=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=None
|storemode=property
|title=An Electronic Institution for Simulating Water-right Markets
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-657/paper01.pdf
|volume=Vol-657
}}
==An Electronic Institution for Simulating Water-right Markets==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-657/paper01.pdf
An Electronic Institution for Simulating
Water-Right Markets
Vicente Botti1 , Antonio Garrido1 , Juan A. Gimeno1 , Adriana Giret1 ,
Francesc Igual1 , Pablo Noriega2
1
DSIC, Department of Information Systems and Computation,
Universitat Politècnica de Valencia,
2
IIIA, Artificial Intelligence Research Institute,
CSIC, Spanish Scientific Research Council,
{vbotti,agarridot,jgimeno,agiret,figual}@dsic.upv.es,
pablo@iiia.csic.es
Abstract. In countries like Spain, and particularly in its Mediterranean
coast, there is a high degree of public awareness of the main consequences
of the scarcity of water and the need of fostering efficient use of water
resources. Two new mechanisms for water management already under
way are: a heated debate on the need and feasibility of transferring wa-
ter from one basin to another, and, directly related to this proposal, the
regulation of water banks 1 . This paper is about mWater, an agent-based
electronic market of water rights. Our focus is on demand and, in par-
ticular, on the type of regulatory and market mechanisms that foster an
efficient use of water while preventing conflicts. In this work we present
the regulated environment which is implemented as an Electronic Institu-
tion for simulating water-right markets in order to evaluate the impacts
of different regulations on the market behaviour.
1 Introduction
Water scarcity is becoming a major concern in most countries, not only because
it threatens the economic viability of current agricultural practices, but because
it is likely to alter an already precarious balance among its many types of use:
human consumption, industrial use, energy production, recreation, etc. Under-
neath this emergent situation, the crude reality of conflict over water rights of
use and the need of accurate assessment of water needs and use become more
salient than ever.
It has been sufficiently argued that more efficient uses of water may be
achieved within an institutional framework where water rights may be exchanged
1
The 2001 Water Law of the National Hidrological Plan (NHP) —’Real Decreto
Legislativo 1/2001, BOE 176’ (see www.boe.es/boe/dias/2001/07/24/pdfs/A26791-
26817.pdf, in Spanish)— and its amendment in 2005 regulates the power of right-
holders to engage in voluntary water transfers, and of basin authorities to setup
water markets, banks, and trading centers for the exchange of water rights in cases
of drought or other severe scarcity problems.
9
more freely, not only under exceptional conditions but on a day to day basis [3,
9, 12]. It has been claimed that if farmers cannot sell their extra water allot-
ment, they have no incentive to use the allotment efficiently and it may become
wasteful [5]. Moreover, a straightforward extension to other types of stakeholders
would promote trading for non-irrigation uses, such as industrial uses, aquicul-
ture, leisure or navigation, thus improving market conditions and hence efficiency
of water use [3]. We propose to implement such a market with a regulated open
multi-agent system, mWater, whose main features we discuss in this paper. Our
focus is on demand and, in particular, on the type of regulatory and market
mechanisms that foster an efficient use of water while preventing conflicts.
Considerable effort has been invested in the development of sophisticated
basin simulation models and in improvement and innovation of water use prac-
tices. Literature abounds in examples of decision support systems for water man-
agement [8], sustainable planning of water volumes [2, 6], or the use of shared
visions for negotiation and conflict resolution [7]. We explore an alternative ap-
proach in which individual and collective agents are an essential component
because their behavior (and effects) may be influenced by policy-making. There
are few projects along this line, but one may point to the NEGOWAT project
(http://www.negowat.org/ingles/inicio/Inicio.htm), whose goal is to help nego-
tiations between stakeholders in peri-urban catchment areas when water con-
flicts arise. Closer to our own approach, the recent effort is project MAELIA
(http://www.iaai-maelia.eu), which involves simulation of socio-environmental
impact of norms for water and other renewable natural resources and the envi-
ronment.
