Agent-based modeling to simulate contamination events and evaluate threat management strategies in water distribution systems

Risk Analysis

Volumn 31, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 758-772

  Zechman, Emily M ^a  

^a TEXAS A AND M UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Contamination; Sociotechnical model; Threat management; Water distribution

Indexed keywords

AGENT BASED; AGENT-BASED MODELING; ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES; CONSUMER AGENTS; CONSUMER BEHAVIORS; CONTAMINANT PLUME; DYNAMIC METHOD; INTERACTIVE PROCESS; MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES; MECHANISTIC MODELS; MODELING FRAMEWORKS; MULTI-AGENT MODELING; PUBLIC HEALTH; SET OF RULES; SOCIOTECHNICAL MODEL; THREAT MANAGEMENT; THREAT MITIGATION; UTILITY MANAGERS; WATER CONSUMPTION; WATER DEMAND; WATER DISTRIBUTION; WATER DISTRIBUTIONS; WORD-OF-MOUTH COMMUNICATION;

AUTONOMOUS AGENTS; CONTAMINATION; HEALTH RISKS; LOCAL AREA NETWORKS; MANAGERS; MULTI AGENT SYSTEMS; RATING; USER INTERFACES; WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS; WATER SUPPLY;

DECISION MAKING;

DECISION MAKING; HEALTH RISK; MANAGEMENT PRACTICE; MOBILITY; NUMERICAL MODEL; PHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSE; POLLUTION EFFECT; PUBLIC HEALTH; WATER DEMAND;

ARTICLE; HUMAN; RISK ASSESSMENT; THEORETICAL MODEL; WATER POLLUTANT; WATER SUPPLY;

HUMANS; MODELS, THEORETICAL; RISK ASSESSMENT; WATER POLLUTANTS; WATER SUPPLY;

