Abstract
Multiple rivers flowing into the same bay can be correlated in water quality management and together determine the environmental status of the bay. Nonpoint source pollution management for multi-watershed aiming to alleviate environmental contamination as well as yield considerable economic and environmental benefits can be under additional challenges. In this study, a Bayesian simulation-based multi-watershed effluent trading designing model (BS-METM) is established for multi-watershed nonpoint source pollution management through incorporating techniques of water quality simulation, uncertainty analysis with Bayesian inference, optimal design for effluent trading, as well as mechanism analysis. BS-METM is capable of reflecting parameter uncertainties in nutrient simulation, disclosing the detailed optimal trading schemes under the impact of uncertainties and vital factors, and identifying optimal effluent trading mechanisms through revealing interaction among trading processes of multiple watersheds. BS-METM is applied to a real case of adjacent coastal watersheds (i.e. Daguhe and Moshuihe watersheds), which are identified as major sources of total phosphorus and ammonia nitrogen loadings to Jiaozhou Bay, China. Effluent trading optimization under multiple mechanisms, including intra-watershed trading, cross-watershed trading and non-trading, are conducted. The optimized industry scales and trading processes are obtained. The effects of vital factors on the trading process (i.e. environmental allowance-violation risk level and water availability level) are investigated. The interactions between water availability level and trading mechanism are also analyzed. It is proved that non-trading mechanism would be recommended under low water availability level and cross-watershed trading mechanism would be recommended under medium and high water availability level. The results provide a solid scientific basis for nonpoint source pollution management as well as effective sustainable development for multi-watershed region.
Graphical abstract
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alam MJ, Dutta D (2012) A process-based and distributed model for nutrient dynamics in river basin: Development, testing and applications. Ecol Model 247:12–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2012.07.031
Alnahit AO, Mishra AK, Khan A A (2020) Quantifying climate, streamflow, and watershed control on water quality across Southeastern US watersheds. Sci Total Environ 739:139945. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139945.
Chahor Y, Casalí J, Giménez R, Bingner RL, Campo MA, Goñi M (2014) Evaluation of the AnnAGNPS model for predicting runoff and sediment yield in a small Mediterranean agricultural watershed in Navarre (Spain). Agric Water Manag 134:24–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2013.11.014
Chen L, Han ZX, Li S, Shen ZY (2016) Framework design and influencing factor analysis of a water environmental functional zone-based effluent trading system. Environ Manag 58:645–654. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-016-0747-6
Chen XJ, Sun HL, Xu HF (2019) Discrete approximation of two-stage stochastic and distributionally robust linear complementarity problems. Math Program 177:255–289. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10107-018-1266-4
Chen YY, Yang SY, Dong SJ, Li YM, Sun BQ, Shao ZJ (2010) Influence of Agricultural Activity and Aquifer Intrinsic Vulnerability on Groundwater Quality in the Dagu River Watershed (Qingdao, China). 2010 4th International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedical Engineering, (ICBBE 2010). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICBBE.2010.5517811.
Clark DL, Keil DP, Murray MR, Neethling J, Rawls NB, Moss D (2008) Water quality trading and advanced treatment technology to meet the lowest phosphorus requirements in the nation. Proc Water Environ Fed 16:967–988. https://doi.org/10.2175/193864708788735303
Corrales J, Naja GM, Bhat MG, Miralles-Wilhelm F (2017) Water quality trading opportunities in two sub-watersheds in the northern Lake Okeechobee watershed. J Environ Manage 196:544–559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.03.061
Huang GH, Loucks DP (2000) An inexact two-stage stochastic programming model for water resources management under uncertainty. Civ Eng Environ Syst 17:95–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/02630250008970277
Hung MF, Shaw D (2005) A trading-ratio system for trading water pollution discharge permits. J Environ Econ Manag 49:83–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2004.03.005
Zhao J, Wang XX, Li XY, Jia SY, Peng YZ (2018) Advanced nutrient removal from ammonia and domestic wastewaters by a novel process based on simultaneous partial nitrification-anammox and modified denitrifying phosphorus removal. Chem Eng J 354:589–598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2018.07.211
Laloy E, Rogiers B, Vrugt JA, Mallants D, Jacques D (2013) Efficient posterior exploration of a high-dimensional groundwater model from two-stage Markov chain Monte Carlo simulation and polynomial chaos expansion. Water Resour Res 49:2664–2682. https://doi.org/10.1002/wrcr.20226
Li L, Liang SK, Shi XY, Wang XL (2009) Contaminative Conditions Analysis of Main Rivers Flowing into Jiaozhou Bay in 2007. Environ Sci Manag 6:27–32
Li YP, Huang GH (2008) Interval-parameter two-stage stochastic nonlinear programming for water resources management under uncertainty. Water Resour Manag 22:681–698. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-007-9186-8
Li YP, Huang GH, Nie SL (2006) An interval-parameter multi-stage stochastic programming model for water resources management under uncertainty. Adv Water Resour 29:776–789. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2005.07.008
Li YP, Huang GH, Nie SL, Liu L (2008) Inexact multistage stochastic integer programming for water resources management under uncertainty. J Environ Manag 88:93–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.01.056
Liao KH, Xu SH, Cheng GF, Lin Q (2010) Influencing factors and cokriging spatial interpolation analysis of soil cation exchange capacity—a case study of Dagu River Basin, Qingdao city. Acta Pedol Sin 47:26–32
Liu J, Nie S, Li YP, Huang GH (2016) Two-stage vertex analysis method for planning electric power systems with greenhouse gas abatement consideration. Int J Green Energy 13:1000–1015. https://doi.org/10.1080/15435075.2014.974761
