Multi-Agent System for
Groundwater Depletion Using
Game Theory
Ying Huang1, Pavel Janovsky2, Sanjoy Das1, Stephen M. Welch3, Scott DeLoach2
1Electrical & Computer Engineering Department
2Computer & Information Science Department
3Division of Agronomy
Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66505

Abstract

Groundwater is one of the most vital of all common pool resources throughout the world. More than half of
groundwater is used to grow crops. This research models groundwater depletion patterns within a multiagent system framework. Irrigators are modeled as agents in the multi-agent system.

The irrigation strategies adopted by the agents are investigated using game theory, under several futuristic
scenarios. The consequence of unregulated groundwater extraction in each case is analyzed. A set of five
irrigators, growing three crops: corn, sorghum and wheat, have been considered in this study. To allow
groundwater flow, these agents are assumed to be located in adjoining farm lands. Irrigators are modeled
selfish agents that strategize their irrigation patterns in order to maximize their own utilities, i.e. the
difference between the total revenue obtained from crop sales and the costs incurred, including groundwater
extraction costs. Due to groundwater flow, irrigators have no incentive to conserve groundwater for later use.
This leads to unsustainable depletion of the resource. Using the Nikaido-Isoda relaxation algorithm, their
irrigation strategies under Nash equilibrium, when no irrigator can increase its utility by unilaterally
changing its strategy, are obtained.
All parameters in this research are representative of Kansas. Recorded environmental and economic data of
the region, along with the DSSAT software, have been used to obtain these futuristic projections. These
scenarios include temperature increase, lowering of the water table, different precipitation levels, and
different price increases for the crops. One of the emergent phenomena of the simulations is the adoption of
crop rotation patterns by the irrigators to conserve groundwater. The irrigators grow corn, which is a more
profitable yet water intensive crop in one year, and in the next, conserve water by growing sorghum instead.
Another emergent outcome of this research is the viability of LEMAs. When the irrigators are subject to
LEMA-level limits on groundwater use, there is a slight increase in the aggregate utility of the LEMA.

1

1. Introduction
1.1 Background
Groundwater is one of the most vital of all natural resources throughout the world that is currently being
consumed at unsustainable levels throughout the globe [WB+10, SC+12]. Groundwater depletion threatens to
be a major worldwide problem with severe social, economic and ecological consequences, including the
drying up of wells, increased pumping costs, deteriorated water quality, and land subsidence. The long-term
effects of water scarcity include famine, the outbreak of disease, and socio-economic and political conflict.
Within the US, over half of the population relies on groundwater for drinking and other domestic use.
Additionally, groundwater constitutes about 67% of all water used for irrigation [Bar14, MK+14].

The high rate of depletion of groundwater has been attributed to the observation that due to the tendency of
the water to flow from one geographic location to another, there is little incentive for individual irrigators to
conserve water. Hence their rational strategy is to overexploit the resource, leading to the situation
commonly referred to as the tragedy of the commons [Har68, GS80]. Fortunately, more recent studies indicate
that the coordinated use of groundwater can be very effective in addressing sustainability issues [Og93].
Recent studies on groundwater usage that take into account spatial hydrologic elements suggest that the
coordinated use of groundwater can be very effective in limiting its depletion [BSZ10].

Fig. 1.1. The Ogallala aquifer (blue) in the Great Plains region of the US.
(Courtesy Kansas Geological Survey: www.kgs.ku.edu/Publications/Bulletins/162/gifs/fig006.gif).

The Ogallala aquifer is one of the most extensive bodies of water in the US, covering approximately 450,000
km2 across South Dakota, Wyoming, Nebraska, Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Texas [Lit09,
Bar14, BKH14, MK+14, USG14, USG15], providing 30% of all groundwater extracted in the US and 82% of the
drinking water demands of the region’s 2.3 million strong population. An estimated $35 billion worth of crop
yield each year relies directly on groundwater extracted from it [USG15].

2

Kansas’ water users divert about 1.6–1.9 trillion gallons water for uses such as irrigation, power generation,
public water supplies, industrial processes, stock-watering and other purposes, with the Ogallala aquifer
being the primary source. About 85% of this water is used for irrigation [KWO93, MCG09, MG11, KDA13,
KGS13]. Unfortunately, large-scale irrigation of the Ogallala aquifer, driven by technological innovations as
well as increased demands of corn production for bio-fuels, has raised groundwater extraction to
unsustainable levels [Wan11].

Future extrapolations of climate change, precipitation, and water needs present a bleak scenario for the
Ogallala aquifer [HP11, Wan11, SB+13, BKH14]. A recent study projects that current extraction levels would
result in groundwater depletion of 39% within the next 50 years [SB+13]. This could be further exacerbated
based on recently published projections of the Central Plains region [CAS15]. Recharge supplies 15% of the
current pumping level. At this rate, it would take an estimated 500–1,300 years to completely refill it.

1.2 Literature Survey

A significant amount of research on modeling approaches of natural resource sustainability, including
groundwater is available in the existing literature [Fis12]. In order to address the conflicting goals of
stakeholders in maximizing economic gains through groundwater extraction and eliciting sustainable
consumption, several such studies have applied a multi-objective approach. One such study takes into
account the objectives of water users, stakeholders, and a governmental agency (EPA) [KFB+10]. Six different
water management policies are evaluated using different multi-criteria metrics and found to produce similar
results [HH08]. Elsewhere, multi-objective evolutionary algorithms are applied to evolve optimal
groundwater extraction policies [STL+09]. Another study, which also considers sustainable water use as an
objective, models groundwater extraction in semi-arid conditions [GSS12]. Although multi-objective
approaches offer the means to look into the tradeoff between economically profitable groundwater depletion
and its sustainable depletion, they do not address how sustainability can be furthered without reducing
immediate economic gains.

Several game theoretic models of groundwater use, with agents representing either individual users or user
clusters, have been proposed recently [KBF+10, HKW11, Zuc11, LPE13, Hai14, Dol15, OY15]. Several studies
are limited to two-agent static games [GS80, Mad10, CPME12, GPK+13, Hai14]. Other studies that aim to
capture the behavior of a larger number of agents either apply principles of evolutionary game theory
[NWV07, MKA12] or use other means to simplify the underlying model, such as structurally simple spatial
agent configurations [SGB11]. Although analytical models are attractive from the standpoint of mathematical
tractability, they rely on several simplifications and consequently, do not consider details such as spatial
heterogeneity of the groundwater resource, annual trends in weather patterns, as well as various
miscellaneous nonlinearities present in the real world. It has been argued that such assumptions are not
adequate to capture more detailed aspects of groundwater depletion [ASS+12].
More computationally intensive approaches have been employed in large-scale models of common pool
resource use [Bou05, CAT10, HBR10, NLRY14, AN14], including that of groundwater [BBM+07, LE10,
OKH+10, CPME12, OKH12, MBY14]. These models are more effective in incorporating finer geophysical and
economic details of the real world [An12]. Various aspects of groundwater use have been explored using
multiple agent based computer simulations, such as water rights trading [BBM+07], water distribution
policies [OKH12, OKH+10], and optimal economic allocation of the resource [MBY14, NLRY14].

Groundwater depletion in various regions of the world, including that taking place in the Maule river basin
(Chile) [BBM+07], Jaguaribe basin (Brazil) [OKH12, OKH+10], Zamora aquifer (Mexico) [LPE13], and Andhra
Pradesh (India) [ASS12] have been performed using various agent based models. However, to the best of the
authors’ knowledge, no such detailed models have so far been applied to the Ogallala aquifer.
A significant amount of research has been directed at exploring various methods to escape the tragedy of the
commons. They have consistently revealed that cooperative groundwater extraction is instrumental in
addressing sustainability [NWV07, Mad10, MD11, MKA12, CPME12, Hai14]. Unfortunately, methods that
directly induce groundwater users to cooperate have largely remained unaddressed. The role of a central

3

planner in coordinating groundwater use among agents has also been explored [SGB11, MBY+14]. Other
studies reported in the recent literature on sustainable groundwater depletion include promoting
environmental literacy among its users [LPE13], attaining sustainable consumptive practices through
regulatory institutions [MD11, ASS+12], as well as penalizing overuse through payment schemes [Dol15] or
taxation [RW13].

1.3 Research Contributions

The Ogallala aquifer provides a unique opportunity to study the behavior among irrigators under different
scenarios, and the resulting impact on groundwater. Irrigators’ usage patterns are driven through entirely
economic considerations, with each irrigator trying to his or her own overall gain from that activity.

The research described here applies game theory to study the behavior of groundwater users (modeled as
agents) under different scenarios, and how this collective behavior affects groundwater consumption. In
contrast to earlier game-theoretic studies on groundwater resource use that adopt overly simplistic
assumptions to derive game theoretic equilibrium, this research makes use of an iterative numerical
technique to do so. Applying this computationally intensive process allows various real-world complexities to
be incorporated into the proposed model. The simulations are carried out within a multi-agent systems
(MAS) framework and over a period of several years, as well as under a variety of climatic as well as socioeconomic time-varying conditions.

