water

Article
Optimal Allocation of Water Resources from the
“Wide-Mild Water Shortage” Perspective
Huaxiang He 1,2 , Mingwan Yin 2, *, Aiqi Chen 3 , Junqiu Liu 2 , Xinmin Xie 2
and Zhaohui Yang 2
1 State Key Laboratory of Hydroscience and Engineering, Department of Hydraulic Engineering, Tsinghua
University, Beijing 100048, China; he6680145@sina.com
2 State Key Laboratory of Simulation and Regulation of Water Cycle in River Basin, China Institute of Water
Resources and Hydropower Research, Beijing 100038, China; ljqlrh1986@163.com (J.L.);
xiexm@iwhr.com (X.X.); Yzh2010@iwhr.com (Z.Y.)
3 College of Land Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China;
aqchencau@126.com
* Correspondence: yinmw@iwhr.com; Tel.: +86-10-68785708




Received: 14 July 2018; Accepted: 17 September 2018; Published: 20 September 2018


Abstract: A major objective of the optimization of water resources allocation is to ensure the supply
an adequate amount of water to users at the right time and maximize the utilization of water resources.
However, in case of insufficient water supply, water shortage is likely to occur intensively for specific
water users or in specific periods, referred to as a “concentrated water shortage”. The risk of a
concentrated water shortage should be shared across a wider range of users and periods, so that it
would have a less severe impact on each calculation unit in each period, which we refer to as the
“wide-mild water shortage”. In this study, the nonlinear weight of the water supply objective function
can be converted into a piecewise linear weight based on the law of diminishing marginal utility,
making it possible to reduce or even eliminate the concentrated water shortage and thus making the
allocation of water resources more reasonable. The case study in the Nen River basin in northeast
China shows that the improved method results in a significant increase in water shortage units but a
significant reduction in water shortage range. As a consequence, water shortage is more uniformly
distributed from April to June, which contributes to solving the concentrated water shortage problem
in May. However, it should be noted that to what extent the wide-mild water shortage can be realized
depends not only on the marginal utility of water demand, but also on the available water supply and
the regulative capacity of water supply projects. In spite of this, the improved method enables water
to be supplied more suitably for users at the appropriate time, which contributes to improving the
utilization of water resources and helping decision-makers better address the problem of concentrated
water shortage.

Keywords: water resources allocation; wide-mild water shortage; marginal utility; piecewise
linear function

1. Introduction
Rapid industrialization and urbanization in China have led to a growing demand for water
resources for domestic, agricultural, industrial, and ecological purposes in recent years, making the
optimal allocation of water resources an important, challenging task. With better understanding
of real-world problems, advancing data availability and reliability, researchers are committed to
developing large-scale and complex water resources allocation models, and to developing effective
algorithms for solving the allocation models [1]. Commonly used methods for the optimization of

Water 2018, 10, 1289; doi:10.3390/w10101289 www.mdpi.com/journal/water

Water 2018, 10, 1289 2 of 17

medium- and long-term water resource allocation include dynamic programming, linear programming,
and nonlinear programming [2,3]. However, in order to solve an optimization problem using
dynamic programming, the principles of optimality and non-aftereffect must both be satisfied [4].
Dynamic programming may also suffer from the curse of dimensionality in solving complex water
resources allocation problems in which the storage demands and complexity costs grow exponentially
with the dimension of the state space. Nonlinear programming is useful in solving optimization
problems where some of the constraints or the objective function are nonlinear [5] and difficult to
be linearized [6], or a large error may arise from linearization. However, it is important to note that
nonlinear programming may not always converge on the global optimal solution. Linear programming
has the advantages of easy modeling, easy availability of necessary parameters, and convergence to the
global optimal solution. Obviously, linear programming is preferred to solve medium- and long-term
water resource allocation problems [7–15].
The linear programming method has been used to solve the allocation of water resources in the
Mahanadi River in northeastern India, in which the seasonal unit-price of surface water or groundwater
can be taken as the objective function weights [16]. When the available water is insufficient to meet
all the agricultural water demand, the optimization result may cause the occurrence of concentrated
water shortages in a certain period due to the lower unit-price in agriculture than that in other users.
Even if more water has been supplied for agriculture in the early period, zero full water costing [17]
will be presented resulting in no crop harvest due to a seriously concentrated water shortage. A water
economy optimization model has been developed by Mirchi in South Florida to quantitatively weigh water
management priorities [18]. A characteristic of the penalty function, which is only determined by the relative
magnitude by investigation and analysis, is that the function itself has no practical significance. An interval
multi-objective programming model has been established to optimize the irrigation water allocation in
Hulan River in China [19]. The interval function, which was solved by linear programming, was used as the
weight of the objective function. The max–min operator [20] is used to solve the maximum and minimum of
the interval function by generalization as a linear or nonlinear function. If the interval function is generalized
as a nonlinear function, the solution method is the same as the nonlinear programming. If the interval
function is generalized as a linear function, the assumption is that the marginal utility function is linear
and inconsistent with the actual curve. Furthermore, economic benefit/utility [21–23], ecological flow [24],
soil moisture uniformity and yield [25], maximization of economic, ecological, and social benefits [26],
and investment, operation, and environmental costs [27] can also be taken as the objective function weights
and solved by linear programming.
Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that all the above weights used to maximize the total water supply
benefit or minimize the loss resulting from water shortage are derived under the assumption that the
benefit yield of every unit water supply is the same, regardless of the satisfaction level of the water
demand. Obviously, this assumption does not hold given the law of diminishing marginal utility.
As a consequence, what appears to be theoretically optimal may not be feasible in practical settings.
Brown et al. [28,29] showed that, in some cases, the marginal utility of insufficient instream flows was
considerably higher than that of the water consumption of users. For these seasons, it is necessary to
take into account the law of diminishing marginal utility in water resources allocation.
Suppose there are n agricultural plots along the water channel in an irrigation district, which are
denoted as i = 1, 2, . . . , n from the channel head to its terminal end, and the effective utilization
coefficient of irrigated water follows the order of η1 > η2 > . . . . . . > ηn due to the impact of transport
distance and water loss. All plots are assumed to have the same soil properties and are planted with
the same crop species. The water demand benefit per unit area, as well as the benefit per unit water
use λi , is the same, and thus the average benefit per unit water use at different periods is also the same.
Thus, the total water demand of the irrigation district is the sum of the water demand of each plot
n
(Wreal_d = ∑ Wi,net /ηi ). If the objective is to maximize the total irrigation benefit and water supply is
i =1
allocated according to λi , the programming is a linear problem. Thus, if the available water supply
is higher than or equal to the total water demand Wreal_d , the water demands of all plots can be well
Water 2018, 10, 1289 3 of 17

