Stakeholder-based water allocation modelling and ecosystem services trade-off analysis: the case of El Carracillo region (Spain)

Figures & data

Figure 1. Carracillo region: (a) with respect to the province of Segovia and to autonomous region of Castilla y Leon; (b) villages benefiting from the first two phases (continuous line) and those that will benefit from the third phase (dashed line)

Figure 2. Characteristics of Cega River flow at gauging station 2016 (upstream of the derivation) for the period 2001–2015: (a) average daily flows; (b) duration curve of average daily flows; (c) average monthly flows (mean and standard deviation (SD) values are shown). Data from Ministerio para la Transición Ecológica

Table 1. Number of interviews for each target group

Target group	Number of interviews
Technicians and experts directly involved in the recharge project	5
Experts outside the project	5
Mayors	3
Small farmers	10
Large agricultural enterprises	10
Local workers	12
Environmentalists	6
TOTAL	51

Figure 3. Support software for mediation and processes: implementation for the Carracillo case study

Table 2. Composition of the two stakeholder groups

Group 1	Group 2
Rainfed farmers Traditional farmers Pine workers Environmental groups	Comunidad de Regantes Export farmers Junta de Castilla y Leon Confederacion Hidrografica del Duero Municipalities

Figure 4. Flowchart of the algorithm to calculate water derived from Cega River q_R(t). Time-dependence of flow values was omitted for clarity

Table 3. Rules to determine the biodiversity conservation suitability monthly value

qdown	Suitability value of the day
< Q10	0.0 to the whole month
ϵ (Q10, Q30)	0.8(qdown − Q10)/(Q30 − Q10)
ϵ (Q30, Q60)	0.8 + 0.2(qdown − Q30)/(Q60 − Q30)
> Q60	1.0

Table 4. Weight scenarios

Service	Weight Scenario A: uninformed	Weight Scenario B: expert (Analytic Hierarchy Process)
Biodiversity conservation	0.33	0.77
Tourism	0.33	0.05
Urban water supply	0.33	0.18

Figure 5. Actor-linkage matrix

Table 5. Contrasting preferences about water allocation and related ecosystem services

Group 1	Group 2
Rainfed farmers Traditional farmers Pine workers Environmental groups	Comunidad de Regantes Export farmers Junta de Castilla y Leon Confederacion Hidrografica del Duero Municipalities
Preferences for water allocation
Enough water released downstream for the derivation to guarantee multiple and differentiated services	Agriculture
Ecosystem services benefited by water allocation choices
Urban water supply Biodiversity conservation Tourism and recreational activities	Water for agriculture

Figure 6. Comparison between yearly average FU (Farmer’s Utility) and SPI (Service Provision Index) function values for second- and third-phase concession rules: (a) Weight Scenario A; (b) Weight Scenario B

Figure 7. Utility functions averaged over the years 2001–2014 for different values of Q_min: (a) Weight Scenario A; (b) Weight Scenario B

Figure 8. Utility functions averaged over the years 2001–2014 for different values of Q_max: (a) Weight Scenario A; (b) Weight Scenario B

Table 6. Optimization results: q_min and q_max values; other concession values as prescribed by third-phase concession

Single parameter optimization
	Weight Scenario A: uninformed	Weight Scenario B: expert (AHP)
Minimum flow downstream of the derivation (qmin)	1.61 m^3/s	1.59 m^3/s
Multiple parameter optimization
Minimum flow downstream of the derivation (qmin)	1.62 m^3/s	1.55 m^3/s
Maximum instantaneous intake (qmax)	6.83 m^3/s	9.65 m^3/s

Table 7. Minimum instantaneous intake (q_min, m³/s) resulting from the use of different EF values, and as prescribed by third-phase concession rules

EF according to Tennant		EF according to CHD		3^rd phase concession rules
WSA	WSB	WSA	WSB
~1.60m^3/s	~1.60m^3/s	0.67m^3/s	0.84m^3/s	0.60m^3/s