory Applied To Ieas: A Comparison Of Solution Concepts," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(3), pages 649-678, July.
    18. M. Fiestras-Janeiro & Ignacio García-Jurado & Manuel Mosquera, 2011. "Cooperative games and cost allocation problems," TOP: An Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research, Springer;Sociedad de Estadística e Investigación Operativa, vol. 19(1), pages 1-22, July.
    19. Gagen, Michael, 2013. "Isomorphic Strategy Spaces in Game Theory," MPRA Paper 46176, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Nikolaos Nagkoulis & Konstantinos L. Katsifarakis, 2022. "Using Game Theory to Assign Groundwater Pumping Schedules," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 36(5), pages 1571-1586, March.

    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:waterr:v:31:y:2017:i:13:d:10.1007_s11269-017-1746-y. 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.