satisfied; whereas, in the case of insufficient water supply, the water demands of plots can be satisfied
in order from the channel head to the terminal end until the supply of water is exhausted. In this
circumstance, water shortage is likely to occur in plots at the terminal end at any time, which is referred
to as a “concentrated water shortage” in this study due to the optimization rules. It is important to
note that if crop fails due to an extremely low supply of water in a specific period, then the actual
benefit of previous periods is equal to 0. This problem is rarely taken into account in most previous
Water 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 17
models. For large-scale water resources systems responsible for supplying water from multiple sources
to multiplebe users
well satisfied; whereas,
in multiple in the case
periods via of insufficient
multiple water
water supply,channels,
supply the water demands of plots can
the allocation be
scheme based
satisfied in order from the channel head to the terminal end until the supply
on the benefit per unit water use rather than on the marginal utility may easily result in the occurrenceof water is exhausted.
In this circumstance, water shortage is likely to occur in plots at the terminal end at any time, which
of concentrated water shortage.
is referred to as a “concentrated water shortage” in this study due to the optimization rules. It is
Generally,
important there
to notearethattwo kinds
if crop fails of
dueconcepts about
to an extremely lowwater
supplyshortages,
of water in a which are “concentrated
specific period, then
water shortage”
the actualand “wide-mild
benefit of previouswater
periods shortage”.
is equal to 0.Concentrated
This problem iswater shortage
rarely taken refers in
into account tomost
dense water
previous models.
shortage occurring For large-scale
in specific water userswateror resources
periods, systems
whichresponsible for supplying
is not affected by thewater from
precipitation and
multiple sources to multiple users in multiple periods via multiple water supply channels, the
water demand. Wide-mild water shortage, the antonym of concentrated water shortage, refers to the
allocation scheme based on the benefit per unit water use rather than on the marginal utility may
occurrenceeasily
of relatively
result in the uniform
occurrencewater shortage in
of concentrated a specific
water period or a specific domain. Similar to the
shortage.
“strategic” andGenerally,
“tactical” water
there resources
are two allocation
kinds of concepts problems
about mentioned
water shortages, whichbyareTurgeon [30],water
“concentrated concentrated
shortage”
water shortage and “wide-mild
is “strategic” and water shortage”.
wide-mild Concentrated
water shortage is water shortage refers to dense water
“tactical”.
The shortage occurringresults
optimization in specificbased
water users
on orconcentrated
periods, which is not affected
water by the precipitation
shortage are often and unrealistic,
water demand. Wide-mild water shortage, the antonym of concentrated water shortage, refers to the
and sometimes very bad, which will have a direct impact on people’s trust and application. In order to
occurrence of relatively uniform water shortage in a specific period or a specific domain. Similar to
overcomethe this“strategic”
problem,and the“tactical”
constraintswaterofresources
minimum water problems
allocation supply are added to
mentioned by the water[30],
Turgeon demand of
each calculation unitwater
concentrated in each period.
shortage is “strategic” and wide-mild water shortage is “tactical”.
However, Thegiven
optimization results conditions
the balance based on concentrated
between water watershortage
demand are and
often water
unrealistic,
supplyand in each
sometimes very bad, which will have a direct impact on people’s trust and application. In order to
calculation unit, it is very difficult to define the constraints of the minimum water supply in a long
overcome this problem, the constraints of minimum water supply are added to the water demand of
series of inflows. Too low
each calculation unit inconstraints
each period. may not solve the problem of concentrated water shortage;
while constraints that given
However, are too thehigh mayconditions
balance be infeasible
betweenforwater
optimization.
demand and Accordingly,
water supply the objective of
in each
this studycalculation
is to solve theit nonlinear
unit, water
is very difficult resources
to define allocation
the constraints problem
of the minimum using
waterthe linear
supply in programming
a long
based on series
the ruleof inflows. Too low constraints
of diminishing marginalmay not solve
utility, and the
thisproblem
study of mayconcentrated
provide awatersimpleshortage;
but effective
while constraints that are too high may be infeasible for optimization. Accordingly, the objective of
way for the optimization of water resources allocation.
this study is to solve the nonlinear water resources allocation problem using the linear programming
based on the rule of diminishing marginal utility, and this study may provide a simple but effective
2. Diminishing
way for Marginal Utility
the optimization in Water
of water Resources
resources allocation.Utilization
The concept that the marginal utility of each homogenous unit decreases as the supply of units
2. Diminishing Marginal Utility in Water Resources Utilization
increases (and vice versa), provided that other conditions are the same, is referred to as the “law of
The concept that the marginal utility of each homogenous unit decreases as the supply of units
diminishing marginal utility”. This law has been widely recognized as the explanation of numerous
increases (and vice versa), provided that other conditions are the same, is referred to as the “law of
economicdiminishing
phenomena in theutility”.
marginal field of economics,
This law has beenand exists
widely in reality
recognized including
as the explanation itsofapplication
numerous to the
water resources
economicfield.
phenomenaFor example,
in the field Figure 1 shows
of economics, the agricultural
and exists water
in reality including supply benefit
its application to the and its
marginal water
utility.resources
In water field. For example,
deficient FigureChina,
northeast 1 showsdeficit
the agricultural
irrigation water supply
makes benefit and
it possible to its
save more
marginal utility. In water deficient northeast China, deficit irrigation makes it possible to save more
water for other purposes or to irrigate more land. On the contrary, excessive irrigation may cause
water for other purposes or to irrigate more land. On the contrary, excessive irrigation may cause
waterlogging and consequently the reduction of crop yield. It is evident that the law of diminishing
waterlogging and consequently the reduction of crop yield. It is evident that the law of diminishing
marginal marginal
utility should be considered
utility should be consideredin order
in ordertotoensure theallocation
ensure the allocation of water
of water resources
resources to be more
to be more
realistic and effective.
realistic and effective.

