Transboundary water resources allocation is an effective measure to resolve water-related conflicts. Aiming at the problem of water conflicts, we constructed water resources allocation models based on game theory and multi-objective optimization, and revealed the differences between the two models. We compare the Pareto front solved by the AR-MOEA method and the NSGA-II method, and analyzed the difference between the Nash–Harsanyi Leader–Follower game model and the multi-objective optimization model. The Huaihe River basin was selected as a case study. The results show that: (1) The AR-MOEA method is better than the NSGA-II method in terms of the diversity metric (Δ); (2) the solution of the asymmetric Nash–Harsanyi Leader–Follower game model is a non-dominated solution, and the asymmetric game model can obtain the same water resources allocation scheme of the multi-objective optimal allocation model under a specific preference structure; (3) after the multi-objective optimization model obtains the Pareto front, it still needs to construct the preference information of the Pareto front for a second time to make the optimal solution of a multi-objective decision, while the game model can directly obtain the water resources allocation scheme at one time by participating in the negotiation. The results expand the solution method of water resources allocation models and provide support for rational water resources allocation.
Comparison of Transboundary Water Resources Allocation Models Based on Game Theory and Multi-Objective Optimization
