Analyzing the Impacts of Climate Change on Hydro-Environmental Conflict-Resolution Management

  • Yuni Xu
  • Xiang Fu
  • Xuefeng Chu


Conflict-resolution methods have been applied to water resources management to balance conflicting interests of stakeholders. Due to the climate change impacts on hydrologic processes, the strategy selections of conflict-resolution methods can be influenced, resulting in different selection rules for historical and future periods. This study aims to quantify the impacts of climate change on the strategy-selection rules of the conflict-resolution methods for better long-term strategic decision-making. The methodology of this study consists of climatic, hydrological, environmental and multi-objective optimization models, two fuzzy social choice methods (FSCMs) and four game-theoretical bargaining methods (GTBMs). The hydro-environmental conflict-resolution management in the Yangtze River of China is selected as the case study. The results show that the strategy selection of GTBMs is more stable and results in a better balance between hydropower and environmental objectives, compared to that of FSCMs. Moreover, considering climate change, under the appropriate environmental flow pattern, the stabilities of the strategy selections of FSCMs and GTBMs are slightly influenced, and the average satisfied degrees of both objectives obtained by FSCMs and GTBMs in the future period (2021-2080) are lower than those in the base period (1950-2012). The findings from this study provide guidance for hydro-environmental conflict-resolution management from a sustainable development perspective.


Conflict-resolution method Multi-objective optimization model Climate change Environmental protection Hydropower generation 



This study was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program (No. 2016YFC0401306) and National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 91647204).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest


Supplementary material

11269_2019_2186_MOESM1_ESM.docx (350 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 350 kb)