We are interested in the institutional framework that simulates the “rules
of the game” that may allow one to study the role that regulation, social envi-
ronment, coordination, conflict resolution mechanisms, reputation or trust play
in the decisions participating agents make and their aggregate results. Ideally,
the institutional framework should add flexibility to current water use practices
without increasing the number or complexity of disputes. To this end, we have
designed mWater as an agent-based system that simulates an electronic market
of water rights in which we use agreement technologies such as: normative rea-
soning, negotiation rules, argumentation, trust, collective decision-making, social
conventions, sanctioning mechanisms, as well as organizational and institutional
environments preferences, among others.
The main goal of this paper is to describe the mWater regulated environ-
ment that fosters efficient use of water resources by means of water-right transfer
agreements (Section 2). We propose mWater as our particular setting; nonethe-
less, it can be useful for other markets not related to water problems. In order
to be more concise, Section 3 devises the simulation environment for this elec-
tronic market. Section 4 provides a particular case study on regulatory aspects in
mWater, which again can be extrapolated to other domains. Finally, we conclude
the paper with some remarks in Section 5.
10
2 An institutional framework for mWater
The mWater framework is rooted on traditional practices and regulations for
the use and transfer of water rights that are either currently established by
the Spanish National Hydrological Plan or are to be part of the forthcoming
Basin Hydrological Plans. However, it is somewhat idealized in order to provide
a richer sandbox for agreement technologies and a more malleable platform for
demand and water use modeling and simulation in an hydrographic basin. The
core component of mWater is an agent-based virtual market for water usage
rights that intends to grasp the components of an electronic market where water
rights are traded with flexibility and under different price-fixing mechanisms.
In addition to trading proper, mWater also includes those activities that follow
trading; namely, the agreement on a contract, the use and misuse of rights and
the grievances and corrective actions taken therein. These ancillary activities are
particularly prone to conflict albeit regulated through legal and social norms,
and therefore a crucial objective in policy-making and a natural environment for
agreement technologies.
For the construction of mWater we have followed the IIIA Electronic In-
stitution (EI) conceptual model [1], whereas for the actual specification and
implementation of mWater we use the EIDE platform2 .
Procedural conventions in the mWater institution are specified through a
nested performative structure (Fig. 1) with multiple processes. As seen in the
figure, there are several roles: (i) guests, i.e. users before really entering the mar-
ket; (ii) water users, i.e. the guests that have valid water rights; (iii) buyer/seller,
thus representing the particular role the water user currently joins for the mar-
ket; (iv) third parties, i.e. those water users that are direct or indirectly affected
by a water transfer —usually conflicting parties; and (v) market facilitator and
basin authority, thus representing the governing roles of the market. The top
structure, mWaterPS, describes the overall market environment and includes
other performative structures. TradingHall (Fig. 2) provides updated informa-
tion about the market, and at the same time users and trading staff can initiate
most trading and ancillary operations here. Finally, TradingTables establishes
the trading procedures. An outline of their constitutive processes (performative
structures and scene protocols) follows.
Top structure, mWaterPS. Entitlement. Only bona fide right-holders may
trade water rights in the market and there are only two ways of becoming the
owner of a right. Firstly when an existing right is legally acquired from its previ-
ous owner outside of mWater (through inheritance or pecuniary compensation
for example). Secondly when a new right is created by the mWater authorities
2
EIDE is a development environment for Electronic Institutions, built at the IIIA,
http://e-institutor.iiia.csic.es/eide/pub. It is composed of a set of software tools
that support all the stages of an Electronic Institution (EI) engineering, namely:
1) ISLANDER, a tool for EI specification; 2) aBUILDER, a tool to support the
automatic generation of agent (code) skeletons from ISLANDER specifications of an
EI; 3) the AMELI middleware that handles the enactment of the institution; and 4)
SIMDEI, a testing and monitoring tool.
11
X X
X
X
Fig. 1. mWater performative structure. Participating Roles: g - Guest, w - Water user,
b - Buyer, s - Seller, p - Third Party, m - Market Facilitator, ba - Basin Authority
and an eligible holder claims it and gets it granted. Entitlement scene gives ac-
cess to the market to new right holders who prove they are entitled to trade. It
is also used to bootstrap the market.
