Renewable Energy 158 (2020) 453e464

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/renene

Optimisation of cascade reservoir operation considering

environmental flows for different environmental management classes
Naresh Suwal a, Xianfeng Huang a, Alban Kuriqi b, *, Yingqin Chen c,
Kamal Prasad Pandey a, Khem Prasad Bhattarai a
a
College of Water Conservancy and Hydropower Engineering, Hohai University, People’s Republic of China
b
CERIS, Instituto Superior T

ecnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal
c
Wentian College, Hohai University, Ma’anshan, 243031, People’s Republic of China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Most commonly, hydropower operation focused on the economic and social benefits of the humankind,
Received 29 October 2019 whereas neglecting the riverine ecosystem conservation. This conventional approach of operation led to
Received in revised form the degradation of the riverine ecosystem. As research progressed, adoption of natural flow variability in
20 April 2020
the operation of reservoir gained momentum. Flow variability is a major driver of the healthy river
Accepted 29 May 2020
Available online 4 June 2020
ecosystem, whereby discharging a certain amount of water could potentially reduce the adverse effect of
reservoirs and dams on the riverine ecosystem. On this preface, the study presented here constitutes a
multi-objective optimisation model of cascade reservoirs to maximise the power generation while
Keywords:
Energy policy
minimising the shortage of environmental flows considering five environmental management classes.
Flow variability This paper analyses the case studies for Liujiaping-Yumitan cascade reservoirs. The environmental flows
Hydrologic alteration regarding each environmental management classes were calculated using “Global Environmental Flow
Hydropower optimisation Calculator”, the model was solved using an anon-dominated sorting genetic algorithm (NSGA-II). The
Renewable energy NSGA-II helps to find Pareto optimal sets of solutions, NSGA-II, however, cannot be used solely for taking
a comprehensive decision. Therefore, the Projection Pursuit Cluster (PPC) model has been used addi-
tionally for the optimal sequencing of the compromised optimal solutions. The maximum annual power
production considering five environmental management classes were respectively: 1.121, 1.109, 1.103,
1.109, and 1.117 (x108 kWh) with environmental flows shortage of 2060.82, 616.497, 200.52, 28.88, and
0.004 (x104 m3) respectively. Findings resulted from this study, highlight the necessity for power pro-
duction compromise for a better degree of environmental protection. In contrast, the environmental
benefit is more important not only for the sustainable operation of the hydropower but also for fulfilling
the universal needs of the riverine ecosystem. Therefore, the outcomes of this study can be a guideline
for decision-makers to improve the comprehensive benefits of the Liujiaping-Yumitan cascade hydro-
power station along with the conservation of the environmental health of the river.
© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Ever-increasing population, economic advancement, and
climate change have forced us to build water conservancy projects
such as dams and reservoirs more than ever to secure the water
needs and energy needs of humankind. All these projects either
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: narcissussuwal@gmail.com (N. Suwal), hxfhuang2005@163.
com (X. Huang), alban.kuriqi@tecnico.ulisboa.pt (A. Kuriqi), chenyingqin_nj@163.
com (Y. Chen), lotuskamal44@hotmail.com (K.P. Pandey), kpb63@outlook.com
(K.P. Bhattarai).
divert or impound the flow of the river, causing significant flow
changes in the downstream and upstream reach of the river section
[1]. Flow is considered as a decision variable in the river ecosystem
with the variability of flow as a primary driver of the healthy
ecosystem [2e4]. Indeed, these water conservancy projects act as a
physical barrier in the river system, which disrupts the flow vari-
ability features, thus affecting the natural healthy riverine
ecosystem [5,6]. It is true that the construction and operation of the
reservoir gives a convenient lifestyle to humankind as it controls
flood, generates electricity, facilitates urban and rural water supply,
and supports irrigation. However, it has summoned irreversible
ecological impacts on the fragile river ecosystem of the world

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2020.05.161
0960-1481/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
454 N. Suwal et al. / Renewable Energy 158 (2020) 453e464

Abbreviations and acronyms wjt Wastewater from the reservoir (m3 s
1)
qejt;B;C;D;E;F Environmental flows for EMC B, C, D, E, and F
e-flows Environmental Flows respectively (m3 s
1)
EMC Environmental Management Classes Vj;t Average storage of reservoir ‘j’ in the tth (m3)
GEFC Global Environmental Flow Calculator Vj;t
1 Average storage of reservoir ‘j’ in the (t-1)th (m3)
NSGA-II Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm Qj;t;in and Qj;t;out Average inflow and outflow of reservoir ‘j’ at
PPC Projection Pursuit Cluster time t (m3 s
1)
kWh Kilowatt-hour Ej;t Evaporation of reservoir ‘j’ at time t (m3)
RVA Range of Variability Approach Lj;t Leakage water from the reservoir ‘j’ (m3)
IHA Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration Zj;min minimum water level limits of reservoir ‘j’
HCA Histogram Comparison Approach respectively at time t, (m)
HMA Histogram Matching Approach Zj;t The average water level of the reservoir ‘j’ at the time
LP Linear Programming (m)
DP Dynamic Programming Zj;max Maximum water level limits of reservoir ‘j’
NLP Non-linear Programming respectively at time t, (m)
EC Evolutionary Computation Qt;min and Qt;max Minimum and maximum discharge of the
PAES Pareto Archived Evolution Strategy reservoir ‘j’ at time t (m3 s
1)
SPEA Strength-Pareto Evolutionary Algorithm Nj;min and Nj;max Minimum and maximum power output limits
DM Decision-Maker of hydropower station ‘j’ at time t, (kW)
MCDM Multi-Criteria Decision Making qj
1;j;t Inflow volume for the interval between j-1 reservoir
FDC Flow Duration Curve and j reservoir (m3 s
1)
RAGA Real Accelerating Genetic Algorithm Parameters and xði; jÞ The normalised value of the jth index of the ith
Variables sample
maxO1 Maximum annual power generation of cascade x* ði; jÞ The initial value of the jth index from the ith sample
power systems (108 kWh) xmax ðjÞand xmin ðjÞ Maximum and minimum values of the jth
Cj Power coefficient index respectively
qjt Turbines release (m3 s
1) a Unit vector
hjt Average head (m) P ðaÞ Projection index function
Dt Time (s) Sz Spread of data
minO2B=C=D=E=F Minimum environmental flows shortage in the Dz ‘Local density’ of the projection value z(i)
river for EMC B, C, D, E, and F respectively (m3 E(z) The average value of z(i)
s
1) R Cut-off radius
qjt;xie Discharge from the ecological sluice installed in the
dam (m3 s
1)

