Reallocating Shared Groundwater Resources Using a Participatory Two-level Weighted Bankruptcy Framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The global rising demand for exploiting limited shared groundwater resources, coupled with significant water deficit, especially in arid and semi-arid regions, has led to escalating conflicts among stakeholders. As such, using Bankruptcy Theory methods can be an appropriate response to the reallocation of resources. This study introduces a novel approach to weighted Bankruptcy, where the relative importance of stakeholders is determined by their contributions to sustainable development, and the impact of their claims on the shared groundwater resources is considered. The framework is implemented in a two-level bankruptcy process including the plains and their beneficiaries (agriculture, drinking and industry). The proposed two-level weighted bankruptcy process applies to the Neyshabour-Ataiyeh-Sabzevar plains in Iran. The process is implemented for two scenarios including the Baseline scenario related to the present status of demands and the Future scenario associated with the estimated demands for the year 2041. To compare the weighted proposed method with the other weighted methods such as Proportional (WPRO), Constrained Equal Awards (WCEA), Pinile (WPIN), Talmud (WTAL), Constrained Equal Losses (WCEL), Modified Constrained Equal Losses (MWCEL), two categories including the deficit-based and resource-based approaches are considered. According to the stability analysis using the Bankruptcy Allocation Stability Index (BASI) method, among the deficit-based methods, the novel approach is chosen as the preferred method for the beneficiaries’ reallocation like the Sabzevar’s beneficiaries. Accordingly, it allocates 86.95%, 10.86% and 2.17% of the shared resource to the agricultural, drinking, and industrial demands, respectively. Among the resource-based methods, the WPIN method is selected for reallocation between the stakeholders and their beneficiaries in each level and scenario of reallocation. The novel approach offers a promising solution to the water resource reallocation problem, ensuring a more equitable and sustainable management of shared groundwater resources.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".