Figure
Figure 1. The1.benefit
The benefit
andand marginalutility
marginal utility curves
curvesofof
agricultural waterwater
agricultural supply.
supply.
Water 2018, 10, 1289 4 of 17

3. Water Resources Optimal Allocation from the Perspective of “Wide-Mild Water Shortage”

3.1. The Concept of Wide-Mild Water Shortage

The law of diminishing marginal utility is explicitly neglected in current methods for the
optimization of water resources allocation based on benefit per unit water use, which can easily
cause the occurrence of concentrated water shortage. As a consequence, (a) the theoretically optimal
scheme may not be optimal in practice; (b) a concentrated water shortage that occurs in a specific
period may result in a significant benefit/loss not only in this period, but also in earlier and later
periods; and (c) given the complex interactions among different water users, the sudden occurrence
of a concentrated water shortage for one water user can also bring about a significant benefit/loss of
other water users, such as hydroelectric power generation. Thus, in case of insufficient water supply,
the risk of concentrated water shortage should be shared across calculation units, periods, and users.
In doing so, more calculation units, periods, and users may suffer from water shortage, but the water
shortage would have less severe impacts on each calculation unit in each period, which we refer
to as the concept of “wide-mild water shortage”. The wide-mild water shortage is expected to be
achieved by optimizing water resource allocation based on the law of diminishing marginal utility.
Theoretically, such a problem is a nonlinear problem that can be solved by nonlinear programming.
In fact, the optimization of water resources allocation is very complex, and linear programming,
instead of the nonlinear programming, is often used in this context.
In this study, the nonlinear function is approximated by a piecewise linear function, in which the
total water demand in each period is divided into piecewise water demands with different marginal
utilities. The demands of different calculation units, periods, and users are optimized in the water
resources system, and the rest are the same as that in the optimization of water resources allocation
based on benefit per unit water use.

3.2. Piecewise Linear Function

For a complex water resources system, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to establish an
accurate piecewise linear function specifically for each water demand in each unit, period, and user,
and to accurately determine their marginal utilities and, very often, it is not necessary to do so.
Although the allocation of water resources based on the benefit per unit water use may occasionally
lead to concentrated water shortage that is unacceptable and, as stated before, the accuracy requirement
can be well satisfied.
In order to determine the piecewise linear function and marginal utilities, it is important to (a)
determine the rank of the average benefit for each water demand, which is the same as the optimization
based on the benefit per unit water use; (b) determine the marginal utilities for different satisfaction
levels of water demands and then divide them into piecewise segments according to the percentage of
water demands. However, the number of piecewise segments should not be too large; (c) examine
whether there is an overlap of marginal utilities among different water demands. A sufficiently high
marginal utility should be set for those periods during which water shortage is not allowed, and the
precision can be set to a level that would have no impact on optimization; (d) examine whether there
is a difference in benefit of the same water demand in different calculation units. If a significant
difference is found, they should be treated differently; otherwise they can be treated in the same
way; and (e) analyze the relationship of the same water demand at different periods in a specific
calculation unit. Piecewise segments can be obtained according to the percentage of water demands;
however, adjustment can be made if necessary. Much effort has been made to better understand
the water use benefit function, such as the Cobb–Douglas production function [31] and piecewise
function [32,33], which are not described in detail herein.
Water 2018, 10, 1289 5 of 17

3.3. Methodology
The objective function for the optimization of water resources allocation based on the average
benefit per unit water use (hereafter referred to as the “original method”) can be described as follows.

KN TN JN RN TN HN
Max Obj = Max [ ∑ ∑ ∑ BLk,t,j × W Lk,t,j + ∑ ∑ ∑ BRr,t,h × WRr,t,h ] (1)
k =1 t =1 j =1 r =1 t =1 h =1

The major constraints concerning the water supply are as follows,

W Lk,t,j ≤ DW Lk,t,j (2)

WRr,t,h ≤ DWRr,t,h (3)

IK JN
W Lk,t,j = ∑ XW Lk,t,j,i (4)
i =1
IRHN
WRr,t,h = ∑ XWRr,t,h,i (5)
i =1

where Obj is the objective function; k is the sequence number of calculation units; KN is the total
number of calculation units; t is the sequence number of periods in a year; TN is the total number of
periods in a year and TN = 12 when the calculation is performed on a monthly basis; j is the sequence
number of socioeconomic water use types, JN is the total number of socioeconomic water use types;
r is the sequence number of rivers/lakes; RN is the total number of rivers/lakes; h is the sequence
number of river/lake ecological flow types; HN is the total number of river/lake ecological flow types;
i is the sequence number of water sources; IKJN is the total number of water sources for the water use
type j in the calculation unit k; IRHN is the total number of water sources for the water use type h of
river/lake r; DW Lk,t,j is the water demand j in the calculation unit k; XW Lk,t,j,i is the water supply
from water source i to DW Lk,t,j ; W Lk,t,j is the total water supply from each water source to DW Lk,t,j ;
DWRr,t,h is the ecological water demand h of river/lake r; XWRr,t,h,i is the total water supply from
water source i to DWRh,t,r ; WRr,t,h is the total water supply from each water source to DWRr,t,h ; BLk,t,j
is the average benefit of W Lk,t,j per unit water supply; and BRr,t,h is the average benefit of WRr,t,h per
unit water supply, respectively.
The improved objective function based on the law of diminishing marginal utility (hereafter
referred to as the “improved method”) is:

KN TN JN SJN RN TN HN SHN
Max Obj = Max [ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ BLSk,t,j,s × W LSk,t,j,s + ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ BRSr,t,h,s × WRSr,t,h,s ] (6)
k =1 t =1 j =1 s =1 r =1 t =1 h =1 s =1

The following water demand constraints are considered.

SK JN
DW Lk,t,j = ∑ DW LSk,t,j,s (7)
S

SRHN
DWRr,t,j = ∑ DWRSr,t,h,s (8)
S

Constraints in Equations (2)–(5) can be converted into Equations (9)–(12), respectively:

W LSk,t,j,s ≤ DW LSk,t,j,s (9)

WRSr,t,h,s ≤ DWRSr,t,h,s (10)

 Water 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 17

WRS r ,t , h , s ≤ DWRS r ,t ,h , s (10)