Accreditation. This scene allows legally entitled right-holders to enter the
market and trade by registering their rights and individual data for management
and enforcement purposes. Staff have to validate admission conventions and
right-holder variables are given default variables. When a right suspension is
overridden or an agreement is void, rightful owners need to register again.
Agreement Validation and Contract Enactment. Once an agreement on trans-
ferring a water right has been reached, it is managed according to the market
conventions. mWater staff check whether or not the agreement satisfies formal
conditions and the hydrological plan normative conventions (Agreement Valida-
tion scene of Fig. 1). If the agreement complies with these, a transfer contract
is agreed upon and signed by the parties involved in the Contract Enactment
scene, and then the agreement becomes active.
Annulment. This scene in the mWater performative structure deals with
anomalies that deserve a temporary or permanent withdrawal of rights.
TradingHall performative structure. Intuitively, in this complex per-
formative structure, see Fig. 2, right-holders become aware of the market ac-
tivity (Open Trades and Ongoing Agreements scenes), and initiate concurrent
activities: get invitations to trade and/or initiate trading processes (Recruiting
scene), initiate grievance procedures as described below in Fig. 3 (Ongoing Agree-
ments scene), and get informed about anomalous situations, for example severe
drought situations, (Critical Situations scene). Actual trading starts inside the
TradingHall scene. On the one hand, updated information about existing trade-
12
w Recruiting m, w m, w
m
w w Ongoing m, w m, w
Agreements
m
Initial w Open m, w m, w Final
Trades
m
m w Critical m, w m, w
Situations
m
w m, w
Jury Room m, w
m
Fig. 2. TradingHall performative structure
able rights, as well as ongoing deals, active contracts and grievances is made
available here to all participants. On the other, as shown in Fig. 2, users and
trading staff can initiate most trading and ancillary operations here (from the
Recruiting scene): open, request trading parties and enter a trading table; query
about different agreements and initiate a grievance procedure from the Ongoing
Agreements scene or, in the same scene, get informed about a dispute in which
the water user is affected. Members of the Jury may also be required to mediate
in a dispute at the Jury Room scene. Technically speaking, all these scenes are
“stay-and-go” scenes: while the users are inside the market, they have to stay
permanently in these scenes but they may also go (as alteroids, clone-like in-
stantiations of the same agent that allow the agent to be active simultaneously
in different scenes) to other trading table scenes and contract enactment scenes
where they are involved: these scenes where user alteroids become involved are
created (as a new instance of the corresponding performative structures) when
a staff agent creates one at the request of a user, of an authority, or because of
a pre-established convention (like weekly auctions).
TradingTable performative structure. In our mWater performative struc-
ture (recall Fig. 1), a market facilitator can open a new trading table whenever
a new auction period starts (i.e. automatically) or whenever a right-holder re-
quests to trade a right (i.e. on demand). In such a case, a right-holder chooses
a negotiation protocol from a set of available ones (e.g., face to face negoti-
ation, closed bids, standard double auction exchange or any others that are
agreed upon). Consequently, in order to accommodate different trading mecha-
nisms, we assemble the TradingTable performative structure as a list of different
scenes, each corresponding to a valid trading mechanism or negotiation protocol.
Each instance of a Trading Table scene is managed by a Negotiation Table Man-
ager, tm, who knows the structure, specific data and management protocol of
the given negotiation protocol. Among other negotiation mechanisms, we have
included face-to-face, Dutch auction, English auction, standard double auction
and blind double auction with mediator negotiation. Moreover, new negotia-
13
m
Recruiting m, w, a w, a Conflict m, w, a m, w, a
Conflicting X Resolution X
Parties Negotiation Table
w w, a w, a
m Final
m, w, j
Initial X j, w, a
j Arbitration
j, w, a
Fig. 3. Grievances performative structure
tion protocols may be easily added providing that the new protocol definition
complies with the generic structure.