Liu MM (2009) Research on agriculture non-point source of nitrogen and phosphorus pollution’total amount of Dagu watershed. Ocean Univ China. https://doi.org/10.7666/d.y1502535
Maeda S, Kawachi T, Unami K, Takeuchi J, Izumi T, Chono S (2009) Fuzzy optimization model for integrated management of total nitrogen loads from distributed point and nonpoint sources in watershed. Paddy Water Environ 7:163–175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10333-009-0160-3
Mahjoobi E, Sarang A, Ardestani M (2016) Management of unregulated agricultural nonpoint sources through water quality trading market. Water Sci Technol 74:2162–2176. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2016.398
Mattingly JC, Pillai NS, Stuart AM (2012) Diffusion limits of the random walk metropolis algorithm in high dimensions. Ann Appl Probab 22:881–930. https://doi.org/10.1214/10-AAP754
Miao DY, Huang WW, Li YP, Yang ZF (2014) Planning water resources systems under uncertainty using an interval-Fuzzy De Novo Programming Method. J Environ Inf 24:11–23. https://doi.org/10.3808/jei.201400277
Nguyen NP, Shortle JS, Reed PM, Nguyen TT (2013) Water quality trading with asymmetric information, uncertainty and transaction costs: a stochastic agent-based simulation. Resource Energy Econ 35:60–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2012.09.002
Ning HL, Zuo H, Tian JN (2017) Research of phased comprehensive control of Moshui river basin. Environ Prot Sci 43: 43–46. https://doi.org/10.16803/j.cnki.issn.1004-6216.2017.04.008.
Pastori M, Bidoglio G, Udias A, Bouraoui F (2017) A multi-objective approach to evaluate the economic and environmental impacts of alternative water and nutrient management strategies in Africa. J Environ Inform 29:16–28. https://doi.org/10.3808/jei.201500313
Piao MJ, Li YP, Huang GH (2014) Development of a stochastic simulation-optimization model for planning electric power systems—a case study of Shanghai, China. Energy Convers Manag 86:111–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2014.05.011
Qiao ZJ, Zuo LL, RenYP (2012) Study on Current Situation and Countermeasures of Water Pollution in Moshui River, Jimo. Shandong Water Resources 45–46. (In Chinese)
Rajabi MM, Ataie-Ashtiani B, Janssen H (2015) Efficiency enhancement of optimized Latin hypercube sampling strategies: application to Monte Carlo uncertainty analysis and meta-modeling. Adv Water Resour 76:127–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2014///.12.008
Raje D, Krishnan R (2012) Bayesian parameter uncertainty modeling in a macroscale hydrologic model and its impact on Indian river basin hydrology under climate change. Water Resour Res 48:W08522. https://doi.org/10.1029/2011WR011123
Rong QQ, Cai YP, Chen B, Yue WC, Yin XN, Tan Q (2017) An enhanced export coefficient based optimization model for supporting agricultural nonpoint source pollution mitigation under uncertainty. Sci Total Environ 580:1351–1362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.12.099
Saby L, Nelson JD, Band LE, Goodall JL (2021) Nonpoint source water quality trading outcomes: landscape-scale patterns and integration with watershed management priorities. J Environ Manag 294:112914. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112914
Santhi C, Srinivasan R, Arnold JG, Williams JR (2006) A modeling approach to evaluate the impacts of water quality management plans implemented in a watershed in texas. Environ Model Softw 21:1141–1157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2005.05.013
Shang X, Wang X, Zhang DL, Chen WD, Chen XC, Kong HN (2012) An improved SWAT-based computational framework for identifying critical source areas for agricultural pollution at the lake basin scale. Ecol Model 226:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2011.11.030
Shen ZY, Chen L, Liao Q (2015) Effect of rainfall measurement errors on nonpoint-source pollution model uncertainty. J Environ Inform 26:14–26. https://doi.org/10.3808/jei.201400271
Sheng ML, Liu JZ, Zhu AX, Rossiter DG, Liu HR, Liu ZC, Zhu LM (2019) Comparison of GLUE and DREAM for the estimation of cultivar parameters in the APSIM-maize model. Agric For Meteorol 278:107659. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2019.107659
Shrestha NK, Wang J (2020) Water quality management of a cold climate region watershed in changing climate. J Environ Inform 35:56–80. https://doi.org/10.3808/jei.201900407
Sith R, Watanabe A, Nakamura T, Yamamoto T, Nadaoka K (2019) Assessment of water quality and evaluation of best management practices in a small agricultural watershed adjacent to Coral Reef area in Japan. Agric Water Manag 213:659–673. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2018.11.014
Stephenson K, Norris P, Shabman L (2010) Watershed-based effluent trading: the nonpoint source challenge. Contemp Econ Policy 16:412–421. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-7287.1998.tb00529.x
Sun JW, Zhang XL, Zhang B (2016) Construction and application of information management system about the groundwater source field of Dagu River. Gound Water 38:57–60
Vrugt JA (2016) Markov chain Monte Carlo simulation using the DREAM software package: theory, concepts, and MATLAB implementation. Environ Model Softw 75:273–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2015.08.013
Vrugt JA, Beven KJ (2018) Embracing equifinality with efficiency: limits of acceptability sampling using the DREAM (LOA) algorithm. J Hydrol 559:954–971. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.02.026
Vrugt JA, Braak CT, Diks CGH, Robinson BA, Hyman JM, Higdon D (2009) Accelerating markov chain monte carlo simulation by differential evolution with self-adaptive randomized subspace sampling. Int J Nonlinear Sci Numer Simul 10:273–290. https://doi.org/10.1515/IJNSNS.2009.10.3.273
Wang L (2020) A two-stage stochastic programming framework for evacuation planning in disaster responses. Comput Ind Eng 145:106458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2020.106458
Wang SQ, Pang J (2019) Research on the impact of cross-regional emissions trading on green economy. Ecol Econ 35:174–179+196. CNKI:SUN:STJJ.0.2019-02-031
Wang XL, Jiang DJ, Zhang H (2014) Simulation of Non- point Source Pollution in Dagu Watershed, Jiaodong Peninsula Based on AnnAGNPS Model. J Agro-Environment Sci 33:1379–1387. https://doi.org/10.11654/jaes.2014.07.018.