Water 2018, 10, 1289 IKJSN 6 of 17

WLS k ,t , j , s = i =1
XWLS k ,t , j , s ,i (11)
IK JSN

WRS r ,t , h , s = i∑
IRHSN

=
W LSk,t,j,s = XW LS (11)
1 XWRk,t,j,s,i
r ,t , h , s , i (12)
i =1
IRHSN
where s is the piecewise number of WRS r,t,h,s =
a water demand,∑ XWR SKJNr,t,h,s,i
is the total piecewise number of water (12)
i =1
demand j in the calculation unit k, SRHN is the total piecewise number of water demand h of
where s is the
river/lake r, DWLS
piecewise number of a water demand, SKJN is the total piecewise number of water
k ,t , j , s is the socioeconomic water demand of the segment s for the water demand
demand j in the calculation unit k, SRHN is the total piecewise number of water demand h of river/lake
h in the calculation unit k, DWRS t , h , s is the ecological water demand of the segment s for the water
r, DW LSk,t,j,s is the socioeconomicr ,water demand of the segment s for the water demand h in the
demand j unit
calculation of river/lake
k, DWRSr,t,h,s r inis the ecological
calculation water t, BLSof
unitdemand r ,t the is the marginal
, j , s segment utilitydemand
s for the water of the
jsocioeconomic
of river/lake r waterin the calculation unit
demand of the segment t, BLS is the marginal utility of the socioeconomic
r,t,j,ss for the water demand j in the calculation unit waterk,
demand
WLS k ,t , jof the segment s for the water demand j in the calculation unit k, W LSk,t,j,s is the water supply
, s is the water supply corresponding to the socioeconomic water demand, BRS r ,t , h , s is the
corresponding to the socioeconomic water demand, BRSr,t,h,s is the marginal utility of the ecological
marginal utility of the ecological water demand of the segment s for river/lake r in the calculation
water demand of the segment s for river/lake r in the calculation period t, and WRSr,t,h,s is the water
supply t, and WRS r ,t , hto
period corresponding is the
, s the water supply
ecological water corresponding
demand. to the ecological water demand.
Thediminishing
The diminishingmarginal
marginalutility utilitycan
canbe bedescribed
describedas: as:

BLS k ,t , j ,1>>BLS
BLS k ,t , j ,2> >. .......
....> > BLS , t , j , SKJN ∀ k , t, j (13)
BLS k,t,j,1 k,t,j,2 BLSkk,t,j,SK JN ∀ k, t, j (13)
BRS
BRSr,t,h,1
> BRS
r , t , h ,1 > ...... > BRS
r , t , h ,2
> BRSr,t,h,2 > . . . . . . > BRSrr,t,j,SRHN
∀r , t , h
,t , j , SRHN ∀r, t, h (14)
(14)
Accordingly,the
Accordingly, theagricultural
agriculturalwater
waterdemand
demandprocess
processisisshown
shownin inFigure
Figure2.2.The
Theleft
leftfigure
figureisisthe
the
piecewise of water demand. The blue, red, green, and gray areas stand for four piecewise
piecewise of water demand. The blue, red, green, and gray areas stand for four piecewise segments. segments.
Thetotal
The totalarea
areaofofblue,
blue,red,
red,and
andgreen
greenisisthe
thewater
waterdemand.
demand. The The grey
grey area
arearepresents
representsexcess
excesswater
water
demand. The right figure is marginal utility curve (black curve). The black curve should
demand. The right figure is marginal utility curve (black curve). The black curve should be divided be divided
intopiecewise
into piecewise segments
segments of of the
the corresponding
corresponding waterwater supply,
supply, shown
shown as as the
the black
black bar.
bar. The
The blue,
blue, red,
red,
green, and gray bars represent the average value of the black bar within the
green, and gray bars represent the average value of the black bar within the percentage of waterpercentage of water
demands:the
demands: thecloser
closerto
tothe
the bottom,
bottom, thethe greater
greater the
the marginal
marginalutility.
utility.The
Thegrey
greyarea
areaof
ofthe
thewater
watersupply
supply
exceedsthe
exceeds themaximum
maximumwaterwaterdemand
demandso sothat
thatits
itsmarginal
marginalutility
utilityisisnegative.
negative.

Figure 2.
Figure A schematic
2. A schematic of
of the
the piecewise
piecewise water
water supply
supplyand
andthe
thecorresponding
correspondingmarginal
marginalutility
utilityfunctions.
functions.
4. Case Study

4.1. Study Area

The Nen River basin is located in the northeast region of China and flows through Heilongjiang
Province, Inner Mongolia and Jilin Provinces, China with a drainage area of 298,500 km2 . The average
4. Case Study

4.1. Study Area

Water 2018,
The 10, 1289
Nen River basin is located in the northeast region of China and flows through Heilongjiang 7 of 17

Province, Inner Mongolia and Jilin Provinces, China with a drainage area of 298,500 km2. The average
annual precipitation
annual precipitation is is 455
455 mm,
mm, the the average
average annual
annual andand monthly
monthly precipitation
precipitation of of different
different frequency
frequency
are shown in Figure 3. In 2013, the basin has a total population
are shown in Figure 3. In 2013, the basin has a total population of 16.56 million with an of 16.56 million with an urban
urban
populationof
population of8.22
8.22 million,
million,aa gross
gross domestic
domestic product
product(GDP)
(GDP)of of 861.6
861.6 billion
billion RMB,
RMB, anan industrial
industrial added
added
value of 396.6 billion RMB, a total grain yield of 36.74 billion kilograms, and a
value of 396.6 billion RMB, a total grain yield of 36.74 billion kilograms, and a livestock population of livestock population
of 25.2
25.2 million.
million. It has
It has an effective
an effective irrigation
irrigation areaarea
of 2.5ofmillion
2.5 million hectares,
hectares, a forest
a forest and growing
and fruit fruit growing
area
area of 21.4 thousand hectares, and a grassland area of 4.5 thousand hectares.
of 21.4 thousand hectares, and a grassland area of 4.5 thousand hectares. By the year 2013, the basin By the year 2013, the
basin has 429 water supply projects with a total capacity of 16.0 billion
3 m
has 429 water supply projects with a total capacity of 16.0 billion m and an effective capacity of
3 and an effective capacity

