Skip to main content
Log in

A Game Theoretic Approach to Assess the Impacts of Major Investments on Transboundary Water Resources: The Case of the Euphrates and Tigris

  • Published:
Water Resources Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

There are varying and inconsistent claims among countries sharing the same river basins. While upstream countries are asserting that they regulate flows through built-up reservoirs (enabling flood prevention) and reduce seasonal flow variations (providing water during drought seasons), downstream countries criticize upstream countries for excessive withdrawals and declining annual flows. Behind the scene, almost every basin country unilaterally envisions of ambitious projects demanding extensive water withdrawals for their prospective development and growth. This study establishes a methodology to measure the rational economic and political impacts of extensive reservoir projects throughout a basin, using the case of the Euphrates and Tigris. This methodology uses both linear programming applications calculating country and coalition benefits, and game theory concepts (core and Shapley value) for evaluating the impacts of reservoirs. The Euphrates and Tigris River Basin Model (ETRBM) is extended by adding the time dimension. In conjunction with time, reservoir capacities are incorporated into the model as a new set of parameters enabling resources allocations over multiple periods. In a rational economic view, the existence of reservoirs, while providing certain advantages in allocating water overtime, provides varying geopolitical powers to upstream and downstream basin countries. As a result of model applications, it is observed that basin-wide coalitions may potentially eliminate construction of excessive reservoir capacities, and, therefore, unnecessary investment costs and evaporation losses. It is also observed that assuming the absence of downstream reservoirs, the upstream reservoirs provide significant, first, economic benefit to the all forms of coalitions with upstream country and associated parties and, second, power to the country having the reservoirs in any coalition scenario. However, again in a game theoretic perspective, the power of upstream countries looses some of its weight when downstream reservoirs are incorporated. During drought years, the availability of reservoirs ensures extensive core solutions and encourages a grand coalition among all parties.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Altınbilek HD (1997) Water and land resources development in southeastern Turkey. Water Resour Dev 13(3):311–332. doi:10.1080/07900629749719

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Altınbilek HD (2004) Development and management of the Euphrates–Tigris Basin. Water Resour Dev 20(1):15–33. doi:10.1080/07900620310001635584

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bagis AI (1989) The cradle of civilization. Gelişim Yayınları A. S., Istanbul

    Google Scholar 

  • Bates BC, Kundzewicz ZW, Wu S, Palutikof JP (eds) (2008) Climate change and water. Technical paper of the intergovernmental panel on climate change, Geneva: IPCC Secretariat. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/technical-papers/ccw/executive-summary.pdf (last accessed: January 11, 2009)

  • Becker N (1995) Value of moving from central planning to a market system: lessons from the Israeli water sector. Agric Econ 12:11–21. doi:10.1016/0169-5150(94)00030-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker N, Easter KW (1999) Conflict and cooperation in managing international water resources such as the great lakes. Land Econ 75(2):233–245. doi:10.2307/3147008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bilen O (1994) Prospect for technical cooperation in the Euphrates–Tigris basin. In: Biswas AK (eds) International waters of the Middle East: from Euphrates-Tigris to Nile. Oxford University Press, Bombay

    Google Scholar 

  • Booker JF, Young RA (1994) Modeling intrastate and interstate markets for Colorado river water resources. J Environ Econ Manage 26:66–87. doi:10.1006/jeem.1994.1005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dellapenna JW (2007) Transboundary water sharing and the need for public management. J Water Resour Plan Manage 133(5):427–445. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(2007)133:5(397)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dinar A, Wolf A (1994a) Middle East hydropolitics and equity measures for water-sharing agreements. J Soc Polit Econ Stud 19(1):69–93

    Google Scholar 

  • Dinar A, Wolf A (1994b) International markets for water and potential for regional cooperation: economic and political perspectives in the Western Middle East. Econ Dev Cult Change 43:43–66. doi:10.1086/452135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dinar A, Dinar S, McCaffrey S, McKinney D (2007) Bridges over water: understanding transboundary water conflict, negotiation and cooperation. World Scientific, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  • Eleftheriadou E, Mylopoulos Y (2008) Game theoretical approach to conflict resolution in transboundary water resources management. J Water Resour Plan Manage 134(5):466–473. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(2008)134:5(466)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • FAO (1993) The state of food and agriculture. Food and Agriculture Organization, United Nations, Rome, FAO Agriculture Series