Wu JL (2013) Identification of critical areas of nitrogen and phosphorus in Dagu watershed and the establishment of feasible environemntal remediation measures-application of SWAT model in the calculation of the discharge amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus. Ocean Univ China. https://doi.org/10.7666/d.D328885
Wu W, Ren JC, Zhou XD, Wang JW, Guo MJ (2020) Identification of source information for sudden water pollution incidents in rivers and lakes based on variable-fidelity surrogate-DREAM optimization. Environ Model Softw 133:104811. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2020.104811
Xie YL, Li YP, Huang GH, Li YF, Chen LR (2011) An inexact chance-constrained programming model for water quality management in Binhai New Area of Tianjin, China. Sci Total Environ 409:1757–1773. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.01.036
Xu Y, Ge Y, Song JX, Rensing C (2020) Assembly of root-associated microbial community of typical rice cultivars in different soil types. Biol Fertil Soils 56:249–260. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-019-01406-2
Xu J (2004) Application of QUAL2E model for prediction of water quality of Dagu River. Rural Eco-Environment 20:33–37
Xu Y, Qin XS (2010) Agricultural effluent control under uncertainty: an inexact double-sided fuzzy chance-constrained model. Adv Water Resour 33:997–1014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2010.06.002
Zeng XT, Li YP, Huang GH, Liu J (2015) A two-stage interval-stochastic water trading model for allocating water resources of Kaidu-Kongque River in northwestern China. J Hydroinf 17:551–569. https://doi.org/10.2166/hydro.2015.090
Zeng XT, Li YP, Huang GH, Liu J (2016) Modeling water trading under uncertainty for supporting water resources management in an arid region. J Water Resour Plan Manag 142:04015058. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000593
Zhai Y, Zhao RF, Li YB, Li Y, Meng FD, Wang TN (2020) Stochastic inversion method for dynamic constitutive model of rock materials based on improved DREAM. Int J Impact Eng 147:103739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2020.103739
Zhang C, Guo S, Zhang F, Engel BA, Guo P (2019a) Towards sustainable water resources planning and pollution control: inexact joint-probabilistic double-sided stochastic chance-constrained programming model. Sci Total Environ 657:73–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.11.463
Zhang G, Zhao, YG (2008) SOTER database for China, scale 1:1 million. Institute of Soil Science, Chinese Institute of Soil Science, Nanjing.
Zhang JL, Li YP, Zeng XT, Huang GH, Li Y, Zhu Y, Kong FL, Xi M, Liu J (2019b) Effluent trading planning and its application in water quality management: a factor-interaction perspective. Environ Res 168:286–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2018.09.029
Zhang Q, Li Z (2019) Development of an interval quadratic programming water quality management model and its solution algorithms. J Clean Prod 249:119319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119319
Zhang XD, Huang GH, Nie XH (2009) Optimal decision schemes for agricultural water quality management planning with imprecise objective. Agric Water Manag 96:1723–1731. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2009.07.011
Zhu Y, Li YP, Huang GH, Fan YR, Nie S (2015) A dynamic model to optimize municipal electric power systems by considering carbon emission trading under uncertainty. Energy 88:636–649. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.05.106
Zolfagharipoor MA, Ahmadi A (2017) Effluent trading in river systems through stochastic decision-making process: a case study. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24:20655–20672. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-9720-z
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (51809145, 42007412), Shandong Key Laboratory of Water Pollution Control and Resource Reuse (Grant No. 2019KF10), 2018 Ministry of Education Humanity and Social Science (No.18YJC630152). The authors are grateful to the editors and the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
Appendix A
The assessment of SWAT model parameters contains uncertainties originating from errors and spatiotemporal heterogeneity, which may encounter difficulties in accurately depicting nutrient fate with an unrealistic estimation of parameter uncertainty. MCMC will provide a valid way that would account for parameter uncertainty in a Bayesian inference. The Bayesian theorem can be showed as follows (Zhang et al. 2019a, b):
where \(f_{post} (\theta \left| {y_{obs} } \right.)\) represents the posterior distribution of parameter set \(\theta\) that is dated from the prior distribution \(f_{pri} (\theta )\) conditioned on observed data \(y_{obs}\); \(f_{M} (y_{obs} \left| \theta \right.)\) is the likelihood function. In the study, the simulation errors are assumed to be independent and identically normally distributed, which determines the construction of the likelihood function and is the basis of the entire Bayesian calibration process. The likelihood function is (Raje and Krishnan 2012):
where \(y_{t}\) is the simulated nutrient loading with SWAT at time step \(t\); \(y_{obs,t}\) is the observed data at time step \(t\); \(\sigma_{e}^{2}\) is the variance of the simulation errors.
