| Literature DB >> 35459761 |
Zengchuan Dong1, Jitao Zhang2,3, Ke Zhang2, Xinkui Wang2, Tian Chen2.
Abstract
In the river basin water resources allocation (WRA) problem, an unbalanced WRA poses challenges to water resources management departments. Many studies focus on achieving a lower water shortage rate while ignoring the equilibrium relationship among the socio-economic system, water resources system and eco-environmental system, as well as the equilibrium relationship among different regions. In this study, a water resources allocation model(WRAM) based on equilibrium theory is constructed to achieve the balance between different systems and different spaces in a basin. First, the relationship among the water resources system, socio-economic system and eco-environmental system is described. Then, the regional equilibrium index and system equilibrium index are constructed. Finally, the first model based on equilibrium theory is constructed. The results show that: (1) the Pareto Front reflects the contradictory relationship between economic development and environmental sustainability; (2) with the restructuring of industry and cropping, both economic efficiency and water shortage rates improve; (3) the equilibrium of the basin could also be further improved if water resources utilisation is further improved. Therefore, this study improves the existing WRAM, which can be applied to guide the water resources management of river basin.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35459761 PMCID: PMC9033815 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-10599-w
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.996
Figure 1Flowchart of the methodology.
Figure 2Location of the study area.
Economic benefit coefficient of each water consumption department (CNY/m3).
| Domestic water | Agricultural water | Production water | Ecological and environment water | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | 342 | 26 | 159 | 200 |
| 2050 | 360 | 55 | 200 | 220 |
Specific parameter values of NSGA-2.
| Generation | Population size | Crossover probability | Mutation probability |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4000 | 100 | 0.9 | 0.1 |
Performance of algorithms under different generations.
| Generation | Spacing | Mean ideal distance |
|---|---|---|
| 1000 | 0.224495 | 126.494 |
| 2000 | 0.149232 | 123.105 |
| 3000 | 0.169901 | 130.568 |
| 4000 | 0.131081 | 122.352 |
Figure 3The water demand for each city in 2021 and 2050.
Forecast of water demand in 2021 and 2050 (108 m3).
| Domestic | Agricultural | Production | Ecological | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | 14.38 (9.83%) | 107.53 (73.52%) | 23.41 (16.01%) | 0.93 (0.64%) |
| 2050 | 17.46 (11.69%) | 102.99 (68.96%) | 38.74 (18.41%) | 1.41 (0.94%) |
Figure 4The Pareto frontier of water resources allocation.
Figure 5The economic benefits of WRA under three scenarios (1010 CNY).
Figure 6Water deficit rates for each city under three scenarios.
Figure 7Gini coefficient for the study area under the three scenarios.
The maximum and minimum values of the objective function for the three scenarios.
| Scenario | Scheme | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Scenario1 | Scheme A (min.value of | 88.817 | 0.902 |
| Scheme B (max.value of | 110.288 | 1.379 | |
| Scenario2 | Scheme A (min.value of | 104.441 | 0.954 |
| Scheme B (max.value of | 137.016 | 1.446 | |
| Scenario3 | Scheme A (min.value of | 117.761 | 0.963 |
| Scheme B (max.value of | 148.579 | 1.57 |
Figure 8Relative posting values for the three weighting sets (0.3–0.7 means that the weights of objective function one and objective function two are 0.3 and 0.7 respectively).