IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/waterr/v39y2025i7d10.1007_s11269-025-04123-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Three-stage Cooperative Game Model for Water Resource Allocation Under Scarcity Using Bankruptcy Rules, Nash Bargaining Solution and TOPSIS

Author

Listed:
  • Shahmir Janjua

    (University of Southern Queensland (UniSQ))

  • Duc-Anh An-Vo

    (UniSQ College, UniSQ)

  • Kathryn Reardon-Smith

    (University of Southern Queensland (UniSQ)
    UniSQ)

  • Shahbaz Mushtaq

    (University of Southern Queensland (UniSQ))

Abstract

The global water security situation is deteriorating due to unequal distribution of water resources and changing climate, leading to increased conflicts in many regions. This article proposes and develops a three-stage collaborative water resource allocation model and applies this to the Indus River basin in Pakistan, where water resources are shared by four provinces (agents): Punjab, Sindh, Balochistan, and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KPK). The model uses bankruptcy rules, Nash bargaining theory, and TOPSIS (Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution) to allocate water resources. The model considers various factors, such as water risk and water satisfaction to achieve the best possible (most equitable and acceptable) outcome. Water allocation was conducted under three scenarios of ‘median’, ‘maximum’ and ‘low’ river flows. In the first stage of water allocation, the positive and negative ideal solutions were defined for all agents (in this case, provinces). These initial ideal solutions provided a baseline for the negotiation process. In the second stage, water allocation ratios of the four provinces Punjab, Sindh, Balochistan and KPK, using the Nash bargaining solution, under the median flows were 57.61%, 29.91%, 6.24% and 6.24%. In the third stage, water allocation ratios demonstrated the reduction in the allocation for those provinces facing high risks and having high satisfaction rates. The final allocations under the median flow conditions for the four provinces were 54.92%, 28.95%, 8.50% and 7.63%, respectively. The developed three-stage water allocation model considers the multi-dimensional attributes of water resources and is expected to support the cooperation of water agents, enabling collective bargaining and group negotiation and improving the acceptability and stability of allocations.

Suggested Citation

  • Shahmir Janjua & Duc-Anh An-Vo & Kathryn Reardon-Smith & Shahbaz Mushtaq, 2025. "A Three-stage Cooperative Game Model for Water Resource Allocation Under Scarcity Using Bankruptcy Rules, Nash Bargaining Solution and TOPSIS," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 39(7), pages 3553-3576, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:waterr:v:39:y:2025:i:7:d:10.1007_s11269-025-04123-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s11269-025-04123-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11269-025-04123-8
    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/s11269-025-04123-8?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. Chunyang He & Zhifeng Liu & Jianguo Wu & Xinhao Pan & Zihang Fang & Jingwei Li & Brett A. Bryan, 2021. "Future global urban water scarcity and potential solutions," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 12(1), pages 1-11, December.
    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. Melissa McCracken & Aaron T. Wolf, 2019. "Updating the Register of International River Basins of the world," International Journal of Water Resources Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(5), pages 732-782, September.
    4. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    5. Ariel Dinar & Mark Campbell & David Zilberman, 1992. "Adoption of improved irrigation and drainage reduction technologies under limiting environmental conditions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 2(4), pages 373-398, July.
    6. Xu Guo & Lin Fu & Xiaohua Sun, 2021. "Can Environmental Regulations Promote Greenhouse Gas Abatement in OECD Countries? Command-and-Control vs. Market-Based Policies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-18, June.
    7. Wang, Lizhong & Fang, Liping & Hipel, Keith W., 2008. "Basin-wide cooperative water resources allocation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 190(3), pages 798-817, November.
    8. J. Yazdi & A . Moridi, 2017. "Interactive Reservoir-Watershed Modeling Framework for Integrated Water Quality Management," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 31(7), pages 2105-2125, May.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Giovanni Sechi & Riccardo Zucca, 2015. "Water Resource Allocation in Critical Scarcity Conditions: A Bankruptcy Game Approach," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 29(2), pages 541-555, January.
    12. Gi-Eu Lee & Kimberly Rollins & Loretta Singletary, 2020. "The Relationship between Priority and Value of Irrigation Water Used with Prior Appropriation Water Rights," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 96(3), pages 384-398.
    13. Kelly M. Cobourn & Xinde Ji & Siân Mooney & Neil F. Crescenti, 2022. "The effect of prior appropriation water rights on land‐allocation decisions in irrigated agriculture," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 104(3), pages 947-975, May.
    14. 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.
    15. Janjua, Shahmir & An-Vo, Duc-Anh & Reardon-Smith, Kathryn & Mushtaq, Shahbaz, 2024. "Resolving water security conflicts in agriculture by a cooperative Nash bargaining approach," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 306(C).
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. Aumann, Robert J. & Maschler, Michael, 1985. "Game theoretic analysis of a bankruptcy problem from the Talmud," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 195-213, August.
    19. 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.
    20. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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.
    3. Janjua, Shahmir & An-Vo, Duc-Anh & Reardon-Smith, Kathryn & Mushtaq, Shahbaz, 2024. "Resolving water security conflicts in agriculture by a cooperative Nash bargaining approach," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 306(C).
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Sebastian Cano-Berlanga & María-José Solís-Baltodano & Cori Vilella, 2023. "The Art of Sharing Resources: How to Distribute Water during a Drought Period," Games, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-16, August.
    9. 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.
    10. Mahboubeh Kalantari & Mohammad Reza Nikoo & Nasser Talebbeydokhti, 2025. "Assessment of renewable water in the face of climate change by a comprehensive analysis of adaptation strategies," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 178(3), pages 1-24, March.
    11. Mehdi Kazemi & Omid Bozorg-Haddad & Elahe Fallah-Mehdipour & Xuefeng Chu, 2022. "Optimal water resources allocation in transboundary river basins according to hydropolitical consideration," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 1188-1206, January.
    12. Mohammad Ali Tolouei Virani & Reza Javidi Sabbaghian & Bardia Roghani & Ehsan Bahrami Jovein & Mohammad Fereshtehpour, 2025. "Reallocating Shared Groundwater Resources Using a Participatory Two- level Weighted Bankruptcy Framework," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 39(6), pages 2567-2589, April.
    13. Yoshio Kamijo & Koji Yokote, 2022. "Behavioral bargaining theory: Equality bias, risk attitude, and reference-dependent utility," Working Papers 2208, Waseda University, Faculty of Political Science and Economics.
    14. Andrea Gallice, 2019. "Bankruptcy problems with reference-dependent preferences," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 48(1), pages 311-336, March.
    15. 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.
    16. Lahiri, Somdeb, 2001. "Axiomatic characterizations of the CEA solution for rationing problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 131(1), pages 162-170, May.
    17. José-Manuel Giménez-Gómez & António Osório & Josep E. Peris, 2015. "From Bargaining Solutions to Claims Rules: A Proportional Approach," Games, MDPI, vol. 6(1), pages 1-7, March.
    18. William Thomson, 2014. "Compromising between the proportional and constrained equal awards rules," RCER Working Papers 584, University of Rochester - Center for Economic Research (RCER).
    19. Herrero, Carmen & Maschler, Michael & Villar, Antonio, 1999. "Individual rights and collective responsibility: the rights-egalitarian solution," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 59-77, January.
    20. Büyükboyacı, Mürüvvet & Gürdal, Mehmet Y. & Kıbrıs, Arzu & Kıbrıs, Özgür, 2019. "An experimental study of the investment implications of bankruptcy laws," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 607-629.

    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:39:y:2025:i:7:d:10.1007_s11269-025-04123-8. 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.