  1. Alcázar J, Palau A (2010) Establishing environmental flow regimes in a Mediterranean watershed based on a regional classification. J Hydrol 388(1):41–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alizadeh MR, Nikoo MR, Rakhshandehroo GR (2017a) Developing a multi-objective conflict-resolution model for optimal groundwater management based on fallback bargaining models and social choice rules: a case study. Water Resour Manag 31(5):1457–1472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alizadeh MR, Nikoo MR, Rakhshandehroo GR (2017b) Hydro-environmental management of groundwater resources: a fuzzy-based multi-objective compromise approach. J Hydrol 551:540–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arrow KJ (1952) Social choice and individual values. J Polit Econ 60(5):422–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Borda JCD (1781) Memoire sur les elections au Scrutin. Histoire de I’Academie Royale des Sciences, ParisGoogle Scholar
  6. Brams SJ, Fishburn PC (1978) Approval voting. Am Polit Sci Rev 72(3):831–847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brams SJ, Kilgour DM (2001) Fallback bargaining. Group Decis Negot 10(4):287–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cai W, Zhang L, Zhu X et al (2013) Optimized reservoir operation to balance human and environmental requirements: a case study for the Three Gorges and Gezhouba dams, Yangtze River basin, China. Ecol Inform 18(9):40–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Camici S, Brocca L, Melone F et al (2013) Impact of climate change on flood frequency using different climate models and downscaling approaches. J Hydrol Eng 19(8):04014002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carraro C, Sgobbi A (2008) Modelling negotiated decision making in environmental and natural resource management: a multilateral, multiple issues, non-cooperative bargaining model with uncertainty. Automatica 44(6):1488–1503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Deb K, Pratap A, Agarwal S et al (2002) A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 6(2):182–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fraser NM, Hauge JW (1998) Multicriteria approval: application of approval voting concepts to MCDM problems. J Multi-Criteria Decis Anal 7(5):263–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fu X, Li AQ, Wang H (2014) Allocation of flood control capacity for a multireservoir system located at the Yangtze River basin. Water Resour Manag 28(13):4823–4834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. García-Lapresta JL, Martínez-Panero M (2002) Borda count versus, approval voting: a fuzzy approach. Public Choice 112(1-2):167–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ghodsi SH, Kerachian R, Estalaki SM et al (2016a) Developing a stochastic conflict resolution model for urban runoff quality management: application of info-gap and bargaining theories. J Hydrol 533:200–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ghodsi SH, Kerachian R, Zahmatkesh Z (2016b) A multi-stakeholder framework for urban runoff quality management: application of social choice and bargaining techniques. Sci Total Environ 550:574–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hao Y, Jiang Z, Li L et al (2016) Biases and improvements in an ensemble of dynamical downscaling climate simulations over China. Clim Dyn 47(9-10):1–17Google Scholar
  18. Hu M, Hua Q, Zhou H et al (2015) The effect of dams on the larval abundance and composition of four carp species in key river systems in China. Environ Biol Fish 98(4):1201–1205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kangas A , Laukkanen S , Kangas J (2006) Social choice theory and its applications in sustainable forest management—a review. For Policy Econ 9(1):77-92.Google Scholar
  20. Kacprzyk J, Zadrożny S, Fedrizzi M et al (2008) On group decision making, consensus reaching, voting and voting paradoxes under fuzzy preferences and a fuzzy majority: a survey and some perspectives. In: Studies in fuzziness and soft computing. Springer Berlin 220, pp 263–295Google Scholar
  21. Kerachian R, Fallahnia M, Bazargan-Lari MR et al (2010) A fuzzy game theoretic approach for groundwater resources management: application of Rubinstein bargaining theory. Resour Conserv Recycl 54(10):673–682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Li S, Xiong L, Dong L et al (2013) Effects of the Three Gorges reservoir on the hydrological droughts at the downstream Yichang station during 2003–2011. Hydrol Process 27(26):3981–3993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Madani K, Read L, Shalikarian L (2014) Voting under uncertainty: a stochastic framework for analyzing group decision making problems. Water Resour Manag 28(7):1839–1856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nash J (1953) Two person cooperative games. Econometrica 21(1):128–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nurmi H (1981) Approaches to collective decision making with fuzzy preference relations. Fuzzy Sets Syst 6(3):249–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Palau A, Alcázar J (2012) The basic flow method for incorporating flow variability in environmental flows. River Res Appl 28(1):93–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Raei E, Nikoo MR, Pourshahabi S (2017) A multi-objective simulation-optimization model for in-situ bioremediation of groundwater contamination: application of bargaining theory. J Hydrol 551:407–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rubinstein A (1982) Perfect equilibrium in a bargain model. Econometrica 50(1):91-109Google Scholar
  29. Sangelantoni L, Russo A, Gennaretti F (2018) Impact of bias correction and downscaling through quantile mapping on simulated climate change signal: a case study over Central Italy. Theor Appl Climatol 5:1–16Google Scholar
  30. Shirangi E, Kerachian R, Bajestan MS (2008) A simplified model for reservoir operation considering the water quality issues: application of the Young conflict resolution theory. Environ Monit Assess 146:77–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wang XM, Zhou JZ, Ouyang S et al (2013) TGC eco-friendly generation multi-objective optimal dispatch model and its solution algorithm. J Hydraul Eng 44(2):154–163 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  32. Wu T et al (2010) The Beijing climate center atmospheric general circulation model: description and its performance for the present-day climate. Clim Dyn 1(123):34Google Scholar
  33. Xin X, Zhang L, Zhang J et al (2013) Climate change projections over East Asia with BCC_CSM1.1, climate model under RCP scenarios. J Meteorol Soc Jpn 91(4):413–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Xiong L, Guo S (1999) A two-parameter monthly water balance model and its application. J Hydrol 216(1–2):111–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Xu Y, Fu X, Qin J (2018) Qualifying coordination mechanism for cascade-reservoir operation with a new game-theoretical methodology. Water 10(12):1857CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Yang G, Guo S, Li L et al (2016) Multi-objective operating rules for Danjiangkou reservoir under climate change. Water Resour Manag 30(3):1183–1202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Yi YJ, Wang ZY, Yang ZF (2010) Impact of the Gezhouba and Three Gorges Dams on habitat suitability of carps in the Yangtze River. J Hydrol 387(3–4):283–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Young HP (1993) An evolutionary model of bargaining. J Econ Theory 59(1):145–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zarghami M (2011) Soft computing of the Borda count by fuzzy linguistic quantifiers. Appl Soft Comput 11(1):1067–1073CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zhang G, Wu L, Li H et al (2012) Preliminary evidence of delayed spawning and suppressed larval growth and condition of the major carps in the Yangtze River below the Three Gorges Dam. Environ Biol Fish 93(3):439–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zhou Y, Guo S, Chang FJ et al (2018) Methodology that improves water utilization and hydropower generation without increasing flood risk in mega cascade reservoirs. Energy 143:785–796CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.State Key Laboratory of Water Resources and Hydropower Engineering ScienceWuhan UniversityWuhanChina
  2. 2.Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering (Dept 2470)North Dakota State UniversityFargoUSA

Personalised recommendations