Implementing policies in order to elicit sustainable consumption is receiving much attention among policy
planners, government and other administrative agencies. A recent example in groundwater was adopted by
the state of Kansas in 2012, authorizing the formation of Local Enhanced Management Areas (LEMAs). A
LEMA is a local group of users who enter legally enforceable limits on extraction for water rights within a
specified geographic boundary. The research outlined in this thesis applies groundwater depletion
constraints upon individual users operating under a LEMA. The results suggest that LEMAs can be very
effective in eliciting sustainable groundwater use with little impact on the profitability.

4

2. Game Theory & Equilibrium
2.1 Non-Cooperative Game Theory
A competitive game consists of 𝑁 agents (or players) who participate in the game. Each agent can influence
the outcome of the game by selecting a strategy. The strategy of each agent 𝑖 (1 ≤ 𝑖 ≤ 𝑁) is denoted as 𝑥𝑖 and
the set of all strategies available to agent 𝑖 as 𝑿𝑖 (so that 𝑥𝑖 ∈ 𝑿𝑖 ).

The joint strategy is the vector of the strategies of all agents and is denoted as 𝐱, so that 𝐱 = (𝑥1 , 𝑥2 , … , 𝑥𝑁 ).
Furthermore, as is commonly used in game theoretic notation, the collective strategies of all other agents
excluding agent 𝑖 is denoted as 𝐱 −𝑖 . In other words 𝐱 −𝑖 = (𝑥1 , … , 𝑥𝑖−1 , 𝑥𝑖+1 … , 𝑥𝑁 ) and the joint strategy can be
denoted as 𝐱 = (𝑥𝑖 , 𝐱 −𝑖 ).
The net gain of an agent from participating in the game is called its utility. The utility 𝑈𝑖 of any agent 𝑖 is a
function that is determined not only by the strategy that that agent takes, but also by the strategies selected
by all other agents in the game. Therefore 𝑈𝑖 : 𝑿1 × 𝑿2 × … 𝑿𝑁 → ℛ (𝑖 = 1,2, … , 𝑁). It is convenient to express
utilities explicitly as functions of the strategies, either as 𝑈𝑖 (𝑥𝑖 , 𝐱 −𝑖 ) or as 𝑈𝑖 (𝐱).

2.2 Nash Equilibrium

In a non-cooperative game, agents are assumed to be selfish as each agent tries to maximize its own utility
from the game, while disregarding the utilities of all other agents. Under this situation, with the strategies of
the other agents 𝐱 −𝑖 held constant, the agent 𝑖 will select a best response strategy 𝑥𝑖 as per the following
expression,
(2.1)
𝑥𝑖 = argmax 𝑈𝑖 (𝑦𝑖 , 𝐱 −𝑖 ).
𝑦𝑖 ∈𝑿𝑖

Agents can change their strategies in any arbitrary order, in accordance with Eqn. (2.1). Nash equilibrium
arises when no agent can improve its utility by unilaterally deviating from its previous its strategy. Thus a
joint strategy 𝐱∗ = (𝑥1∗ , … , 𝑥𝑁∗ ) = (𝑥𝑖∗ , 𝐱 ∗−𝑖 ) is Nash equilibrium if for each agent 𝑖 = 1,2, … , 𝑁 the following
conditions hold,
(2.2)
𝑈𝑖 (𝑦𝑖 , 𝐱 ∗−𝑖 ) ≤ 𝑈𝑖 (𝐱 ∗ ).

Looking at it another way, if 𝐱 ∗ is at Nash equilibrium, then the best response of each agent 𝑖 is the agent’s
own Nash equilibrium strategy 𝑥𝑖∗ itself,
(2.3)
𝑥𝑖∗ = argmax 𝑈𝑖 (𝑦𝑖 , 𝐱 ∗−𝑖 ).
𝑦𝑖

2.3 Nikaido-Isoda Relaxation

Consider the two joint strategies 𝐱 = (𝑥1 , 𝑥2 , … , 𝑥𝑁 ) and 𝐲 = (𝑦1 , 𝑦2 , … , 𝑦𝑁 ). From 𝐱 if any agent 𝑖 were to
unilaterally change its strategy from 𝑥𝑖 to 𝑦𝑖 , the new joint strategy would be (𝑥1 , … , 𝑦𝑖 , … , 𝑥𝑁 ). This is denoted
as 𝑦𝑖 |𝐱 = (𝑥1 , … , 𝑦𝑖 , … , 𝑥𝑁 ) The increment in its utility due to the change in strategy would be 𝑈𝑖 (𝑦𝑖 |𝐱) − 𝑈𝑖 (𝐱).
The Nikaido-Isoda function is defined as [CK24],
𝑁

𝜓(𝐱, 𝐲) = ��𝑈𝑖 (𝑦𝑖 |𝐱) − 𝑈𝑖 (𝐱)� .

(2.4)

𝑖=1

From any joint strategy 𝐱 suppose each agent 𝑖 switches strategy to its best response, i.e. from 𝑥𝑖 to 𝑦𝑖 , where,
𝑦𝑖 = argmax𝑦𝑖 𝑈𝑖 (𝑥1 , … , 𝑦𝑖 , … , 𝑥𝑁 ). Let us combine the separate best responses of each agent into a separate
joint strategy 𝐲 = (𝑦1 , … , 𝑦𝑖 , … , 𝑦𝑁 ). As each agent picks its best response to maximize its own utility, the

5

Nikaido-Isoda function, 𝜓(𝐱, 𝐲) is maximized. We define the optimum response function as the joint strategy
that maximizes the Nikaido-Isoda function [CK24],
(2.5)
𝑧(𝐱) = argmax 𝜓(𝐱, 𝐲).
𝐲

For any Nash equilibrium 𝐱∗ (under certain conditions), the following must hold [CK04],
𝐱 ∗ = 𝑧(𝐱 ∗ ).
The relaxation algorithm is shown below.

(2.6)

Algorithm-2.1
Initialize 𝐱 (1)
For 𝑙 = 1 ∶ ∞
Obtain 𝑧�𝐱 (𝑙) � by 1-dim optimization for all agents
𝐱 (𝑙+1) = (1 − 𝜂)𝐱 (𝑙) + 𝜂𝑧�𝐱 (𝑙) �
End

Here 𝜂 ∈ (0,1) is a small constant. At the beginning of an iteration 𝑙 of the above relaxation algorithm, a new
optimum response 𝑍�𝐱 (𝑙) � of the joint strategy 𝐱 (𝑙) is determined. Next, the strategy 𝐱 (𝑙) is incremented to
bring it a little closer to 𝑧�𝐱 (𝑙) �. The updated strategy 𝐱 (𝑙+1) is treated in an identical manner in the next
iteration 𝑙 + 1.
Under certain conditions, the above relaxation algorithm will converge to a Nash equilibrium 𝐱 ∗ ,
𝐱 ∗ = lim 𝐱 (𝑙) .
𝑙→∞

(2.7)

In practice, the relaxation process is carried out over a finite iterations 𝐿max , which while typically being small
due to relatively rapid convergence of the relaxation algorithm, must be large enough so that only and the
output 𝐱 (𝐿) is significantly close to 𝐱 ∗ , i.e. �𝐱 (𝐿max) − 𝐱 ∗ � ≪ 1.

6

3. Analytical Model of Groundwater Use
3.1 Groundwater
Groundwater, the common pool resource being modeled forms the backbone of this research. There are
several factors affecting the groundwater head at any location. Groundwater is constantly supplied by local
precipitation, which is the source of almost all freshwater in the hydrologic cycle [WHF98]. Precipitation
includes rainfall as well as snow, although rainfall is the dominant source of local precipitation in the region
considered in this study. Some of the locally available water is returned back into the hydrologic cycle by
means of evaporation [LW60]. With 𝑃 denoting the precipitation per unit area, and 𝐸, the evaporation per
unit area, our model combines both factors into a single quantity 𝑅, the net replenishment per unit area as
shown below,
𝑅(𝑡) = 𝑃(𝑡) − 𝐸(𝑡).
(3.1)
Note that here and in the all other quantities involved in this investigation, the argument 𝑡 within parenthesis
indicates the time step.

Groundwater is also subject to constant flow across locations. In the current framework, we have considered
a total of 𝑁 agents, indexed as 𝑖, 𝑗 = 1,2, … , 𝑁, that are involved in irrigation. Suppose 𝐺𝑖 and 𝐺𝑗 are the
groundwater heads (in units of height) at the locations of agents 𝑖 and 𝑗, then the net groundwater flow from 𝑖
to 𝑗 is 𝑎𝑖,𝑗 �𝐺𝑗 − 𝐺𝑖 �. The quantity 𝑎𝑖,𝑗 is a physical constant corresponding to the rate of flow between the two
locations. This quantity depends on the geology of the immediate region between the two locations, such as
soil permeability, presence of rocks, etc. as well as elevations and area.

Under these circumstances, and in the absence of any human activity, the groundwater head at agent 𝑖’s
location can be updated as,
𝑁

𝐺𝑖 (𝑡 + 1) = 𝐺𝑖 (𝑡) + 𝑅(𝑡) − � 𝑎𝑖,𝑗 �𝐺𝑗 (𝑡) − 𝐺𝑖 (𝑡)� .

