Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 22, Issue 9, pp 6546–6558 | Cite as

Game theory and fuzzy programming approaches for bi-objective optimization of reservoir watershed management: a case study in Namazgah reservoir

  • N. Üçler
  • G. Onkal EnginEmail author
  • H. G. Köçken
  • M. S. Öncel
Research Article


In this study, game theory and fuzzy programming approaches were used to balance economic and environmental impacts in the Namazgah reservoir, Turkey. The main goals identified were to maximize economic benefits of land use and to protect water quality of reservoir and land resources. Total phosphorous load (kg ha−1 year−1) and economic income (USD ha−1 year−1) from land use were determined as environmental value and economic value, respectively. The surface area of existing land use types, which are grouped under 10 headings according to the investigations on the watershed area, and the constraint values for the watershed were calculated using aerial photos, master plans, and basin slope map. The results of fuzzy programming approach were found to be very close to the results of the game theory model. It was concluded that the amount of fertilizer used in the current situation presents a danger to the reservoir and, therefore, unnecessary fertilizer use should be prevented. Additionally, nuts, fruit, and vegetable cultivation, instead of wheat and corn cultivation, was found to be more suitable due to their high economic income and low total phosphorus (TP) load. Apart from agricultural activities, livestock farming should also be considered in the area as a second source of income. It is believed that the results obtained in this study will help decision makers to identify possible problems of the watershed.


Reservoir watershed management Game theory Fuzzy programming Bi-objective optimization 


