Planning water resource systems under uncertainty

Stationarity assumptions of linked human-water systems are frequently invalid given the difficult-to-predict changes affecting such systems. Population growth and development is fuelling rising water demand whilst in some parts of the world water supply is likely to decrease as a result of a changing climate. A combination of infrastructure expansion and demand management will be necessary to maintain the water supply/demand balance. The inherent uncertainty of future conditions is problematic when choosing a strategy to upgrade system capacity. Additionally, changing stakeholder priorities mean multi-criteria planning methods are increasingly relevant. Various modelling-assisted approaches are available to help the water supply planning process. This thesis investigates three state-of-the-art multi-criteria water source systems planning approaches. The first two approaches seek robust rather than optimal solutions; they both use scenario simulation to test the system plans under different plausible versions of the future. Under Robust Decision Making (RDM) alternative strategies are simulated under a wide range of plausible future scenarios and regret analysis is used to select an initial preferred strategy. Statistical cluster analysis identifies causes of system failure enabling further plan improvement. Info-Gap Decision Theory tests the proposed strategies under plausible conditions that progressively deviate from the expected future scenario. Decision makers then use robustness plots to determine how much uncertain parameters can deviate from their expected value before the strategies fail. The third approach links a water resource management simulator and a many-objective evolutionary search algorithm to reveal key trade-offs between performance objectives. The analysis shows that many-objective evolutionary optimisation coupled with state-of-the art visual analytics helps planners assess the best (approximately Pareto-optimal) plans and their inherent trade-offs. The alternative plans are evaluated using performance measures that minimise costs and energy use whilst maximising engineering and environmental performance criteria subject to basic supply reliability constraints set by regulators. The analyses show that RDM and Info-Gap are computationally burdensome but are able to consider a small number of candidate solutions in detail uncovering the solutions’ vulnerabilities in the face of uncertainty in future conditions while the multi-objective optimisation approach is able to consider many more possible portfolios and allow decision makers to visualize the trade-offs between performance metrics

Screening robust water infrastructure investments and their trade-offs under global change: A London example

We propose an approach for screening future infrastructure and demand management investments for large water supply systems subject to uncertain future conditions. The approach is demonstrated using the London water supply system. Promising portfolios of interventions (e.g., new supplies, water conservation schemes, etc.) that meet London’s estimated water supply demands in 2035 are shown to face significant trade-offs between financial, engineering and environmental measures of performance. Robust portfolios are identified by contrasting the multi-objective results attained for (1) historically observed baseline conditions versus (2) future global change scenarios. An ensemble of global change scenarios is computed using climate change impacted hydrological flows, plausible water demands, environmentally motivated abstraction reductions, and future energy prices. The proposed multi-scenario trade-off analysis screens for robust investments that provide benefits over a wide range of futures, including those with little change. Our results suggest that 60 percent of intervention portfolios identified as Pareto optimal under historical conditions would fail under future scenarios considered relevant by stakeholders. Those that are able to maintain good performance under historical conditions can no longer be considered to perform optimally under future scenarios. The individual investment options differ significantly in their ability to cope with varying conditions. Visualizing the individual infrastructure and demand management interventions implemented in the Pareto optimal portfolios in multi-dimensional space aids the exploration of how the interventions affect the robustness and performance of the system