Phosphorous (P) and Nitrogen (N) are transported by attaching to eroded soil or being dissolved in surface runoff, which is simulated based on spatial information on climate, topography, soil properties, land use and management practices. The process simulation of nitrogen (N) in soil can be divided into two main parts, including nitrate transport and organic nitrogen N loss. Nitrate is transported by dissolving in surface runoff, lateral flow, or percolation. The nitrate concentration in mobile water can be calculated by the following equation:
where \(NO_{{3{\kern 1pt} surf}}\) is the nitrate removed in surface runoff (kg/ha); \(\beta_{{NO_{3} }}\) represents the nitrate percolation coefficient; \(NO_{{3{\kern 1pt}_{ly} }}\) is the amount of nitrate in the soil layer (kg/ha); \(w_{mobile}\) represents the amount of mobile water in the layer (mm H2O); \(\theta_{e}\) is the fraction of porosity from which anions are excluded; \(SAT_{ly}\) is the water content of the soil layer; \(Q_{lat,ly}\) represents the water discharged from the layer by lat-eral flow (mm H2O); and \(w_{perc,ly}\) denotes the amount of water percolating to the underlying soil layer (mm H2O). The organic N runoff loss based on the organic N concentration in the top soil layer and the sediment yield can be calculated by using the following equation:
where \(orgN_{surf}\) is the amount of organic N transported to the chief channel in surface runoff (kg/ha); \(conc_{orgN}\) denotes the organic N concentration in the top 10 mm (g/kg); \(area_{hru}\) is the HRU area (ha); and \(\varepsilon_{sedN}\) represents the N enrichment ratio. SWAT simulates the dynamics of three forms of phosphorous (P), including organic P which exists in humus, insoluble mineral P and soluble P. The amount of organic P transported with sediment to the stream is simulated with a loading function as depicted in organic N as follows:
where \(orgP_{surf}\) is the amount of organic P transported to the main channel in surface runoff (kg/ha); \(conc_{orgP}\) denotes the organic P concentration in the top 10 mm (g/kg); and \(\varepsilon_{sedP}\) represents the P enrichment ratio. Because of the low mobility of soluble P, SWAT only considers the loss of the soluble P with surface runoff based on labile P concentration in the top soil layer. The migration of soluble P in surface runoff is:
where \(P_{surf}\) represents the amount of soluble P lost in surface runoff (kg/ha); \(P_{soluble,surf}\) is the amount of soluble P in the top 10 mm (kg/ha); \(\rho_{b}\) denotes the bulk density of the top 10 mm (Mg/m3); and \(k_{d,surf}\) the P soil partitioning coefficient (m3 /Mg).
Appendix B
1. Intra-watershed trading case:
The objective is to maximize the ultimate net system benefit, which is calculated with the total environmental penalty and the total initial net system benefit which removes the cost. The ultimate system net benefit considers the total initial system net benefits and the environmental penalties of agriculture, livestock and poultry industry, fishery and company. The constraints to be complied with can be divided into the following groups:
(a) Constraints for TP permit reallocation
(b) Constraints for NH3-N permit reallocation
Constraints (B2)–(B5) and (B6)–(B9) represent the trading process of TP and NH3-N discharge permits for 18 pollution sources, respectively. Through the trading, the reallocation of discharge permits can be optimized to obtain the maximum net benefits and minimum environmental penalties. In addition, the reallocated TP and NH3-N discharge permits for each pollution source in Daguhe watershed and Moshuihe watershed respectively are equal to that the initial discharge permits plus the purchasing permits, and minus the selling permits.
(c) Constraints for TP trading rules
(d) Constraints for NH3-N trading rules
Constraints (B10)–(B14) and (B15)–(B19) can contribute to the trading of TP and NH3-N discharge permits for pollution sources in Daguhe watershed and Moshuihe watershed, respectively. And following the trading rules that the discharge permits sold by the pollution sources should be larger than the sum of the discharge permits they purchase and possess.
(e) Constraints for TP environmental limit.
(f) Constraints for NH3-N environmental limit.
The environmental limits for TP and NH3-N are set for the four industries, the four reaches in Daguhe watershed, the two reaches in Moshuihe watershed, the whole Daguhe watershed and the whole Moshuihe watershed in constraints (B20)–(B27) and (B28)–(B35).