[7e10]. A healthy river ecosystem, as defined, is the one that pro-
vides the services of sufficient water supply, pollution diminution,
water reclamation, groundwater recharge, and so on [5,11]. A large
number of cascade reservoirs already built, and many more on the
process of construction are expected to increase the efficiency of
water conservancy projects [12,13]. Many scholars have assessed
the degree of hydrological alteration due to anthropogenic activ-
ities such as dams, reservoirs, and Run-of-River (RoR) hydropower
schemes in the downstream of the river [1,14e16]. This assessment
is a basic premise in defining environmental flows (hereafter e-
flows). Range of variability approach (RVA) based on ‘‘Indicators of
hydrologic alteration (IHA)’’ [2], Histogram Comparison Approach
(HCA) [17], Histogram Matching Approach (HMA) [7], and many
other methods have been used to assess the hydrological alteration
due to human activities particularly at the downstream of the river
[2,18e20]. Tharme [8] reviewed more than 200 e-flow methodol-
ogies spread across different geographical spectra. These method-
ologies classified into four major groups, namely, hydrological (e.g.,
Tennant method, RVA, flow duration curve), hydraulic rating (e.g.,
wetted perimeter, toe-width, riffle analysis), habitat simulation
(e.g., IFIM, PHABSIM) and holistic methodologies (e.g., BBM, DRM,
DRIFT).
Optimised water releases considering the environmental needs
of the river is a must for mitigation of the adverse effects of res-
ervoirs operation, along with the conservation of river ecosystem
health and downstream river-dependent livestock [6,21]. There is
remarkable progress with regards to optimisation programming
models. For instance, D. P. Loucks, J. R. Stedinger and Haith [22]
were among the first pioneers to discuss on reservoir operation for
planning and analysis of water resource [22]. Yeh [18] reviewed
various mathematical models for reservoir operations, such as
linear programming (LP), dynamic programming (DP), and non-
linear programming (NLP). Ahmad, El-Shafie, Razali and Moha-
mad [19] reviewed the optimisation methods developed to solve
problem-related to a reservoir in water resources. Evolutionary
computation models have become handy among researchers,
owing to the fast advancement of computer science, as it finds a
solution near to optimal results with feasible computational time
[23]. Elitist multi-objective evolutionary algorithms such as Pareto
Archived Evolution Strategy (PAES) [23], a strength-Pareto Evolu-
tionary Algorithm (SPEA) [24] and Non-dominated Sorting Genetic
Algorithm-II (NSGA-II) [25] has been widely used in the optimisa-
tion of reservoir since elitism can preserve the best solutions and
speeds up the convergence of the solution [26]. The NSGA-II sur-
passed the PAES and SPEA in terms of maintaining a diversity of
solutions and in finding the solution proximal to the right Pareto-
optimal set [25].
Nevertheless, most of the popular reservoir optimisation models
consider only the economic and social benefit without carefully
considering the riverine ecological benefits or addressing ecological
benefits alone as a constraint [5,27,28]. However, during the last
decades, there is a handful of analytical and empirical research
which emphasises the importance of considering the e-flows as an
objective function in the optimisation models [1,5,14,17,23,29]. The
 N. Suwal et al. / Renewable Energy 158 (2020) 453e464
outcomes of these researches have become guidelines for the water
managers by helping them in developing sustainable sound
frameworks required for the river restoration programs. The
evolutionary multi-objective optimisation methods only give the
Pareto optimal sets of the solution. However, it is challenging to
decide solely based on this method [30]. The decision-maker
further needs to select the single best-compromised solution out
of that set [31]. For this purpose there are several multi-criteria
decision-making methods, such as ideal point method, ELECTRE
[15], fuzzy comprehensive evaluation, fuzzy optimisation, matter
element analysis [32], projection pursuit [33], intelligent optimi-
sation and so on, as described in Coello, Lamont and Van Veld-
huizen [32], which might help to choose the single best-
compromised solution [1,34].
This paper details the study on the Liujiaping-Yumitan cascade
reservoir system. There have been profound flow alterations in the
downstream of the Erdu river system after the operation of cascade
reservoir. It also has adversely affected the river ecosystem of lower
reaches since the initial construction of the cascade reservoir in
1987 [17]. Few studies have analysed the trade-offs between hy-
dropower production and ecosystem conservation considering
different e-flows scenarios [14,30,34], or influence of flow regime in
e-flows determination and energy generation in case of RoR hy-
dropower plant [1,35]. Furthermore, to the best of our knowledge,
there has not been any comprehensive study considering e-flows
on the cascade reservoir operation system since its impoundment.
Therefore, the main objective of this study was to propose a prac-
tical solution regarding the optimal operation of the cascade
reservoir, considering the e-flows of different Environmental
Management Classes (EMC) [29]. This paper investigates a multi-
objective cascade reservoir scheduling model in which annual po-
wer generation is maximised while considering the e-flows of each
EMC, except EMC A. The model is solved using NSGA-II algorithm,
which gives rise to a set of Pareto optimal solutions. Few repre-
sentatives Pareto optimal schemes are selected, which are further
ranked optimally by the PPC model. The results of the study can be
useful guidelines for decision-makers to improve the comprehen-
sive benefits of the Liujiping-Yumitan cascade hydropower station
along with the protection of the riverine ecosystem health. The
paper is organised as follows: Section 2 shows the information
about the study cases and data collection; Section 3 describes the
applied methodology; interpretation and discussion of the main
results are presented in Section 4; Finally, the main conclusions
drawn from this study are presented in Section 5.
2. Materials
2.1. Study area
Erdu River originates from Baizhuyu, Longtan, Jinshan and
Zhangpu County (Fig. 1). It belongs to the water system of the Lishui
River Basin at the elevation of 1070 m a.s.l. The basin is located in a
subtropical humid monsoon climate with a mild climate and
abundant rainfall. The annual average temperature lies between
16.3  C and 17.8  C, with a multi-year average of 16.9  C and a
maximum annual temperature difference of 53.1  C. Liujiaping-
Yumitan cascade reservoir project is a diversion project con-
structed in the mainstream of the Erdu River. The project has
divided the Erdu River into four sections:
 The first section is between the reservoir and Liujiaping power
station,
 The second section is between Liujiaping power station and
Yumitan reservoir,
455
 The third section is between Yumitan reservoir and Yumitan
hydropower station, and
 Furthermore, the last section is downstream of the Yumitan
powerhouse.
2.1.1. Liujiaping hydropower station
The station is located in Xupu County, Hunan Province between
1100360 E
1100420 E and 270260 N-270380 N. The dam is situated at
the upstream of the Liujiaping River whereas the power plant is
located about 3 km downstream of the dam. It is a medium-sized
hydropower station [36] with the comprehensive benefits of irri-
gation and flood control. The Liujiaping power station was devel-
oped for high headwater diversion type. Construction of the dam
was started in October 1984 about after three years, only in 1987, it
was in operation. The annual average flow rate near the dam site is
1.51 m3/s” [23]. The main features of the cascade hydropower po-
wer station are listed in Table A1.
2.1.2. Yumitan hydropower station
It is located in Gezhuping Town, Xupu County, Huaihua City. It
consists of a masonry gravity dam, diversion tunnel, open channel,
pressure forebay, pressure pipe, main and auxiliary workshop. The
dam is a masonry gravity dam with an axis length of 125.6 m, and
the maximum dam height of 25.5 m with a crest elevation of
354.5 m a.s.l. It was designed for 20 years of return period flood,
however, also checked for 100 years return period flood. The dam
site is located in the mainstream of the Huangshui River 200 m
downstream of the Qinjiang Hydropower Station, and the upstream
of the reservoir is connected with the tailwater of the Qinjiang
River. The reservoir capacity is 15  105 m3. It belongs to the
development of runoff diversion type, and it has a negligible
regulating ability, only hourly regulation.
3. Methods
3.1. Calculation of environmental flows
The study uses the environmental flows assessment method
called ‘‘Global Environmental Flow Calculator’’ (GEFC) to calculate
the environmental flows for different EMC. The GEFC software
implements the “FDC Shifting” method. The technical framework of
the research is shown in Fig. 2.
The details about the software are described in the work of
Smakhtin and Eriyagama [29]. Due to the lack of site-specific
ecological information and less information about eco-
hydrological relationships of the river basin, the study uses the
GEFC for a quick assessment of e-flows using user-defined monthly
average flow data. The method uses monthly discharge data to
construct a flow duration curve (FDC), which ensures the protec-
tion of ecologically relevant indicators of natural flow variability.
The method also gives a detailed description of EMC. Table 1 shows
the details about EMC and its corresponding ecological description
with a management perspective. It classified EMC into six classes
giving six similar environmental flow levels to each class. The study
inputs monthly average flow data from 1987 to 2016 in the GEFC
software. The software provides the monthly environmental flows
of all EMC of respective years. The study uses the flow frequency
curve to separate the hydrological year as a normal, dry, and wet
year. The years for which the flow frequencies are below 25% are
considered as wet hydrologic years, above 75% are considered as
dry years, and remaining are considered as normal hydrological
years. However, it considers only the normal hydrological year, that
is, 2005e2006; hence, the monthly environmental flows of
different EMC from April 2005 to March 2006 are used to generate
456 N. Suwal et al. / Renewable Energy 158 (2020) 453e464