of 10.4
10.4 billion
billion m3m
3. There are three main water resource zones called NEJ, JQ, and BST from upstream
. There are three main water resource zones called NEJ, JQ, and BST from upstream
to downstream.
to downstream. The Thetotal
totalwater
watersupply
supply is is
37.7 billion
37.7 m3,mwith
billion the the
3 , with surface water,
surface groundwater,
water, and
groundwater,
recycled water accounting for 61.4%, 38.5%, and 0.1%, respectively. The
and recycled water accounting for 61.4%, 38.5%, and 0.1%, respectively. The main crops cultivatedmain crops cultivated in the
Nen River basin include rice, corn, wheat, and soybean. Sowing often begins
in the Nen River basin include rice, corn, wheat, and soybean. Sowing often begins in early or in early or middle April,
and the water demand reaches a peak 40–80 days after seeding (approximately from May to August).
middle April, and the water demand reaches a peak 40–80 days after seeding (approximately from
The agricultural water demand accounts for approximately 74% of the total water demand in the
May to August). The agricultural water demand accounts for approximately 74% of the total water
basin. However, the runoff peak occurs from July to September, indicating that the precipitation,
demand in the basin. However, the runoff peak occurs from July to September, indicating that the
runoff, and agricultural water demand are not temporally concurrent (see Figure 4). The most
precipitation, runoff, and agricultural water demand are not temporally concurrent (see Figure 4).
pronounced imbalance between water supply and demand is observed in May, resulting in the
The most pronounced imbalance between water supply and demand is observed in May, resulting in
highest probability of severe water shortage.
the highest probability of severe water shortage.
In this study, the water related information including water resources, economy and ecosystem
In this study, the water related information including water resources, economy and ecosystem of
of the Nen River basin are simplified into nodes (water resources projects, control sections, and
the Nen River basin are simplified into nodes (water resources projects, control sections, and calculation
calculation units) and lines (channels, rivers, etc.) [34], and the resulted water resources allocation
units) and lines (channels, rivers, etc.) [34], and the resulted water resources allocation network chart is
network chart is shown in Appendix Figure A1. The system consists of 47 calculation units, 33
shown in Appendix A Figure A1. The system consists of 47 calculation units, 33 reservoirs, 48 river and
reservoirs, 48 river and channel nodes, 161 water supply channels, water release channels, and river
channel nodes, 161 water supply channels, water release channels, and river channels. The water is
channels. The water is supplied mainly for urban domestic use, rural domestic use, irrigation,
supplied mainly for urban domestic use, rural domestic use, irrigation, industrial use, urban ecological
industrial use, urban ecological environment, river, and lake ecological environment, etc. The water
environment, river, and lake ecological environment, etc. The water sources include surface water,
sources include surface water, groundwater, and recycled water from urban sewage. The calculation
groundwater, and recycled water from urban sewage. The calculation is done on a monthly basis.
is done on a monthly basis. The monthly runoff data for the period 1956–2013 and the monthly water
The monthly runoff data for the period 1956–2013 and the monthly water demand data of the current
demand data of the current year (2013) and the planning year (2020) are collected and analyzed.
year (2013) and the planning year (2020) are collected and analyzed.

Figure 3. The
Figure 3. The average
average annual
annual and
and monthly
monthly precipitation
precipitation in
in the
the Nen
NenRiver
Riverbasin.
basin.
Water 2018, 10,
Water 2018, 10, 1289
x FOR PEER REVIEW 88of
of17
17

Figure 4. The
Figure 4. The intra-annual variation in
intra-annual variation in the
the precipitation
precipitation and
and agricultural water demand
agricultural water demand in
in the
the Nen
Nen
River
River basin.
basin.

4.2. Parameter Determination

4.2. Parameter Determination
The model inputs include water demands, water sources, water resources projects, operational
The model inputs include water demands, water sources, water resources projects, operational
constraints, water resources allocation system, benefits of various water demands, etc. The runoff,
constraints, water resources allocation system, benefits of various water demands, etc. The runoff,
allowable exploitation quantity of groundwater, and parameters of water resources projects (mainly
allowable exploitation quantity of groundwater, and parameters of water resources projects (mainly
including water storage, division, pumping, and transfer projects), and channel parameters can be
including water storage, division, pumping, and transfer projects), and channel parameters can be
obtained by survey (see Appendix A Table A1). However, it is difficult to obtain the benefit information
obtained by survey (see Appendix Table A1). However, it is difficult to obtain the benefit information
of various water demands. In this study, the average benefit of each water demand can be obtained by
of various water demands. In this study, the average benefit of each water demand can be obtained
survey and statistics, and then the marginal utilities for different satisfaction levels of water demand are
by survey and statistics, and then the marginal utilities for different satisfaction levels of water
obtained by analysis of typical examples and expert discussion. The applicability of each typical benefit
demand are obtained by analysis of typical examples and expert discussion. The applicability of each
function for the water demand in different calculation units is rated by experts [35]. The benefits
typical benefit function for the water demand in different calculation units is rated by experts [35].
of urban, river, and lake ecological environment are not available in statistics. Thus, the relative
The benefits of urban, river, and lake ecological environment are not available in statistics. Thus, the
importance or benefit per unit water use for different water users is rated by experts, and then the
relative importance or benefit per unit water use for different water users is rated by experts, and
average benefits and marginal utilities are determined. According to the precision requirements and
then the average benefits and marginal utilities are determined. According to the precision
the difficulty in determining the marginal utilities, the water demand for each water user is divided
requirements and the difficulty in determining the marginal utilities, the water demand for each
into three segments, and thus only three marginal utility values need to be determined in this study.
water user is divided into three segments, and thus only three marginal utility values need to be
determined
5. in this
Results and study.
Discussion
In thisand
5. Results study, we only discuss the water supply and shortage quantity obtained by the original
Discussion
and improved methods in the planning year of 2020.
In this study, we only discuss the water supply and shortage quantity obtained by the original
and improved
5.1. Water Supplymethods in the planning year of 2020.
and Shortage
Before model improvement, the water supply of NEJ, JQ, and BST (see Appendix A Table A2)
5.1. Water Supply and Shortage
were 0.93 billion cubic meters, 6.62 billion cubic meters, and 24.18 billion cubic meters, respectively.
AfterBefore
modelmodel improvement,
improvement, the water supply
their respective of NEJ, JQ,
water supplies wereand BST
0.93 (see Appendix
billion Table
cubic meters, A2)billion
6.61 were
0.93 billion cubic meters, 6.62 billion cubic meters, and
cubic meters, and 24.17 billion cubic meters, with little change. 24.18 billion cubic meters, respectively. After
model improvement,
Before their respective
model improvement, water
water supplies
shortages were JQ,
of NEJ, 0.93and
billion
BSTcubic meters,
regions 6.61
totaled billion cubic
0 billion cubic
meters, 0.22
meters, and billion
24.17 billion cubic meters,
cubic meters, with
and 0.33 littlecubic
billion change.
meters, respectively. After model improvement,
they totaled 0 billion cubic meters, 0.23 billion cubic meters,JQ,
Before model improvement, water shortages of NEJ, andand BST
0.33 regions
billion totaled
cubic 0 billion
meters, cubic
respectively,
meters,
with little0.22 billion
change. Amongcubicall meters,
domains,and 0.33 billion
agricultural watercubic
shortagemeters,
is stillrespectively.
the highest. After model
improvement,
Obviously,they watertotaled
supply 0 will
billion
notcubic
change meters,
due to0.23 billion improvement.
the model cubic meters, and 0.33 billion cubic
meters, respectively, with little change. Among all domains, agricultural water shortage is still the
highest.
Obviously, water supply will not change due to the model improvement.
Water 2018, 10, 1289 9 of 17

5.2. Changes in the Units with Water Shortage

The water resource allocation in 47 calculation units of four primary water users during a 58-year
period (1956–2013) in the Nen River basin was optimized (a total of 130,848 sets of data), and Table 1
shows the changes in total number of units with water shortage before and after model improvement
under different precipitation frequency conditions. Clearly, the number of units with water shortage
increases in the improved model, all of which are related to agricultural water shortage.

