4.7 Article

Optimal Treated Wastewater Allocation Among Stakeholders Based on an Agent-based Approach

期刊

WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
卷 37, 期 1, 页码 135-156

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11269-022-03359-y

关键词

Treated wastewater allocation; Agent-based modeling (ABM); Conflict resolution; R-method; Multi-criteria decision making (MCDM)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study integrates an agent-based model and a multi-objective optimization method to fairly distribute wastewater resources to different beneficiaries in Tehran Province, Iran. The results highlight that considering stakeholders' objectives and interactions can lead to a more equitable solution.
Using unconventional water resources, such as treated wastewater (TWW), is an excellent alternative to meet excess water demands. Policymakers should consider optimal and equitable allocation of TWW to relieve conflicts among stakeholders. In the current research, an agent-based model (ABM) is integrated with a multi-objective optimization method (MOM) to fairly distribute water among different beneficiaries in Tehran Province, Iran. In ABM there are two groups of agents: water users and managers. Water users seek to minimize water shortages, and water managers are responsible for allocating water to the users fairly. Managers also assess different bankruptcy scenarios (BSs) for allocating TWW to each stakeholder, and the most agreeable scenario is selected. The Conditional Value-at-Risk (CVaR)-based objective functions are used to assess the risk of uncertainties under different confidence levels. Then, to prioritize the Pareto-optimal solutions, a novel multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) method, named R-method, is utilized. Results show that considering stakeholders' objectives and interactions can lead to finding a more equitable solution. Interactions among beneficiaries can diminish water shortages in the study area through an investment by the industrial sector in the agricultural sector to improve the efficiency of agricultural activities.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据