(3.2)

𝑗=0

The summation term on the right in Eqn. (3.2) aggregates the groundwater flowing outwards from the
location of agent 𝑖. Note that the summation is carried out over all 𝑁 agents but includes a quantity 𝐺0 that
represents the groundwater head in the surrounding region. Eqn. (3.2) is a straightforward implementation
of the well-known Darcy’s law [Dar56].

precipitation &
evaporation

depletion
flow
groundwater head
Fig. 3.1. Schematic showing all the factors involved in groundwater variation considered in Eqn. (3.3).

The addition of human activity to this model introduces another dimension affecting groundwater heads. This
activity, carried out by the 𝑁 agents in the MAS framework in the form of irrigation, is a source of

7

groundwater depletion and is also included in this model (see Fig. 3.1). With 𝐷𝑖 being the local groundwater
depleted by an agent 𝑖 per unit area, the groundwater updating is now,
𝑁

𝐺𝑖 (𝑡 + 1) = 𝐺𝑖 (𝑡) + 𝑅(𝑡) − 𝐷𝑖 (𝑡) − � 𝑎𝑖,𝑗 �𝐺𝑗 (𝑡) − 𝐺𝑖 (𝑡)� .
𝑗=0

(3.3)

The surrounding groundwater is lowered linearly in terms of the time to model the steady drop in
groundwater levels that is typically observed,
(3.4)
𝐺0 (𝑡 + 1) = 𝐺0 (𝑡) − 𝛾.
Here, 𝛾 is the rate at which the average groundwater head is observed to drop in the geographic region under
consideration.

3.2 Irrigation

In this model, each irrigator agent 𝑖 is assigned a fixed land area for irrigation. The agent can use this land to
cultivate crops (indexed 𝑘 = 1, … , 𝐾). Irrigation causes local groundwater to be depleted in two different
ways. It is extracted directly by each irrigator agent through pumping in order to water the crop. Additionally,
groundwater is also dissipated into the atmosphere through transpiration, the process of water continuously
evaporating from the surface of leaf and released into the hydrologic cycle [LW60]. Both factors are
dependent on the types of crop irrigated. Thus, the water depletion term in Eqn. 3.3 during a time period 𝑡 is
given by,
𝐷𝑖 (𝑡) = �(𝑇𝑇𝑘 (𝑡) + 𝐼𝐼𝑘 (𝑡))𝑥𝑘,𝑖 (𝑡)

(3.5)

𝑘

The quantities 𝑇𝑇𝑘 and 𝐼𝐼𝑘 pertain to the change in groundwater height from transpiration and due to
groundwater being extracted for irrigation for crop 𝑘. The quantity 𝑥𝑘,𝑖 in Eqn. (3.5) above is the fraction of
the total land area that is used by agent 𝑖 to irrigate crop 𝑘. Note that 𝑥𝑘,𝑖 must lie within the interval [0, 1], so
that 0 ≤ 𝑥𝑘,𝑖 ≤ 1. Other constraints placed on the variable 𝑥𝑘,𝑖 are discussed later on in this thesis.

With 𝐴𝑖 being the total land area available for irrigation to agent 𝑖 the quantity of crop 𝑘 harvested at the end
of the crop’s farming season is given by,
(3.6)
𝑄𝑘,𝑖 (𝑡) = 𝐴𝑖 𝑦𝑘 (𝑡)𝑥𝑘,𝑖 (𝑡).
The factor 𝑦𝑘 in the above product is the yield of crop 𝑘 per unit area. It depends on the environmental
conditions during the entire irrigation period of that crop, from planting until the end of harvesting.

The gross revenue 𝑈𝑖𝑅 in monetary units that is obtained by the irrigator agent 𝑖 from crop sales is the sum of
the revenue gained from the sale of each crop and given by the following expression,
𝑈𝑖𝑅 (𝑡) = � 𝑝𝑘 (𝑡)𝑄𝑘,𝑖 (𝑡) .
𝑘

In Eqn. (3.7), the quantity 𝑝𝑘 is the market price per bushel of the crop 𝑘.

transpiration

groundwater head

irrigation
Fig. 3.2. Schematic showing the pathways leading to further groundwater depletion due to irrigation.

8

(3.7)

3.3 Investment
The irrigation of crops requires a certain amount of monetary investment arising due to groundwater
extraction, as well as production costs. It is assumed that groundwater is extracted by means of gas operated
pumps. The Nebraska Pumping Plant Performance Criteria provides a simple formula to calculate the
corresponding pumping cost per unit area [RA99, DP12]. This expression is as follows,
𝜃
(3.8)
𝐸𝐸𝑖 (𝑡) = 𝑔(𝑡)(𝐺 − 𝐺𝑖 (𝑡) + 2.31𝜓).
𝑝
In the above equation, the constant 𝜃 is the amount of natural gas required to lift a unit volume of water per
unit height difference, 𝑝 is the pumping efficiency, 𝑔(𝑡) is the price per unit of natural gas and 𝜓 is the gauge
pressure of the irrigation system which is multiplied by an appropriate conversion factor of 2.31.
The total cost of extracting groundwater by agent 𝑖 is given by,
𝑈𝑖𝐸 (𝑡) = 𝐴𝑖 𝐸𝐸𝑖 (𝑡) � 𝐼𝐼𝑘 (𝑡)𝑥𝑘,𝑖 (𝑡) .
𝑘

(3.9)

The cost associated with the production of per unit area of crop 𝑘 is 𝑐𝑘 . Since the crop is irrigated in a fraction
of the total area, the area under irrigation of crop 𝑘 is 𝐴𝑖 𝑥𝑘,𝑖 and the associated production cost is
𝑐𝑘 (𝑡)𝐴𝑖 𝑥𝑘,𝑖 (𝑡). The total production cost associated with all crops is the sum of the production costs of all
crops and is given by,
𝑈𝑖𝑃 (𝑡) = � 𝑐𝑘 (𝑡)𝐴𝑖 𝑥𝑘,𝑖 (𝑡) .

(3.10)

𝑘

3.4 Game Theoretic Model

In the game theoretic model, a total of 𝐾 crops are considered. Each agent 𝑖 is involved in irrigating a fraction
𝑥𝑘,𝑖 (𝑡) of each crop 𝑘 = 1, … , 𝐾 during a time interval 𝑡 in years. The simulation is carried out in discrete time
steps until 𝑇max , so that 𝑡 = 1,2, … , 𝑇max . The strategy 𝐱 𝑖 of each agent 𝑖 is a 𝐾 × 𝑇max vector consists of the
fraction of its available area used to irrigate each crop, and during each time interval.

Two assumptions have been made for the sake of simplicity: (i) fully informed agents, and (ii) utility timeinvariance. The first assumption implies that the agents can simultaneously access all environmental and
economic future forecasts during all 𝑇max time steps while optimizing their strategies. This assumption is
made here in order to study the model without introducing irrelevant complexities arising from data
uncertainties. When there is a significant amount of uncertainty (as in climate change), simulations have been
carried out over multiple scenarios.

Under the second assumption of utility time invariance, the agents place equal weights to their net monetary
gain for each time step 𝑡 = 1, … , 𝑇max . The rationale behind this simplification arises from several preliminary
simulations that fortuitously showed that there the resultant changes in the agent’s strategies when future
utilities were progressively discounted by 2% - 5% each year were not large enough to change the
conclusions drawn from this entire study. Discounts higher than that are rendered meaningless when 𝑇max is
kept at large values since discounted utilities well into the future are lower than floating point representation
bounds.
This net gain of an agent 𝑖 at time 𝑡 can be computed readily as the difference between the revenue 𝑈𝑖𝑅 (𝑡)
obtained from Eqn. (3.7) and the costs 𝑈𝑖𝐸 (𝑡) and 𝑈𝑖𝑃 (𝑡) which are determined using Eqns. (3.9) and (3.10).
The overall utility that the agent maximizes is the aggregate of all such gains and is given by,
𝑇max

𝑈𝑖 (𝐱 𝑖 , 𝐱 −𝑖 |𝛀) = � 𝑈𝑖𝑅 (𝑡) − �𝑈𝑖𝐸 (𝑡) + 𝑈𝑖𝑃 (𝑡)� .
𝑡=1

All input data to the model are included in 𝛀 in Eqn. (3.11).

9

(3.11)

The Nash equilibrium strategies analogous to Eqn. (2.3) and the corresponding utilities are,
𝐱 ∗𝑖 = argmax 𝑈𝑖 (𝐱 𝑖 , 𝐱 ∗−𝑖 |𝛀),
𝐱𝑖

𝑈𝑖∗ = max 𝑈𝑖 (𝐱 𝑖 , 𝐱 ∗−𝑖 |𝛀) = 𝑈𝑖 (𝐱 ∗𝑖 , 𝐱 ∗−𝑖 |𝛀).
𝐱𝑖

(3.12)

(3.13)

Note that each opponent joint strategy 𝐱−𝑖 contains (𝑁 − 1) × 𝐾 × 𝑇max entries as it accounts for all
remaining 𝑁 − 1 agents other than 𝑖, and the joint strategy of all agents 𝐱 includes a total of 𝑁 × 𝐾 × 𝑇max
real numbered entries. Fortunately, mathematical software packages (such as MATLAB used in this research)
support multidimensional arrays.
With 𝐱 ≜ (𝐱 𝑖 , 𝐱 −𝑖 ) and 𝐲 ≜ (𝐲𝑖 , 𝐲−𝑖 ) being any pair of strategies, the Nikaido-Isoda function is given by,
𝜓(𝐱, 𝐲) = ��𝑈𝑖 (𝐲𝑖 , 𝐱 −𝑖 |𝛀) − 𝑈𝑖 (𝐱 𝑖 , 𝐱 −𝑖 |𝛀)� .
𝑖

The Nikaido-Isoda relaxation procedure specific to this model is shown below.