Table 1. Changes in the units with agricultural water shortage before and after model improvement.

Precipitation Frequency Model Numerator * Denominator # Ratio (%)

Before improvement 492 0.66
p = 50% 74448
After improvement 853 1.15
Before improvement 205 0.70
p = 75% 29328
After improvement 285 0.97
Before improvement 90 0.33
p = 90% 27072
After improvement 192 0.71
Before improvement 787 0.60
Total 130848
After improvement 1330 1.02
* Numerator = Number of years in a given precipitation frequency× Number of calculation units with water
shortage in the specific years × Number of users × Number of months in one year. # Denominator = Total number
of years (mentioned above) × Number of calculation units × Number of users × Number of months in one year.

5.3. Comparison of Water Shortage and Process

The water demand for irrigation reaches a peak in the 40-day ponding period from early April
to middle/late May in the Nen River basin; the water consumption for irrigation accounts for
approximately 1/6 of the total annual water consumption. However, precipitation is low in April on
average, accounting for only 3.3% of the total annual precipitation. The most pronounced imbalance
between water supply and demand is observed in April, resulting in the highest probability of severe
water shortage. Figure 5 shows changes in water shortage and the difference in the value of water
shortage of nine units from April to June before and after model improvement. The differences in water
storage quantity in May obtained by original and improved methods (red bars) vary substantially
and are predominantly negative; whereas that in April (green bars) and June (blue bars) are mostly
positive. In addition, the water shortage quantity increases significantly in June under a precipitation
frequency of 75% and 90%. It can be concluded that the improved method results in wide-mild water
shortage from April to June, which contributes to solving the concentrated water shortage problem
and the imbalance between inflow and water supply from April to June.
Figures 6 and 7 show the comparison of monthly water shortage for two typical units (YH and
WYESYH, the most water shortage areas in Nen River basin) obtained by original and improved
methods at a precipitation frequency of 75% and 90%, respectively. Clearly, the improved method
results in a wide-mild distribution of the water shortage for YH and WYESYH in May at a 75%
precipitation frequency, indicating a significant improvement of the concentrated water shortage.
The similar results are also obtained at a 90% precipitation frequency, and the water shortage becomes
less severe in June and July. However, a more obvious decrease in the peak of water shortage is
obtained at a precipitation frequency of 75% than 90%.
Water 2018, 10, 1289 10 of 17
Water 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 17

(a) p = 50%

(b) p = 75%

Figure 5. Cont.
Water 2018, 10, 1289 11 of 17
Water 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 17

(c) p = 90%
Figure 5. The difference in water shortage quantity before and after improvement under different
precipitation frequencies.

Figures 6 and 7 show the comparison of monthly water shortage for two typical units (YH and
WYESYH, the most water shortage areas in Nen River basin) obtained by original and improved
methods at a precipitation frequency of 75% and 90%, respectively. Clearly, the improved method
results in a wide-mild distribution of the water shortage for YH and WYESYH in May at a 75%
precipitation frequency, indicating a significant (c) p improvement
= 90% of the concentrated water shortage.
The similar results are also obtained at a 90% precipitation frequency, and the water shortage
Figure 5. The
5. The difference
difference in in water shortage quantity
water quantity before and
andafter improvement under different
Figure
becomes less severe
precipitation
in June and
frequencies.
July. shortage
However, a morebefore obvious after
decreaseimprovement
in the peakunder different
of water shortage
precipitation frequencies.
is obtained at a precipitation frequency of 75% than 90%.
Figures 6 and 7 show the comparison of monthly water shortage for two typical units (YH and
WYESYH, the most water shortage areas in Nen River basin) obtained by original and improved
methods at a precipitation frequency of 75% and 90%, respectively. Clearly, the improved method
results in a wide-mild distribution of the water shortage for YH and WYESYH in May at a 75%
precipitation frequency, indicating a significant improvement of the concentrated water shortage.
The similar results are also obtained at a 90% precipitation frequency, and the water shortage
becomes less severe in June and July. However, a more obvious decrease in the peak of water shortage
is obtained at a precipitation frequency of 75% than 90%.

(a) YH (b) WYESYH

Water 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 17
Figure
Figure 6.
6. Changes
Changes in
in agricultural
agricultural water
water shortage
shortage at
at aa precipitation
precipitation frequency
frequency of 75%.

(a) YH (b) WYESYH

Figure 6. Changes in agricultural water shortage at a precipitation frequency of 75%.

(a) YH (b) WYESYH

Figure
Figure 7.
7. Changes
Changes in
in agricultural
agricultural water
water shortage
shortage at
at aa precipitation
precipitation frequency of 90%.

5.4. Comparison of Water Shortage Range

Figure 8 shows the comparison of the average annual water shortage range, minimum water
shortage range (except 0), and maximum water shortage range obtained by the original and improved
methods. It shows that despite the significant increase in the number of water shortage units, the
water shortage range is reduced, which may give the false impression that the original method could
Water 2018, 10, 1289 12 of 17

(a) YH (b) WYESYH

5.4. Comparison of Water Shortage
Figure Range
7. Changes in agricultural water shortage at a precipitation frequency of 90%.

Figure5.4.
8 shows the comparison of the average annual water shortage range, minimum water
Comparison of Water Shortage Range
shortage range (except 0), and maximum water shortage range obtained by the original and improved
Figure 8 shows the comparison of the average annual water shortage range, minimum water
methods. Itshortage
shows range
that despite
(except 0),the
andsignificant
maximum waterincrease in the
shortage rangenumber
obtainedof
bywater shortage
the original units, the water
and improved
shortage range is reduced,
methods. It shows which maythe
that despite give the false
significant impression
increase that the
in the number original
of water method
shortage units,could
the obtain
water shortage
more satisfactory results.range is reduced,the
However, which
highmay give the falseof
probability impression that thewater
concentrated originalshortage
method couldin a specific
period (i.e.,obtain more satisfactory results. However, the high probability of concentrated water shortage in a
the peak water demand period in irrigation) is largely ignored in the original operation,
specific period (i.e., the peak water demand period in irrigation) is largely ignored in the original
which mayoperation,
consequently
which maylead to benefit
consequently loss.
lead Afterloss.
to benefit theAfter
improvement,
the improvement,thetheproblem
problem ofoflarge
large water
shortage range can be well-solved, making the optimization operation more acceptable.
water shortage range can be well-solved, making the optimization operation more acceptable.

Comparison
Figure 8.Figure of water shortage range of the Nen River basin.
8. Comparison of water shortage range of the Nen River basin.

Figures 9 and 10 show

Figures 9 andchanges in waterinshortage
10 show changes rangerange
water shortage for the
fortwo units
the two (YH(YH
units andand
WYESYH)
WYESYH)according
according to the monthly average water shortage and maximum water shortage.
to the monthly average water shortage and maximum water shortage. Obviously, after improvement, Obviously, after
improvement, the water shortage range is obviously reduced, indicating that the water demand can
the water shortage range is obviously reduced, indicating that the water demand can be better satisfied
be better10,
satisfied
Water 2018,method
by the
x FOR PEER
improved method proposed in this study.
REVIEW in this study. 13 of 17
by the improved proposed

Figure 9. The9.monthly
Figure average
The monthly averagewater shortage
water shortage range
range of typical
of two two typical
units. units.
Water 2018, 10, 1289 13 of 17
Figure 9. The monthly average water shortage range of two typical units.

Figure 10. The

Figure maximum
10. The maximumwater
water shortage range
shortage range of of
twotwo typical
typical units.units.

6. Conclusions
6. Conclusions

In this Instudy, the “wide-mild

this study, the “wide-mild water
watershortage” perspective
shortage” perspective is proposed
is proposed basedbased
on theon lawtheof law of
diminishing marginal utility in order to solve the problem of concentrated water shortage.
diminishing marginal utility in order to solve the problem of concentrated water shortage. We argue We argue
that the that
risk the risk of concentrated water shortage should be shared across a wider range of users and
of concentrated water shortage should be shared across a wider range of users and periods,
periods, so that it would have less severe impacts on each individual user in each period. It is
so that it would have less severe impacts on each individual user in each period. It is necessary to
necessary to redefine the weight of variables in the water supply objective function. Assuming that
redefinethethe weight
weight is aof variablesnonlinear
continuous in the water supply
function, objective
and can function.
be converted into a Assuming thatweight,
piecewise linear the weight is
a continuous nonlinear
it is possible function,
to reduce and can the
or even eliminate be concentrated
converted intowatera shortage,
piecewisethuslinear weight,
making it is possible
the allocation
of water resources more reasonable.
to reduce or even eliminate the concentrated water shortage, thus making the allocation of water
resources more reasonable.
The case study was carried out in the Nen River Basin, northeast China and shows that the
improved method results in a significant increase in water shortage units, but a significant reduction
in the water shortage range. As a consequence, the water shortage is more uniformly distributed from
April to June, which contributes to solving the concentrated water shortage problem and the mismatch
between inflow and water supply from April to June. However, it should be noted that the extent to
which the wide-mild water shortage can be realized depends, not only on the marginal utility of water
demand, but also on the available water supply and the capacity of water supply projects. In spite of
this, the improved method enables the water to be supplied more uniformly at the appropriate time,
which contributes to improving the allocation efficacy of water resources and helps decision-makers
better deal with the problem of concentrated water shortages.

Author Contributions: M.Y. designed the study. H.H. wrote the manuscript. A.C. and J.L. performed the data
analysis. X.X. and Z.Y. reviewed and approved the manuscript.
Funding: The study was financially supported by the National Science Foundation for Distinguished Young
Scholars of China, grant No. 51709274, the Special Funds for Scientific Research of Public Welfare in the Ministry
of Water Resources, grant No. 201501013, the Independent Research Fund of State Key Laboratory of Simulation
and Regulation of Water Cycle in River Basin, China Institute of Water Resources and Hydropower Research,
Grant No. 2016TS03, as well as The National Science and Technology Major Project of Water Pollution Control
and Prevention of China, grant No. 2012ZX07201-006 and 2008ZX07207-006.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Water 2018, 10, 1289 14 of 17

Appendix A

Table A1. Engineering parameters.

Flood Control Storage Capacity Dead Capacity

Name Catchment Area km2
Capacity Million m3 Million m3 Million m3
BR1 66,382 8610 6456.3 487.5
BR2 3745 995 740 310
BR3 683 117 74 7
BR4 1660 281 162 14
BR5 15,112 260 177 23
BR6 2241 298 49 5
BR7 13,500 150 84 14
BR8 / 450 315 110
BR9 7780 1253 1067 34
BR10 548 235 207 63.5
BR11 342 51 40.6 4
BR12 60 209 390.3 34.5
BR13 35 110 107 10
BR14 5300 405 405 105
PR1 8250 1685 1483 320
PR2 10,720 989 859 242
PR3 24,384 / 350 50
PR4 32,229 3331 3507 1007
PR5 19,487 3113 2554 556
PR6 16,137 3508 2926 248
PR7 1990 187 143 32
PR8 2050 754 754 95
PR9 2072 307 132 45
PR10 438 70 31 1
PR11 853 96 43.64 6.33
PR12 1773.6 240 220 104
PR13 2444 450 380 132
PR14 8200 3100 3100 1455
PR15 12,426 1640 1486 198
PR16 1790 538.2 352 19.4
PR17 4206 76 45 8
PR18 7610 574 498 31
PR19 9050 360 132 86
”/” indicates that the information is not known.

Table A2. Basic information about water resource zones

Water Resource Zone Catchment Area km2 Water Use (in 2013) Billion m3 Sub Units
NEJ 67,775 0.36 GGHRUP/GH/GGHR TONEJR
NMH/NMEH/NER
JQ 99,678 4.82
TOTH/ALH/YH/YLH/TH TO JQ
CEH/THE/HLH/JQ TO BST/BST
BST 131,049 7.43
TO SHJ/WYESYH/AZXH/ZLXH
 Water Resource Catchment Water Use (in
Sub Units
Zone Area km2 2013) Billion m3
NEJ 67,775 0.36 GGHRUP/GH/GGHR TONEJR
NMH/NMEH/NER
JQ 99,678 4.82
TOTH/ALH/YH/YLH/TH TO JQ
Water 2018, 10, 1289 CEH/THE/HLH/JQ TO BST/BST TO 15 of 17
BST 131,049 7.43
SHJ/WYESYH/AZXH/ZLXH

Figure
Figure A1.A1. Water
Water resourcesallocation
resources allocation network
network chart
chartofofNen
NenRiver basin.
River basin.