Every generic negotiation table is defined as a three-scene performative struc-
ture. The first scene is Registration, in which the tm applies a filtering process to
assure that only valid water users can enter a given trading table (recall situa-
tions when a private trading table is being executed or only a sub-group of water
users that fulfill a set of constraints may participate in the table). The specific
filtering process will depend on the given negotiation protocol and possibly on
domain specific features. The second scene is the negotiation protocol itself, in
which the set of steps of the given protocol are specified. Finally, in the last
scene, Validation, a set of closing activities are executed, for example registering
the final deals, stating the following steps for the agreement settlement, verifying
that the party that leaves the table satisfies the exit norms of the trading table,
etc.
Grievances. Once an agreement is active, it may be executed by the new
right-holder and, consequently, other right-holders and some external stakehold-
ers may initiate a grievance procedure that may overturn or modify the transfer
agreement. Even if there are no grievances that modify a contract, parties might
not fulfill the contract properly and there might be some contract reparation
actions. If things proceed smoothly, the right subsists until maturity.
Fig. 3 shows the different scenes of the complex Grievances performative
structure. In this structure any conflict can be solved by means of two alterna-
tive processes (these processes are similar to those used in Alternative Dispute
Resolutions and Online Dispute Resolutions [10, 11]). On the one hand, conflict
resolution can be solved by means of negotiation tables (Conflict Resolution Ne-
gotiation Table performative structure). In this mechanism a negotiation table
is created on demand whenever any water user wants to solve a conflict with
other/s water user/s, negotiating with them with or without mediator. Such a
negotiation table can use a different negotiation protocol, such as face to face,
standard double auction, etc. On the other hand, arbitration mechanisms for
conflict resolution can also be employed (Arbitration performative structure). In
this last mechanism, a jury solves the conflict sanctioning the offenses.
There are three steps in the arbitration process. In the first one, the grievance
is stated by the plaintive water user. In the second step, the different conflicting
parties present their allegations to the jury. Finally, in the last step, the jury, after
14
hearing the dispute, passes a sentence on the conflict. The difference among the
two mechanisms for conflict resolution is that the arbitration process is binding,
meanwhile the negotiation is not. In this way, if any of the conflicting parties
is not satisfied with the negotiation results he/she can activate an arbitration
process in order to solve the conflict.
AMELI
Islander
Information Model in MySQL
Fig. 4. mWater Simulation Environment
15
3 The mWater simulation environment
Fig. 4 depicts the overall structure of the mWater simulation environment. The
interface of the simulation tool is simple and intuitive, in which the user can con-
figure a given simulation with the following data: the starting and finishing date
for the period to be simulated, the water users that will participate in the market
(different groups/type of water users can lead to different results; consider for
example a group in which some water users do not trust on other members of
the group, this situation will probably result in a low number of agreements and
a high number of conflicts), the regulation that will be applied in the simula-
tion (in next section a case study example is presented with two different norm
regulations applied to the same water user population and simulation period).
The interface also provides graphical data that reflects how the market reacted
to the input data in terms of the number of transfer agreements signed in the
market (historical data including information about real or simulated users), vol-
ume of water transferred, number of conflicts generated, etc. Apart from these
straightforward functions, other quantitative results are shown. These results
are from a group of ”social” functions in order to asses values such as the trust
and reputation levels of the market, or degree of water user satisfaction, among
others.
The central element in the simulation tool is the EI described in last section,
that is specified in ISLANDER and executed in the AMELI runtime platform
(recall Fig. 4). In order to start a simulation of the market, mWater feeds from
an Information Model (implemented in MySQL) in which historical data from
a given basin are registered. In this way, policy makers can simulate the market
with real data from sever drought periods, rain spell, etc. depending on the
starting and ending dates defined for the simulation. Moreover, the Information
Model registers all the changes in the market in order to provide statistical data
to the policy makers about the market behaviour for the simulated period, the
water users that participated in the market, and the regulations selected for the
particular simulation.
Note that we have mainly considered mWater as a simulation environment,
but actually we are also interested in it as an open environment to human users
for conducting social and participatory simulations. In such situations, human
subjects take part in the simulation to see the effects of their interaction with
virtual agents, applicable norms and their adaptation. This is part of our current
work.