Water resource vulnerability: simulation and optimisation models

Approaches to adaptation to a changing climate in water resource planning have relied on both simulation and optimisation models. Simulation models project the impacts of climate change on water system performance while optimisation models show the optimal system performance under climate change conditions. This study uses two water resource models to analyse a water resource system in Sussex (south-east England) under climatic and socio-economic uncertainty. Overall, the simulation and optimisation models show structural model uncertainty. The simulation model highlights potential vulnerability in current operational practice while the optimisation model shows that the current system could be vulnerable to climate change and demand growth even under the best case scenario. The integrated scenarios in this study combine both types, including climate scenarios from four different climate products over the time periods of 2020s, 2030s and 2050s and socio-economic scenarios represented by different demand profiles. Our results show that water demand quickly becomes a controlling factor once it increases by more than 35% from the 2007 baseline level. Both models demonstrate a gradual increasing risk of supply deficit in the 2020s and the 2030s. Water deficit risks vary widely in the 2050s and are highly dependent on the socioeconomic scenarios

Index-Based Cost-Effectiveness Analysis vs. Least-Cost River Basin Optimization Model: Comparison in the Selection of a Programme of Measures at the River Basin Scale

Increasing water scarcity challenges conventional approaches to managing water resources. More holistic tools and methods are required to support the integrated planning and management of fresh water resources at the river basin level. This paper compares an index-based cost-effectiveness analysis (IBCEA) with a least-cost river basin optimization model (LCRBOM). Both methods are applied to a real case study to design a cost-effective portfolio of water demand and supply management measures that ensures compliance with water supply and environmental targets. The IBCEA is a common approach to select programmes of measures in the implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive. We describe its limitations in finding a least-cost solution at the river basin level and highlight the benefits from implementing a LCRBOM. Both methods are compared in a real case study, the Orb river basin, in the south of France. The performances of the programmes of measures selected by the two methods are compared for the same annual equivalent cost. By ignoring the spatial and temporal variability of water availability and water demands in the river basin and the interconnection among its elements, the aggregated approach used in the standard IBCEA can miss more cost-effective solutions at the river basin scale.This paper is based on work conducted as part of several projects over more than 6 years. It benefited from the financial and technical support of the Agence de l'Eau Rhone Mediteranee et Corse; Conseil General de l'Herault; Conseil Regional du Languedoc Roussillon et ONEMA. Funding was partly provided by the IMPADAPT project /CGL2013-48424-C2-1-R) from the Spanish ministry MINECO (Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad) and European FEDER funds. Corentin Girard is supported by a grant from the University Lecturer Training Programme (FPU12/03803) of the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports of Spain. We are very grateful to Y. Caballero (BRGM), S. Chazot (BRLi), E. Vier and F. Aigoui (GINGERGROUP) and L. Rippert and his team from the SMVOL for their help during the project and for the data provided. We thank as well the two anonymous reviewers, the Associated Editor and Editor-in-Chief of Water Resources Management, for their useful and encouraging comments during the review process.Girard-Martin, CDP.; Rinaudo, J.; Pulido-Velazquez, M. (2015). Index-Based Cost-Effectiveness Analysis vs. Least-Cost River Basin Optimization Model: Comparison in the Selection of a Programme of Measures at the River Basin Scale. Water Resources Management. 