All Title Author
Keywords Abstract

The Advantages of Using a Computer-Based Integrated Assessment to Promote Cooperative Behavior in Groundwater Management

DOI: 10.4236/aasoci.2012.24044, PP. 344-349

Keywords: Environmental Sociology, Environmental Management, Artificial Intelligence, Optimal Management, Game Theory

Full-Text   Cite this paper   Add to My Lib


The ultimate goal of environmental impact assessment is to guarantee that benefits generated by a development project will not cause highly negative effects on the environment or public health. The fulfillment of this goal depends on the willingness of proponents and society to cooperate. The information management, its accessibility to community and the educational level of participants are of great relevancy too. Cooperation is not always attainable due to conflicts between individual and community interests. Conflict leads to a variety of cooperative and non-cooperative responses, depending on the information available to the actors. In order to capture the tendency in which a community perceives the proposals, we introduced an information index. We prove that computer models have a direct impact on this information index. This computer-based approach, leads the EIA to the paradigm of adaptive environmental assessment and management. To implement this, a system based on artificial intelligence and game theory was used to resolve a study case of conflict in groundwater management.


[1]  Andrei, N. (2004). Theory versus empiricism in analysis of optimization algorithms. Bucharest: Technical Press.
[2]  Alshuwaikhat, H. M., & Aina, Y. A. (2004). Sustainable cities: Implementation of strategic environmental assessment in Saudi Arabian municipalities. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 47, 303-311.
[3]  Back, T. (1995). Evolutionary algorithms in theory and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[4]  Bellman, R. (1957). Dynamic programming. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
[5]  Bennet, S. (1979). A history of control engineering 1800-1930. IEEE Control Engineering Series, 8. Hitchin: Peter Peregrinus Ltd. doi:10.1049/PBCE008E
[6]  Bonacich, P. (1995). Four kinds of social dilemmas within exchange networks. Current Research in Social Psychology, 1, 1-7.
[7]  Burke, J., & Monch, M. (2000). Groundwater and society: Resources, tensions and opportunities. United Nations Publication ST/ESA/205.
[8]  Costanza, R., & Cornwell, L. (1992). The 4P approach to dealing with scientific uncertainty. Environment, 34, 12-20, 42. doi:10.1080/00139157.1992.9930930
[9]  Das, A., & Datta, B. (1999). Development of multiobjective management models for coastal aquifers. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, American Society of Civil Engineers, 125, 76-78
[10]  Fogel, D. (2006). Evolutionary computation: Toward a new philosophy of machine intelligence. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.
[11]  Foster, S., Lawrence, A., & Morris, B. (1998). Groundwater in urban development: Assessing management needs and formulating policy strategies. Washington DC: World Bank Publications.
[12]  Gilpin, A. (1995). Environmental impact assessment: Cutting edge for the twenty-first century (p. 182). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[13]  Goldsmith, B. (1991). Monitoring for conservation and ecology. (p. 275). London: Chapman & Hall. doi:10.1007/978-94-011-3086-8
[14]  Hisschemller, M., Tol, R., & Vellinga, P. (2001). The relevance of participatory approaches in integrated environmental assessment. Integrated Assessment, 2, 57-72. doi:10.1023/A:1011501219195
[15]  Holling, C. (1978). Adaptive environmental assessment and management (p. 377). Chichester: John Wiley.
[16]  Jakeman, A., & Letcher, R. (2003). Integrated assessment and modeling: features, principles and examples for catchment management. Environmental modeling & Software, 18, 491-501. doi:10.1016/S1364-8152(03)00024-0
[17]  Jones, L., Willis, R., & Yeh, W. (1987). Optimal control of nonlinear groundwater hydraulics using differential dynamic programming. Water Resources Research, 23, 2097-2107. doi:10.1029/WR023i011p02097
[18]  Lawrence, D. (1997). Integrating sustainability and environmental impact assessment. Environmental Management, 21, 23-42. doi:10.1007/s002679900003
[19]  Lejano, R., & Davos, C. (1999). Cooperative solutions for sustainable resource management. Environmental Management, 24, 167-175.
[20]  Magnuszewski, P., Sendzimir, J., & Kronenberg, J. (2005). Conceptual modeling for adaptive environmental assessment and management in the Barycz Valley, Lower Silesia, Poland. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2, 194-203
[21]  McKelvey R., McLennan, A., & Turocy, T. (2007). Gambit: Software tools for game theory, Version 0.2007.01.30. URL (last checked 26 December 2012).