(g) Energy and protein requirements constraints
Constraints (B36) and (B37) represent that the energy and digestible protein content from crops in Daguhe watershed should be larger than the demand of humans and livestocks, respectively. Constraints (B38) and (B39) represent that the energy and digestible protein content from crops in Moshuihe watershed should be larger than the demand of humans, respectively.
(h) Technical and non-negativity constraint
Besides, the technology and non-negative constraints comprise other decision variables in the model, including the excess TP and NH3-N emission of each pollution source and the trading amount between two pollution sources from the same watershed. In addition, the excess TP and NH3-N emission of each pollution source are lower than the total TP and NH3-N emission from the pollution source, respectively; the pollution sources’ reallocated TP and NH3-N emission permits should be higher than the minimum reallocated emission permits, which are set as 25% of the initial emission permits in this study; within the same watershed the TP and NH3-N emission permits sold from source A to source B should be equal to the emission permits purchased from source A by source B, such as \(TPb_{niw} { = }TPs_{niw}\), and the TP and NH3-N trading amount should be lower than the initial pollutant discharge permit of the source.
2. Non-trading case:
(a) Constraints for TP environmental limit
(b) Constraints for NH3-N environmental limit
(c) Energy and protein requirements constraints
(d) Technical and non-negativity constraints
Besides, the technology and non-negative constraints comprise the excess TP and NH3-N emission of each pollution source. And the excess TP and NH3-N emission of each pollution source are lower than the total TP and NH3-N emission from the source, respectively.
Appendix C
9,
10,
11, and
12.
Appendix D
\(i\) | Agricultural zone, \(i = 1, \, 2, \, 3, \, 4, \, 5\); \(i = 1\) for Laixi zone, \(i = 2\) for Pingdu zone, \(i = 3\) for Jiaozhou zone, \(i = 4\) for Daguhe Jimo zone, \(i = 5\) for Moshuihe Jimo zone |
---|---|
\(j\) | Species of crops, \(j = 1, \, 2, \, 3, \, 4, \ldots ,11\); \(j = 1\) for wheat, \(j = 2\) for corn, \(j = 3\) for peanut, \(j = 4\) for chinese cabbage, \(j = 5\) for celery, \(j = 6\) for carrot, \(j = 7\) for potato, \(j = 8\) for apple, \(j = 9\) for pear, \(j = 10\) for peach, \(j = 11\) for grape |
\(n\) | Livestock and poultry industry zone, \(n = 1, \, 2, \, 3\); \(n = 1\) for Laixi zone,\(n = 2\) for Pingdu zone, \(n = 3\) for Jiaozhou zone |
\(r\) | Species of livestocks, \(r = 1, \, 2, \, 3, \, 4\); \(r = 1\) for chicken, \(r = 2\) for pig, \(r = 3\) for cattle, \(r = 4\) for cow |
\(p\) | Fishery zone, \(p = 1, \, 2, \, 3\); \(p = 1\) for Laixi zone, \(p = 2\) for Pingdu zone, \(p = 3\) for Jiaozhou zone |
\(m\) | company, \(m = 1, \, 2, \, 3, \, 4, \, 5, \, 6, \, 7\); \(m = 1\) for Qingdao Zhengyuan Iron and Steel Co., Ltd \(m = 2\) for Qingdao Tongyuanchang Steel Co., Ltd \(m = 3\) for Qingdao Hehe Chemical Co., Ltd \(m = 4\) for Qingdao Zeyukaisheng Machinery Manufacturing Co., Ltd \(m = 5\) for Qingdao Huataida Machinery Manufacturing Co., Ltd \(m = 6\) for Qingdao Jingrui Machinery Manufacturing Co., Ltd \(m = 7\) for Qingdao Jinguangxin Textile Co., Ltd |
\(i^{\prime}\) | Other agricultural zone except zone \(i\) |
\(n^{\prime}\) | Other livestock and poultry industry zone except zone \(n\) |
\(r^{\prime}\) | Other species of livestocks except \(r\) |
\(p^{\prime}\) | Other fishery zone except zone \(p\) |
\(m^{\prime}\) | Other company except company \(m\) |
\(w\) | The level of water availability, \( w = 1, \, 2, \, 3\); \(w = 1\) for high level, \(w = 2\) for low level, \(w = 3\) for medium level |
\(q\) | Reaches in Daguhe watershed, \(q = 1, \, 2, \, 3, \, 4\);\(q = 1\) for Laixi reach,\(q = 2\) for Pingdu reach,\(q = 3\) for Jiaozhou reach,\(q = 4\) for Jimo reach |
\(o\) | Reaches in Moshuihe watershed,\(o = 1, \, 2\) |
\(k\) | TP-generation level of agriculture |
\(s\) | NH3-N-generation level of agriculture |
\(h\) | A prescribed level of probability for each constraint |
\(AB_{j}^{ \pm }\) | Net benefit of crop \(j\) (RMB¥/ha) |
\(AP_{ij}^{ \pm }\) | Production level of crop \(j\) in agricultural zone \(i\) (kg/ha) |
