The European Physical Journal B ( IF 1.6 ) Pub Date : 2021-08-23 , DOI: 10.1140/epjb/s10051-021-00174-z K. Ravikumar 1 , Rakesh Khosa 2 , Ankit Agarwal 3
|
Abstract
Conflict or dispute is common, involving a mismatch of interests or deficit resources shared among the contestants. Eventually, the conflict also exists among the co-riparian states of transboundary rivers contributed by the surrounding lands. In turn, river water needs to be shared based on their deservedness and agreeable to co-riparian. In this study, the inter-state (Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka) dispute over sharing Cauvery River waters in South Peninsular India is being taken up for analysis and game-theoretic modelling. Various options available to the contending co-basin states were analyzed. Also, ‘Fair and Equitable allocations’ were derived based on the deservedness of the contender and considered one of the options on each side of the riparian in the Metagame Analysis. ‘Equity’ describes deservedness based on contribution. The two components of Fairness and Equity (F&E) includes ‘Proportionality and Egalitarianism’. The former talks about deservedness, and the second talks about that equals should be treated equally, and unequal should be treated accordingly. The options adopted by any given player must reflect the hydrologic reality of flow availability. In this regard, options were developed based on the categories of unimpaired flows given as (1) maximum (MAX); (2) upper quartile (UQ), median (MED), and lower quartile (LQ); and (3) minimum (MIN). Accordingly, separate sets of options have been proposed for each player corresponding to each of the above mentioned three flow categories of MAX, [UQ, MED, LQ] and MIN. Metagame Analysis is then used to generate equilibrium outcomes and feasible solutions for three flow categories. For example, for the flow category of LQ, the equilibrium outcome arrived is (1 0 1 0, 1 0 1, 1 0 1) with a decimal value of 725. The interpretation from this outcome: Kerala obtain its with ‘Annual irrigation requirement of 1271.43 \(\hbox {Mm}^{\mathrm {3}}\) and Municipal and industrial requirement of 368.12 \(\hbox {Mm}^{\mathrm {3}}\)’. Tamil Nadu obtains its ‘Annual irrigation requirement of 12,601.0 \(\hbox {Mm}^{\mathrm {3}}\) with support from Prior Appropriation Doctrine (PAD)’. Karnataka obtains its Annual irrigation requirement of 8732.9 \(\hbox {Mm}^{\mathrm {3}}\) with support from Prior Appropriation Doctrine (PAD)’. This study shows that the outlined approach can indeed organize information and, in the process, facilitate a proper understanding of the conflict and also aid in deriving Fair and Equilibrium outcomes as possible candidate solutions to this conflict.
Graphic abstract
中文翻译：
结合流域原始径流潜力的年际变化的高维河争端的元博弈分析
摘要
冲突或纠纷很常见，涉及参赛者之间共享的利益不匹配或资源不足。最终，由周边土地贡献的跨界河流的沿岸国之间也存在冲突。反过来，河水需要根据其应得的和适合共同河岸的共享。在这项研究中，国家间（喀拉拉邦、泰米尔纳德邦和卡纳塔克邦）在印度南部半岛共享高韦里河水域的争议被用于分析和博弈论建模。分析了可供竞争的共同盆地国家使用的各种选择。此外，“公平和公平的分配”是基于竞争者的应得性得出的，并在元游戏分析中考虑了河岸双方的选择之一。“公平”描述了基于贡献的应得程度。公平与公平 (F&E) 的两个组成部分包括“比例性和平等主义”。前者讲应得，后者讲平等应被平等对待，不平等应相应对待。任何特定参与者采用的选项必须反映流量可用性的水文现实。在这方面，选项是根据未受损流量的类别制定的： (1) 最大值 (MAX)；(2) 上四分位数 (UQ)、中位数 (MED) 和下四分位数 (LQ)；(3) 最小值 (MIN)。因此，已经针对与上述MAX、[UQ、MED、LQ]和MIN的三个流类别中的每一个对应的每个玩家提出了单独的选项集。然后使用元博弈分析为三个流类别生成均衡结果和可行解决方案。例如，\(\hbox {Mm}^{\mathrm {3}}\)和市政和工业要求 368.12 \(\hbox {Mm}^{\mathrm {3}}\) '。泰米尔纳德邦获得了“在事先拨款原则 (PAD) 的支持下，每年的灌溉需求为 12,601.0 \(\hbox {Mm}^{\mathrm {3}}\ )”。在事先拨款原则 (PAD)' 的支持下，卡纳塔克邦获得了 8732.9 \(\hbox {Mm}^{\mathrm {3}}\) 的年度灌溉需求。这项研究表明，概述的方法确实可以组织信息，并在此过程中促进对冲突的正确理解，还有助于推导出公平和均衡的结果，作为该冲突的可能候选解决方案。
京公网安备 11010802027423号