References
1. Cai, X.; McKenney, D.C.; Lasdon, L.S.; Watkins, D. Solving large nonconvex water resources management
models using generalized benders decomposition. Oper. Res. 2001, 49, 235–245. [CrossRef]
2. Bradley, S.; Hax, A.; Magnanti, T. Applied Mathematical Programming; Addison Wesley: Boston, MA, USA, 1977.
3. Singh, A. An overview of the optimization modelling applications. J. Hydrol. 2012, 466–467, 167–182.
[CrossRef]
4. Powell, W.B. Approximate Dynamic Programming: Solving the Curses of Dimensionality; Wiley & Sons: Hoboken,
NJ, USA, 2011.
5. Luenberger, D.G.; Ye, Y.Y. Linear and Nonlinear Programming, 3rd ed.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2008.
6. Li, M.; Fu, Q.; Singh, V.P.; Ma, M.; Liu, X. An intuitionistic fuzzy multi-objective non-linear programming
model for sustainable irrigation water allocation under the combination of dry and wet conditions. J. Hydrol.
2017, 555, 80–94. [CrossRef]
7. Lu, H.W.; Huang, G.H.; He, L. Development of an interval-valued fuzzy linear-programming method based
on infinite α-cuts for water resources management. Environ. Model. Softw. 2010, 25, 354–361. [CrossRef]
8. Fu, Y.; Li, M.; Guo, P. Optimal allocation of water resources model for different growth stages of crops under
uncertainty. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 2014, 140, 1272–1273. [CrossRef]
Water 2018, 10, 1289 16 of 17

9. Li, M.; Guo, P.; Zhang, L.; Zhao, J. Multi-dimensional critical regulation control modes and water optimal
allocation for irrigation system in the middle reaches of Heihe River basin, China. Ecol. Eng. 2015, 76, 166–177.
[CrossRef]
10. Yang, L.; Liu, S.; Tsoka, S.; Papageorgiou, L.G. Mathematical programming for piecewise linear regression
analysis. Exp. Syst. Appl. 2016, 44, 156–167. [CrossRef]
11. Zhang, C.L.; Guo, P. A generalized fuzzy credibility-constrained linear fractional programming approach for
optimal irrigation water allocation under uncertainty. J. Hydrol. 2017, 553, 735–749. [CrossRef]
12. Hong, X.D.; Liao, Z.W.; Jiang, B.B.; Wang, J.D.; Yang, Y.R. Targeting of heat integrated water allocation
networks by one-step MILP formulation. Appl. Energy 2017, 197, 254–269. [CrossRef]
13. Bettinger, P.; Boston, K.; Siry, J.P.; Grebner, D.L. Forest Management and Planning Chapter
7—Linear-Programming; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2017; pp. 153–176.
14. Eiger, G.; Shamir, U.; Ben-Tal, A. Optimal design of water distribution networks. Water Resour. Res. 1994,
30, 2637–2646. [CrossRef]
15. Li, D.; Haimes, Y.Y. Optimal maintenance-related decision making for deteriorating water distribution
system 2: Multilevel decomposition approach. Water Resour. Res. 1991, 28, 1063–1070. [CrossRef]
16. Das, B.; Singh, A.; Panda, S.N.; Yasuda, H. Optimal land and water resources allocation policies for
sustainable irrigated agriculture. Land Use Policy 2015, 42, 527–537. [CrossRef]
17. Gonelas, K.; Kanakoudis, V. Reaching Economic Leakage Level through Pressure Management. Water Sci.
Technol. Water Supply 2016, 16, 756–765. [CrossRef]
18. Mirchi, A.; Watkins, D.W.; Engel, V.; Sukop, M.C.; Czajkowski, J.; Bhat, M.; Rehage, J.; Letson, D.;
Takatsuka, Y.; Weisskoff, R. A hydro-economic model of South Florida water resources system. Sci. Total
Environ. 2018, 628–629, 1531–1541. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
19. Li, M.; Fu, Q.; Singh, V.P.; Liu, D. An interval multi-objective programming model for irrigation water
allocation under uncertainty. Agric. Water Manag. 2018, 196, 24–36. [CrossRef]
20. Bellmanr, E.; Zaden, L.A. Decision making in fuzzy environment. Manag. Sci. 1970, 17, 141–164. [CrossRef]
21. Graveline, N. Economic calibrated models for water allocation in agricultural production: A review.
Environ. Model. Softw. 2016, 81, 12–25. [CrossRef]
22. Iftekhar, M.S.; Fogarty, J. Impact of water allocation strategies to manage groundwater resources in Western
Australia: Equity and efficiency considerations. J. Hydrol. 2017, 548, 145–156. [CrossRef]
23. Goetz, R.U.; Martínez, Y.; Xabadia, À. Efficiency and acceptance of new water allocation rules—The case of
an agricultural water users association. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 601–602, 614–625. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
24. Berhe, F.T.; Melesse, A.M.; Hailu, D.; Sileshi, Y. MODSIM-based water allocation modeling of Awash River
Basin, Ethiopia. Catena 2013, 109, 118–128. [CrossRef]
25. Hassan-Esfahani, L.; Torres-Rua, A.; McKee, M. Assessment of optimal irrigation water allocation for
pressurized irrigation system using water balance approach, learning machines, and remotely sensed data.
Agric. Water Manag. 2015, 153, 42–50. [CrossRef]
26. Roozbahani, R.; Schreider, S.; Abbasi, B. Optimal water allocation through a multi-objective compromise
between environmental, social, and economic preferences. Environ. Model. Softw. 2015, 64, 18–30. [CrossRef]
27. Abdulbaki, D.; Al-Hindi, M.; Yassine, A.; Abou Najm, M. An optimization model for the allocation of water
resources. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 164, 994–1006. [CrossRef]
28. Brown, T.C. Water for wilderness areas: Instream flow needs, protection, and economic value. Rivers 1991,
2, 311–325.
29. Brown, M.T.; McClanahan, T.R. EMergy analysis perspectives of Thailand and Mekong River dam proposals.
Ecol. Model. 1996, 91, 105–130. [CrossRef]
30. Turgeon, A. A Decomposition Method for the Long-Term Scheduling. Water Resour. Res. 1981, 17, 1565–1570.
31. Yu, Z.L. Water Use Marginal Effectiveness Calculation Liaoning; Liaoning Normal University: Dalian, China,
2010; pp. 23–24.
32. Olmstead, S.M.; Hanemann, W.M.; Stavins, R.N. Water demand under alternative price structures. J. Environ.
Econ. Manag. 2007, 54, 181–198. [CrossRef]
33. Ashoori, N.; Dzombak, D.A.; Small, M.J. Identifying Water Price and Population Criteria for Meeting Future
Urban Water Demand Targets. J. Hydrol. 2017, 555, 547–556. [CrossRef]
Water 2018, 10, 1289 17 of 17

34. Wei, C.J.; Wang, H. Generalization of regional water resources deployment network chart. J. Hydraul. Eng.
2007, 38, 1103–1108. [CrossRef]
35. Bijl, D.L.; Bogaart, P.W.; Kram, T.; de Vries, B.J.; van Vuuren, D.P. Long-term water demand for electricity,
industry and households. Environ. Sci. Policy 2016, 55, 75–86. [CrossRef]

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).