Transcript No Slide Title

Water Resources Simulation
and Optimization: a web
based approach
MSO August 2005, Aruba
DDr. Kurt Fedra ESS GmbH, Austria
[email protected] http://www.ess.co.at
1
K.Fedra ‘05
Water resources management:
From principles
to procedures and tools
How to define optimality ?
How to explore, compare options ?
How to agree on solutions ?
Optimality is not an operational
principle easily implemented
2
K.Fedra ‘05
Water resources management:
Definition of optimality:
• Acceptability, satisficing
• Requires a participatory approach:
– Identification and involvement of
major actors, stakeholders
– Shared information basis
– Easy access, intuitive understanding
– Web based, local workshops
3
K.Fedra ‘05
OPTIMA: INCO-MPC
Ongoing applications, EU supported:
• INCO-MED SMART (2002-2005)
– Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Tunisia;
Italy, France, Portugal, Austria
• INCO-MPC OPTIMA (2004-2007)
– Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Palestine,
Tunisia, Morocco, Cyprus; Italy, Greece,
Malta, Austria
4
K.Fedra ‘05
OPTIMA:
Project started July 2004 (3 years):
The various data sets and scenarios form the
basis for the optimization/basin master plans:
METHOD:
Monte-Carlo, genetic programming, discrete multicriteria (reference point) optimization;
OBJECTIVES include:
maximize demand satisfied;
maximize reliability;
maximize water based net revenues;
minimize environmental impacts (env. water demand or
minimal flow, WQ standard violations)
5
K.Fedra ‘05
Methodology:
• Analyze socio-economic and
regulatory framework, multiple
objectives (issues questionnaire)
• WaterWare (river basin) model
including economic assessment
• 7 parallel case studies, end user
involvement for optimization objectives
and criteria (reference point analysis)
• Comparative analysis, best practice
6
K.Fedra ‘05
Project web site:
• http://www.ess.co.at/SMART/
• http://www.ess.co.at/OPTIMA/
• http://www.ess.co.at/WATERWARE/
Including on-line GIS, data bases and
interactive modeling tools
7
K.Fedra ‘05
Components and tools
Related on-line tools:
• Stakeholders data base:
register your institution!
• Water Issues questionnaire
(benchmarking for river basins)
describe your basin !
8
K.Fedra ‘05
Purpose and objectives:
Scientifically based contributions to
• Water Resources Management through
improved efficiency and performance
• the policy and decision making
processes (participatory, empowerment
of stakeholders)
9
K.Fedra ‘05
Optimality and Sustainability :
1. Economic efficiency (“true cost”,
maximize economic benefits, minimize costs)
2. Environmental compatibility (meeting
standards, protect wetlands, sensitive areas,
minimize env. costs)
3. Equity (intra- and intergenerational)
MEET THE CONSTRAINTS
10
K.Fedra ‘05
Mediterranean region:
The projections of water available per
person are dropping steeply for most
countries:
Average values (Wagner, 2001) are moving
to 1,000 m3/person and year or below
(Southern and Eastern Mediterranean)
-
based on demographic projections
-
assumptions on per capita use
11
K.Fedra ‘05
Mediterranean region:
Coastal zone development and
urbanization increase demand for
high-quality drinking water;
Tourism with very high per capita
demands generates unfavorable
demand patterns (summer peak)
But agriculture is still the major
consumer of water (largely due to
inefficient irrigation technologies)
12
K.Fedra ‘05
Development Scenarios:
1. Baseline (status quo for calibration)
2. Business as usual (naïve trend
extrapolation)
3. Pessimistic (everything “bad” will
happen)
4. Optimistic (all the good things …)
5. Specific existing plans of structural
change, legislation, etc.
13
K.Fedra ‘05
Scenario analysis:
Objective is NOT to forecast a
most likely future,
but to explore the range of
possibilities (bound solutions,
define nadir and utopia to
normalize results as %
achievements, relative change)
14
K.Fedra ‘05
Scenarios:
1. Demographic development (population growth,
migration, urbanization <== land use change)
2. Economic development (sectoral growth,
tourism)
3. Technological development (specific water use
efficiencies)
4. Institutional change (regulations, enforcement)
5. Climate change (decreased means, increased
variability of precipitation, temperature increase)
15
K.Fedra ‘05
From scenarios to optimization
1.