Fig. 1. The study area, Erdu River basin and location of the cascade hydropower plant located in the south part of China, down-left side panel shows the composition of the cascade
schematically.

Fig. 2. The conceptual framework of the analysis conducted in this study.

daily environmental flows, which were later incorporated in the
optimisation model.
3.2. Multi-objective optimisation model construction
Conventional reservoirs operations are optimised generally
considering maximisation of social and economic benefits such as
flood control and power production without noting the ecological
aspects of the river basin. To consider the ecology of the river, the e-
flows requirement of the river must be incorporated in the reser-
voir dispatching model. By discharging e-flows from the reservoir,
river hydrological conditions can be improved; river connectivity
can be restored; minimum water demand for downstream river
ecosystem and environment can be guaranteed; river self-
purification capacity and river water quality can be improved
along with the normal growth of aquatic organisms [4,9]. It is a
challenging task, and one must have a clear view of the importance
of flood control, power production, simultaneously maintaining the
 N. Suwal et al. / Renewable Energy 158 (2020) 453e464 457

Table 1
Environmental management classes (EMC) according to sSmakhtin and Eriyagama [29].

EMC Ecological description Management perspective

A: Natural
B: Slightly modified
C: Moderately modified
D: Largely modified
E: Seriously modified
F: Critically modified
Pristine condition or minor modification of in-stream and
Riparian habitat.
Slightly modified and/or ecologically essential rivers with
largely intact biodiversity and habitats despite water
resources development and/or basin modifications.
The habitats and dynamics of the biota have been disturbed,
but essential ecosystem functions are still intact. Some
sensitive species are lost and/or reduced in extent. Alien
species prevail.
Substantial changes in natural habitat, biota, and essential
ecosystem functions have occurred. A lower than expected
species richness. Much lowered presence of intolerant
species. Alien species prevail.
Habitat diversity and availability have declined. A strikingly
lower than expected species richness. Only tolerant species
remain. Indigenous species can no longer breed. Alien
species have invaded the ecosystem.
Modifications have reached a critical level, and the
ecosystem has been completely modified with an almost
total loss of natural habitat and biota. In the worst case, the
underlying ecosystem functions have been destroyed, and
the changes are irreversible.
Protected rivers and basins: reserves and national parks. No new water
projects (dams, along the time axis from diversions.) allowed.
Water supply schemes or irrigation development present and/or
allowed.
Multiple disturbances associated with the need for socio-economic
development, e.g. dams, diversions, habitat modification, and reduced
water quality Significant.
Significant and precise visible disturbances associated with basin and
water resources development, including dams, diversions, transfers,
habitat modification, and water quality degradation
High human population density and extensive water resources
exploitation. Generally, this status should not be accepted as a
management goal. Management interventions are necessary to restore
flow pattern and to ‘move’ a river to a higher management category.
This status is not acceptable from the management perspective.
Management interventions are necessary to restore flow pattern and
river habitats (if still possible/feasible) to ‘move’ a river to a higher
management category.

harmonious environment for the river ecology. This study considers The study takes the e-flows need for five environmental manage-
two objective functions, namely, maximisation of annual power ment classes, namely B, C, D, E, and F. It is cost index as power
production and minimisation of e-flows shortage in the down- production will be compromised to obtain minimum value is
stream of the reservoir. The model is run considering five EMC defined as follows, equation (2):
environmental flows, namely, B, C, D, E and F, which has been
X 2 
365 X 
described in Table 1. The model is constructed based on the theory 
related to multi-objective cascade hydropower dispatching and the minO2B=C=D=E=F ¼ min min 0; qjt þ qjt;xie þ wjt
t¼1 j¼1
real scenario of the Liujiaping e Yumitan cascade hydropower  

station.
qejt;B;C;D;E;F Dt  (2)
X 2 
365 X   
 
3.2.1. Objective functions
þmin min 0; qjt;xie
0:1Qj Dt 
t¼1 j¼1

 Maximisation of cascade power generation.