29:4129-4155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-015-1049-0S4129415529ACTEON (2011) Research report on the use of cost-effectiveness analysis in regard to the European water framework directive. Acteon PublishingAulong S, Bouzit M, Dörfliger N (2009) Cost–effectiveness analysis of water management measures in two river basins of Jordan and Lebanon. Water Resour Manag 23(4):731–753Balana BB, Vinten A, Slee B (2011) A review on cost-effectiveness analysis of agri-environmental measures related to the EU WFD: key issues, methods, and applications. Ecol Econ 70(6):1021–1031Berbel J, Martin-Ortega J, MESA P (2011) A cost-effectiveness analysis of water-saving measures for the water framework directive: the case of the Guadalquivir river basin in southern Spain. Water Resour Manag 25(2):623–640Brouwer R, Hofkes M (2008) Integrated hydro-economic modelling: approaches, key issues and future research directions. Ecol Econ 66(1):16–22. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.02.009Caballero Y, Girard C (2012) Impact du changement climatique sur la ressource en eau du bassin versant de l’Orb. Rapport BRGM/RP-61319-FR. 40 p., 16 ill. (In French) http://infoterre.brgm.fr/rapports/RP-61319-FR.pdfCastelletti A, Soncini-Sessa R (2006) A procedural approach to strengthening integration and participation in water resource planning. Environ Model Softw 21:1455–1470Chazot S (2011) Perspectives d’evolution de la gestion des volumes stockes dans le barrage des Monts d’Orb. Rapport final, Novembre 2011. BRL Ingenierie. (in French) http://www.vallees-orb-libron.fr/wpcontent/ uploads/2012/12/etude-gestion-Monts-Orb-Rapport-V16.pdfCGP (Commissariat Général du Plan) (2005) Révision du Taux d’Actualisation des Investissements Publics, Rapport du groupe d’experts présidé par Daniel Lebègue, ParisDe Roo A, Burek P, Gentile A, Udias A, Bouraoui F, Aloe A, Bianchi A, La Notte A, Kuik O, Elorza Tenreiro J, Vandecasteele I, Mubareka S, Baranzelli C, Van Der Perk M, Lavalle C, Bidoglio G (2012) A multi-criteria optimisation of scenarios for the protection of water resources in Europe, Support to the EU Blueprint to Safeguard Europe’s Waters, JRC Scientific and policy report, European Commission. http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/111111111/26672Dehnhardt A (2014) The influence of interests and beliefs on the use of environmental cost–benefit analysis in water policy: the case of German policy-makers. Env Pol Gov 24:391–404. doi: 10.1002/eet.1656EC (European Commission) (2000) Directive 2000/60/EC of the European parliament and of the council, of 23 October 2000, establishing a framework for community action in the field of water policy. Off J Eur Econ L 327/1, 22.12.2000. http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/water/water-framework/index_en.htmlEC (European Commission) (2007) Addressing the challenge of water scarcity and droughts in the European Union. Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament, COM(2007) 414, BrusselsEC (European Commission) (2012) A Blueprint to Safeguard Europe’s Water Resources, European Commission, Brussels, 14.11.2012, COM(2012) 673 finalEEA (European Environment Agency) (2012) European waters - assessment of status and pressures, EEA Report No 8/2012, EEA Copenhagen, 2012 http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/european-waters-assessment-2012EEA (European Environment Agency), 2012b. Towards efficient use of water resources in Europe, EEA Report No 1/2012, EEA Copenhagen, 2012 http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/towards-efficient-use-of-waterEl Geriani AM, Essamin O AM, Gijsbers PJA, Loucks DP (1998) Cost-effectiveness analyses of Libya’s water supply system. J Water Resour Plann Manage 124:320–329Garber AM, Phelps CE (1997) Economic foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis. J Health Econ 16:1–31Gerasidi A, Katsiardi P, Papaefstathiou N, Manoli E, Assimacopoulos D (2003) Cost-effectiveness analysis for water management in the island of Paros, Greece. 8th International Conference on Environmental Science and Technology. Lemnos Island, Greece, 8–10 September 2003Ghaffour N, Missimer TM, Amy GL (2013) Technical review and evaluation of the economics of water desalination: current and future challenges for better water supply sustainability. Desalination 309:197–207Girard C, Rinaudo JD, Pulido-Velazquez M, Caballero Y (2015) An interdisciplinary modelling framework for selecting adaptation measures at the river basin scale in a global change scenario. Environ Model Softw 69:42–54. doi: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2015.02.023Girard C, Pulido-Velazquez M, Rinaudo J-D, and Caballero, Y, in press, Integrating top-down and bottom-up approaches to design global change adaptation at the river basin scale (in press, doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.07.002 )Griffin RC (1998) The fundamental principles of cost-benefit analysis. Water Resour Res 34(8):2063–2071. doi: 10.1029/98WR01335EU-WFD , 2000Harou JJ, Pulido-Velazquez M, Rosenberg DE, Medellín-Azuara J, Lund JR, Howitt RE (2009) Hydro-economic models: concepts, design, applications, and future prospects. J Hydrol 375:627–643Hashimoto T, Stedinger JR, Loucks DP (1982) Reliability, resiliency, and vulnerability criteria for water resource system performance evaluation. Water Resour Res 18:14–20Heinz I, Pulido-Velazquez M, Lund JR, Andreu J (2007) Hydro-economic modelling in river basin management: Implications and applications for the European water framework directive. Water Resour Manag 21:1103–1125Hoang T, Maton L, Caballero Y, Rinaudo J-D (2012) Impact du changement climatique sur le besoin en eau d’irrigation dans l’Ouest de l’H erault. Rapport BRGM RP-61311-FR. 36 pp (in French). http://infoterre.brgm.fr/rapports/RP-61311-FR.pdfInterwies E, Kraemer A, Kranz N, Görlach B, Dworak T (2004) Basic principles for selecting the most cost-effective combinations of measures for inclusion in the programme of measures as described in Article 11 of the Water Framework Directive-Handbook, Research Report 202 21 210 UBA-FB 000563/E. Federal Environmental Agency, BerlinInterwies E, Görlach B, Strosser P, Ozdemiroglu E, Brouwer R (2005) The case for valuation studies in the Water Framework Directive, Final report, Project WFD55. Sniffer reportLabadie JW (2004) Optimal operation of multi-reservoir systems: state-of-the-art review. J Water Resour Plan Manag 130:93–111Lescot J-M, Bordenave P, Petit K, Leccia O (2013) A spatially-distributed cost-effectiveness analysis framework for controlling water pollution. Environ Model Softw 41:107–122Loucks DP, van Beek E (2005) Water Resources Systems Planning and Management: An Introduction to Methods, Models and Applications. UNESCO, ParisLoucks DP, Kindler J, Fedra K (1985) Interactive water resources modeling and model use: an overview. Water Resour Res 21:95–102Madani K (2010) Game theory and water resources. J Hydrol 381:225–238Martin-Carrasco F, Garrote L, Iglesias A, Mediero L (2013) Diagnosing causes of water scarcity in complex water resources systems and identifying risk management actions. Water Resour Manag 27:1693–1705. doi: 10.1007/s11269-012-0081-6Martin-Ortega J (2012) Economic prescriptions and policy applications in the implementation of the European water framework directive. Environ Sci Policy 24:83–91Martin-Ortega J, Balana BB (2012) Cost-effectiveness analysis in the implementation of the water framework directive: a comparative analysis of the United Kingdom and Spain. Eur Water 37:15–25Matrosov ES, Padula S, Harou JJ (2013) Selecting portfolios of water supply and demand management strategies under uncertainty—contrasting economic optimisation and ‘robust decision making’ approaches. Water Resour Manag 27:1123–1148. doi: 10.1007/s11269-012-0118xMEEDDT (Ministère de l’écologie, de l’énergie, du développement durable et de l’aménagement du territoire) (2008) Circulaire du 30 juin 2008 relative à la résorption des déficits quantitatifs en matière de prélèvement d’eau et gestion collective des prélèvements d’irrigation NOR : DEVO0815432C, Bulletin officiel du Ministère de l’écologie, de l’énergie, du développement durable et de l’aménagement du terittoire, Paris, 2008 (In French)Messner F (2006) Guest editorial: applying participatory multicriteria methods to river basin management: improving the implementation of the water framework directive. Environ Plan C: Gov Policy 24(2):159–167Mouelhi S, Michel C, Perrin C, Andréassian V (2006) Stepwise development of a two-parameter monthly water balance model. J Hydrol 318:200–214. doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.06.014Padula S, Harou JJ, Papageorgiou LG, Ji Y, Ahmad M, Hepworth N (2013) Least economic cost regional water supply planning-optimising infrastructure investments and demand management for south east England’s 17.6 million people. Water Resour Manag 27:5017–5044. doi: 10.1007/s11269-013-0437-6Pagé C, Terray L (2010) Nouvelles projections climatiques à échelle fine sur la France pour le 21ème siècle : les scénarii SCRATCH2010. Technical Report TR/CMGC/10/58, SUC au CERFACS, URA CERFACS/CNRS No1875CS, Toulouse, France ( http://www.cerfacs.fr/~page/work/scratch/ ). (In French)Peña-Haro S, Pulido-Velazquez M, Sahuquillo A (2009) A hydro-economic modelling framework