  • Gibbons DC (1986) The economic value of water. The Johns Hopkins Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirshleifer J, De Haven JC, Milliman JW (1969) Water supply: economics, technology, and policy. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Howitt RE, Mann DE, Vaux HJ Jr (1982) The economics of water allocation. In: Engelbert EA, Scheuring AF (eds) Competition for California water: alternative resolutions. University of California Press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurst HE (1952) The Nile, London: Constable. http://www.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/80858e/80858E0S.GIF (last accessed: January 11, 2009)

  • İlhan Aİ, Utku M (1998) GAP Sulama Alanında Bitki Su Tüketimi ve Bitki Su Gereksinimi. Tarım Orman Meteorolojisi’98 Sempozyumu, 21–23 Ekim 1998. İstanbul İTÜ. http://www.meteor.gov.tr/2003/arge/tarim/bilcanme.pdf (last accessed: 2004)

  • İSKİ (2003) Tasfiye Tesislerimizden Verilen Ortalama Temiz Su Miktarı. http://www.iski.gov.tr/ariza/3.phtm (last accessed: 2004)

  • Kampragou E, Eleftheriadou E, Mylopoulos Y (2007) Implementing equitable water allocation in transboundary catchments: the case of River Nestos/Mesta. Water Resour Manag 21:909–918. doi:10.1007/s11269-006-9108-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaya I (2009) The Euphrates–Tigris basin: an overview and opportunities for cooperation under international law. http://ag.arizona.edu/OALS/ALN/aln44/kaya.html (last accessed: January, 2009)

  • Kliot N (1994) Water resources and conflict in the Middle East. Roudledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolars JF (1986) Hydro-geographic background to the utilization of international rivers in the Middle East. In: Proceedings of the 1986 annual meetings of the American society of international law, vol 80. American Society of International Law, Washington, DC, pp 250–258

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolars JF (1992) Water resources of the Middle East. Rev Can Etudes Dev 103119:103–119 (Special Issue)

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolars JF (1994) Problems of international river management. In: Biswas AK (ed) International waters of the Middle East: from Euphrates-Tigris to Nile. Oxford University Press , Bombay

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolars JF, Mitchell WA (1991) The Euphrates River and the Southeast Anatolia development project. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, p 317

    Google Scholar 

  • Kucukmehmetoglu M (2002) Water resources allocation and conflicts—the case of the Euphrates and the Tigris. Dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus

  • Kucukmehmetoglu M, Guldmann JM (2004) International water resources allocation and conflicts the case of the Euphrates and Tigris. Environ Plan A 36:783–801. doi:10.1068/a3670

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahan RC, Horbulyk TM, Rowse JG (2002) Market mechanisms and the efficient allocation of surface water resources in Southern Alberta. Socio-Econ Plann Sci 36:25–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews OP, St. Germain D (2007) Boundaries and transboundary water conflicts. J Water Resour Plan Manage 133(5):386–396. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(2007)133:5(386)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naff T, Matson RC (1984) Water in the Middle East: conflict or cooperation. Westview Press, Boulder

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers P (1969) A game theory approach to the problems of international river basin. Water Resour Res 5(4):749–760. doi:10.1029/WR005i004p00749

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers P (1993) The value of cooperation in resolving international river basin Disputes. Nat Resour Forum 17:117–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapley LS (1953) A value for N-person games. In: Kuhn H, Tucker AW (eds) Contributions to the theory of games. Annals of Mathematics Studies, vol 2, p 28. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • UNEP (2001) by Partow, H. The Mesopotamian Marshlands: demise of an ecosystem, early warning and assessment technical report, UNEP/DEWA/TR.01–3 Rev. 1, Division of Early Warning and Assessment, United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya

  • Wu X, Whittington D (2006) Incentive Compatibility And Conflict Resolution In International River Basins: A Case Study Of The Nile Basin. Water Resour Res 42:1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mehmet Kucukmehmetoglu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kucukmehmetoglu, M. A Game Theoretic Approach to Assess the Impacts of Major Investments on Transboundary Water Resources: The Case of the Euphrates and Tigris. Water Resour Manage 23, 3069–3099 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-009-9424-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-009-9424-3

Keywords

Navigation