  1. Abaci O, Papanicolaou AN (2007) Identifying the equilibrium conditions for an agricultural Iowa catchment using the Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) model. Proceeding of ASCE World Environmental and Water Resources Congress: Restoring Our Natural Habitat, Tampa, Florida
  2. Andreadakis A, Gavalakis E, Kaliakatsos L, Noutsopoulos C, Tzimas A (2007) The implementation of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) at the river basin of Anthemountas with emphasis on the pressures and impacts analysis. Desalination 210(1–3):1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chen CW, Dean JD, Gherini SA, Goldstein RA (1982) Acid rain model hydrologic module. J. Environ. Eng. ASCE 108(E3):455-472 (The doi for this paper is not reachable)Google Scholar
  4. Crawford NH, Linsley RK (1966) Digital simulation in hydrology: Stanford Watershed Model IV. Technical report No. 39, Department of Civil Engineering, Stanford University, 210.Google Scholar
  5. Dahl S, Kurtar B (1993) Environmental situation, working paper, no. 21, Omerli and Elmalı Environmental Protection Project—Feasibility Report, Omerli and Elmalı Joint Venture 1.1–5.10, TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  6. Davila E, Chang NB, Diwakaruni S (2005) Landfill space consumption dynamics in the lower Rio Grande valley by grey integer programming-based games. J. Environ. Manage. 75:353–365
  7. Draper AJ, Jenkins MW, Kirby KW, Lund JR, Howitt RE (2003) Economic-engineering optimization for California water management. J Water Res Plan Manag ASCE 129(3):155–164. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(2003)129:3(155) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Duckstein L, Opricovic S (1980) Multiobjective optimization in river basin development. Water Resour Res 16(1):14–20. doi: 10.1029/WR016i001p00014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. East Marmara Development Agency (2011) The food specialized organized industrial zone report.
  10. Erturk A, Gurel M, Ekdal A, Tavsan C, Ugurluoglu A, Seker DZ, Tanik A et al (2010) Water quality assessment and meta model development in Melen watershed—Turkey. J Environ Manag 91(7):1526–1545. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.02.021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Esen E, Uslu O (2008) Assessment of the effects of agricultural practices on non-point source pollution for a coastal watershed: a case study Nif Watershed, Turkey. Ocean Coastal Manag 51(8–9):601–611. doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2008.06.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gershon M, Duckstein L (1983) Multi objective approaches to river basin planning. J Water Res Plan Manag 109(1):13–28. doi: 10.1029/WR018i002p00193 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gibbons R (1997) An introduction to applicable game theory. J Econ Perspect 11:127–149. doi: 10.1257/jep.11.1.127 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Habarth ML, Barkdoll B (2009) Hydrologic modeling and flood frequency analysis of the Sonora River Watershed in Sonora, Northwest Mexico. Proceeding of World Environmental and Water Resources Congress: Great Rivers. Kansas City, Missouri,
  15. Hadjikakou M, Whitehead PG, Jin L, Futter M, Hadjinicolaou P, Shahgedanova M (2011) Modelling nitrogen in the Yeşilirmak River catchment in Northern Turkey: impacts of future climate and environmental change and implications for nutrient management. Sci Total Environ 409(12):2404–2418. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.02.038 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jenkins MW, Lund JR, Howitt RE, Draper AJ, Msangi SM, Tanaka SK, Ritzema RS, Marques GF (2004) Optimization of California’s water system: results and insights. J Water Resour Plan Manag 130(4):271–280. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(2004)130:4(271) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kacar B, Katkat V (1997) Phosphorous in agriculture. Bursa Chamber of Commerce Publications, Bursa, in TurkishGoogle Scholar
  18. Karpuzcu M, Wendland F, Kocal M, Tetzlaff B, Pekdeger A, Oncel S, Voigt H, et al. (2006) Preliminary investigation on integrated modelling of nutrient loads in catchment areas. A case study: the Porsuk Reservoir catchment. 10th Int. Specialised Conference on Diffuse Pollution and Sustainable Basin Management, IstanbulGoogle Scholar
  19. Lamy F, Bolte J, Santelmann M, Smith C (2002) Development and evaluation of multiple-objective decision-making methods for watershed management planning. J Am Water Resour Assoc 38:17–529. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-1688.2002.tb04334.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lee CS (2012) Multi-objective game-theory models for conflict analysis in reservoir watershed management. Chemosphere 87(6):608–613. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2012.01.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lee CS, Chang SP (2005) Interactive fuzzy optimization for an economic and environmental balance in a river system. Water Res 39(1):221–231. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2004.09.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lund JR, Ferreira I (1996) Operating rule optimization for Missouri River reservoir system. J Water Res Plan Manag 122(4):287–295. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(1996)122:4(287) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lund JR, Palmer RN (1997) Water resource system modeling for conflict resolution. Water Resour. 3(108):70–82 (Water Resources Update was established in 1964. Current title is named as the Journal of Contemporary Water Resources Research and Education. Therefore the doi for this paper is not reachable.)Google Scholar
  24. Maneta MP, Torres MO, Wallender WW, Vosti S, Howitt R, Rodrigues L, Bassoi LH, Panday S (2009) A spatially distributed hydroeconomic model to assess the effects of drought on land use, farm profits, and agricultural employment. Water Resour Res 45:1–19. doi: 10.1029/2008WR007534 Google Scholar
  25. Ministry of Environment and Urbanization (2009) Food specialized organized industrial zone environmental impact assessment report.
  26. Ministry of Environment and Urbanization (2011) Namazgah reservoir environmental impact assessment report.…/723_nihai.pdf
  27. Mirchi A, Watkins DJr, Madani K (2009) Modelling for watershed planning, management, and decision making. In: Vaughn JC (ed) Watersheds: management, restoration and environmental. Nova Science Publishers, Inc, pp 1-25Google Scholar
  28. Murat H (2011) Economic analysis of dairy cattle establishments under the Cattle Breeders Association in Aegean and Central Anatolian regions. Dissertation, Ankara UniversityGoogle Scholar
  29. OEJV (1993) Omerli-Elmali Joint Venture/Protection Omerli and Elmali Environmental Protection Project, Feasibility Study, Progress Report, Istanbul Water and Sewerage Administration, Turkey (in Turkish)Google Scholar
  30. Osborne M, Rubinstein A (1994) A course of game theory. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  31. Ozturk I, Tanik A, Cokgor E, Gurel M, Mantas E, Insel G, Ozabalı A (2007a) Final report of the watershed protection action plan, greater Istanbul water supply Melen system 2nd stage project of big Melen river basin integrated protection and water management master plan, Istanbul Technical University, Department of Environmental Engineering, Istanbul, Turkey (in Turkish)Google Scholar
  32. Ozturk I, Tanik A, Seker DZ, Alp K, Gurel M, Erturk A, Ekdal A, Tavsan C, Zorlutuna Y (2007b) Water quality final feasibility report, greater Istanbul water supply Melen system 2nd stage project of big Melen river basin integrated protection and water management master plan. Istanbul Technical University, Department of Environmental Engineering, Istanbul (in Turkish)Google Scholar
  33. Parrachino I, Zara S, Patrone F (2006) Cooperative game theory and its application to natural, environmental, and water resource. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, Washington, DC, p 4072Google Scholar
  34. Rogers P (1969) A game theory approach to the problems of international river basins. Water Resour Res 5(4):749–760. doi: 10.1029/WR005i004p00749 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Saatci Y, Ipek U, Tanyildizi S, Cinarci B (1999) Research on determining trophic levels of Keban Dam Lake in Uluova Region. Water Pollut Cont 9(3):41–49, in TurkishGoogle Scholar
  36. Singh VP, Woolhiser DA (2002) Mathematical modeling of watershed hydrology. J Hydrol Eng 7(4):270–292. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0699(2002)7:4(270) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. State Hydraulic Works (2007) VII Regional Directorate of Planning Branch Report,
  38. TUBITAK (2003) Final report on agriculture and food (in Turkish)…/tarimgida_son_surum.pdf
  39. Turoğlu H (2005) Floods occurred in Bartin, flood mitigation and prevention tips. Turkey Quaternary Symposium (in Turkish)
  40. Vollenweider RA (1976) Advances in defining critical loading levels for phosphorus in lake eutrophication. CCIW, Burlington, p 243Google Scholar
  41. Von Neumann J, Morgenstern O (1944) Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  42. Wang JH, Lu XG, Jiang M, Li XY, Tian JH (2009) Fuzzy synthetic evaluation of wetland soil quality degradation: a case study on the Sanjiang Plain, Northeast China. Pedosphere 19(6):756–764. doi: 10.1016/S1002-0160(09)60171-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wen CG, Lee CS (1998) A neural network approach to multi-objective optimization for water quality management in a river basin. Water Resour Res 34:427–436. doi: 10.1029/97WR02943 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zimmermann HJ (1991) Fuzzy set theory and its applications, revised edition. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston/Dordrecht/LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • N. Üçler
    • 1
  • G. Onkal Engin
    • 2
    Email author
  • H. G. Köçken
    • 3
  • M. S. Öncel
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Environmental EngineeringGebze Technical UniversityGebzeTurkey
  2. 2.Faculty of Civil Engineering, Department of Environmental EngineeringYildiz Technical UniversityIstanbulTurkey
  3. 3.Faculty of Chemistry-Metallurgy Engineering, Department of Mathematic EngineeringYildiz Technical UniversityIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations