Advertisement

Water Resources Management

, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 129–148 | Cite as

Capturing the complexity of water uses and water users within a multi-agent framework

  • Thomas BergerEmail author
  • Regina Birner
  • Nancy Mccarthy
  • JosÉ DíAz
  • Heidi Wittmer
Original Article

Abstract

Due to the hydrological and socio-economic complexity of water use within river basins and even sub-basins, it is a considerable challenge to manage water resources in an efficient, equitable and sustainable way. This paper shows that multi-agent simulation (MAS) is a promising approach to better understand the complexity of water uses and water users within sub-basins. This approach is especially suitable to take the collective action into account when simulating the outcome of technical innovation and policy change. A case study from Chile is used as an example to demonstrate the potential of the MAS framework. Chile has played a pioneering role in water policy reform by privatizing water rights and promoting trade in such rights, devolving irrigation management authority to user groups, and privatizing the provision of irrigation infrastructure. The paper describes the different components of a MAS model developed for four micro-watersheds in the Maule river basin. Preliminary results of simulation experiments are presented, which show the impacts of technical change and of informal rental markets on household income and water use efficiency. The paper also discusses how the collective action problems in water markets and in small-scale and large-scale infrastructure provision can be captured by the MAS model. To promote the use of the MAS approach for planning purposes, a collaborative research and learning framework has been established, with a recently created multi-stakeholder platform at the regional level (Comisión Regional de Recursos Hidricos) as the major partner. Finally, the paper discusses the potentials of using MAS models for water resources management, such as increasing transparency as an aspect of good governance. The challenges, for example the need to build trust in the model, are discussed as well.

Keywords

Multi-agent systems Simulation models Integrated water resources management Collective action Trade of water rights Innovations Chile 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Balmann A (1997) Farm-based modelling of regional structural change: a cellular automata approach. Eur Rev Agric Econ 24:85–108Google Scholar
  2. Barreteau O, Le Page C, D'Aquino P (2003) Role-playing games, models and negotiation processes. J Artif Soc Social Simulation 6(2):http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/6/2/10.html
  3. Bauer C (1998) Against the current: privatisation, water markets, and the state in Chile. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
  4. Berger T (2000) Agentenbasierte räumliche simulationsmodelle in der Landwirtschaft. Anwendungsmöglichkeiten zur Bewertung von Diffusionsprozessen, Ressourcennutzung und Politikoptionen. Agrarwirtschaft, Sonderheft 186, AgrimediaGoogle Scholar
  5. Berger T (2001) Agent-based spatial models applied to agriculture: a simulation tool for technology diffusion, resource use changes and policy analysis. Agric Econ 25(2/3):245–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berger T, Schreinemachers P (2006) Creating agents and landscapes of multi-agent systems from random samples. Ecology and Society (in print)Google Scholar
  7. Berger T, Ringler C (2002) Trade-offs, efficiency gains and technical change – modeling water management and land use within a multiple-agent framework. Q J Int Agric 41(1/2):119–144Google Scholar
  8. Berger T, Schreinemachers P, Woelcke J (2005) Multi-agent simulation for development of less-favored areas. In: Van Keulen H (ed) Development strategies for less-favored areas. Agricultural Systems, Special Issue (in print)Google Scholar
  9. Bousquet F, Lifran R, Tidball M, Thoyer S, Antona M (2001) Agent-based modelling, game theory and natural resource management issues. J Artif Soc Social Simulation 4(2):http://www.soc.surrey.ac.uk/ JASSS/4/2/0.html
  10. Bruns BR, Meinzen-Dick R (Eds.) (2000) Negotiating water rights. Intermediate Technology Publications, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  11. Chileriego (2001) Hemos creado algo vivo llamado embalse illapel.http://www.chileriego.cl/revista/rev9/ rev9_5.htm
  12. Cornes R, Sandler T, (1986) The theory of externalities, public goods, and club goods. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  13. Deffuant G, Huet S, Bousset JP, Henriot J, Amon G, Weisbuch G (2002) Agent-based simulation of organic farming conversion in Allier département. In: Janssen MA (ed) Complexity and ecosystem management: the theory and practice of multi-agent systems. Edward Elgar Publishers, Cheltenham, U.K., and Northampton, MassGoogle Scholar
  14. Dinar A, Rosegrant M, Meinzen-Dick R (1997) Water allocation mechanisms: principles and examples. World Bank Working Paper No. 1779. The World Bank, Washington, DCCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fisher FM, Arlosoroff S, Eckstein Z, Haddadin M, Hamati SG, Huber-Lee A, Jarrar A, Jayyousi A, Shamir U, Wesseling H (2002) Optimal water management and conflict resolution: The Middle East Water Project. Water Resour Res 38(11):1243, doi: 10.1029/2001WR000943Google Scholar
  16. Gotts NM, Polhill JG, Law ANR, (2003) Agent-based simulation in the study of social dilemmas. Artif Intell Rev 19(1):3–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Happe K (2004) Agricultural policies and farm structures – Agent-based modelling and application to EU-policy reform. Studies on the Agricultural and Food Sector in Central and Eastern Europe, 30: IAMO.http://www.iamo.de/dok/sr_vol30.pdf
  18. Huigen MGA (2004) First principles of the MameLuke multi-actor modelling framework for land use change, illustrated with a Philippine case study. J Environ Manag 72(1–2):5–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jakeman AJ, Letcher RA (2003) Integrated assessment and modelling: features, principles and examples for catchment management. Environ Modell Softw 18:491–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jasper K, Gurtz J, Lang H (2002) Advanced flood forecasting in Alpine watersheds by coupling meteorological observations and forecasts with a distributed hydrological model. J Hydrol (in press)Google Scholar
  21. Kunstmann H, Stadler C (2003) Operational high resolution meteorological – and hydrological analysis as decision support system in integrated water resources management. in: IAHS Redbook ``Integrated Water Resources Management: Towards sustainable Water Utilization in the 21st century (accepted for publication)Google Scholar
  22. Meinzen-Dick RS, Mendoza MS, Sadoulet L, Abiad-Shields G, Subramanian A (1997) Sustainable water users' associations: lessons from a literature review. in: Subramanian A, Jagannathan NV, RS (eds) User organizations for sustainable water services, World Bank Technical Paper 354. World Bank, Washington, DC, pp 7–87Google Scholar
  23. Meinzen-Dick R, Knox A, DiGregorio M, (eds.) (2001) Collective action, property rights and devolution of natural resource management, exchange of knowledge and implications for policy DSE. Eurasburg, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  24. MOP-DGA (2004) Plan director para la gestión de los recursos hídricos en la cuenca del Río Maule, DiagnósticoGoogle Scholar
  25. Ostrom E (1990) Governing the commons – the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Parker D, Meretsky V (2004) Measuring pattern outcomes in an agent-based model of edge-effect externalities using spatial metrics. Agric Ecosyst Environ 101:233–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Parker DC, Berger T, Manson S (2002) Agent-based models of land use/land cover change. LUCC report series No. 6. LUCC international project office, Louvain-la-Neuve. http://www.indiana.edu/%7Eact/ focus1/ABM_Report6.pdf
  28. Rosegrant MW, Ringler C, McKinney DC, Cai C, Keller A, Donoso G (2000) Integrated economic-hydrologic water modeling at the basin scale: the Maipo River basin. Agric Econ (24)1:33–46Google Scholar
  29. Sandler T (1992) Collective action: theory and applications. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MichiganGoogle Scholar
  30. van Paassen JM (2004) Bridging the gap: computer model enhanced learning about natural resource management in Burkina Faso. PhD Dissertation, Wageningen University.http://www.gcw.nl/dissertations /3530/dis3530.pdf
  31. Van de Giesen N, Berger T, Iskandarani M, Park SJ, Vlek PLG (2006) Integrative water research in the volta basin. In: Ehlers E, Krafft T (eds) Earth system science in the anthropocene: emerging issues and problems. Springer-Wissenschaftsverlag, Berlin:169–186Google Scholar
  32. Weisbuch G (2000) Environment and institutions: a complex dynamical systems approach. Ecol Econ 34:381–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Berger
    • 1
    Email author
  • Regina Birner
    • 2
  • Nancy Mccarthy
    • 2
  • JosÉ DíAz
    • 3
  • Heidi Wittmer
    • 4
  1. 1.University of HohenheimStuttgartGermany
  2. 2.International Food Policy Research InstituteBeijingChinese
  3. 3.University of TalcaTalcaChile
  4. 4.Center for Environmental Research Leipzig-HalleLeipzigGermany

Personalised recommendations