4 A case study simulation in mWater
The emphasis on regulatory aspects in mWater is motivated by the fact that the
main objective policy makers have in mind is to achieve an adequate behavior
of users. And regulation is the main tool that policy makers have to modify
behavior. However, in practice, users are prone to achieve “order without law”
[4], or at least to keep on adapting to regulations in order to preserve their
16
successful practices while policy makers keep on adapting regulations to guide
users in a constantly changing environmental and political media. Thus, our
mWater demonstrator provides the foundations for the study of that interplay.
In order to show the way mWater can be used as a simulation tool for testing
how regulations and norms can modify the users’ behavior we show a simplified
case study that mainly focuses on the interplay of norms and relaxes the other
aspects in the market. In this case study, we test the user behavior when a
single norm is modified. This scenario is related with the registration of transfer
agreements.
In mWater we have three different types of regulations: (i) government laws,
issued by the Spanish Ministry of Environment (stated in the National Hydro-
logical Plan); (ii) basin or local norms, defined and regimented by the basin
authorities; and (iii) social norms, stated by the members of a given user as-
sembly and/or organization. The norms applied in this case study are currently
defined in the NHP. However, policy makers have observed that only few water
rights transfer agreements are registered in the basin while a lot of non-registered
transfers are taking place by means of private commitments. This situation ap-
pears due to the interplay of the following norms:
Government law - (N0): A water-user can use a given volume of water from a
given extraction point, if and only if he/she owns the specific water-right or
has a transfer agreement that endows him/her.
Government law - (N1): Every water-right transfer agreement must be regis-
tered within the fifteen days after its signing and wait for the Basin Author-
ities’ approval in order to be executed.
Local norm - (N2): The registration process of a water-right transfer agreement
is started voluntarily by the agreement signing parties.
Social norm - (N3): Whenever a conflict appears, a water user can start a
grievance procedure in order to solve it.
In order to include norm N1 in the current EI implementation of mWater we
have designed the Agreement Validation scene (see Fig. 1) as a successor scene
for any Trading Table. When any water user enters this scene, the Market Facili-
tator verifies the constraint of fifteen days from the agreement statement process
related to norm N1. If this constraint is satisfied the water-right transfer agree-
ment is forwarded to the Basin Authority, who activates a Normative Reasoning
process in order to approve, or not, the agreement, based on the basin normative
regulation. If the agreement gets approved it is published in the Trading Hall in
order for every water user of the basin to be informed of the transfer agreement.
On the other hand, norm N2 is automatically included in the mWater in-
stitution due to the EIDE implementation feature by which no participating
agent in the electronic institution can be forced to go to a given scene. For the
particular mWater example, neither the buyer nor the seller can be forced to
go through the transition between the Trading Table scene and the Agreement
Validation scene (see Fig. 1). This way, whenever the buyer and/or the seller
goes to the Agreement Validation scene he/she starts the scene voluntarily, so
norm N2 is satisfied.
17
The implementation of norm N3 requires a specific performative structure,
named Grievances (Fig. 3), in order to deal with conflict resolution processes.
Finally, the observance of norm compliance is delegated to every water user.
Hence, the enforceability of norm N0 is delegated to every water user.
The implementation described above is fully NHP-compliant, but it leads to
a low number of transfer agreement registration and, moreover, to the following
very critical situation for the reliable execution of mWater. Let us suppose there
is a water user A who has a water-right w1 and wants to sell it. A starts a
Trading Table inside the TradingTables process (see Fig. 1) in order to sell w1 .
The water user B enters the Trading Table and as a result there is an agreement
Agr1 between A and B, by which B buys w1 from A for the period [t1 , t2 ], and
pays the quantity p1 for such a transfer. A and B belong to Basinx , in which
norms N1, N2 and N3 apply. A and B do not register Agr1 due to norm N 2
(in other words, A and B do not go to the Agreement Validation scene of Fig.
1). Since there is no mechanism in Basinx by which water-right w1 is blocked
from A after its selling (due to Agr1 is not registered and w1 is still owned by
A in time periods not overlapped with [t1 , t2 ]), A continues to operate in the
market. Afterwards A starts a new Trading Table to sell w1 for period [t3 , t4 ],
with t1 < t3 < t2 and t4 > t2 (the new period [t3 , t4 ] is overlapped with [t1 , t2 ]).