(3.14)

Algorithm-3.1
Initialize 𝐱
while (‖𝑧(𝐱) − 𝐱‖∞ ≥ 𝜖) do
𝑧(𝐱) = argmax 𝜓(𝐱, 𝐲)
end

𝐲,c(𝐲)=𝑇

𝐱 = (1 − 𝜂)𝐱 + 𝜂𝜂(𝐱)

It should be noted that the Nash equilibrium is not unique in our model; initializing the relaxation algorithm
with different values through different seeds the MATLAB random number generator produced different
strategies under equilibrium. Similar observations have been reported elsewhere [Mad10]. Fortunately, there
were no discernible differences in the agents’ utilities across each simulation. All results provided throughout
the remainder of this thesis have been obtained by simulating the Multi-Agent System (see Chapter 4) with
the same random number seed value.

10

4. Multi-Agent System
4.1 Geographical Setting
The rate of groundwater decline has been estimated to be approximately one foot every year [USG13]. This
rate of decline has been assumed in all simulation results reported in this thesis.

The study has been carried out with a set of five hypothetical irrigators located in Garden city in southwest
Kansas. Garden city is located at 37°58′31″N 100°51′51″W as shown in Fig. 4.1 and its average
elevation is 2,838 feet. The immediate neighborhood around this city is predominantly agricultural, with the
adjoining Ogallala aquifer being the source of water needed for irrigation. Garden city is projected to face
severe water shortage in future [Lit09].

Fig. 4.1. Map of Kansas showing the extent of the Ogallala aquifer region (blue) and Garden city (red star).

4.2 Irrigation

1

3
5
4

2

Fig. 4.2. Groundwater flow between the agents’ locations. Box sizes reflect actual areas available to agents 1– 5.

11

Table 4.1. Area and initial groundwater heads of each agent.

Agent index
𝑖

Area in acres
𝐴𝑖

2

1200

1
3
4
5

0 (Aquifer)

1200

Initial ground-water
head in meters
𝐺𝑖 (0)
125.0
113.0

1000

125.0

1000

113.0

900

118.0

-

118.8

Three crops have been considered in this research (𝐾 = 3), which are corn (𝑘 = 1), sorghum (𝑘 = 2), and
wheat (𝑘 = 3). The study involves five irrigator agents (𝑁 = 5). Table 4.1 shows the area associated with each
irrigator agent and their initial groundwater heads. Fig. 4.2 shows the permeability coefficients of the
groundwater flow between the agents. The annual rate of drop of the aquifer’s groundwater head (see Eqn.
(3.4)) is kept at 𝛾 = 304.8 mm/year. This value is the average drop rate within the period.

As corn and sorghum are summer crops and wheat is a winter crop, agent strategies are constrained in the
following manner,
0 ≤ 𝑥1,𝑖 , 𝑥2,𝑖 , 𝑥3,𝑖 ≤ 1,
𝑥1,𝑖 + 𝑥2,𝑖 = 1.
(4.1)

4.3 Physical Data Preparation
Decision Support System for Agrotechnology Transfer (DSSAT), a widely used software package with an
underlying crop simulation model, has been used to generate crop related data for this research [D15]. The
raw inputs to DSSAT consists of (i) weather data (𝐖), (ii) crop data (𝐂𝑘 ), and (iii) soil data (𝐒). The package’s
outputs, for each crop 𝑘 each year, that are used here are the following: (i) the transpiration, 𝑇𝑇𝑘 , (ii) the
water extracted for irrigation, 𝐼𝐼𝑘 , (iii) the evapotranspiration 𝐸𝐸𝑘 , (iv) the precipitation, 𝑃𝑘 , and (v) the crop
yield per unit area, 𝑦𝑘 . Note that 𝐸𝐸𝑘 and 𝑃𝑘 pertain to evapotranspiration and precipitation only during the
relevant season that the crop is grown. The inputs and outputs of DSSAT are shown in Fig. 4.3.

weather

crop

DSSAT
software

soil
Fig. 4.3. Inputs and outputs of DSSAT; the outputs serve as input data during the MAS simulation.

12

Historical weather data between years 1964 – 2014 used as the raw inputs 𝐖 to DSSAT are available by
National Center for Environmental Information [NCD15]. This data consists of daily records of the
precipitation, solar radiation, and the minimum and maximum temperatures. Aggregated over the entire year
the precipitation data is used to obtain 𝑃 in Eqn. (3.1).

Data pertaining to Garden city, for each crop 𝑘 used in this study, which is available online at Kansas State
University [CPT15] is used as the other input 𝐂𝑘 to DSSAT. Finally, the soil data 𝐒 was obtained from the US
Department of Agriculture (USDA) [USDA15].

The evapotranspiration 𝐸𝐸𝑘 obtained from DSSAT includes the transpiration 𝑇𝑇𝑘 as well as the evaporation
taking place during the growing season of each crop 𝑘. Hence the difference 𝐸𝐸𝑘 − 𝑇𝑇𝑘 is the total
evaporation during this season and independent of 𝑘. In this study, the average difference is taken as the
evaporation that takes place within that season. In order to estimate the total water evaporation per unit area
for the entire year 𝑡, it has been assumed for simplicity that the ratio of the precipitation during the growing
season and that over the entire year is equal to the same ratio of the evaporation. In other words,
1
1
� 𝑃𝑘 =
�(𝐸𝐸𝑘 − 𝑇𝑇𝑘 ) .
(4.2)
𝐸(𝑡)
𝑃(𝑡)
𝑘

𝑘

Eqn. (4.2) is used in this study to estimate the evaporation 𝐸 in Eqn. (3.1).

The outputs 𝑇𝑇𝑘 and 𝐼𝐼𝑘 from DSSAT summed across an entire year are used in Eqn. (3.5) and Eqn. (3.9). The
output 𝑦𝑘 is used in Eqn. (3.6).

Unfortunately the historical input data to DSSAT, contains a great deal of variation across time that do not
represent any long-term trends in the time series. These variations manifested themselves as ‘noise’ in the
raw output data produced by DSSDAT. Initial experiments revealed that this noise level was large enough to
subsume the differences across the different scenarios in some of our simulations. The approach taken was to
� DSSAT () of its inputs that can be expressed
express the outputs of DSSAT as a quadratic approximation 𝚿
succinctly in the following manner,
𝑇𝑇𝑘 (𝑡)
(𝑡)
⎛ 𝐼𝐼𝑘 ⎞
� DSSAT �𝐖(𝑡 = 1, … , 𝑇max ), 𝐂𝑘 (𝑡 = 1, … , 𝑇max )�.
(4.3)
⎜ 𝐸𝐸𝑘 (𝑡) ⎟ = 𝚿
𝑃𝑘 (𝑡)
⎝ 𝑦𝑘 (𝑡) ⎠
� DSSAT () does not include the soil data 𝐒 as one
Note that the set of arguments of the approximating function 𝚿
of its arguments. This is because in all our simulations this is a fixed quantity that does not vary with time and
is implicitly incorporated within the coefficients of the quadratic function.

4.3 Socio-Economic Parameters

The raw market price 𝑝𝑘 of each crop 𝑘 was obtained from the National Agricultural Statistics Service
[NAS15]. The raw prices were subject to exponential saturations to obtain the actual values used to compute
the agent utilities in Eqn. (3.7). Accordingly, the market price 𝑝𝑘 of each crop 𝑘 is given by,
− ∑𝑖 𝑄𝑘,𝑖 (𝑡)

𝑝𝑘 (𝑡) = 𝑝𝑘∞ (𝑡) + �𝑝𝑘0 (𝑡) − 𝑝𝑘∞ (𝑡)�𝑒 𝑄�𝑘 .
(4.4)
∞ 0
�
In Eqn. (4.4), the saturated market price 𝑝𝑘 is bounded within the interval (𝑝𝑘 𝑝𝑘 ) and 𝑄𝑘 is an appropriate
scale constant. The summation term appearing in the exponent term’s numerator is used to determine the
total crop market supply. This treatment of the market prices is useful to imitate the limited market of
sorghum.
The production cost 𝑐𝑘 for each crop was obtained from USDA [AERS15]. The cost of production 𝑐𝑘 of each
crop 𝑘is also subject to exponential saturation within the intervals (𝑐𝑘∞ 𝑐𝑘0 ).
𝑐𝑘,𝑖 (𝑡) = 𝑐𝑘∞ (𝑡) + �𝑐𝑘0 (𝑡) − 𝑐𝑘∞ (𝑡)�𝑒

13

−𝐴𝑖 𝑥𝑘,𝑖 (𝑡)
�𝑘
𝑎

.

(4.5)

It can be seen that the quantity of the crop is not summed across all agents in Eqn. (4.5).