where minO2B=C=D=E=F is the minimum e-flows shortage in the river
when e-flow is considered for EMC: B, C, D, E, and F respectively; wjt
The model considers maximisation of annual power generation
is the wastewater from the reservoir; qjt;xie is the discharge from the
as an objective function without consideration of the on-grid price
ecological sluice installed in the dam; Qj is the average annual
fluctuation in high, normal, and low flow period, and it neglects the
discharge of the river at dam site; qejt;B;C;D;E;F is the environmental
local energy market. It is considered as a benefit index, equation (1).
flow for EMC B, C, D, E, and F respectively; all are measured in m3/s.
0 1
X
T X
J
maxO1 ¼ max@ Cj qjt hit Dt A (1) 3.2.2. Constraints
t¼1 j¼1
The optimisation model is subject to the following constraints:

where maxO1 is the maximum annual power generation of cascade  Water balance constraints, equation (3)
power systems (108 kWh); J is the number of reservoirs (J ¼ 2); j ¼ 1
 
is the Liujiaping hydropower station; j ¼ 2 is the Yumitan hydro- Vj;t ¼ Vj;t
1 þ Qj;t;in
Qj;t;out Dt
Ej;t
Lj;t (3)
power station; t is the operation period; T is the numbers of days in
one year; Cj is the power coefficient of the jth hydropower station where Vj;t
1 and Vj;t refer to the average storage of reservoir ‘j’ in
(C1 ¼ 8.43 is for Liujiaping, C2 ¼ 8.40 is for Yumitan); qjt is the the tth and (t-1)th, respectively (m3), Qj;t;in and Qj;t;out is the average
turbines release while producing power (m3/s); hit is the average inflow and outflow of reservoir ‘j’ at time t (m3/s) respectively; Ej;t is
head at time t(m); Dt is the duration of the time (s). the evaporation of reservoir ‘j’ at time t, (m3); Lj;t is the leakage
water from the reservoir ‘j’(m3).
 Minimisation of e-flows shortage in the river
 Reservoir water level constraints
The ecological water shortage in the section between the Liu-
jiaping and Yumitan hydropower stations is calculated as the dif- The reservoir storage volume must be in between the minimum
ference between the actual discharge flow and 10% of the average and maximum level at any time, equation (4).
annual inflow of the reservoir. For the Liujiaping station to the
Yumitan reservoir and the downstream of the Yumitan station, it Zj;min  Zj;t  Zj;max (4)
belongs to the main river section, and the ecological water deficit is
the difference between the actual discharge flow and the e-flows. where Zj;t is the average water level of the reservoir ‘j’ at time t and
458 N. Suwal et al. / Renewable Energy 158 (2020) 453e464
Zj;min and Zj;max are the minimum and maximum water level limits
of reservoir ‘j’ respectively at time t, (m).
 Reservoirs discharge constraints, equation (5).
Qt;min  Qj;t  Qt;max
where Qt;min and Qt;max are the minimum and maximum discharge
of the reservoir ‘j’ at time t (m3/s).
 Hydropower station power generations constraints, equation
(6).
Nj;min  Cj qj;t hj;t  Nj;max
where, Nj;min and Nj;max are minimum and maximum power output
limits of hydropower station ‘j’ at time t, (kW), respectively.
 Upstream and downstream hydraulic constraints
In cascade reservoir system, the downstream reservoir runoff
inflow is the sum of flow release from the upstream reservoir for
power production and the e-flows along with intermediate flow
between the reservoirs, equation (7).
qj;t ¼ Qj
1;t þ qjj
1;j;t
where qjj
1;j;t is the inflow volume for the interval between j
1
reservoir and j reservoir, (m3/s) and other variables have the same
unit.
 Non-negative constraint
All variables are non-negative constraints.
3.2.3. Parameter setting
The study uses a real-coded NSGA-II algorithm to solve the
presented model. The NSGA-II algorithm is run in MATLAB R2014a.
The initial solution population and the maximum number of gen-
erations were set to 1000 and 500 respectively. The crossover and
mutation probabilities were set as 0.9 and 0.1, respectively. The
dead water level is 1146 m, and the upper maximum water level is
1180 m. The daily upstream reservoir water level (365 days) is used
as the decision variable of the optimisation model.
3.3. The solution of the model using NSGA-II
3.3.1. Solution assumptions
The upstream reservoir water level is used as the decision var-
iable of the optimisation model. After curve fitting with the second-
order polynomial, water storage of reservoir, as a function of water
level, denoted by S(Z) was obtained by equation (8), and the water
balance equation gives outflow of the reservoir. The water level at
downstream the reservoir is provided by the downstream water
level-flow relationship. Then estimation of the power is done with
the help of known values. If the estimated value of power is not
within the constraints zone, it is penalised using the penalty
function. The study adds higher values to the solution that violates
the constraint condition, which results in a wrong interpretation of
the solution. After that, it is automatically rejected from the non-
dominate sorting process. The objective function value is ob-
tained gradually, and the NSGA-II gives the non-dominated solu-
tion set. In each iteration, the results of the objective functions of
the reservoir can be checked and progressively optimised, equation
(8).
SðZÞ ¼ 4:2381*Z 2
9768:5*Z þ 6E06
(8)
R2 ¼ 0:9962
(5)
3.3.2. A fast elitist multi-objective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II
In the NSGA-II algorithm, the random parent population is
generated in the initial stage, which lies within the permissible
range of the variable. After evaluation of the population, based on a
non-dominating sorting approach after evaluation of the popula-
tion, the population are classified into different fronts [26]. Each
(6) chromosome of the population undergoing evaluation process is
provided with a rank value according to its non-domination level
(chromosomes with smaller front rank are the best chromosomes).
In the next stage, chromosomes with the same front rank are sorted
based on crowding distance assignment operator [25], which helps
to maintain functional diversity in the population. The best chro-
mosomes are selected from the population by using binary tour-
nament selection based on rank and crowding distance. The
crossover and mutation are done among the selected population to
change the attributes of the offspring. The new population, which is
the sum of population and current offspring, is sorted again based
on non-domination sorting approach. Only the best N chromo-
(7) somes are retained, where N is the initial population size. The
process is repeated for a pre-assigned number of generations
aiming to achieve a diverse set of non-inferior solutions. Elitist
principle (i.e., elites population are allowed to go next generation)
and crowding distance operator (i.e., preserve the diversity in the
population) are the main advantages over previous NSGA algorithm
[25]. The NSGA-II is a suitable method to solve the presented
model; nevertheless, it has some limitations such as difficulties in
satisfying the constraint condition by using a random method to
generate the initial population, optimal solution performance is not
high, it restricts the spread uniformity, and local search ability
needs to be improved [37,38]. Nevertheless, further research is
recommended for the improvement of the NSGA-II algorithm.
3.4. Optimal sequencing of pareto optimal solutions
3.4.1. Projection pursuit (PP)
Projection pursuit is a robust “exploratory data analysis tool”
that can be used to process and analyse high dimensional data,
projecting them into lower-dimensional [39]. Kruskal [40] for-
warded the general concept of Projection pursuit and was first
applied by Friedman and Tukey [41]. The PP uses a projection index
as an objective function to find the right projection direction, which
retains the most valuable characteristic information of the data and
further high dimensional data is converted into low dimensional
data based on right projection direction [33,42]. The characteristic
of the higher dimensional data is analysed by studying the data
from converted low dimensional space. The study uses the pro-
jection pursuit cluster (PPC)model in objective function space for
the optimal sequencing of the Pareto optimal solution obtained
from the NSGA-II algorithm which is true, based on the projection
pursuit principle. The PPC model is divided into four main steps,
which are: data normalisation, construction of projection index
function, optimisation of projection index and evaluation. If x* ði; jÞ
(i ¼ 1 … n; j ¼ 1 … m) “n” is the total number of samples; “m” is the
total number of evaluation indexes of the sample) is the initial value
of the jth factor of the ith sample. The stepwise procedures of the
PPC model are described as follows:
 The normalisation of sample evaluation index set:
 N. Suwal et al. / Renewable Energy 158 (2020) 453e464 459