\(X_{ij}^{ - } ,\Delta X_{ij}\) | Lower bound and range of area target for crop j in zone \(i\) (ha) |
\(o_{ijw} , \, r_{nrw} , \, s_{pw} , \, e_{mw}\) | Decision variables which are used for identifying the optimized targets of cropped area, the scale of livestock and poultry industry, the scale of fishery and the production level of company |
\(SB_{p}^{ \pm }\) | Net benefit of zone \(p\) (RMB¥/ha) |
\(Z_{p}^{ - } ,\Delta Z_{p}\) | Lower bound and range of the scale of fishery zone \(p\) |
\(CB_{m}^{ \pm }\) | Net benefit of per unit product of company \(m\) (RMB¥) |
\(Y_{m}^{ - } ,\Delta Y_{m}\) | Lower bound and range of the production level of company \(m\) |
\(h_{k}\) | Probability of TP generation rate in agriculture |
\(k_{s}\) | Probability of NH3-N generation rate in agriculture |
\(PF\) | Penalties per ton excess TP effluents exceeding to discharge permits from pollution source (RMB¥/ton) |
\(NF\) | Penalties per ton excess NH3-N effluents exceeding to discharge permits from pollution source (RMB¥/ton) |
\( EDPA_{ikw}^{ \pm } ,{\kern 1pt} {\kern 1pt} {\kern 1pt} {\kern 1pt} {\kern 1pt} {\kern 1pt} {\kern 1pt} {\kern 1pt} EDPR_{nw}^{ \pm } EDPP_{pw}^{ \pm } EDPC_{mw}^{ \pm }\) | Excess annual TP loading for agricultural zone \(i\), livestock and poultry industry zone \(n\), fishery zone \(p\) and company \(m\) (ton) |
\(EDNA_{isw}^{ \pm } , \, EDNR_{nw}^{ \pm } , \, EDNP_{pw}^{ \pm } , \, EDNC_{mw}^{ \pm }\) | Excess annual NH3-N loading for agricultural zone i, livestock and poultry industry zone \(n\), fishery zone \(p\) and company \(m\) (ton) |
\(DWP^{ \pm } , \, DWM_{{_{m} }}^{ \pm }\) | Effluent generation rate of fishery zone and company \(m\) (m3/ha; m3/ton, item) |
\(CWPA_{{_{k} }}^{ \pm } , \, CWPR_{{_{r} }}^{ \pm } , \, CWPP^{ \pm } , \, CWPM_{{_{m} }}^{ \pm }\) | TP generation rate of agricultural zone \(i\), livestock \(r\), fishery zone \(p\) and company \(m\) (ton/ha; ton/item; ton/m3; ton/m3) |
\(CWNA_{{_{s} }}^{ \pm } ,{\kern 1pt} {\kern 1pt} {\kern 1pt} {\kern 1pt} {\kern 1pt} {\kern 1pt} CWNR_{{_{r} }}^{ \pm } , \, CWNP^{ \pm } , \, CWNM_{{_{m} }}^{ \pm }\) | NH3-N generation rate of agricultural zone \(i\), livestock \(r\), fishery zone \(p\) and company \(m\) (ton/ha; ton/item; ton/m3; ton/m3) |
\(TPI_{iw} , \, TPN_{nw} , \, TPP_{pw} , \, TPM_{mw}\) | TP discharge permit allocated to agricultural zone \(i\), livestock and poultry industry \(n\), fishery zone \(p\) and company \(m\) in level \(w\), respectively (ton) |
\( TNI_{iw} TNN_{nw} TNP_{pw} TNM_{mw}\) | NH3-N discharge permit allocated to agricultural zone \(i\), livestock and poultry industry \(n\), fishery zone \(p\) and company \(m\) in level \(w\), respectively (ton) |
\(ACEP_{iw} ,{\kern 1pt} \, LCEP_{nw} , \, SCEP_{pw} , \, CCEP_{mw}\) | TP discharge permit that agricultural \(i\), livestock and poultry industry zone \(n\), fishery zone \(p\) and company \(m\) possess after trading program in level \(w\) (ton) |
\(ACEN_{iw} , \, LCEN_{nw} , \, SCEN_{pw} , \, CCEN_{mw}\) | NH3-N discharge permit that agricultural \(i\), livestock and poultry industry zone \(n\), fishery zone \(p\) and company \(m\) possess after trading program in level \(w\) (ton) |
\(TP_{i^{\prime}iw} {, }TPs_{niw} , \, TPs_{piw} , \, TPs_{miw}\) | TP discharge permit sold to agricultural zone \(i\) from agricultural zone \(i^{\prime}\), livestock and poultry industry zone \(n\), fishery zone \(p\) and company \(m\), respectively (ton) |
\(TP_{n^{\prime}nw} , \, TPs_{inw} , \, TPs_{pnw} , \, TPs_{mnw}\) | TP discharge permit sold to livestock and poultry industry zone \(n\) from livestock and poultry industry zone \(n^{\prime}\), agricultural zone \(i\), fishery zone \(p\) and company \(m\), respectively (ton) |
\(TP_{p^{\prime}pw} , \, TPs_{ipw} , \, TPs_{npw} , \, TPs_{mpw}\) | TP discharge permit sold to fishery zone \(p\) from fishery zone \(p^{\prime}\), agricultural zone \(i\), livestock and poultry industry zone \(n\) and company \(m\), respectively (ton) |
\(TP_{m^{\prime}mw} , \, TPs_{imw} , \, TPs_{nmw} , \, TPs_{pmw}\) | TP discharge permit sold to company \(m\) from company \(m^{\prime}\), agricultural zone \(i\), livestock and poultry industry zone \(n\) and fishery zone \(p\), respectively (ton) |