Owing to extraneous factors not considered in this research, all raw prices and costs contained significant
variations. In order to capture only the long term variations, the raw data had to be replaced with trends,
𝑡

(4.6)
�𝑝𝑘∞ (𝑡), 𝑝𝑘0 (𝑡)� = �𝑝𝑘∞ (0), 𝑝𝑘0 (0)�𝑒 𝜏𝑘 .
Here the quantity 𝜏𝑘 is a time constant that minimizes the sum squared deviation from the observed data. In a
similar manner, with 𝜃𝑘 being the analogous time constant, the costs were obtained as,
𝑡

�𝑐(𝑡), 𝑐𝑘0 (𝑡)� = �𝑐𝑘∞ (0), 𝑐𝑘0 (0)�𝑒 𝜃𝑘 .
(4.7)
The source of raw gas price data 𝑔 was obtained from the U.S Energy Information Administration website
[NGP15]. Upon exponential fitting, the gas price used in this study is,
𝑡

𝑔(𝑡) = 𝑔(0)𝑒 𝜁 .

(4.8)

4.4 Simulation
The purpose of the MAS simulation is to determine the utilities 𝑈𝑖 (𝐱|𝛀) of each irrigator 𝑖 (Eqn. (3.11)). It
serves as a procedure invoked by Algorithm 3.1. As each utility represents the aggregate over time, the MAS
simulation, depicted below (Algorithm 4.1) is carried out sequentially from 𝑡 = 1 until 𝑇max .
Algorithm-4.1
Input 𝐱
For each agent 𝑖 𝑈𝑖 = 0
𝑡=1
While 𝑡 ≤ 𝑇max
Update 𝐺𝑖 (𝑡 + 1) of each agent 𝑖
Obtain DSSAT data 𝑇𝑇𝑘 (𝑡), 𝐼𝐼𝑘 (𝑡), 𝐸𝐸𝑘 (𝑡), 𝑦𝑘 (𝑡)
Compute 𝑈𝑖𝑅 (𝑡), 𝑈𝑖𝐸 (𝑡), 𝑈𝑖𝑃 (𝑡) of each agent 𝑖
For each agent 𝑖 𝑈𝑖 = 𝑈𝑖 + 𝑈𝑖𝑅 (𝑡) + 𝑈𝑖𝐸 (𝑡) + 𝑈𝑖𝑃 (𝑡)
𝑡 =𝑡+1
End
Output 𝑈𝑖 of each agent 𝑖

14

5. Results: Baseline Model
5.1 Setup
The first study of the proposed MAS is to explore how projected changes in future weather may produce
shifts in local irrigation practices, and how this shift affects groundwater level. The next study of the proposed
MAS is to explore how changes in social and economic parameters in the future will affect groundwater use.
In order to perform comparative analyses, a baseline simulation is performed where all these parameters
remain at constant values obtained from historical data. The prices of corn, wheat and sorghum are
maintained at a constant level equal to the average prices during the ten-year period 2001 – 2010. Although
the gas price shows an increasing trend during this period, it is also fixed at the average value. The simulation
is carried out over a period of 20 years. All the inputs to the MAS are obtained using Eqn. (4.3) using the
historical weather data 𝐖 during the 20 year period 1995 – 2014.

5.2 Results

strategies (xk,i ) vs. time (t) for each agent
x→

1
0.5

Agent 1

0
-0.5

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

t (year) →
x→

1

Agent 2

0.5
0
-0.5

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

t (year) →
x→

1
0.5

Agent 3

0
-0.5

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

t (year) →
x→

1

Agent 4

0.5
0
-0.5

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

t (year) →
x→

1

Agent 5

0.5
0
-0.5

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

t (year) →

Fig. 5.1. Strategies vs. year for each agent (baseline).

18

20

corn
sorghum
wheat

Fig. 5.1 shows the strategies of the five irrigator agents evolving during the 20 year period under the baseline
scenario. All agents used the entire land area for cultivation during summer, opting to grow either corn or
sorghum. Although corn has a larger market than sorghum resulting in higher revenues, it also requires more
water for irrigation. The tradeoff between the higher revenues (𝑈𝑖𝑅 ) and lower extraction costs (𝑈𝑖𝐸 ) is clearly
seen in this figure. The agents switch regularly between the two crops, opting for higher revenues in some
years and conserving water by growing sorghum during other years. It can be observed that the most
common strategy is to switch between the two summer crops in alternate years, although choosing to grow
the same crop for two (or even three) years is also seen. It can be seen that the initial groundwater head
(𝐺𝑖 (0)) available with each agent influences its irrigation strategy. Although agents 1 and 2 have equal
irrigation areas, as agent 1 has a higher it grows corn for 12 of the entire 20 yearly periods, while agent 2
grows corn for only 11 of those years. In a similar manner, although agents 3 and 4 have identical areas, they
grow corn for 11 years and 7 years. Agent 5 which has an intermediate value of initial groundwater chooses
to grow corn for 10 of the 20 years.

15

Figs. 5.2 and 5.3 show how the utilities and the utilities per unit area vary with time during this twenty-year
period. In Fig. 5.2 it can be seen that, as expected, the utilities of agents 1 and 2, which have the largest areas
under irrigation, are the highest, while that of agent 5 with the smallest area, is the lowest. When the utilities
per unit area are compared, a similar pattern is observed, although the differences are not as discernible.
Agents 1 and 2 have the highest utilities per unit area while agent 5 has the lowest. We hypothesize that this
phenomenon reflects the economics of scale – irrigators with larger areas under cultivation are able to garner
higher benefits from each unit of land.
utilities (U ) vs. time (t) for each agent
i

6

4.8

x 10

Agent1
Agent2
Agent3
Agent4
Agent5

4.6

4.4

Ui (dollar) →,

4.2

4

3.8

3.6

3.4

3.2

3

2.8

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

t (year) →

Fig. 5.2. Utilities vs. year for each agent (baseline).
utilities per unit area (Ui / Ai ) vs. time (t) for each agent
4000

Agent1
Agent2
Agent3
Agent4
Agent5

3900

3800

Ui / Ai (dollar/acre) →

3700

3600

3500

3400

3300

3200

3100

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

t (year) →

Fig. 5.3. Utilities per unit area vs. year for each agent (baseline).

The groundwater head at each agent’s location as well as that of the surrounding aquifer is shown as a
function of time in Fig. 5.4. It can be observed that constant irrigation throughout the entire simulation period
for maximum utility clearly results in a larger decline in the groundwater in comparison to the groundwater
head of the aquifer. It can also be seen that agents 1 and 3, which have higher initial groundwater levels show

16

the steepest declines in their groundwater heads over time. In comparison, agents 2 and 4 show the least
decline in comparison to the other agents. This observation can be explained by examining the amount of
corn – the most water intensive, yet profitable crop, grown by each agent. Agents 1 and 3, have the highest
groundwater heads at the beginning of the simulation, grow corn for a total of 23 years (see Fig. 5.1),
averaging 11.5 years per agent. Agent 5, which begins with an intermediate water head, grows corn a total of
10 time periods, while agents 2 and 4 grow the crop for an average of only 9 years per agent. This pattern is
consistent with earlier studies that report that higher groundwater availability leads the irrigators to exploit
the resource rather than conserving it.
groundwater head (G ) vs. time (t) for each agent
i

5

x 10

Agent1
Agent2
Agent3
Agent4
Agent5
Ogallala Aquifer

1.25

1.2

Gi (mm) →

1.15

1.1

1.05

1

0.95

0.9

0

2

4

6

10

8

12

14

16

18

20

t (year) →

Fig. 5.4. Groundwater head vs. year for each agent (baseline).
pumping of water (xi,k * IRk * Ai) vs. utilities (U ) for each agent
i

6

2.8

x 10

2.6

2.2

i

3

* IR * A (m )→

2.4

x

i,k

k

2

1.8

1.6

Agent1
Agent2
Agent3
Agent4
Agent5

1.4

1.2
2.8

3

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4

4.2

4.4

Ui(dollar)→

Fig. 5.5. Water pumped vs. utility for each agent (baseline).

4.6

4.8
6

x 10

In Fig. 5.5, the total volume of water pumped each year by each agent is plotted as a function of the agent’s
utility of that year. Upon visual inspection, it is clear that the points center around two distinct clusters per
agent, depending on the summer crop the agent picks for the year.

17

6. Results: Future Scenarios
6.1 Climate Change Scenarios
There is near unanimity that the Great Plains region is expected to experience severe climate change during
the mid 21st century, with large changes in rainfall patterns. One study predicts precipitation shifts towards
wetter summers in the northern areas of the Great Plains by 10% whereas between 10% – 30% drier
weather in the southern Great Plains [PC13]. Accordingly two possible scenarios are reported here that
represent possible weather patterns during the period 2032 – 2051. The first scenario models a 20% increase
in summer precipitation, while the other scenario considers a 10% uniform decrease in precipitation
throughout the year. The historical precipitation data in 𝐖 is changed accordingly to obtain the MAS inputs
using Eqn. (4.3). Additionally as increased rainfall is associated with cloudier conditions, the summer solar
radiance component of 𝐖 is lowered by 5% for the first scenario, and uniformly increased by 2% in the other.
Fig. 6.1 shows the irrigation strategies of the agents under higher summer precipitation. Due to the increased
availability of water, agents 1 and 2 grow corn for 18 of the 20 year simulation period. A similar upward trend
in number of years used to grow corn is seen in the other agents. In Fig. 6.2, which shows the changed
irrigation strategies with lower precipitation, the opposite trend is seen. Here, all five agents opt to cultivate
corn for a smaller number of years.
The outcomes of the two future precipitation scenarios on the local groundwater levels are provided in Fig.
6.3 and Fig. 5.4. Although the rate at which groundwater drops in lower in Fig. 6.3, this change is not as
significant as one would expect from a 20% increase in summer rainfall.
strategies (xk,i ) vs. time (t) for each agent
x→

1
0.5

Agent 1

0
-0.5

2

4

6

8

12

10

14

16

20

18

t (year) →

x→

1

Agent 2

0.5
0
-0.5

2

4

6

8

12

10

14

16

20

18

t (year) →

x→

1
0.5

Agent 3

0
-0.5

2

4

6

8

12

10

14

16

20

18

t (year) →

x→

1
0.5

Agent 4

0
-0.5

2

4

6

8

12

10

14

16

20

18

t (year) →

x→

1

Agent 5

0.5
0
-0.5

2

4

6

8

12

10

t (year) →

14

16

20

18

corn
sorghum
wheat

Fig. 6.1. Strategies vs. year for each agent (increased rainfall).