The dimensions and ranges of each index are different. To

remove the dimension and ranges effect, the initial data are nor- max ðP ðaÞÞ ¼ Sz *Dz (15)
malised before the model analysis. The maximum power genera-
tion is a benefit index, and the minimum e-flows shortage is a cost X
m

index. Hence, they are normalised using equations (8) and (9), s:t a2 ðjÞ ¼ 1 (16)
j¼1
respectively.
Benefit Index: The problem becomes complex nonlinear constrained optimi-
sation, which is solved using the Real Accelerating Genetic Algo-
x* ði; jÞ
xmin ði; jÞ rithm (RAGA).
xði; jÞ ¼ (9)
xmax ðjÞ
xmin ðjÞ
 Evaluation
Cost Index:
By substituting the best projection direction obtained in step (3)
xmax ðjÞ
x* ði; jÞ
xði; jÞ ¼ (10) into the formula z(i), the projection values of each scheme can be
xmax ðjÞ
xmin ðjÞ obtained. The optimal sequencing is done base on the principle that
the larger the projection value, the better the scheme is.
where xði; jÞ specifies the normalised value of the jth index of the ith
sample; x* ði; jÞ indicates the initial value of the jth index from the
ith sample, and xmin ðjÞ specify the maximum and minimum values 4. Results and discussion
of the jth index respectively.
4.1. E-flow releases for different EMC
 Construction of the index function:
The E-flows setting is essential for ecosystem preservation in the
The projection pursuit method is used to project m-dimensional regulated river; nevertheless, the uncertainty between flow release
data onto one-dimensional projection vector a¼ (a(1), a(2),… … … and ecological response yet remains a challenging task in the hy-
…. , a(m)) based on projection values, where a is a unit vector, that dropower optimisation [1,21]. A minimum flow, as per the guide-
is, equation (11). lines of River Ecological Restoration in Rural Hydropower, China, of
about 10% of the Mean Annual Flow (10% MAF) is discharged from
X
m the environmental sluice to simplify the calculation process as well
a2 ðjÞ ¼ 1 (11) as to reduce the water shortage for hydropower production. Table 2
j¼1
and Table 3 show the monthly e-flows for Liujiaping and Yumitan
The projection index must be constructed in such a way that the reservoirs for all classes EMC, except for class A.
projected value characteristics should be locally concentrated as
much as possible. Hence, based on the cluster principle of data, the 4.1.1. Annual energy generation and e-flows releases for different
projection index is expressed as, per equation (12). EMC
The NSGA-II does not give the best solution for a single objec-
P ðaÞ ¼ Sz *Dz (12) tive; instead, it provides a set of Pareto optimal solutions for mul-
tiple objectives. The e-flows for five EMCs is considered in the
where Sz indicates the spread of data and Dz indicates the ‘local reservoir-scheduling model. Table 4 shows the representative
density’ of the projection value z(i), that is, equations (13) and (14). schemes of the model in five EMC.
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi Figs. 3e7 show the Pareto optimal set of solutions obtained for
uP
u n different EMC, B, C, D, E, and F, respectively. The results show a
u ðzðiÞ
EðzÞÞ2
ti¼1 range of 1000 Pareto optimal solutions at the 500th simulation
Sz ¼ (13)
n
1 during a normal year.
In the case of EMC, B (Fig. 3) results show that a slight increase of
X
n X
m the hydropower generation will significantly influence e-flows re-
Dz ¼ ðR
rði; jÞÞuðR
rði; jÞÞ (14) leases by therefore substantially increasing the e-flows shortage
i¼1 j¼1 downstream of the dam. In this case, potential trade-offs could be
possible only on the cost of one objective [1,43]. Therefore, hy-
where E(z) is the average value of z(i), R is known as the cut-off dropower maximisation could be achieved only if e-flow releases
radius, and the experiment determines its value, and the range of will be significantly decreased and vice versa. While, in the case of
the parameter is between rmax þ m/2  R  2m. Generally, R is EMC, C (Fig. 4), results show that e-flows release could be less
considered 10% of the square root of the data variance along the vulnerable to hydropower generation maximisation.
largest principal axis to make the projection index deviate from the Indeed, the highest hydropower generation was reached a
normal distribution of the highest degree [6]. Here r(i,j) is the relatively little cost as revealed by a significantly low e-flows
distance between two samples, with r(i,j) ¼ jz(i)-z(j)j and u(t) in- shortage. In the case of EMC, D (Fig. 5), results show that max-
dicates the unit jump function, that is, u(t) ¼ 1 when t  0, and imisation of the hydropower generation has less influence on e-
u(t) ¼ 0 when t < 0. flows releases than EMC, B but higher than EMC, C.
For EMC, E (Fig. 6), which represent one of the most severe cases
 Optimisation of the projection index function of the river habitat modification, a little increase of the hydropower
generation would substantially decease e-flows release. While the
When the evaluation index and the sample set are known, the highest hydropower generation could be reached at a relatively
projection index function Q(a) is only depended to the projection high cost on the riverine ecosystem as it will lead to a high e-flows
direction ‘a’. Hence, the optimal projection direction can be calcu- shortage.
lated by maximising the P(a), that is, equations (15) and (16). Similarly, to EMC, B and E for EMC F (Fig. 7), results show that
460 N. Suwal et al. / Renewable Energy 158 (2020) 453e464

Table 2
Monthly e-flows of Liujiaping reservoir for different EMC (m3/s).

EMC Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Class B 0.541 0.859 0.892 0.692 1.805 3.114 1.491 0.921 0.667 0.43 0.717 0.39
Class C 0.41 0.666 0.738 0.541 1.453 2.443 1.247 0.771 0.524 0.321 0.559 0.316
Class D 0.318 0.527 0.571 0.402 1.222 1.984 1.081 0.596 0.382 0.307 0.423 0.306
Class E 0.306 0.369 0.445 0.326 1.058 1.599 0.924 0.472 0.323 0.305 0.329 0.304
Class F 0.305 0.341 0.323 0.316 0.902 1.327 0.774 0.329 0.316 0.303 0.317 0.302

Table 3
Monthly Environmental Flows of Yumitan reservoir for different EMC (m3/s).