EID: 79956138174     PISSN: 02724332     EISSN: 15396924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01564.x     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. U.S. Government Accountability Office. Drinking Water: Experts' Views on How Federal Funding Can Be Spent to Improve Security. Washington, DC U.S. Government Accountability Office (U.S.), Report No.: GAO-04-1098T, September 2004.
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Response Protocol Toolbox: Planning for and Responding to Contamination Threats to Drinking Water Systems: Water Utilities Planning Guide-Module 1. Washington, DC U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.); Report No.: EPA-817-D-03-001, December 2003.
3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Response Protocol Toolbox: Planning for and Responding to Contamination Threats to Drinking Water Systems: Contamination Threat Management Guide-Module 2. Washington, DC . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.); Report No.: EPA-817-D-03-002, 2003.
4. Miller J, Page S. Complex Adaptive Systems. Princeton, NJ . Princeton University Press, 2007.
5. Gloubeman S. Walkerton water and complex adaptive systems. Hospital Quarterly, 2001; 4(4):28-31.
6. Axelrod R. The Complexity of Cooperation. Princeton, NJ Princeton University Press, 1997.
7. Holland J. Hidden Order: How Adaptation Builds Complexity. USA Helix Books, 1996.
8. Athanasiadis I, Mentes A, Mitkas P, Mylopoulos Y. A hybrid agent-based model for estimating residential water demand. Simulation-Transactions of the Society for Modeling and Simulation International, 2005; 81(3):175-187.
9. Tillman D, Larsen T, Pahl-Wostl C, Gujer W. Modeling the actors in water supply systems. Water Science and Technology, 1999; 39(4):203-211.
10. Tillman D, Larsen T, Pahl-Wostl C, Gujer W. Interaction analysis of stakeholders in water supply systems. Water Science and Technology, 2001; 43(5):319-326.
11. Tillman D, Larsen T, Pahl-Wostl C, Gujer W. Simulating development strategies for water supply systems. Journal of Hydroinformatics, 2005; 7(1):41-51
12. Zechman E. Agent-based modeling to simulate contamination events and to analyze threat management strategies in water distribution systems. In Kabbes KC (ed). Proceedings of the World Environmental and Water Resources Congress. Tampa, FL. Weston, VA: ASCE; c2007, May 15-18, 2007.
13. Zechman E. An agent-based simulation-optimization approach to identify threat management strategies for water distribution systems. In Babcock RW (ed). Proceedings of the World Environmental and Water Resources Congress. Honolulu, HI. Weston, VA: ASCE; c2008, May 12-16, 2008.
14. XJ Technologies . AnyLogic 6 User's Guide. St. Petersburg, Russia XJ Technologies, 2007.
15. Rossman L. EPANET User's Manual. Cincinnati, OH U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Risk Reduction Engineering Lab (U.S.), 2000. Report No.: EPA/600/R-00/057.
16. Brumbelow K, Torres J, Guikema S, Bristow E, Kanta L. Virtual cities for water distribution and infrastructure system research. In Kabbes KC (ed). Proceedings of the World Environmental and Water Resources Congress, Tampa, FL. Weston, VA: ASCE; c2007, May 15-18, 2007.
17. Haestad M, Walski T, Chase D, Davic D, Grayman W, Beckwith S, Koelle E. Advanced Water Distribution Modeling and Management. Waterbury, CT Haestad Press, 2003.
18. Propato M, Uber J. Vulnerability of water distribution systems to pathogen intrusion: How effective is a disinfectant residual? Environmental Science and Technology, 2004; 38(13):3713-3722.
19. Murray R, Uber J, Janke R. Model for estimating acute health impacts from consumption of contaminated drinking water. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 2006; 132(4):293-299.
20. Janke R, Murray R, Uber J, Taxon T. Comparison of physical sampling and real-time monitoring strategies for designing a contamination warning system in a drinking water distribution system. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 2006; 132(4):310-313.
21. Davis M, Janke R. Importance of exposure model in estimating impacts when a water distribution system is contaminated. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 2008; 134(5):449-456.
22. Horrigan M, Herz D. Planning, designing, and executing the BLS American time-use survey. Monthly Labor Review, 2004; 127(10):3-19.
23. Bureau of Labor Statistics and U.S. Census Bureau. American Time Use Survey User's Guide 2003-2004. Washington, DC Bureau of Labor Statistics and U.S. Census Bureau (U.S.); 2005. Report No.: USDL 06-1276.
24. Davis M, Janke R. Development of a probabilistic timing model for the ingestion of tap water. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 2009; 135(5):397-405.
25. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Estimated per Capita Water Ingestion in the United States. Washington, DC U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water (U.S.). Report No.: EPA-8222 00-008, 2000.
26. Vickers A. Handbook of Water Use and Conservation. Amherst, MA WaterPlow Press, 2001.
27. Angulo F, Tippen S, Sharp D, Payne B, Collier C, Hill J, Jarrett T, Clark R, Geldreich E, Donnell HD, Swerdlow D. A community waterborne outbreak of salmonellosis and the effectiveness of a boil water order. American Journal of Public Health, 1997; 87(4):580-584.
28. O'Donnell M, Platt C, Aston R. Effect of a boil water notice on behaviour in the management of a water contamination incident. Communicable Disease and Public Health, 2000; 3(1):56-9.
29. Ram P, Blanton E, Klinghoffer D, Platek M, Piper J, Straif-Bourgeois S, Bonner M, Mintz E. Household water disinfection in hurricane-affected communities of Louisiana: Implication for disaster preparedness for the general public. American Journal of Public Health, 2007; 97(1):130-135.
30. Karagiannis I, Schimmer B, de Roda Husman AM. Compliance with boil water advice following a water contamination incident in the Netherlands in 2007. Eurosurveillance, 2009; 14(12)
31. Hurd R. Consumer Attitude Survey on Water Quality Issues. Denver, CO AWWA Research Foundation (U.S.). Report No.:90654, 1993.
32. Wardlaw LA, Bruvold WH. Evaluation of consumer notification under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Water Resources Bulletin, 1989; 25(4):837-844.
33. Harding A, Anadu E. Consumer response to public notification. Journal of American Water Works Association, 2000; 92(8):32-41.
34. Rossman L, Boulos P. Numerical methods for modeling water quality in distribution systems: A comparison. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 1996; 122(2):137-146.
35. Kroll D. Securing Our Water Supply: Protecting a Vulnerable Resource. Tulsa, OK PennWell Corporation, 2006.
36. Rasekh A, Brumbelow K, Zechman, EM. WDS vulnerability analysis: Focusing on random factors, consumer behavior, and system dynamics in a contamination event. In Palmer RN (ed). Proceedings of the World Environmental and Water Resources Congress. Providence, RI. Weston, VA: ASCE; c2010, May 16-20, 2010.
37. Baranowski T, LeBoeuf E. Consequence management detection optimization for contaminant and isolation. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 2006; 132(4):274-282.
38. Baranowski T, LeBoeuf E. Consequence management utilizing optimization. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 2008; 134(4):386-394.
39. Poulin A, Mailhot A, Grondin P, Delorme L, Periche N, Villeneuve J-P. Heuristic approach for operational response to drinking water contamination. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 2008; 134(5):457-465.
40. Zechman, E. Integrating complex adaptive system simulation and evolutionary computation to support water infrastructure threat management. Pp. 1809-1816 in Branke J et al. (ed). Proceedings of the 2010 Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, Portland, OR. New York: ACM Press; c2010, July 7-11, 2010.
41. Shafiee M, Zechman EM. An agent-based modeling approach for simulating contamination events applied to the Mesopolis water distribution system. In Palmer RN (ed). Proceedings of the World Environmental and Water Resources Congress, Providence, RI. Weston, VA: ASCE; c2010, May 16-20, 2010.
42. Zechman EM, Lindell M, Brumbelow K, Mumpower J, Raskeh A, Shafiee M. Agent-based modeling for planning emergency response to contamination emergencies in water utilities. In NSF CMMI Engineering Research and Innovation Conference, Atlanta, GA. Washington, DC: NSF; c2011, January 4-7, 2011.