IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/waterr/v32y2018i8d10.1007_s11269-018-1955-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Bankruptcy to Surplus: Sharing Transboundary River Basin’s Water under Scarcity

Author

Listed:
  • Dagmawi Mulugeta Degefu

    (Ryerson University)

  • Weijun He

    (China Three Gorges University
    China Three Gorges University)

  • Liang Yuan

    (China Three Gorges University
    Hohai University)

  • An Min

    (Hohai University)

  • Qi Zhang

    (China Three Gorges University)

Abstract

In this article a three-stage framework is proposed for allocating water and welfare in transboundary river basins under water scarcity. The proposed allocation framework combines the bargaining theory with resource allocation and bankruptcy games. The water bankrupt Euphrates River was taken as a case study to demonstrate the applicability of the allocation framework. The results showed that the total monetary welfare that can be generated by reallocating the water in order of decreasing water productivity value of each riparian country is greater by 43.43% of total monetary warfare that can be made if each country were to utilize the water allocated to it independently. The proposed allocation framework rewarded Turkey, Syria and Iraq with welfare assignments which are 41.5%, 42.1% and 57.45% greater than what they could have achieved by unilaterally utilizing the water allocated to them. Generally, the proposed water allocation, water reallocation and welfare assignment framework provide some insights for allocating transboundary water in a way which is efficient, fair and sustainable.

Suggested Citation

  • Dagmawi Mulugeta Degefu & Weijun He & Liang Yuan & An Min & Qi Zhang, 2018. "Bankruptcy to Surplus: Sharing Transboundary River Basin’s Water under Scarcity," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 32(8), pages 2735-2751, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:waterr:v:32:y:2018:i:8:d:10.1007_s11269-018-1955-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s11269-018-1955-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11269-018-1955-z
    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/s11269-018-1955-z?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. Nash, John, 1953. "Two-Person Cooperative Games," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 21(1), pages 128-140, April.
    2. Dagan, Nir & Volij, Oscar, 1993. "The bankruptcy problem: a cooperative bargaining approach," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 287-297, November.
    3. Carmen Herrero & Antonio Villar, 2002. "Sustainability in bankruptcy problems," TOP: An Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research, Springer;Sociedad de Estadística e Investigación Operativa, vol. 10(2), pages 261-273, December.
    4. 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.
    5. Casas-Méndez, Balbina & Fragnelli, Vito & García-Jurado, Ignacio, 2011. "Weighted bankruptcy rules and the museum pass problem," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 215(1), pages 161-168, November.
    6. Herrero, Carmen & Villar, Antonio, 2001. "The three musketeers: four classical solutions to bankruptcy problems," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 307-328, November.
    7. Barrett, Scott, 1994. "Self-Enforcing International Environmental Agreements," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 46(0), pages 878-894, Supplemen.
    8. Nash, John, 1950. "The Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 18(2), pages 155-162, April.
    9. 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.
    10. Dagmawi Mulugeta Degefu & Weijun He, 2016. "Allocating Water under Bankruptcy Scenario," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 30(11), pages 3949-3964, September.
    11. Kaveh Madani & Keith Hipel, 2011. "Non-Cooperative Stability Definitions for Strategic Analysis of Generic Water Resources Conflicts," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 25(8), pages 1949-1977, June.
    12. Dagmawi Mulugeta Degefu & Weijun He & Liang Yuan & Jian Hua Zhao, 2016. "Water Allocation in Transboundary River Basins under Water Scarcity: a Cooperative Bargaining Approach," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 30(12), pages 4451-4466, September.
    13. Erik Ansink & Harold Houba, 2014. "The Economics of Transboundary River Management," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 14-132/VIII, Tinbergen Institute.
    14. Hojjat Mianabadi & Erik Mostert & Saket Pande & Nick van de Giesen, 2015. "Weighted Bankruptcy Rules and Transboundary Water Resources Allocation," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 29(7), pages 2303-2321, May.
    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. Jacob Rightnar & Ariel Dinar, 2020. "The Welfare Implications of Bankruptcy Allocation of the Colorado River Water: The Case of the Salton Sea Region," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 34(8), pages 2353-2370, June.
    2. Yang Zheng & Xuefeng Sang & Zhiwu Liu & Siqi Zhang & Pan Liu, 2022. "Water Allocation Management Under Scarcity: a Bankruptcy Approach," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 36(9), pages 2891-2912, July.

