DROUGHT MANAGEMENT IN SOUTHERN ENGLAND
AN AGENT-BASED APPROACH
A FIRMA PROJECT WORK-IN-PROGRESS
Incidence: The last major drought in the UK was a
result of a dry period between 1995 and 1997. This
drought was the first major test of the ability of the
privatised water service companies to respond to a
drought hazard under the environmental and economic
regulation provided by the Environment Agency and
Officer of Water Services (Ofwat), respectively.
Inadequacy in drought planning and management was
evident in some areas of the country, most notably in
Yorkshire.
Current Situation: In general, the drought management
DROUGHT IN THE UK
and drought contingency plans detail different triggers of
drought status and the management options available for
implementation. The plans do not state the exact course
of action to be taken in a given circumstance. Though
drought contingency and drought management plans are
meant to be publicly available, there is a wide-spread
reluctance to open the plans to outside scrutiny or
discussion. If this reticence continues, the plans will only
be publicly evaluated and tested in their first application
during a drought hazard event.
Response: In response to public concern regarding the
mismanagement of the 1997 drought, the government called for
water companies to develop drought contingency plans detailing
how they would respond to dry periods in the future. In parallel, the
Environment Agency developed drought management plans to
detail regulatory options and procedures for drought response.
The Agency was also tasked with the review and approval of the
water company plans.
CASE STUDY AIM
The Southern England Case Study for the
FIRMA Project aims to examine the
strengths and weaknesses of drought
management strategies to inform the
drought planning process, and how it is
enacted, prior to drought occurrence by:
developing
an agent-based
approach to modeling
institutional behaviour
in hazard situations
running the model
to examine synergies
and conflicts between
different drought
management
strategies
using climate inputs
and a public behaviour
model to investigate
institutional response
to these dynamic
variables
working with
stakeholders to
develop the model
and inform the drought
management
process
THE MODELLING APPROACH
AGENTS
PROCEDURES
A procedural overview of the drought
management process is presented in flowchart
form. The process is undertaken for each
subcatchment for each month. However, goals in
negotiation will consider the linkages between
different subcatchments and supply zones.
THE CATCHMENT VIEW
Institutional Agents:
Environmental Regulatory Agent representing the UK Environment Agency (only one instance
of this agent will be present in the model)
Water Service Provider Agent representing a water company (one or more instances of this type
may be present in each catchment or subcatchment of the model).
Citizen Agents:
Climate Data
Water Supply Levels
drought triggers set to
levels
Calculate Actual
Demand
Available Supply
incl. impairment to abstraction
and enviro. need allocation
apply actual demand to water
resource levels for next month
Citizen behaviour in response to water conservation messages and the introduction of water
efficiency appliances has been modelled for the FIRMA Project by the Centre for Policy
Modelling at MMU. This citizen model will be linked to the policy model to represent actual
drought behaviours. Institutional agents will then have to consider the changing response of
citizen agents to drought management initiatives.
Households
Agriculture
Industry
Drought Management Options:
Public
water
supply
Households
Supply Demand
Balance?
Agriculture
Industry
Evaluate Options
Negotiate if Required
Apply option
The drought management options available to each agent are largely set out in the drought
management and drought contigency plan documents. In the initial stages of modeling, only a
select set of options will be available for implementation.
Selecting a Preferred Option:
YES
NO
wrt demand, supply levels,
cost goals, beliefs etc)
Information on the
structure of demand across
catchments and supply
zones in Southern England
will be used to create a
realistic management
scenario in the fictional
catchment constructed for
the model
OPTIONS
Calculate Projected Abstraction Demand
Direct
abstraction
One of the primary differences between the goals of the
environmental regulatory agent and the water service
provider can be seen in a catchment view. While the
environmental regulator is managing direct abstraction
demand (including water company abstraction) in
subcatchments to meet environmental criteria at control
points in a river network, the water service providers
are working to meet the demand of mains water users
organised in water supply zones and serviced through
their supply network(s).
Household behaviour
modeled in MMU
Thames model.
Impact of climate
investigated through
CC:DEW
Impact of climate on
demand being
investgated through
CC:DEW project
River
When decreased supply levels indicate a drought warning/drought , agents will select their
preferred management option considering the agent’s goals, the characteristics of the drought,
and the composition of demand in the subcatchments affected (regulatory agent) or the
composition of the demand in the supply zones impacted (water service provider).
Environmental Control Point
Public Water Supply
Abstraction Point
(servicing a supply zone
or network of supply zones)
NEGOTIATION
Direct Abstraction Point
Negotiation is required when a joint action between a water service provider and the regulator
is a preferred option for one or more of the agents involved. Selection of preferred options and
strategies in negotiation will be based upon agent’s goals, priorities and beliefs (as structured in
a behavioural framework for negotiation) and limitations to financial resources.
FIRST STEPS IN IMPLEMENTATION
LINKS TO FIRMA EXPERTISE IN DEVELOPMENT
Data Collection: Sample drought management and drought contingency plans have
been collected to develop drought management options (list of options, resource value,
considerations in implementation). Agent behaviour is informed by results of the the
SIRCH Project Report ‘Hydrological Risk in the Thames Region: Prospects for Adapting
to Climate Change’ (Downing et al 2001).
The model proposed presents many challenges for the Southern England Case-Study
Team. The Thames Case Study will gain insight and assistance from the larger FIRMA
team is in the following areas:
Modelling: Work on developing SDML programming skills and the coding of a simple
model, to manage drought in a single subcatchment with one water company
abstraction and limited selection of drought management options, is currently
underway.
Cindy Warwick
Tom Downing
Environmental Change Institute
University of Oxford
1a Mansfield Road
Oxford OX1 3SZ
Tel: +44 1865 281180
Fax: +44 1865 281181
[email protected]
[email protected]
linking drought
behaviours and
motivations to a
cognitive
framework
a one-to-many
negotiation model
that can be
implemented in
SDML
new methods
for stakeholder
participation in
model development
and learning
FIRMA Project
Department of Sociology
University of Surrey
1a Mansfield Road
Guildford GU2 5XH
Tel: +44 1483 259173
Fax: +44 1483 259551
[email protected]
http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/firma
methods for
validating models
of institutional
behaviour