\(TPb_{niw} , \, TPb_{piw} , \, TPb_{miw}\) | TP discharge permit in agricultural zone \(i\) purchased from livestock and poultry industry zone \(n\), fishery zone \(p\) and company \(m\), respectively (ton) |
\(TPb_{inw} , \, TPb_{pnw} , \, TPb_{mnw}\) | TP discharge permit in livestock and poultry industry zone \(n\) purchased from agricultural zone \(i\), fishery zone \(p\) and company \(m\), respectively (ton) |
\(TPb_{ipw} , \, TPb_{npw} , \, TPb_{mpw}\) | TP discharge permit in fishery zone \(p\) purchased from agricultural zone \(i\), livestock and poultry industry zone \(n\) and company \(m\), respectively (ton) |
\(TPb_{imw} , \, TPb_{nmw} , \, TPb_{pmw}\) | TP discharge permit in company \(m\) purchased from agricultural zone \(i\), livestock and poultry industry zone \(n\) and fishery zone \(p\), respectively (ton) |
\(TP_{ii^{\prime}w} , \, TP_{nn^{\prime}w} , \, TP_{pp^{\prime}w} , \, TP_{mm^{\prime}w}\) | TP discharge permit agricultural zone \(i\) sold to \(i^{\prime}\), livestock and poultry industry zone \(n\) sold to \(n^{\prime}\), fishery zone \(p\) sold to \(p^{\prime}\) and company \(m\) sold to \(m^{\prime}\),respectively (ton) |
\(TN_{i^{\prime}iw} , \, TNs_{niw} , \, TNs_{piw} , \, TNs_{miw}\) | NH3-N discharge permit sold to agricultural zone \(i\) from agricultural zone \(i^{\prime}\), livestock and poultry industry zone \(n\), fishery zone \(p\) and company \(m\), respectively (ton) |
\(TN_{n^{\prime}nw} , \, TNs_{inw} , \, TNs_{pnw} , \, TNs_{mnw}\) | NH3-N discharge permit sold to livestock and poultry industry zone \(n\) from livestock and poultry industry zone \(n^{\prime}\), agricultural zone \(i\), fishery zone \(p\) and company \(m\), respectively (ton) |
\(TN_{p^{\prime}pw} , \, TNs_{ipw} , \, TNs_{npw} , \, TNs_{mpw}\) | NH3-N discharge permit sold to fishery zone \(p\) from fishery zone \(p^{\prime}\), agricultural zone \(i\), livestock and poultry industry zone \(n\) and company \(m\), respectively (ton) |
\(TN_{m^{\prime}mw} , \, TNs_{imw} , \, TNs_{nmw} , \, TNs_{pmw}\) | NH3-N discharge permit sold to company \(m\) from company \(m^{\prime}\), agricultural zone \(i\), livestock and poultry industry zone \(n\) and fishery zone \(p\), respectively (ton) |
\(TNb_{niw} , \, TNb_{piw} , \, TNb_{miw}\) | NH3-N discharge permit in agricultural zone \(i\) purchased from livestock and poultry industry zone \(n\), fishery zone \(p\) and company \(m\), respectively (ton) |
\(TNb_{inw} , \, TNb_{pnw} , \, TNb_{mnw}\) | NH3-N discharge permit in livestock and poultry industry zone \(n\) purchased from agricultural zone \(i\), fishery zone \(p\) and company \(m\), respectively (ton) |
\(TNb_{ipw} , \, TNb_{npw} , \, TNb_{mpw}\) | NH3-N discharge permit in fishery zone \(p\) purchased from agricultural zone \(i\), livestock and poultry industry zone \(n\) and company \(m\), respectively (ton) |
\( TNb_{imw} TNb_{nmw} TNb_{pmw}\) | NH3-N discharge permit in company \(m\) purchased from agricultural zone \(i\), livestock and poultry industry zone \(n\) and fishery zone \(p\), respectively (ton) |
\(TN_{ii^{\prime}w} , \, TN_{nn^{\prime}w} , \, TN_{pp^{\prime}w} , \, TN_{mm^{\prime}w}\) | NH3-N discharge permit agricultural zone \(i\) sold to \(i^{\prime}\), livestock and poultry industry zone \(n\) sold to \(n^{\prime}\), fishery zone \(p\) sold to \(p^{\prime}\) and company \(m\) sold to \(m^{\prime}\),respectively (ton) |
\(tp_{i^{\prime}i} , \, tp_{ni} , \, tp_{pi} , \, tp_{mi}\) | TP trading ratio of transaction from agricultural zone \(i^{\prime}\), livestock and poultry industry zone \(n\), fishery zone \(p\) and company \(m\) to agricultural zone \(i\), respectively |
\(tp_{n^{\prime}n} , \, tp_{in} , \, tp_{pn} , \, tp_{mn}\) | TP trading ratio of transaction from livestock and poultry industry zone \(n^{\prime}\), agricultural zone \(i\), fishery zone \(p\) and company \(m\) to livestock and poultry industry zone \(n\), respectively |
\(tp_{p^{\prime}p} , \, tp_{ip} , \, tp_{np} , \, tp_{mp}\) | TP trading ratio of transaction from fishery zone \(p^{\prime}\), agricultural zone \(i\), livestock and poultry industry zone \(n\) and company \(m\) to fishery zone \(p\), respectively |