    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. Dagmawi Mulugeta Degefu & Weijun He & Liang Yuan, 2017. "Monotonic Bargaining Solution for Allocating Critically Scarce Transboundary Water," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 31(9), pages 2627-2644, July.
    2. Jingyi Xue, 2018. "Fair division with uncertain needs," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 51(1), pages 105-136, June.
    3. Zhenliang Liao & Phillip Hannam, 2013. "The Mekong Game: Achieving an All-win Situation," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 27(7), pages 2611-2622, May.
    4. Jianan Qin & Xiang Fu & Shaoming Peng & Yuni Xu & Jie Huang & Sha Huang, 2019. "Asymmetric Bargaining Model for Water Resource Allocation over Transboundary Rivers," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(10), pages 1-23, May.
    5. B. Dietzenbacher & A. Estévez-Fernández & P. Borm & R. Hendrickx, 2021. "Proportionality, equality, and duality in bankruptcy problems with nontransferable utility," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 301(1), pages 65-80, June.
    6. Dagmawi Mulugeta Degefu & Weijun He, 2016. "Allocating Water under Bankruptcy Scenario," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 30(11), pages 3949-3964, September.
    7. Thomson, William, 2003. "Axiomatic and game-theoretic analysis of bankruptcy and taxation problems: a survey," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 249-297, July.
    8. Rick K. Acosta & Encarnación Algaba & Joaquín Sánchez-Soriano, 2022. "Multi-issue bankruptcy problems with crossed claims," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 318(2), pages 749-772, November.
    9. Thomson, William, 2015. "Axiomatic and game-theoretic analysis of bankruptcy and taxation problems: An update," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 41-59.
    10. Lea Melnikovová, 2017. "Can Game Theory Help to Mitigate Water Conflicts in the Syrdarya Basin?," Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, Mendel University Press, vol. 65(4), pages 1393-1401.
    11. Carmen Herrero & Juan Moreno-Ternero & Giovanni Ponti, 2010. "On the adjudication of conflicting claims: an experimental study," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 34(1), pages 145-179, January.
    12. Jianan Qin & Xiang Fu & Shaoming Peng & Sha Huang, 2020. "An Integrated Decision Support Framework for Incorporating Fairness and Stability Concerns into River Water Allocation," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 34(1), pages 211-230, January.
    13. José-Manuel Giménez-Gómez & Jordi Teixidó-Figueras & Cori Vilella, 2016. "The global carbon budget: a conflicting claims problem," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 136(3), pages 693-703, June.
    14. Martínez, Ricardo & Moreno-Ternero, Juan D., 2022. "Compensation and sacrifice in the probabilistic rationing of indivisible units," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 302(2), pages 740-751.
    15. Ershad Oftadeh & Mojtaba Shourian & Bahram Saghafian, 2016. "Evaluation of the Bankruptcy Approach for Water Resources Allocation Conflict Resolution at Basin Scale, Iran’s Lake Urmia Experience," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 30(10), pages 3519-3533, August.
    16. Harstad, Bård, 2023. "Pledge-and-review bargaining," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 207(C).
    17. Hokari, Toru & Thomson, William, 2008. "On properties of division rules lifted by bilateral consistency," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(11), pages 1057-1071, December.
    18. Ephraim Zehavi & Amir Leshem, 2018. "On the Allocation of Multiple Divisible Assets to Players with Different Utilities," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 52(1), pages 253-274, June.
    19. 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.
    20. Dijkstra, Bouwe R. & Nentjes, Andries, 2020. "Pareto-Efficient Solutions for Shared Public Good Provision: Nash Bargaining versus Exchange-Matching-Lindahl," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(C).

    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:32:y:2018:i:8:d:10.1007_s11269-018-1955-z. 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.