In this second Trading Table A and C sign Agr2 , by which A sells w1 to C for
the period [t3 , t4 ] and C pays p2 to A. A and C belong to Basinx . In this case C
registers Agr2 in the Agreement Validation scene, due to N1 and N2, and obtains
the basin approval for executing Agr2 . At time t3 (the transfer starting time)
C attempts to execute Agr2 , but there is no water in the water transportation
node, since B is also executing Agr1 . At this moment C has a conflict with B,
and in order to solve it he/she has to start a grievance procedure due to N3.
Although the previous described situation is critical, mWater can overcome
it thanks to the Grievance performative structure. When C cannot execute Agr2
(because there is no water in the water transportation node), C believes that B
is not complying norm N0. C believes there is a conflict because Agr2 endows
him/her to use the water, and moreover, there is no transfer agreement published
in the Trading Hall that endows B to do the same. In order to enforce norm N0
and to execute Agr2 , C starts a grievance procedure. In this procedure, water
users C and B are recruited as conflicting parties and A as third party because
he/she is the seller of w1 as stated in Agr2 (Recruiting Conflicting Parties scene
of Fig. 3). Let us assume C chooses as conflict resolution mechanism arbitration,
because he/she does not want to negotiate with B. After stating the grievance,
C and B present their allegations to the jury. In this process B presents Agr1 by
which he/she believes there is fulfillment of norm N0. However, in the last step,
by means of a Normative Reasoning function, the jury analyzes the presented
allegations and the normative regulations of the basin and deduces that there
is an offense. Both B and A do not conform with norm N1, and additionally, A
has sold the same water right twice within an overlapped time period. In this
last step, the jury imposes the corresponding sanctions to A and B.
18
Table 1. Market behaviour with varying regulations
Regulation Neg. Tables Agreements Water Volume Conflicts Periods
{N 0, N 1, N 2, N 3} 100 48,3 12.352 23,5 5
{N 0, N 1, N 20 , N 3} 100 25,6 3.521 6,2 5
mWater allows to simulate changes in the regulation in order to test what
will happen, for example, if norm N2 is replaced by norm N2’ :
mWater - Local norm - (N2’): The registration process of a water-right transfer
agreement is started automatically by the institution whenever a water-right
transfer negotiation ends successfully.
Norm N2’ is implemented directly in the Negotiation Table, allowing the
Negotiation Table Manager to monitor all the negotiation protocol in order to
detect the Accept message for a given bid. When the message is detected the
Negotiation Table Manager informs the Basin Authority of the new agreement
and it gets automatically published in the Trading Hall. In this way if the policy
maker decides to include norm N2’ as a regulation for the market in a given
simulation the market participants that negotiated a successful agreement in
a Negotiation Table go directly to Contract Enactment scene without going
through Agreement Validation, and all the water user in the market get informed
of the new agreement.
Recall in the previously described situation the first transfer agreement Agr1 .
Norm N2’ makes Agr1 public just after the Accept message issued by A or B in
the given Negotiation Table. In this way, when A tries to open a new Trading
Table to sell w1 for the period [t3 , t4 ], the Market Facilitator verifies that the
new period overlaps with the period associated in Agr1 (that affects the same
water right) and consequently rejects the request of A. In this way, norm N2’
reduces the number of conflicts caused by second selling of the same water right.
In order to test the market behaviour with the different group of norm regu-
lations described above, we executed various simulations in mWater varying the
regulation and the simulated period (5 different periods) with the same group
of water users. Table 1 shows the results of these evaluations. From this table,
we can conclude that regulation {N 0, N 1, N 2, N 3} leads to a higher number
of agreements (Table 1 reflects both registered and non-registered agreements)
and indeed a higher amount of water transferred. Unfortunately, the number of
conflicts is also higher. On the other hand, {N 0, N 1, N 20 , N 3} leads to fewer
agreements, not only because the water-rights cannot be re-sold any more, but
because not all the water users wanted to participate in the market due to the
obligation to make public all the transfer agreements3 . In order to evaluate other
type of market reactions to regulation changes we are now working on ”social”
3
This situation happens in Spanish basins, and it was deliberately included in the
agent behaviour of the water user participants in order to observe its effects on the
market.
19
functions in order to asses values such as the trust and reputation levels of the
market, or degree of water user satisfaction, among others. We believe that this
type of measures will provide the policy makers with valuable data for decision
making about new or modified regulations.
5 Conclusions and Future Work
As a whole, mWater constitutes a rather sophisticated regulated open multi-
agent system. It is designed with three objectives in mind. First, as a demon-
strator in the AT project (www.agreement-technologies.org), it provides a testing
environment and inspiring problem domain for conceptual proposals and tools.
Second, it may be used as the demand component of a sophisticated basin model
to simulate, visualize and explore different water management policies, users and
norms. That is, it helps explore the interactions between the basin hydrographic
resources and infrastructures, together with the use of water as it is being modu-
lated by market mechanisms and policy directives and regulations. Third, given
the possibility of the creation of an actual market for water rights or analogous
public goods, mWater would be a first proof of concept version to build upon.
The work we report in this paper provides insights on the regulated en-
vironment of mWater as an Electronic Institution for simulating water-rights
markets. We are now developing a richer normative regulation in order to allow
to simulate different types and group of norms. We are also working on defining
performance measures that can evaluate ‘social” issues in the market behaviour.
At the same time we are developing different populations of water users in order
to simulate varying type of members in a basin and to observe what are the
effects of a given regulation when different type of water users are interacting
the market.
Acknowledgements
This paper was partially funded by the Consolider programme of the Spanish
Ministry of Science and Innovation through project AT (CSD2007-0022, INGE-
NIO 2010) and MICINN project TIN2008-06701-C03-03. This research has also
been partially funded by the Valencian Prometeo project 2008/051.
References
1. J. Arcos, M. Esteva, P. Noriega, J. Rodriguez-Aguilar, and C. Sierra. Engineer-
ing open environments with electronic institutions. Engineering Applications of
Artificial Intelligence, (18):191–204, 2005.
2. X. Cai, L. Lasdon, and A.M. Michelsen. Group decision making in water resources
planning using multiple objective analysis. Journal of Water Resources Planning
and Management, 130(1):4–14, 2004.
3. J. Calatrava. Mercados y bancos de agua en España. Agricultura Familiar en
España, pages 99–105, 2006.
20
4. R. C. Ellickson. Order without law : How neighbors settle disputes. Harvard Uni-
versity Press, Cambridge, Mass. :, 1991.
5. J. Honey-Roses. Assessing the potential of water trading in Spain. In ENR 319
Advanced International Environmental Economics. Professor Theo Panayotou at
Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, 2007.
6. F. Martin de Santa Olalla, A. Dominguez, F. Ortega, A. Artigao, and C. Fabeiro.
Bayesian networks in planning a large aquifer in Eastern Mancha, Spain. Environ-
mental Modelling and Software, 22:1089–1100, 2007.
7. R.N. Palmer, W.J. Werick, A. MacEwan, and A.W Woods. Modeling water re-
sources opportunities, challenges and trade-offs: The use of shared vision modeling
for negotiation and conflict resolution. In Proc. of the Water Resources Planning
and Management Conference, 1999.
8. V. Rajasekaram and K.D.W. Nandalal. Decision support system for reservoir
water management conflict resolution. Journal of Water Resources Planning and
Management, pages 410–419, 2005.
9. L. Riesgo and J.A. Gomez-Limon. Mercados del agua. analisis de las opciones
elegidas para su aplicacion en España. In Proc. of the IV Congreso Nacional de
Economı́a Agraria, 2004.
10. T. Schultz, G. Kaufmann-Kohler, D. Langer, and V. Bonnet. Online dis-
pute resolution: The state of the art and the issues. In Available at SSRN:
http://ssrn.com/abstarct=899079.
11. W.K. Slate. Online dispute resolution: Click here to settle your dispute. Dispute
Resolution Journal, 56(4):8–14, 2002.
12. M. Thobani. Formal water markets: Why, when and how to introduce tradable
water rights. The World Bank Research Observer, 12(2):161–179, 1997.
21