18

strategies (x ) vs. time (t) for each agent
k,i
x→

1
0.5

Agent 1

0
-0.5

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

t (year) →

x→

1

Agent 2

0.5
0
-0.5

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

t (year) →

x→

1

Agent 3

0.5
0
-0.5

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

t (year) →

x→

1

Agent 4

0.5
0
-0.5

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

t (year) →

x→

1
0.5

Agent 5

0
-0.5

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

t (year) →

20

corn
sorghum
wheat

Fig. 6.2. Strategies vs. year for each agent (decreased rainfall).

groundwater head (Gi ) vs. time (t) for each agent

5

x 10

Agent1
Agent2
Agent3
Agent4
Agent5
Ogallala Aquifer

1.25

1.2

Gi (mm) →

1.15

1.1

1.05

1

0.95

0.9

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

t (year) →

Fig. 6.3. Groundwater head vs. year for each agent and aquifer (increased rainfall).

19

Fig. 6.4. Groundwater head vs. year for each agent and aquifer (decreased rainfall).

Precipitation 20% higher in summer

15

15

15

10

0

1

2

3

4

10

1

3

2

Agent i→

4

0

5

20

15

15

15

10

5

2

3

4

10

5

0

5

Wheat x i,3 →

20

1

1

3

2

4

0

5

15

15

15

2

3

Agent i→

4

5

Wheat x i,3 →

20

Sorghum x i,2 →

20

1

10

5

0

5

1

2

3

4

5

4

5

Agent i→

20

5

4

10

Agent i→

10

3

5

Agent i→

0

2

Agent i→

20

0

1

Agent i→

Sorghum x i,2 →

Corn x i,1 →

10

5

5

0

5

Wheat x i,3 →

20

5

Corn x i,1 →

Precipitation 10% lower all year

20

Sorghum x i,2 →

Corn x i,1 →

Baseline
20

10

5

1

3

2

4

5

0

1

Agent i→

Fig. 6.5. Number of years a grain is grown under each scenario.

20

2

3

Agent i→

6.2 Socio-Economic Scenarios
The next study of the proposed MAS is to explore how changes in social and economic parameters in the
future will affect groundwater use. The parameters that are affected in each case are shown in Table 6.1
below.
Table 6.1. Parameter changes under different socio-economic scenarios.

Scenario

𝐺0 (𝑡)

Baseline
Population increase
Water use improvement

decrease
decrease
decrease

𝑝𝑘 (𝑡)

constant
increase
constant

Parameters
𝑔(𝑡)
𝑐𝑘 (𝑡)
constant
constant
constant

𝐼𝐼𝑘 (𝑡)

constant
constant
constant

constant
constant
decrease

Fig. 6.6 shows the strategies of the five agents over time under this scenario. In anticipation of higher future
crop prices, the agents try to limit water use during the initial periods by growing sorghum instead of corn in
summer, switching to corn during the later stages. The wheat irrigation strategy also follows a similar trend
with all five agents not growing any wheat during the first seven years, but subjecting the entire available
land area to grow it during the last four years of the 20 year period. This observation is reflected in the
utilities of the agents as shown in Fig. 6.7, where there is a steady increase in each agent’s utility with time.
Likewise in Fig. 6.8, the agents limited water use results in smaller declines in their groundwater heads
during the initial years, with agents 4 and 5 showing marginal increases during the years 1 and 2.

The other scenario considers more efficient water use due to technological changes. The irrigation water
requirement 𝐼𝐼𝑘 for each crop 𝑘, which is obtained from Eqn. (4.3) is subjected to 2% decrease each year. Fig.
6.9 shows the strategies adopted by the agents each year. In comparison to Fig. 5.1, there is no marked
change in the crops chosen to grow each year. Agents 1, 3 and 4 select to grow corn for only one more year in
comparison to the baseline strategy; while agent 2 grows corn for 13 out of the 20 years in comparison to 11
years earlier. On the other hand, agent 5 does not show any change in its overall strategy by growing more
corn. Thus, this model predicts that more efficient use of water for crop irrigation does not dramatically alter
the irrigation patterns of the agents. The corresponding evolution in groundwater heads with time is shown
in Fig. 6.10. The reduced groundwater requirement results in a somewhat slower decline in groundwater
levels.
strategies (xk,i ) vs. time (t) for each agent

x→

1

0.5

0
-0.5

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

12

14

16

18

20

12

14

16

18

20

12

14

16

18

20

12

14

16

18

t (year) →

x→

1
0.5
0
-0.5

2

4

6

8

10

t (year) →

x→

1
0.5
0
-0.5

2

4

6

8

10

t (year) →

x→

1
0.5
0
-0.5

2

4

6

8

10

t (year) →

x→

1
0.5
0
-0.5

2

4

6

8

10

t (year) →

20

corn
sorghum
wheat

Fig. 6.6 Strategies vs. year for each agent with population growth.

21

utilities (Ui ) vs. time (t) for each agent

6

18

x 10

16

14

Ui (dollar) →,

12

10

8

6

4

2

Agent1
Agent2
Agent3
Agent4
Agent5

0

-2

0

4

2

8

6

10

12

14

16

18

20

t (year) →

Fig. 6.7 Utilities vs. year for each agent with population growth.

groundwater head (G ) vs. time (t) for each agent
i

5

x 10

Agent1
Agent2
Agent3
Agent4
Agent5
Ogallala Aquifer

1.25

1.2

Gi (mm) →

1.15

1.1

1.05

1

0.95

0.9

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

t (year) →

Fig. 6.8 Groundwater head vs. year for each agent with population growth.

22

strategies (xk,i ) vs. time (t) for each agent
x→

1
0.5
0
-0.5

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

12

14

16

18

20

12

14

16

18

20

12

14

16

18

20

12

14

16

18

t (year) →

x→

1
0.5
0
-0.5

2

4

6

8

10

t (year) →

x→

1
0.5
0
-0.5

2

4

6

8

10

t (year) →

x→

1
0.5
0
-0.5

2

4

6

8

10

t (year) →

x→

1
0.5
0
-0.5

2

4

6

8

10

t (year) →

20

corn
sorghum
wheat

Fig. 6.9 Strategies vs. year for each agent with more efficient groundwater use (2% per year).

groundwater head (G ) vs. time (t) for each agent
i

5

x 10

Agent1
Agent2
Agent3
Agent4
Agent5
Ogallala Aquifer

1.25

1.2

Gi (mm) →

1.15

1.1

1.05

1

0.95

0.9

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

t (year) →

Fig. 6.10 Groundwater head vs. year for each agent with more efficient groundwater use (2% per year).

23

7. Cooperative Groundwater Use
7.1 LEMA
The state of Kansas in 2012 has adopted a policy to enhance groundwater sustainability by authorizing the
formation of Local Enhanced Management Areas (LEMAs). A LEMA is a local group of users who enter legally
enforceable limits on extraction for water rights within a specified geographic boundary. The LEMA
establishes its own limit on the total groundwater usage for a period of five years. Each irrigator is allowed to
decide how to adjust its own irrigation strategy, such that the total groundwater extracted by it during this
five-year period stays within the allowable limits imposed by the LEMA.

Since all simulations in this research have been performed for twenty years, the entire simulation can be
divided into four non-overlapping 5-year periods. Let τ denote a set of five years representing any such 5year period, say, τ = {1,2,3,4,5}. The total volume of water pumped by agent 𝑖 at time 𝑡 ∈ τ without any
restrictions is given by,
𝑊𝑖 (𝑡) = 𝐴𝑖 � 𝐼𝐼𝑘 (𝑡)𝑥𝑘,𝑖 (𝑡) .

(7.1)

𝑊𝑖 = � 𝑊𝑖 (𝑡) .

(7.2)

𝑘

The agent’s total water pumped during this period τ is,
𝑡∈τ

The LEMA limits the water consumption to a value 𝐿𝑖 which is a fraction of 𝑊𝑖 . For instance 𝐿𝑖 = 0.9𝑊𝑖 ,
implying that the agent is required to lower its extraction by 10%.