\(tp_{m^{\prime}m} , \, tp_{im} , \, tp_{nm} , \, tp_{pm}\) | TP trading ratio of transaction from company \(m^{\prime}\), agricultural zone \(i\), livestock and poultry industry zone \(n\) and fishery zone \(p\) to company \(m\), respectively |
\(tp_{ii^{\prime}} , \, tp_{nn^{\prime}} , \, tp_{pp^{\prime}} , \, tp_{mm^{\prime}}\) | TP trading ratio of transaction from agricultural zone \(i\) to \(i^{\prime}\), from livestock and poultry industry zone \(n\) to \(n^{\prime}\), from fishery zone \(p\) to \(p^{\prime}\) and from company \(m\) to \(m^{\prime}\), respectively |
\(tn_{i\prime,i} , \, tn_{ni} , \, tn_{pi} , \, tn_{mi}\) | NH3-N trading ratio of transaction from agricultural zone \(i^{\prime}\), livestock and poultry industry zone \(n\), fishery zone \(p\) and company \(m\) to agricultural zone \(i\), respectively |
\(tn_{n^{\prime}n} , \, tn_{in} , \, tn_{pn} , \, tn_{mn}\) | NH3-N trading ratio of transaction from livestock and poultry industry zone \(n^{\prime}\), agricultural zone \(i\), fishery zone \(p\) and company \(m\) to livestock and poultry industry zone \(n\), respectively |
\(tn_{p^{\prime}p} , \, tn_{ip} , \, tn_{np} , \, tn_{mp}\) | NH3-N trading ratio of transaction from fishery zone \(p^{\prime}\), agricultural zone \(i\), livestock and poultry industry zone \(n\) and company \(m\) to fishery zone \(p\), respectively |
\(tn_{m^{\prime}m} , \, tn_{im} , \, tn_{nm} , \, tn_{pm}\) | NH3-N trading ratio of transaction from company \(m^{\prime}\), agricultural zone \(i\), livestock and poultry industry zone \(n\) and fishery zone \(p\) to company \(m\), respectively |
\(tn_{ii^{\prime}} , \, tn_{nn^{\prime}} , \, tn_{pp^{\prime}} , \, tn_{mm^{\prime}}\) | NH3-N trading ratio of transaction from agricultural zone \(i\) to \(i^{\prime}\), from livestock and poultry industry zone \(n\) to \(n^{\prime}\), from fishery zone \(p\) to \(p^{\prime}\) and from company \(m\) to \(m^{\prime}\), respectively |
\(p_{h}\) | Constraint-violation probability |
\(PE_{r}\) | The quantity of energy in per kg of crop \(j\) (kcal/kg) |
\(LE_{r}\) | The quantity of required energy in per livestock \(r\) (kcal/one) |
\(DP\) | Total population in Daguhe watershed |
\(MP\) | Total population in Moshuihe watershed |
\(NE\) | The quantity of required energy for per person from the crop in each year (kcal/one/a) |
\(CE_{j}\) | The quantity of digestible protein in per kg of crop \(j\) (g/kg) |
\(LP_{r}\) | The quantity of required digestible protein for per livestock \(r\) in each year (g/one/a) |
\(NP\) | The quantity of required digestible protein for per person (g/one/a) |
\(TPA_{iw} , \, TPL_{nw} , \, TPS_{pw} , \, TPC_{mw}\) | Allowance of TP emission for agricultural zones, livestock and poultry industry zones, fishery zones and companies within the two watersheds in level w (ton) |
\(TNA_{iw} , \, TNL_{nw} , \, TNS_{pw} , \, TNC_{mw}\) | Allowance of NH3-N emission for agricultural zones, livestock and poultry industry zones, fishery zones and companies within the two watersheds in level w (ton) |
\(TPG_{w}\) | Allowance of TP emission in Daguhe watershed in level w (ton) |
\(TNG_{w}\) | Allowance of NH3-N emission in Daguhe watershed in level w (ton) |
\(TPGF_{qw}\) | Allowance of TP emission in reach q, Daguhe watershed in level w (ton) |
\(TNGF_{qw}\) | Allowance of NH3-N emission in reach q, Daguhe watershed in level w (ton) |
\(TPW_{w}\) | Allowance of TP emission in Moshuihe watershed in level w (ton) |
\(TNW_{w}\) | Allowance of NH3-N emission in Moshuihe watershed in level w (ton) |
\(TPWF_{ow}\) | Allowance of TP emission in reach o, Moshuihe watershed in level w (ton) |
\(TNWF_{ow}\) | Allowance of NH3-N emission in reach o, Moshuihe watershed in level w (ton) |
\(TPT_{w}\) | Allowance of TP emission in both watersheds in level w (ton) |
\(TNT_{w}\) | Allowance of NH3-N emission in both watersheds in level w (ton) |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Xu, X., Zeng, X., Li, Y. et al. Multi-watershed nonpoint source pollution management through coupling Bayesian-based simulation and mechanism-based effluent trading optimization. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 36, 1313–1351 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-021-02130-w
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-021-02130-w