Water Resources Management

, Volume 32, Issue 9, pp 3135–3153 | Cite as

Planning for Regional Water System Sustainability Through Water Resources Security Assessment Under Uncertainties

  • Yizhong Chen
  • Li He
  • Hongwei Lu
  • Jing Li
  • Lixia Ren


A leader-follower relationship in multiple layers of decision makers under uncertainties is a critical challenge associated with water resources security (WRS). To address this problem, a credibility-based chance-constrained hierarchical programming model with WRS assessment is developed for regional water system sustainability planning. This model can deal with the sequential decision-making problem with different goals and preferences, and reflect uncertainties presented as fuzzy sets. The effectiveness of the developed model is demonstrated through a real-world water resources management system in Beijing, China. A leader-follower interactive solution algorithm based on satisfactory degree is utilized to improve computational efficiency. Results show the that: (a) surface water, groundwater, recycled water, and off water would account for 27.01, 27.44, 23.11, and 22.44% of the total water supplies, respectively; (b) the entire pollutant emissions and economic benefits would consequently decrease by 31.53 and 22.88% when the statue changes from quite safe to extremely far from safe; and (c) a high credibility level would correspond to low risks of insufficient water supply and overloaded pollutant emissions, which lowers economic benefits and pollutant emissions. By contrast, a low credibility level would decrease the limitations of constraints, which leads to high economic benefits and pollutant emissions, but system risk would be increased. These findings can aid different decision makers in identifying the desired strategies for regional water resources management under multiple uncertainties, and support the in-depth analysis of the interrelationships among water security, system efficiency, and credibility level.


Water sources security Credibility Sustainability Pollutant emissions System risk 



The authors thank the editor and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions. This research was supported by the Strategic Priority Research Program of Chinese Academy of Sciences (Grant No. XDA20040302) and Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities.

Supplementary material

11269_2018_1981_MOESM1_ESM.docx (778 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 778 kb)


  1. Alarcón J, Garrido A, Juana L (2014) Managing irrigation water shortage: a comparison between five allocation rules based on crop benefit functions. Water Resour Manag 28:2315–2329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bergion V, Sokolova E, Aström J, Lindhe A, Sörén K, Rosén L (2017) Hydrological modelling in a drinking water catchment area as a means of evaluating pathogen risk reduction. J Hydrol 544:74–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Calvete HI, Galé C (2010) Linear bi-level programs with multiple objectives at the upper level. J Comput Appl Math 234(4):950–959CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Capitanescu F, Rege S, Marvuglia A, Benetto E, Ahmadi A, Navarrete Gutierrez T, Tiruta-Barna L (2016) Cost versus life cycle assessment-based environmental impact optimization of drinking water production plants. J Environ Manag 177:278–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chen YZ, Lu HW, Li J, Huang GH, He L (2016) Regional planning of new-energy systems within multi-period and multi-option contexts: a case study of Fengtai, Beijing, China. Renew Sust Energ Rev 65:356–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chen YZ, He L, Guan YL, Lu HW, Li J (2017) Life cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions and water-energy optimization for shale gas supply chain planning based on multi-level approach: case study in Barnett, Marcellus, Fayetteville, and Haynesville Shales. Energy Convers Manag 134:382–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cheng X, He L, Lu HW, Chen YZ, Ren LX (2016) Optimal water resources management and system benefit for the Marcellus shale-gas reservoir in Pennsylvania and West Virginia. J Hydrol 540:412–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dubois D (2004) Probability–possibility transformations, triangular fuzzy sets, and probabilistic inequalities. Reliab Comput 10:273–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dubois D, Prade H (1992) When upper probabilities are possibility measures. Fuzzy Sets Syst 49(1):65–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eshtawi T, Evers M, Tischbein B, Diekkrüger B (2016) Integrated hydrologic modeling as a key for sustainable urban water resources planning. Water Res 101:411–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fernández-Camacho R, Cabeza IB, Aroba J, Gómez-Bravo F, Rodríguez S, de la Rosa J (2015) Assessment of ultrafine particles and noise measurements using fuzzy logic and data mining techniques. Sci Total Environ 512–513:103–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fonseca RH, Reynolds AC, Jansen JD (2016) Generation of a Pareto front for a bi-objective water flooding optimization problem using approximate ensemble gradients. J Pet Sci Eng 147:249–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Garcia X, Pargament D (2015) Reusing wastewater to cope with water scarcity: economic, social and environmental considerations for decision-making. Resour Conserv Recycl 101:154–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hailegeorgis TT, Alfredsen K (2017) Analyses of extreme precipitation and runoff events including uncertainties and reliability in design and management of urban water infrastructure. J Hydrol 544:290–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. He L, Chen YZ, Li J (2018a) A three-level framework for balancing the tradeoffs among the energy, water, and air-emission implications within the life-cycle shale gas supply chains. Resour Conserv Recycl 133:206–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. He L, Chen YZ, Zhao HH, Tian PP, Xue YX, Chen L (2018b) Game-based analysis of energy-water nexus for identifying environmental impacts during shale gas operations under stochastic input. Sci Total Environ 627:1585–1601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Housh M, Ostfeld A, Shamir U (2013) Limited multi-stage stochastic programming for managing water supply systems. Environ Model Softw 41:53–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kumar RS, Goswami A (2015) A fuzzy random EPQ model for imperfect quality items with possibility and necessity constraints. Appl Soft Comput 34:838–850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Li J, He L, Lu HW, Fan X (2014) Stochastic goal programming based groundwater remediation management under human-health-risk uncertainty. J Hazard Mater 279:257–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Li XM, Lu HW, Li J, Du P, Xu M, He L (2015) A modified fuzzy credibility constrained programming approach for agricultural water resources management- a case study in Urumqi, China. Agr Water Manage 156:79–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lu HW, Du P, Chen YZ, He L (2016) A credibility-based chance-constrained optimization model for integrated agricultural and water resources management: a case study in South Central China. J Hydrol 537:408–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nouiri I (2014) Multi-objective tool to optimize the water resources management using genetic algorithm and the pareto optimality concept. Water Resour Manag 28:2885–2901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pedro-Monzonís M, Solera A, Ferrer J, Estrela J, Paredes-Arquiola J (2015) A review of water scarcity and drought indexes in water resources planning and management. J Hydrol 527:482–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pishvaee MS, Torabi SA, Razmi TJ (2012) Credibility-based fuzzy mathematical programming model for green logistics design under uncertainty. Comput Ind Eng 62:624–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pourrahmani E, Delavar MR, Mostafavi MA (2015) Optimization of an evacuation plan with uncertain demands using fuzzy credibility theory and genetic algorithm. Int J Disast Risk Re 14:357–372Google Scholar
  26. Roach T, Kapelan Z, Ledbetter R (2018) A resilience-based methodology for improved water resources adaptation planning under deep uncertainty with real world application. Water Resour Manag 32:2013–2031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rong A, Lahdelma R (2008) Fuzzy chance constrained linear programming model for optimizing the scrap charge in steel production. Eur J Oper Res 186(3):953–964CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sadegh M, Kerachian R (2011) Water resources allocation using solution concepts of fuzzy cooperative games: fuzzy least core and fuzzy weak least core. Water Resour Manag 25:2543–2573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Safa HH, Morid S, Moghaddasi M (2012) Incorporating economy and long-term inflow forecasting uncertainty into decision-making for agricultural water allocation during droughts. Water Resour Manag 26(8):2267–2281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Safavi HR, Golmohammadi MH, Sandoval-Solis S (2016) Scenario analysis for integrated water resources planning and management under uncertainty in the Zayandehrud river basin. J Hydrol 539:625–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Skinner DJC, Rocks SA, Pollard SJT (2016) Where do uncertainties reside within environmental risk assessments? Expert opinion on uncertainty distributions for pesticide risks to surface water organisms. Sci Total Environ 572:23–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sreekanth J, Datta B (2014) Stochastic and robust multi-objective optimal management of pumping from coastal aquifers under parameter uncertainty. Water Resour Manag 28:2005–2019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tookanlou MB, Ardehali MM, Nazari ME (2015) Combined cooling, heating, and power system optimal pricing for electricity and natural gas using particle swarm optimization based on bi-level programming approach: case study of Canadian energy sector. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 23:417–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Veettil AV, Mishra AK (2016) Water security assessment using blue and green water footprint concepts. J Hydrol 542:589–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wang H, Zhang XD (2018) A decentralized bi-level fuzzy two-stage decision model for flood management. Water Resour Manag 32:1615–1629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wang X, Cui Q, Li SY (2012) An optimal water allocation model based on water resources security assessment and its application in Zhangjiakou region, northern China. Resour Conserv Recycl 69:57–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Zhang YM, Huang GH, Lu HW, He L (2015) Planning of water resources management and pollution control for Heshui River watershed, China: a full credibility-constrained programming approach. Sci Total Environ 524–525:280–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.State Key Laboratory of Hydraulic Engineering Simulation and SafetyTianjin UniversityTianjinChina
  2. 2.School of Renewable EnergyNorth China Electric Power UniversityBeijingChina
  3. 3.Key Laboratory of Water Cycle and Related Land Surface Processes, Institute of Geographic Science and Natural Resources ResearchChinese Academy of ScienceBeijingChina
  4. 4.Shanxi Institute of EnergyShanxiChina

Personalised recommendations