EMC Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Class B 5.653 8.977 9.321 7.231 18.862 32.541 15.581 9.624 6.97 4.494 7.493 4.076
Class C 4.285 6.96 7.712 5.653 15.184 25.529 13.031 8.057 5.476 3.354 5.842 3.302
Class D 3.323 5.507 5.967 4.201 12.77 20.733 11.296 6.228 3.992 3.208 4.42 3.198
Class E 3.198 3.856 4.65 3.407 11.056 16.71 9.656 4.932 3.375 3.187 3.438 3.177
Class F 3.187 3.563 3.375 3.302 9.426 13.867 8.088 3.438 3.302 3.166 3.313 3.156

Table 4
Representative schemes of five EMC for further analysis.

Environmental Management Classes (EMC)

S. Class B Class C Class D Class E Class F

N
Power E-flows shortage Power E-flows shortage Power E-flows shortage Power E-flows shortage Power E-flows shortage
(108 kWh) (104 m3) (108 kWh) (104m3) (108 kWh) (104m3) (108 kWh) (104m3) (108 kWh) (104m3)

1 1.112 1942.136 1.109 616.497 1.1039 200.525 1.1095 28.882 1.1175 0.004
2 1.1128 1944.778 1.1101 620.264 1.1069 203.112 1.1137 31.471 1.1198 0.962
3 1.1135 1952.29 1.1117 626.633 1.1093 207.22 1.1148 34.174 1.1206 4.579
4 1.1143 1961.794 1.1125 630.834 1.1118 213.192 1.1163 37.652 1.1218 6.743
5 1.1152 1966.944 1.1139 640.896 1.1132 216.46 1.1167 41.155 1.1228 11.431
6 1.1156 1970.688 1.1146 645.367 1.114 220.589 1.1173 44.55 1.1234 16.57
7 1.1162 1975.857 1.1151 650.013 1.1146 225.452 1.1179 47.642 1.1243 22.774
8 1.1168 1979.605 1.1156 655.073 1.1153 231.804 1.1184 51.33 1.1247 27.685
9 1.1172 1983.207 1.1165 662.406 1.116 238.866 1.1189 56.034 1.1251 31.23
10 1.1182 1986.855 1.1172 668.189 1.1168 245.84 1.1195 59.287 1.1255 34.436
11 1.1187 1999.464 1.118 678.45 1.1175 257.295 1.1199 61.873 1.1258 39.323
12 1.1192 2007.588 1.1189 692.925 1.1183 266.723 1.1203 64.843 1.1264 43.078
13 1.1198 2012.981 1.1196 699.856 1.119 273.563 1.1206 67.192 1.1267 50.413
14 1.1202 2020.544 1.1206 711.632 1.1198 280.234 1.1211 70.12 1.1271 54.864
15 1.1206 2029.108 1.1212 741.556 1.1205 288.762 1.1217 83.391 1.1278 66.36
16 1.1211 2049.98 1.122 755.012 1.1215 313.289 1.1222 95.371 1.1285 86.866
17 1.1213 2060.826 1.1225 773.664 1.1224 334.877 1.1228 101.632 1.1289 94.471

Bold and Italic numerical values represent the optimal scheme of respective EMC determined by PPC model.

Fig. 3. The Pareto optimal set of solutions obtained for the EMC ‘B’.

Fig. 4. The Pareto optimal set of solutions obtained for the EMC ‘C’.

possible trade-offs could be set at a relatively high cost of one of the

objective functions; either we choose to maximise hydropower
degree of the e-flows shortage impacts on the river ecosystem it
generation by somehow sacrificing the riverine ecosystem at a
strongly depends on the hydrological regime [14] and the river
certain distance from the dam or vice versa. Nevertheless, the
geomorphology as well [44,45]. The evaluation of the results of
 N. Suwal et al. / Renewable Energy 158 (2020) 453e464 461

operation model in which power is maximised. At the same time,

the e-flows shortage in the river is minimised. From Table 4, the
range of power production for EMC B is 1.112e1.1213 (108 kWh),
and for EMC F is 1.1175e1.1289 (108 kWh) and the range of e-flows
shortage for EMC B is 1942.136e2060.826 (104 m3), and for EMC F
is 0.004e94.47 (104 m3). It shows that with the same inflow and
the same power generation efficiency, the e-flows shortage of the
model considering the higher EMC is more significant than that of
the model considering the lower EMC (i.e., it is considered as B is
higher, and F is lower EMC). However, there are no significant
changes in annual power production (Fig. 8).
The Pareto optimal solutions set graphs were fitted with the
second-order polynomial curve. It gives scientific information
regarding the e-flows shortage in the river in each EMC; for
instance, a water manager can determine power generation at any
particular e-flows shortage value or an e-flows shortage value at a
Fig. 5. The Pareto optimal set of solutions obtained for the EMC ‘D’.
particular level of power generation. Based on the second-order
polynomial derived from the Pareto optimum points, the correla-
tion between power generation and the ecological water shortage
in different EMC are shown in Table 5.
Overall, Table 5 shows that the optimal ranking of the repre-
sentative schemes based on the projection values of the schemes,
that is, the higher the projection values; the best is the schemes.

4.2. Optimal sequencing of the representative schemes

The PPC model helps in selecting the best scheme among those
representative schemes. Table 6 shows the result of the PPC model,
along with the unit projection vector.
Table 7 shows that when the EMC moves from critically modi-
fied class F to slightly modified class B, there is a remarkable in-
crease in the e-flows shortage in the river. If the reservoir is
operated considering EMC F e-flows, there is a less or negligible e-
flows shortage (Table 6). However, class F represents the ecosystem
with almost complete disappearance of natural habitat and biota.
Fig. 6. The Pareto optimal set of solutions obtained for the EMC ‘E’.
Indeed, drastic water depletion might severely affect the aquatic
ecosystem functioning be therefore impairing, organic matter ex-
change along the river, connectivity, and exposing the biota to the
terrestrial predators [4,9].
If the reservoir operates considering EMC B, there is a high
amount of e-flows shortage compared to the other lower classes,
however in class B river ecosystem is slightly modified; biodiversity
and habitats are well preserved in their pristine state despite the
construction of several water conservancy projects. The high
amount of e-flows shortage indicates that a certain amount of po-
wer production must be sacrificed to compensate that e-flows
shortage. The sacrificed power production will be eventually

Fig. 7. The Pareto optimal set of solutions obtained for the EMC ‘F’.

multi-objective models is usually done by the Pareto front [24]. The

Pareto front curves of five EMC classes are shown from Figs. 3e7.
The distribution and diversity of the Pareto front confirmed that
NSGA-II is suitable for solving the optimal dispatching model of
cascade hydropower stations.
There is a trade-off between hydropower production and
ecological needs, that is, power production is bound to compromise
the health of the river. It is required to find the best-compromised
solution while solving different multi-objective optimisation in-
terests. The study uses NSGA-II to solve the presented reservoir Fig. 8. E-flows shortage with regards to different EMC.
462 N. Suwal et al. / Renewable Energy 158 (2020) 453e464

Table 5 fluctuations in energy demand or the production of other renew-

Second-order polynomial derived from the Pareto optimum points. able technologies. These simplifications may be significant, but
EMC Equation Year they have limited impact on the results, due to the limited degrees
B Normal Year
of freedom of RoR plants with small storage.” Overall, although
O2B ¼ 965500*O21
2E06 *O1 þ 1E06
C hydrologically-based methods do not have a robust ecological
O2C ¼ 879066*O21
2E06 *O1 þ 1E06
D ground, they are being applied widely, particularly in the case of
O2D ¼ 580700*O21
1E06 *O1 þ 712941
E O2E ¼ 697962*O21
2E06 *O1 þ 864534
RoR hydropower plants [30,34,43]. Because of the high resolution
F O2F ¼ 1E06 *O21
2E06 *O1 þ 1E06
of flow data is not always possible, the GEFC method is also being
widely used for e-flows assessment in regions with scarce flow data
[46,47].

covered up by the economic cost required for the restoration of the

5. Conclusions and recommendations
river ecosystem. The methodology applied in this study is based on
several simplifications that determine its applicability and the main
The study shows that the NSGA-II algorithm is suitable to solve
conclusions. The analysis conducted in this study was based on the
the reservoir-scheduling model as the distribution and diversity of
hydrological e-flow approach solely. The GEFC method was chosen
the Pareto optimal sets of the solution are much acceptable. The
for its simplicity and data requirements since it requires a time
results show that for higher EMC, higher is the e-flows shortage in
series of mean monthly flow data. However, it should be underlined
the river. The annual power production remains nearly the same in
that other ecological meaningful methods are directly based on
all EMC considerations; however, the shortage of e-flows in the
ecological aspects. Nevertheless, they were not used in this study
river increases sharply when the EMC consideration moves from
due to the lack of ecological data for their application. However, the
class F to Class B. The PPC model ranks the Pareto optimal sets of
methodology could be expended to include such methods if
solutions based on the projection values (represents the charac-
enough data was accessible.
teristics values of the selected optimal solutions). The study shows
Additionally, it was assumed that maintenance periods match
that more power generation must be compromised to increase the
with low-flow periods when the hydropower is not in operation.
degree of environmental protection as there exists a trade-off be-
This assumption cannot always be reached in practice due to
tween these two objectives. However, the economic loss will be
several reasons. In essence, there may be pre-scheduled mainte-
eventually covered-up by the economic cost of restoration of the
nance operations during high-flow periods, or there may not be
riverine ecosystem, which is more critical to the entire ecosystem.
enough low-flow days any given year to carry out maintenance
The study provides essential guidelines to the water managers by
operations [1,43]. Finally, it was assumed that the grid is ready to
helping to operate Liujiaping-Yumitan cascade reservoir system
take the full production from the hydropower cascade, regardless of
harmoniously with the trade-off between the power benefit and

Table 6
Ranking of representatives’ solutions based on Projection values.

S. N Environmental Management Classes (EMC)

Class B Class C Class D Class E Class F

P. V S. R P. V S. R P. V S. R P. V S. R P. V S. R

1 0.0188 17 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 0.1035 16 0.9761 2 0.9814 2 0.966 2 0.9901 2
3 0.1734 15 0.9356 3 0.9513 3 0.9293 3 0.9519 3
4 0.2571 14 0.9089 4 0.9074 4 0.8821 4 0.9291 4
5 0.3575 13 0.845 5 0.8834 5 0.8341 5 0.8795 5
6 0.3979 12 0.8165 6 0.8528 6 0.7876 6 0.8252 6
7 0.4649 11 0.787 7 0.8167 7 0.7454 7 0.7596 7
8 0.5257 10 0.7548 8 0.7696 8 0.6949 8 0.7077 8
9 0.5672 9 0.7082 9 0.7172 9 0.6304 9 0.6702 9
10 0.6786 8 0.6714 10 0.6655 10 0.5859 10 0.6363 10
11 0.7284 7 0.6062 11 0.5803 11 0.5505 11 0.5846 11
12 0.7842 6 0.5141 12 0.5103 12 0.5098 12 0.5449 12
13 0.8458 5 0.47 13 0.4596 13 0.4777 13 0.4673 13
14 0.8888 4 0.3951 14 0.4101 14 0.4376 14 0.4202 14
15 0.9305 3 0.2048 15 0.3468 15 0.2554 15 0.2986 15
16 0.9735 2 0.1192 16 0.1644 16 0.0909 16 0.0816 16
17 0.9998 1 0.0005 17 0.0039 17 0.0051 17 0.0011 17
P. vector 1, P. vector 0.0005, P. vector 0.0039, P. vector 0.0051, P. vector 0.0011,
0.0007 1 1 1 1

S.N is serial number; P.V is Projection Value; S.R is sorted rank; P. vector is Projection vector.

Table 7
Best scheme obtained by the PPC model from a set of representative schemes.

Environmental Management Classes (EMC)

Class B Class C Class D Class E Class F

Power E-flows shortage Power E-flows shortage Power E-flows shortage Power E-flows shortage Power E-flows shortage
1.121 2060.82 1.109 616.497 1.1039 200.525 1.1095 28.882 1.117 0.004

Units: Power is in (108 kWh), and water shortage is in (10 4

m3).
 N. Suwal et al. / Renewable Energy 158 (2020) 453e464
environmental benefit of the river. The results of this study high-
lighted that maximum annual power production related to five
environmental management classes were respectively: 1.121, 1.109,
1.103, 1.109, and 1.117 (x108 kWh) with an e-flows shortage of
2060.82, 616.497, 200.52, 28.88, and 0.004 (x104 m3) respectively.
The GEFC gives only a low-confident estimate of e-flows.
However, it can be used for preliminary planning and operation
purposes, as the study areas lack the ecological information and its
relation to the flow regime. Further research should be conducted
in e-flows assessment methodologies for a high-confident estimate
of the e-flows. The final selection of best-compromised solution
should be made considering the understanding and experience of
the decision-maker, along with different multiple criteria division
methods. As future work, we believe that a thoroughly economic
and sensitivity analysis by considering different e-flows methods
and optimisation algorithms might bring some new insights.
Further, on the eve of climate change debates, we recommend
expanding these types of studies by considering different climate
scenarios. Such potential studies might help to develop an effective
solution to support sustainable development and operation, in
particular, the hydroelectric schemes.
Funding
This research was financially supported by the National Key
Research and Development Program of China (2016YFC0400909);
the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities
(2019B11014); Key Project of Water Conservancy Science and
Technique of Hunan Province ([2016]194e21); Water Conservancy
Science and Technique of Hunan Province ([2015]245e13, and 2018
Academic Funding Project for The Top Talents of Colleges and
Universities (gxbjZD62). Alban Kuriqi was supported by a PhD
~o para a Cie
scholarship granted by Fundaça ^ncia e a Tecnologia, I.P.
(FCT), Portugal, under the PhD Programme FLUVIOeRiver Resto-
ration and Management, grant number: PD/BD/114558/2016.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Naresh Suwal: Investigation, Methodology, Conceptualization,
Data curation, Formal analysis, Software, Validation, Visualization,
Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing. Xianfeng
Huang: Investigation, Methodology, Conceptualization, Data cura-
tion, Formal analysis, Software, Validation, Visualization, Writing -
original draft, Writing - review & editing, Project administration,
Resources, Supervision. Alban Kuriqi: Investigation, Methodology,
Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Software, Vali-
dation, Visualization, Writing - original draft, Writing - review &
editing. Yingqin Chen: Investigation, Methodology, Conceptuali-
zation, Data curation, Formal analysis, Software. Kamal Prasad
Pandey: Investigation, Methodology, Conceptualization, Data
curation, Formal analysis, Software. Khem Prasad Bhattarai:
Investigation, Methodology, Conceptualization, Data curation,
Formal analysis, Software.
Acknowledgements
The authors are highly obliged to Hohai University and CERIS,

cnico for rendering a friendly environment for
Instituto Superior Te
the research work. Also, we are grateful to the reviewers for
463
providing useful comments which improved the current version of
the paper significantly.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2020.05.161.
References
[1] A. Kuriqi, A.N. Pinheiro, A. Sordo-Ward, L. Garrote, Flow regime aspects in
determining environmental flows and maximising energy production at run-
of-river hydropower plants, Appl. Energy 256 (2019).
[2] B.D. Richter, J.V. Baumgartner, J. Powell, D.P. Braun, A method for assessing
hydrologic alteration within ecosystems, Conserv. Biol. 10 (4) (1996)
1163e1174.
[3] B.D. Richter, J.V. Baumgartner, D.P. Braun, J. Powell, A spatial assessment of
hydrologic alteration within a river network, Regul. Rivers Res. Manag. 14 (4)
(1998) 329e340.
[4] B. Richter, G. Thomas, Restoring environmental flows by modifying dam op-
erations, Ecol. Soc. 12 (1) (2007).
[5] W.X. Guo, H.X. Wang, J.X. Xu, Z.Q. Xia, Ecological operation for three gorges
reservoir, Water Sci. Eng. 4 (2) (2011) 143e156.
[6] L. Dai, J. Mao, Y. Wang, H. Dai, P. Zhang, J. Guo, Optimal operation of the three
gorges reservoir subject to the ecological water level of dongting lake, Envi-
ron. Earth Sci. 75 (14) (2016).
[7] J.-T. Shiau, F.-C. Wu, A Histogram Matching Approach for assessment of flow
regime alteration: application to environmental flow optimization, River Res.
Appl. 24 (7) (2008) 914e928.
[8] R.E. Tharme, A global perspective on environmental flow assessment:
emerging trends in the development and application of environmental flow
methodologies for rivers, River Res. Appl. 19 (5e6) (2003) 397e441.
[9] N.L. Poff, J.K.H. Zimmerman, Ecological responses to altered flow regimes: a
literature review to inform the science and management of environmental
flows, Freshw. Biol. 55 (1) (2010) 194e205.
[10] M. Wu, A. Chen, X. Zhang, M.E. McClain, A comment on Chinese policies to
avoid negative impacts on river ecosystems by hydropower projects, Water
12 (3) (2020).
[11] X. Zhang, H.-Y. Li, Z.D. Deng, C. Ringler, Y. Gao, M.I. Hejazi, L.R. Leung, Impacts
of climate change, policy and Water-Energy-Food nexus on hydropower
development, Renew. Energy 116 (2018) 827e834.
[12] L. Dai, P. Zhang, Y. Wang, D. Jiang, H. Dai, J. Mao, M. Wang, Multi-objective
optimization of cascade reservoirs using NSGA-II: a case study of the Three
Gorges-Gezhouba cascade reservoirs in the middle Yangtze River, China, Int. J.
Human. Ecol. Risk. Asses. 23 (4) (2017) 814e835.
[13] M. Ak, E. Kentel, S. Savasaneril, Quantifying the revenue gain of operating a
cascade hydropower plant system as a pumped-storage hydropower system,
Renew. Energy 139 (2019) 739e752.
[14] Kuriqi Ali, Kisi Abubaker, Long-term trends and seasonality detection of the
observed flow in yangtze river using mann-kendall and sen’s innovative trend
method, Water 11 (9) (2019).
[15] F. Cioffi, F. Gallerano, Multi-objective analysis of dam release flows in rivers
downstream from hydropower reservoirs, Appl. Math. Model. 36 (7) (2012)
2868e2889.
[16] A. Sordo-Ward, A. Granados, A. Iglesias, L. Garrote, M.D. Bejarano, Adaptation
effort and performance of water management strategies to face climate
change impacts in six representative basins of southern europe, Water 11 (5)
(2019).
[17] X. Huang, N. Suwal, J. Fan, K.P. Pandey, Y. Jia, Hydrological alteration assess-
ment by Histogram Comparison approach: a case study of Erdu river basin,
China, J. Coast Res. 93 (sp1) (2019).
[18] W.W.G. Yeh, Reservoir management and operations models’ A state-of-the-
art review, Water Resour. Res. 21 (12) (1985) 1797e1818.
[19] A. Ahmad, A. El-Shafie, S.F.M. Razali, Z.S. Mohamad, Reservoir optimization in
water resources: a review, Water Resour. Manag. 28 (11) (2014) 3391e3405.
[20] R.M. Vogel, J. Sieber, S.A. Archfield, M.P. Smith, C.D. Apse, A. Huber-Lee, Re-
lations among storage, yield, and instream flow, Water Resour. Res. 43 (5)
(2007).
[21] A. Chen, M. Wu, M.E. McClain, Classifying dams for environmental flow
implementation in China, Sustainability 12 (1) (2019).
[22] D.P. Loucks, J.R. Stedinger, D.A. Haith, Water Resource Systems Planning and
Analysis, first ed. ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1981.
[23] R. Ali, A. Kuriqi, S. Abubaker, O. Kisi, Hydrologic alteration at the upper and
middle part of the yangtze river, China: towards sustainable water resource
management under increasing water exploitation, Sustainability 11 (19)
(2019).
[24] L. Wu, T. Bai, Q. Huang, J. Wei, X. