Grantee Research Project Results
Final Report: An Integrated GIS Framework for Water Reallocation and Decision Making in the Upper Rio Grande Basin
EPA Grant Number: R828070Title: An Integrated GIS Framework for Water Reallocation and Decision Making in the Upper Rio Grande Basin
Investigators: Matthews, Olen Paul , Scuderi, Louis A. , Campana, Michael E. , Brookshire, David S. , Cullen, Brad T. , Demint, Ann , Chermak, Janie , Coonrod, Julie , Benedict, Karl , Krause, Kate , Reno, Marissa , Ewers, Mary , Greer, Michael , Pease, Mike , Watson, Rick
Institution: University of New Mexico
EPA Project Officer: Packard, Benjamin H
Project Period: March 1, 2000 through February 28, 2003
Project Amount: $409,977
RFA: Water and Watersheds (1999) RFA Text | Recipients Lists
Research Category: Watersheds , Water
Objective:
Water is a scarce commodity in the semi-arid western United States. In this region, water reallocation considerations have moved to the forefront because of climate change and increases in population. The various water users in the region often have conflicting notions as to how water should be allocated, though they share a common concern for “sustainable use.” Additionally, little is known as to how the alternative stakeholders would reallocate water for sustainable use, especially in a constrained water environment where actual trade-offs across users would have to be made. The objectives of this research project were to: (1) develop geographic information system/Powersim models; and (2) develop stakeholder/experimental evaluation of policy options.
Summary/Accomplishments (Outputs/Outcomes):
The research effort incorporated a decision support system into an experimental laboratory setting to explore Middle Rio Grande (MRG) stakeholders’ views on reallocating water among agricultural, municipal, and industrial ecosystems. The need for water reallocation in the region is a real problem today that is further aggravated by climate change. Researchers at Sandia National Laboratory developed a Powersim model for the MRG. The basic model was one that decisionmakers could use to provide insights into water reallocation needs. We modified the model to better represent a spatial distribution of water uses and used it in the experimental laboratory.
The involvement of stakeholders was an essential component of this project. In the first years of the project, stakeholders identified specific problems and policies related to water allocation in the MRG through a survey. Initially, stakeholders participated in surveys to identify issues and create future water use scenarios. In the last year of the project, stakeholders were invited to participate in computerized simulations of water allocation decision-making using the coupled Powersim model. This allowed stakeholders to express preferences regarding water allocation and to observe computer-generated graphics and numerical calculations of the physical and economic consequences of their choices.
We developed a real-time decision analysis tool (coupling the Powersim model to an economics experiment) that incorporated real consequences, via monetary payoffs, to minimize the potential bias in hypothetical responses. Stakeholders made water use decisions in an experimental setting. The cumulative effects of individual stakeholder decisions were simulated using underlying hydrological and economic models. Results of each round of decisionmaking were displayed visually using maps of the relevant stretch of the MRG. Bar graphs were used to display changes in allocations from prior rounds. In addition, the economic impact of each allocation was calculated and provided to stakeholders numerically. Stakeholders were then asked to make new decisions in the face of this information.
In the experiments, stakeholders were seated in front of computers linked to the Internet. A program running on a server located in the Earth Data Analysis Center (EDAC) at the University of New Mexico delivered information to the stakeholders and collected stakeholder input. The task of the stakeholders was to view the current hydrological and economic status of a stretch of the MRG River and to indicate a preferred water allocation to water users in that stretch. Climate conditions were set by the experimenters, as was the initial amount of water in storage. Experiments consisted of several sets of multiple rounds. Within each set, the rounds were interdependent in the sense that allocation decisions made in one round, together with the hydrologic characteristics of the model and the pre-set climate pattern, determined water availability in subsequent rounds. Thus, it was possible for groups of stakeholders to fully deplete storage, particularly in drier years. It was also possible for stakeholders to over-allocate water. When this happened in the experiments, every participant was “fined” by deducting points from their experiment earnings.
Stakeholders were assigned to one of three user groups: Urban, Agricultural, and Riparian/Habitat. Allocation choices were entered by the stakeholder participants. These decisions were averaged and then fed to the Powersim hydrological model, which calculated the effects of those allocations. The amount of water allocated to each of the three uses was inserted into economic models that calculated the economic impact of the chosen allocations. Finally, information was returned to the stakeholders in the form of maps that showed the changes in use intensity, graphs that showed the changes in percent of available water allocated to each group, and numbers that showed the economic gain or loss experienced by each sector as a result of the chosen allocation.
The user interface with which stakeholders interacted was developed by the EDAC at the University of New Mexico. EDAC’s participation in the project involved programming the Web-based user interface for the experiment, the development of Web mapping services designed to graphically display model run results, the design and implementation of the database used to capture user input and model run results, and the programming of the application interface to the Powersim hydrologic model. EDAC also hosted all application components on its servers.
The Web interface to the experiment provided both experiment configuration and reporting capabilities for the experimenters and input and result reporting interfaces for the participants. The experiment configuration interface provides a comprehensive set of options for the experiment administrator. This is the part of the experiment program in which the administrator sets run parameters (the number of participants, treatments, sets, initial conditions, climate scenario, etc.), metadata (weather conditions, notes, description, name, etc.), and payout parameters (minimum, maximum, total maximum pay out to participants). The experiment reporting interface provides summary information about all experiments and payout information for all participants for all experiments. The participant interface provides tools for experiment registration, demographic information collection, and input collection for each iteration/round/set/treatment. The participant interface also provides feedback to the participants through a combination of information messages and maps that display the results of each hydrologic model run.