[22]  Millinski, M., Semmann, D., & Krambeck, H. (2002). Reputation helps solve the “tragedy of the commons”. Nature, 415, 424-426. doi:10.1038/415424a
[23]  Nash, J. F. (1950). The bargaining problem. Econometrica, 18, 155-162. doi:10.2307/1907266
[24]  Noble, B. F. (2000) Strategic environmental assessment: What is it and what makes it strategic? Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 2, 203-224.
[25]  Nowak, M., & Sigmund, K. (1998). Evolution of indirect reciprocity by image scoring. Nature, 393, 573-577. doi:10.1038/31225
[26]  Ostrom, E., Burger, J., Field, C., Norgaard, R., & Policansky, D. (1999). Revisiting the commons: Local lessons, global challenges. Science, 284, 278-282. doi:10.1126/science.284.5412.278
[27]  Pardo, M. (1997). Environmental impact assessment: Myth or reality? Lessons from Spain. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 17, 123-142. doi:10.1016/S0195-9255(96)00080-7
[28]  Pérez-Maqueo, O. (2004). Las manifestaciones de impacto ambiental: Un análisis crítico. Doctoral Thesis, Xalapa: Instituto de Ecología, A.C.
[29]  Porter, T. (1995). Trust in numbers: The pursuit of objectivity in science and public life (p. 310). Pricenton, NJ: Pricenton University Press.
[30]  Poundstone, W. (1993). Prisoner’s dilemma (p. 294). New York: Anchor Books.
[31]  Rotmans, J. (1998). Methods for IA challenges and opportunities ahead. Environmental Modeling and Assessment, 3, 155-179. doi:10.1023/A:1019019024003
[32]  Rotmans, J., & Dowlatabadi, H. (1997). Integrated assessment of climate change: Evaluation of methods and strategies. In R. Majone, & S. Rayner (Eds.), Human choices and climate change: A state of the art report. Washington DC: Batelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories.
[33]  Rousseau, J. (1761). A discourse upon the origin and foundation of the inequality among mankind. London: R. and J. Dodsley.
[34]  Routh, E. (1877). A treatise on the stability of a given state of motion, particularly steady motion. London: Macmillan and Co.
[35]  Sadler, B. (1999). Environmental sustainability assessment and assurance. In J. Petts, (Ed.), Handbook on environmental impact assessment (pp. 12-32). London: Blackwell.
[36]  Sastry, K. (2006). Single & Multi-objective genetic algorithms toolbox. Illinois Genetic Algorithms Laboratory Department of Industrial and Enterprise Systems Engineering University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign. URL (last checked 26 December 2012).
[37]  Schneider, S. (1997). Defining and teaching environmental literacy. Trends in Evolution and Ecology, 12, 457.
[38]  Siebenhner, B. (2004). Social learning and sustainability science: Which role can stakeholder participation play? International Journal of Sustainable Development, 7, 144-163. doi:10.1016/S0169-5347(97)01207-X
[39]  Sinclair, J. & Diduck, A. (1995). Public education: An undervalued component of the environmental assessment public involvement process. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 15, 219-240.
[40]  Suter, G. (1993). Ecological risk assessment (p. 538). Michigan: Lewis Publishers.
[41]  Tellegen, E., & Wolsink, M. (1998). Society and its environment. An introduction (p. 275). Reading: Gordon and Breach Science Publishers.
[42]  Toth, F., & Hizsnyik, E. (1998). Integrated environmental assessment methods: Evolution and applications. Environmental Modeling and Assessment, 3, 193-207. doi:10.1023/A:1019071008074
[43]  Tuinstra, W., Hordijk, L., & Amann, M. (1999). Using computer models in international negotiations. The case of acidification in Europe. Environment, 41, 33-42. doi:10.1080/00139159909605536
[44]  USGS (2008). Ground water software MODFLOW 2000 v.1.18.01, modular three dimensional finite difference groundwater FLOW model-2000 updated version. URL (last checked 26 December 2012).
[45]  Van Asselt, M., & Rijkens-Klomp, N. (2002). A look in the mirror: Reflection on participation in integrated assessment from a methodological perspective. Global Environmental Change, 12, 167-184. doi:10.1016/S0959-3780(02)00012-2
[46]  Van der Sluijs, J., & Kloprogge, P. (2001). The inclusion of stakeholder perspectives in integrated assessment of climate change. In M. Decker (Ed.), Interdisciplinarity in technology assessment. Implementations and their chances and limits. Series: Wissenschaftsethik und Technikfolgenbeurteilung (Vol. 11, pp. 199-214). Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer. doi:10.1016/0195-9255(95)00006-Z
[47]  Wathern, P. (2001). Environmental impact assessment: Theory and practice. London: Academic Division of Unwin Hyman Ltd.
[48]  Zektser, I., & Margat, J. (1997) Groundwater resources of the world and their use. Pairs: UNESCO


comments powered by Disqus