Define a most likely scenario
2.
Define a set of alternative options:
•
Structurally (reservoirs)
•
Supply management (alternative sources)
•
Demand management (pricing)
•
Water technologies (efficiencies)
with their investment operating costs,
3.
Find efficient combinations (heuristics, genetic
algorithms)
4.
Calculate system performance:
find feasible solutions
16
K.Fedra ‘05
System performance:
Derived from the model results:
• Demand/Supply balance (by sector
incl. environmental water use)
• Reliability of Supply (% mass, time)
• Efficiency (benefits/unit water used)
• Cost/benefit ratios (NPV), penalties
•
17
Water quality (in stream)
K.Fedra ‘05
WATERWARE (EUREKA 486)
Water resources management information
system:
• River basin oriented
• Integrated data management
• Cascading models for supply-demand
pattern simulation incl. quality
• Management oriented (allocation,
efficiency)
• Use of economic criteria
http://www.ess.co.at/WATERWARE/
18
K.Fedra ‘05
Simulation models:
Linked set of models:
• Rainfall-runoff for ungaged
catchments
• Irrigation water demand
• Water resources (daily water
budgets)
• Water quality (basin wide)
• Water quality (local, near field)
• Groundwater flow and transport (2D)
19
K.Fedra ‘05
Object types:
Monitoring station
20
K.Fedra ‘05
Object types:
Monitoring station
21
K.Fedra ‘05
Object types:
22
K.Fedra ‘05
Object type:
Reservoir
23
K.Fedra ‘05
Simulation models:
24
K.Fedra ‘05
Crop data base:
25
K.Fedra ‘05
Crop data base:
26
K.Fedra ‘05
Simulation models:
27
K.Fedra ‘05
Simulation models:
28
K.Fedra ‘05
Simulation models:
29
K.Fedra ‘05
Simulation models:
30
K.Fedra ‘05
Simulation models:
31
K.Fedra ‘05
32
K.Fedra ‘05
Simulation models:
33
K.Fedra ‘05
Simulation models:
34
K.Fedra ‘05
Simulation models:
35
K.Fedra ‘05
Simulation models:
36
K.Fedra ‘05
Simulation models:
37
K.Fedra ‘05
Simulation models:
38
K.Fedra ‘05
Simulation models:
39
K.Fedra ‘05
Simulation models:
40
K.Fedra ‘05
Simulation models:
41
K.Fedra ‘05
Evaluation:
Aggregated into Sustainability
Indicators
1. Economic efficiency
2. Environmental compatibility
3. Equity (intra- and intergenerational)
42
K.Fedra ‘05
Scenario Evaluation:
Aggregated into Aggregate Sustainability
Indicators with RULES:
IF
Sup/Dem
AND Reliability
AND ……..
THEN
43
>= 0.99
>> 85%
== high/medium/low
EEF = HIGH
K.Fedra ‘05
Evaluation:
Aggregated into Sustainability Index
with RULES:
IF
EEF == high (medium, low)
AND
ENC == high (medium, low)
AND
SEQ == high (medium, low)
THEN SUSTAINABILITY = HIGH
44
K.Fedra ‘05
Evaluation:
Evaluation process is open for
inspection and participation: easy
to understand and change RULES
OBJECTIVE: not to offer the ultimate
assessment for SUSTAINABILITY,
but a framework for structured
discourse and user participation
45
K.Fedra ‘05
Decision Support:
Comparative analysis of feasible, nondominated solutions in terms of the
performance indicators;
Participatory approach:
Stake holders define criteria, objectives,
constraints, and expectations
– DSS tool finds the nearest feasible
solution in the set of alternatives.
46
K.Fedra ‘05
Decision Support (multi-attribute)
Reference point approach:
utopia
criterion 2
A4
A5
efficient
point
A2
A6
A1
dominated
A3
nadir
criterion 1
better
K.Fedra ‘05
In summary:
Problems are largely man made
Solutions involve valuation, trade off:
subjective – political – choices;
NOT optimal, but acceptable to a majority
 Democratic decision making processes
No single method, solutions need a well
balanced combination of strategies
and tools, based on preferences,
believes, fears, and a little science.
48
K.Fedra ‘05