The computer experiments described above were administered to a sample of stakeholders from the MRG Valley. The experiments were administered on three separate days (December 13, 2003, January 14, 2004, and January 17, 2004), with a morning and an afternoon session each day. All experiments were administered in the Experimental Laboratory located in the Economics Building at the University of New Mexico.
The choices and outcomes for one set for one experiment are presented in Table 1. The table presents the progression of the experiment from left to right. First, the participants were given the climate information and in this case, because the treatment was “known,” each participant was given his or her “type.” Each participant made his or her allocation choice and submitted it. The program calculated the average allocation for each group and provided input to the surface hydrology/economic benefits model, which determines if the allocations are feasible under the current climatic conditions. If the allocations were feasible, the model estimated the storage and the economic benefits. The participants then were provided information on the allocation percentage for each group and the direction of change for economic benefits to each group and to storage.
Individual participant’s decisions can be tracked in Table 1. For example, Participant I (assigned to the Urban Group) reduced his or her allocation choice from 20 percent to 12 percent to 10 percent, and a 50 percent decline between the first and third rounds. Other participants, such as D or H, never wavered from their initial allocation choices. The largest change in the average allocations was agriculture, which declines from an initial 32 percent in Round 1 to 17.3 percent in Round 3. We are continuing to analyze the data.
TABLE 1. Experimental Results for Known Treatment with Three Rounds (N=13)
Information Given |
Round 1 |
Round 2 |
Round 3 |
||||
Treatment: Known Climate: |
Environment Participants: |
Allocation Choice: |
Information Back: Allocations: 37% Environment Economic Impact: (+) Environment |
Allocation Choice: |
Information Back: Allocations: 39.4% Environment Economic Impact: (–) Environment |
Allocation Choice: |
Information Back: Allocations: 34% Environment Economic Impact: (–) Environment |
Urban Participants: |
F: 30% |
F: 25% |
F: 20% |
||||
Agriculture Participants: |
J: 30% |
J: 15% |
J: 15% |
||||
Journal Articles on this Report : 7 Displayed | Download in RIS Format
| Other project views: | All 59 publications | 8 publications in selected types | All 7 journal articles |
|---|
| Type | Citation | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
Brookshire DS, Burness HS, Chermak JM, Krause K. Western urban water demand. Natural Resources Journal 2002;42(4):873-898. |
R828070 (2001) R828070 (Final) |
Exit Exit |
|
|
Burness S, Chermak J, Brookshire D. Water management in a mountain front recharge aquifer. Water Resources Research 2004;40:W06S21, doi:10.1029/2003WR002160. |
R828070 (Final) |
Exit |
|
|
Brookshire DS, Ganderton P, Ewers M, Colby B, Stewart S. Water markets in the Southwest: why and where? Southwest Hydrology 2004;3(2):14-15. |
R828070 (Final) |
Exit |
|
|
Brookshire DS, Ewers M, Mathews P. Water scarcity and markets: an examination of the Middle Rio Grande. |
R828070 (Final) |
not available |
|
|
Krause K, Chermak JM, Brookshire DS. The demand for water: consumer response to scarcity. Journal of Regulatory Economics 2003;23(2):167-191. |
R828070 (2001) R828070 (Final) |
Exit |
|
|
Matthews OP, Scuderi L, Brookshire D, Gregory K, Snell S, Krause K, Chermak J, Cullen B, Campana M. Marketing western water:can a process based geographic information system improve reallocation decisions? Natural Resources Journal 2001;41(2):329-371. |
R828070 (2000) R828070 (Final) |
Exit Exit |
|
|
Matthews OP. Simplifying western water rights to facilitate water marketing. Water Resources Update 2003;126:40-44. |
R828070 (Final) |
Exit |
Supplemental Keywords:
integrated GIS framework, water reallocations, decision making, Middle Rio Grande, sustainable use, stakeholders, reallocate experiment, Powersim model, decision makers, policies, computerized simulations, preferences, sub-basin, reaches, riparian vegetation, water use, urban sprawl, land use changes, water rights, stream segments, ditches, acequia, Pueblo Indian Communities, Cochiti, Elephant Butte Reservoir, nominal group technique, participant survey, experimental design, scenario development, trade-off,, RFA, Scientific Discipline, Ecosystem Protection/Environmental Exposure & Risk, Water, Economic, Social, & Behavioral Science Research Program, Economics & Decision Making, Urban and Regional Planning, Watersheds, decision-making, Monitoring/Modeling, Geology, Hydrology, Water & Watershed, Ecology and Ecosystems, integrated assessment, Upper Rio Grande Basin, water management options, RIo Grande watershed, water quality, hierarchical resolution grid, community-based approach, ecological models, environmental monitoring, econometrics, water monitoring, environmental decision making, water quality model, public policy, remote sensing, ecology assessment models, hydrologic modeling, changing environmental conditions, aquatic ecosystems, GIS, stakeholder feedback, community tracking, decision making, water resourcesRelevant Websites:
http://www.nmwaterconnections.org Exit
Progress and Final Reports:
Original AbstractThe perspectives, information and conclusions conveyed in research project abstracts, progress reports, final reports, journal abstracts and journal publications convey the viewpoints of the principal investigator and may not represent the views and policies of ORD and EPA. Conclusions drawn by the principal investigators have not been reviewed by the Agency.