7.2 Results

MAS simulations are carried out with 𝐿𝑖 = 0.95𝑊𝑖 , 0.90𝑊𝑖 , 0.85𝑊𝑖 , 0.80𝑊𝑖 , 0.75𝑊𝑖 and 0.70𝑊𝑖 . There are four
periods τ in these simulations. All five agents are assumed to form the LEMA.

The aggregate utilities for different values of 𝐿𝑖 are shown in Fig. 7.1. where the aggregate utilities are the
totals over the 20-year duration. It is observed in Fig. 7.1 (top) that restricting groundwater depletion up to
𝐿𝑖 = 0.80𝑊𝑖 results in steady increases in the utilities of agents 3, 4, and 5 which have smaller areas under
irrigation, while those of agents 1 and 2 which have larger areas under irrigation is fairly consistent without
any perceivable trend. When 𝐿𝑖 is reduced further, this trend is no longer observed.
Remarkably, the combined utility of all five agents, shown in Fig. 7.1 (bottom) also reveals an upward trend
until 𝐿𝑖 = 0.80𝑊𝑖 . This trend can be explained as follows. When the agents with larger areas placed under
irrigation limit their water use, due to groundwater flow across farms, the water heads at the remaining
agents are higher. As a result, their costs of extracting groundwater (Eqn. (3.9)) is reduced.

Figure 7.2 shows the changed irrigation strategies at 𝐿𝑖 = 0.80𝑊𝑖 . As a result of the restricted groundwater
use, the agents irrigate more sorghum instead of corn. Furthermore it is also seen that the strategies of agents
4 and 5 which have smaller areas under irrigation are shifted more than the others.

These results are encouraging, as they clearly show the effectiveness of LEMAs as a means to address the
tragedy of the commons.

24

individulas utility (Ui) vs. percentage of groundwater used (Li / W i)

7

9.5

x 10

Ui (dollar) →,

9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
100

95

90

85

80

75

70

75

70

Li / W i →

LEMA utility vs. percentage of groundwater used (Li / W i)

8

LEMA utility (dollar) →

4

x 10

3.95

3.9

3.85

3.8

3.75
100

95

90

85

80

Li / W i →

Fig. 7.1 Utilities under different LEMA limits.
strategies (x ) vs. time (t) for each agent
k,i
x→

1
0.5

Agent 1

0
-0.5

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

t (year) →

x→

1

Agent 2

0.5
0
-0.5

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

t (year) →

x→

1
0.5

Agent 3

0
-0.5

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

t (year) →

x→

1

Agent 4

0.5
0
-0.5

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

t (year) →

x→

1

Agent 5

0.5
0
-0.5

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

t (year) →

Fig. 7.2 Strategies of the agents at 80% limit.

25

16

18

20

corn
sorghum
wheat

8. Conclusion
The MAS model in this research is shown to successfully simulate complex behavioral patterns shown in real
irrigator agents. The following are the most significant aspects of real irrigation that is also seen in the MAS
model .
• The agent strategies at Nash equilibrium incorporates crop rotation which is observed in real irrigation,
where the agents alternate between the two summer crops, corn and sorghum.
• The MAS model exhibits the well-known phenomenon of economics of scale; agents with larger areas
under irrigation are able to obtain slightly larger revenues per unit area under irrigation.
• The model is able to simulate various plausible climate-change scenarios.
• The model is able to simulate various plausible socio-economic scenarios.
• The model simulates cooperative groundwater use, showing that LEMAs will lead to better sustainable
practices while increasing the aggregate payoffs of the irrigators.

Future research of this study can be conducted in the following directions.
• Extending the model to include more crop types.
• Enhancing the groundwater flow to include more geospatial features.
• Extending the model to larger sets of agents and incorporate coalition formation algorithms.
• Applying correlated equilibrium to obtain better irrigator payoffs under coordinated groundwater use.

26

References
[AERS15] Unit States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service, [Online]. Available:
http://ers.usda.gov/data-products/commodity-costs-and-returns.aspx. [Accessed: 2015].
[An12] An, L. (2012). Modeling human decisions in coupled human and natural systems: review of agentbased models. Ecological Modelling, 229, 25-36.

[AN14] Aguirre, Robert, and Timothy Nyerges. "An Agent-Based Model of Public Participation in
Sustainability Management." Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 17.1 (2014): 7.
[ASS+12] Athanassoglou, S., Sheriff, G., Siegfried, T., & Huh, W. T. (2012). Optimal mechanisms for
heterogeneous multi-cell aquifers. Environmental and Resource Economics, 52(2), 265-291.
[Bar14] N. L. Barber. Summary of estimated water use in the United States in 2010. U.S. Geological Survey
Fact Sheet 2014–3109, 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/fs20143109.

[BBM+07] Berger, T., Birner, R., Mccarthy, N., DíAz, J., & Wittmer, H. (2007). Capturing the complexity of water
uses and water users within a multi-agent framework.Water Resources Management, 21(1), 129-148.

[BBY14] K. B. Mulligan, C. Brown, Y. C. E. Yang, and D. P. Ahlfeld. Assessing groundwater policy with coupled
economic groundwater hydrologic modeling, Water Resources Research, 50(3), 2257-2275, 2014.

[BKH14] B. A. Basso, A. D. Kendall, and D. W. Hyndman. The future of agriculture over the Ogallala Aquifer:
Solutions to grow crops more efficiently with limited water, Earth’s Future, 1, 39–41, 2014.

[Bou05] Bousquet, F. (2005). Companion modeling and multi-agent systems for integrated natural resource
management in Asia. Int. Rice Res. Inst..
[BSZ10] N. Brozović , D. L. Sunding, and D. Zilberman. On the spatial nature of the groundwater pumping
externality. Resource and Energy Economics, 32(2):154–164, 2010.

[CAT10] Cox, M., Arnold, G., & Tomás, S. V. (2010). A review of design principles for community-based natural
resource management. Ecology and Society,15(4), 38.

[CK04] J. Contreras, M. Klusch., and J. B. Krawczyk, "Numerical Solutions to Nash–Cournot Equilibria in
Coupled Constraint Electricity Markets,” Power Systems, IEEE Transactions, vol.19, no.1, pp.195-206, Feb.
2004.

[CPME12] Corona, O. L., Padilla, P., Maqueo, O. P., & Escolero, O. (2012). The Advantages of Using a ComputerBased Integrated Assessment to Promote Cooperative Behavior in Groundwater Management. Advances in
Applied Sociology, 2(04), 344.
[CPT15] Crop Performance Tests | Agronomy | Kansas State University, [Online]
Available: http://www.agronomy.k-state.edu/services/crop-performance-tests/. [Accessed: 16- Nov- 2015].

[D15] 'About DSSAT', 2015. [Online]. Available: http://dssat.net/about. [Accessed: 16- Nov- 2015].
[Dar56] H. Darcy. Les fontaines publiques de la ville de dijon. Dalmont, Paris, 70, 1856.

[DK+12] Clara Deser, Reto Knutti, Susan Solomon and Adam S. Phillips, “Communication of the role of natural
variability in future North American climate,” Nature Climate Change 2, 775–779 (2012).

27

[DL13] D. Fross & S. Lyle, "Guidelines for Voluntary Baseline Groundwater Quality Sampling in the Vicinity of
Hydraulic Fracturing Operations," Kansas Geological Survey, pp. 1-6, 2013.

[Dol15] Dolinsky, M. (2015). Sustainable systems-game theory as a tool for preserving energy resources.
Energy, Sustainability and Society, 5(1), 1-12.

[DP12] Y. Ding and J. M. Peterson, "Comparing the Cost-Effectiveness of Water Conservation Policies in a
Depleting Aquifer: A Dynamic Analysis of the Kansas High Plains," Journal of Agricultural and Applied
Economics, vol. 44, no.2. pp. 223-234, 2012.
[FC79] R.A.Freeze and J.A Cherry, Groundwater, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA: Prentice-Hall, 1979.

[Fis12] D. H. Fisher. Recent advances in AI for computational sustainability. IEEE Intelligent Systems,
27(4):75–79, 2012.

[FW+07] M. M. Fuller, D. Wang, L. J. Gross, & M. W. Berry. Computational science for natural resource
management. Computing in Science & Engineering, 9(4):40–48, 2007.

[GM12] Gilroy, Kristin L., and Richard H. McCuen. "A nonstationary flood frequency analysis method to adjust
for future climate change and urbanization." Journal of hydrology 414 (2012): 40-48.

[GPK+13] T. Guilfoos, A. D. Pape, N. Khanna, and K. Salvage. Groundwater management: The effect of water
flows on welfare gains. Ecological Economics, 95:31–40, 2013.
[GS80] M. Gisser & D. A. Sanchez. Competition versus optimal control in groundwater pumping. Water
Resources Research, 16(4):638–642, 1980.

[GSS12] Grundmann, J., Schütze, N., Schmitz, G. H., & Al-Shaqsi, S. (2012). Towards an integrated arid zone
water management using simulation-based optimisation. Environmental Earth Sciences, 65(5), 1381-1394.
[Hai14] Haider, A. (2014). Rational utilisation of a common resource by multiple agents.
[Har68] G. Hardin. The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162(3859):1243–1248, 1968.

[HBK04] S S. Hutson, N L. Barber, J F. Kenny, K S. Linsey, D S. Lumia, and M A. Maupin, "Estimated Use of
Water in the United States in 2000," U.S. Geological Survey, 2004.

[HBR10] Heckbert, S., Baynes, T., & Reeson, A. (2010). Agent‐based modeling in ecological economics.
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences,1185(1), 39-53.
[HH08] Hajkowicz, S., & Higgins, A. (2008). A comparison of multiple criteria analysis techniques for water
resource management. European journal of operational research, 184(1), 255-265.

[HJP03] G. Hoogenboom, J.W. Jones, C.H. Porter, P.W. Wilkens, K.J. Boote, W.D. Batchelor, L.A.Hunt, and G.Y.
Tsuji (Editors). "Decision Support System for Agrotechnology Transfer Version 4.0. " Volume 1: Overview.
University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI, 2003
[HKW11] Huh, W. T., Krishnamurthy, C. K., & Weber, R. (2011). Concavity and monotonicity properties in a
groundwater management model. Naval Research Logistics (NRL), 58(7), 670-675.

[HP11] R. Hornbeck, and K. Pinar. The evolving impact of the Ogallala Aquifer: Agricultural adaptation to
groundwater and climate, National Bureau of Economic Research, No. w17625, 2011.

28

[KFB+10] Kerachian, R., Fallahnia, M., Bazargan-Lari, M. R., Mansoori, A., & Sedghi, H. (2010). A fuzzy game
theoretic approach for groundwater resources management: Application of Rubinstein Bargaining Theory.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 54(10), 673-682.

[Lit09] Jane B. Little. The Ogallala Aquifer: Saving a Vital U.S. Water, Scientific American, March 2009.

[LE10] Lobianco, A., & Esposti, R. (2010). The Regional Multi-Agent Simulator (RegMAS): An open-source
spatially explicit model to assess the impact of agricultural policies. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture,
72(1), 14-26.

[LPE13] López‐Corona, O., Padilla, P., Escolero, O., Armas, F., García‐Arrazola, R., & Esparza, R. (2013).
Playing with models and optimization to overcome the tragedy of the commons in groundwater. Complexity,
19(1), 9-21.

[LW60] L. Luna, and L. Walter, "A Primer on Water," U.S. Geological Survey General Purpose Publication,
1960.
[Mad10] K. Madani. Game theory and water resources. Journal of Hydrology, 381(3):225–238, 2010.

[MBY+14] Mulligan, K. B., Brown, C., Yang, Y. C. E., & Ahlfeld, D. P. (2014). Assessing groundwater policy with
coupled economic‐groundwater hydrologic modeling.Water Resources Research, 50(3), 2257-2275.
[MD11] Madani, K., & Dinar, A. (2011). Cooperative institutions for sustainable management of common pool
resources. Water Science and Policy Center, University of California. Riverside, 1-30.

[MK+14] M. A. Maupin, J. F. Kenny, S. S. Hutson, J. K. Lovelace, N. L. Barber, and K. S. Linsey. Estimated use of
water in the United States in 2010. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1405, 56, 2014.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/cir1405.

[MKA12] Moghaddam, P. P., Kerachian, R., & Abed-Elmdoust, A. (2012). Developing evolutionary stable
strategies for groundwater resources exploitation: Application of game theory. In Int. Conf. on Ecol., Environ.
Bio. Sci.(ICEEBS’2012), Dubai (pp. 450-454).

[NASS15] "Quick Stats Tools," National Agricultural Statistics Service, [Online].
Available: http://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/. [Accessed: 2015].

[NCD15] National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), [Online]. Available: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/.
[Accessed: 16- Nov- 2015].

[NGP15] U.S Energy Information Administration, [Online].
Available: http:// www. eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/na1140_sks_3a.htm. [Accessed: 2015].

[NLRY14] Ni, J., Liu, M., Ren, L., & Yang, S. X. (2014). A multiagent Q-learning-based optimal allocation
approach for urban water resource management system. Automation Science and Engineering, IEEE
Transactions on, 11(1), 204-214.
[NWV07] Noailly, J., Withagen, C. A., & Van den Bergh, J. C. (2007). Spatial evolution of social norms in a
common-pool resource game. Environmental and Resource Economics, 36(1), 113-141.

[Og93] E. Ostrom and R. Gardner. Coping with asymmetries in the commons: self-governing irrigation
systems can work. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 93–112, 1993.
[OKH12] van Oel, P. R., Krol, M. S., & Hoekstra, A. Y. (2012). Application of multi-agent simulation to evaluate
the influence of reservoir operation strategies on the distribution of water availability in the semi-arid
Jaguaribe basin, Brazil. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C, 47, 173-181.

29

[OKH+10] van Oel, P. R., Krol, M. S., Hoekstra, A. Y., & Taddei, R. R. (2010). Feedback mechanisms between
water availability and water use in a semi-arid river basin: A spatially explicit multi-agent simulation
approach. Environmental Modelling & Software, 25(4), 433-443.
[OY15] Podimata, M. V., & Yannopoulos, P. C. (2015). Evolution of game theory application in irrigation
systems. Agriculture and Agricultural Science Procedia, 4, 271-281.

[PC13] Patricola, Christina M., and Kerry H. Cook. "Mid-twenty-first century warm season climate change in
the Central United States. Part I: regional and global model predictions." Climate dynamics 40, no. 3-4 (2013):
551-568.

[Per06] Perry, C.A., 2006, Effects of irrigation practices on water use in the Groundwater Management
Districts within the Kansas High Plains, 1991–2003: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report
2006–5069, 93 p.
[PL10] Pfeiffer, Lisa, and Lin, Cynthia C.-Y., 2010, The effect of irrigation technology on groundwater use:
Choices Magazine, v. 25, no. 3, 6 p.

[RA99] D. H. Rogers and M. Alam, "Comparing Irrigation Energy Costs," Kansas State University Agricultural
Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service, p. 4, 1999.
[RCG+12] Roy, Sujoy B., Limin Chen, Evan H. Girvetz, Edwin P. Maurer, William B. Mills, and Thomas M. Grieb.
"Projecting water withdrawal and supply for future decades in the US under climate change scenarios."
Environmental science & technology 46, no. 5 (2012): 2545-2556.

[SB+13] D. R. Steward, P. J. Bruss, X. Yang, S. A. Staggenborg, S. M. Welch, and M. D. Apley. Tapping
unsustainable groundwater stores for agricultural production in the high plains aquifer of kansas, projections
to 2110. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(37):E3477–E3486, 2013.

[SC+12] Scanlon, Bridget R., Claudia C. Faunt, Laurent Longuevergne, Robert C. Reedy, William M. Alley,
Virginia L. McGuire, and Peter B. McMahon. "Groundwater depletion and sustainability of irrigation in the US
High Plains and Central Valley." Proceedings of the national academy of sciences 109, no. 24 (2012): 93209325.
[SDM+12] J. F. Suter, J. M. Duke, K. D. Messer, and H. A. Michael. Behavior in a spatially explicit groundwater
resource: Evidence from the lab. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 94(5):1094–1112, 2012.

[SGB11] Saleh, Y., Gürler, Ü., & Berk, E. (2011). Centralized and decentralized management of groundwater
with multiple users. European Journal of Operational Research, 215(1), 244-256.

[STL+09] Siegfried, T., Bleuler, S., Laumanns, M., Zitzler, E., & Kinzelbach, W. (2009). Multiobjective
groundwater management using evolutionary algorithms. Evolutionary Computation, IEEE Transactions on,
13(2), 229-242.

[SP12] A. E. Saak and J. M. Peterson. Groundwater pumping by heterogeneous users. Hydrogeology Journal,
20(5):835–849, 2012.

[GSS12] Grundmann, J., Schütze, N., Schmitz, G. H., & Al-Shaqsi, S. (2012). Towards an integrated arid zone
water management using simulation-based optimisation. Environmental Earth Sciences, 65(5), 1381-1394.

[USDA15] United Sates Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Serivce, [Online].
Available: http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm. [Accessed: February 2015].

[USG13] http://ne.water.usgs.gov/ogw/hpwlms/tablewlpre.html

30

[USGS14] "Kansas Water Level Monitoring Study", Unit States Geological Survey. [Online].
Available: http://ne.water.usgs.gov/ogw/hpwlms/tablewlpre.html. [Accessed: 2014].

[WB+10] Wada, Yoshihide, Ludovicus PH van Beek, Cheryl M. van Kempen, Josef WTM Reckman, Slavek
Vasak, and Marc FP Bierkens. "Global depletion of groundwater resources." Geophysical Research Letters 37,
no. 20 (2010).
[WH98] T.C. Winter, J.W. Harvey, O.L. Franke, and W.M. Alley, "Ground Water And Surface Water A Single
Resource," U.S. Geological Survey, p. 3, 1998.
[WPY+15] Winter, Jonathan M., Pat J‐F. Yeh, Xiaojing Fu, and Elfatih AB Eltahir. "Uncertainty in modeled and
observed climate change impacts on American Midwest hydrology." Water Resources Research (2015).

[YUE11] S. Yahya, G. U� lkü and B. Emre. Innovative Applications of O.R. Centralized and decentralized
management of groundwater with multiple users, European Journal of Operational Research, 215: 244–256,
2011.

[Zu11] Zucca, R. (2011). A Cooperative Game Theory approach for cost allocation in complex water resource
systems., Ph.D. dissertation.

31