for optimal management of groundwater nitrate pollution from agriculture. J Hydrol 373:193–203Peña-Haro S, Llopis-Albert C, Pulido-Velázquez M, Pulido-Velázquez D (2010) Fertilizer standards for controlling groundwater nitrate pollution from agriculture: El Salobral-Los Llanos case study, Spain. J Hydrol 392:174–187Pulido-Velázquez M, Sahuquillo A, Ochoa JC, Pulido-Velázquez D (2005) Modeling of stream-aquifer interaction: the embedded multireservoir model. J of Hydrology 313(3-4):166–181Pulido-Velázquez M, Sahuquillo A, Andreu J (2006) Economic optimization of conjunctive use of surface and groundwater at the basin scale. J Water Resour Plan Manag 132(6):454–467Pulido-Velazquez M, Andreu J, Sahuquillo A, Pulido-Velazquez D (2008) Hydro-economic river basin modelling: the application of a holistic surface-groundwater model to assess opportunity costs of water use in Spain. Ecol Econ 66:51–65Pulido-Velázquez M, Andreu J, Sahuquillo A, Pulido-Velazquez D (2008) Hydro-economic river basin modelling: the application of a holistic surface-groundwater model to assess opportunity costs of water use in Spain. Ecol Econ 66(1):51–65Rinaudo J-D, Maton L, Caballero Y (2010) Cost-effectiveness analysis of a water scarcity management plan: considering long term socio-economic and climatic changes. Conference on Economics of drought and drought preparedness in a climate Change Context. Istambul, 3-7 March 2010. FAO, ICARDA, CEIGRAM, CHIEAM, Ministry of agriculture TurkeyRinaudo J-D, Neverre N, Montginoul M (2012) Simulating the impact of pricing policies on residential water demand: a southern France case study. Water Resour Manag 26:2057–2068Rinaudo J-D, Aulong S (2014) Defining groundwater remediation objectives with cost-benefit analysis: does it work ? Water Resour Manag 28(1):261–278Rinaudo J D, Girard C, Vernier de Byans C (2013), Analyse coût efficacité du programme de mesures de gestion quantitative : Application de deux méthodes au bassin versant de l’Orb Rapport BRGM. Available at http://infoterre.brgm.fr/rapports/RP-62713-FR.pdf (In French)Rinaudo J-D, Noel Y, Marchal J-P, Lamotte C (2013) Evaluation du coût de mobilisation de nouvelles ressources en eau souterraine dans l’Ouest de l’Hérault. Rapport BRGM-RP- 61794-FR http://infoterre.brgm.fr/rapports/RP-61794-FR.pdf (In French)ROSENTHAL E (2012) GAMS, A User’s Guide Tutorial by Richard E. Rosenthal. GAMS Development Corporation, Washington, DCSMVO (Syndicat Mixte de la Vallée de l’Orb) (2013) Contrat de rivière Orb-Libron, 2011–2015, Dossier définitif, Dossier M001 8 03 039 / EV. http://www.vallees-orb-libron.fr/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/dossier-definitif-contrat-riviere-orb-libron-11-15.pdf (In French)Udías A, Efremov R, Galbiati L, Cañamón I (2012) Simulation and multicriteria optimization modeling approach for regional water restoration management. Ann Oper Res 1–18Van Engelen D, Seidelin C, van der Veeren R, Barton DN, Queb K (2008) Cost-effectiveness analysis for the implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive. Water Policy 10(3):207–220Vier E, Aigoui F (2011) Etude de definition des debits d’ etiage de reference pour la mise en oeuvre d’une gestion quantitative de la ressource en eau dans le bassin de l’Orb. Rapport provisoire phases 1 et 2. Avril 2011. Syndicat mixte de la vallee de l’Orb. (in French)Vernier de Byans M, Rinaudo JD (2012) Scénarios d’évolution de la demande en eau potable à l’horizon 2030 dans l’Ouest Hérault. Rapport BRGM/RP-61317-FR.Brgm : Orléans. 51 p + ann. Available at http://infoterre.brgm.fr/rapports/RP-61317-FR.pdfVoinov A, Bousquet F (2010) Modelling with stakeholders. Environ Model Softw 25:1268–1281Ward FA (2009) Economics in integrated water management. Environ Model Softw 24(8):948–958WATECO (WORKING GROUP 2.6) (2003) Common implementation strategy for the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC). Guidance Document no.1.Economics and the Environment - The implementation Challenge of the Water Framework DirectiveWhite SB, Fane SA, Robinson D (2003) The use of levelised cost in comparing supply and demand side options for water supply and wastewater treatment. Water Supply 3(3):185–192Wright SAL, Fritsch O (2011) Operationalising active involvement in the EU water framework directive: why, when and how? Ecol Econ 70:2268–2274Wurbs, RA (1996) Modeling and Analysis of Reservoir System Operation, Prentice HallZhou Y, Tol RSJ (2005) Evaluating the costs of desalination and water transport. Water Resour Res 41:1–1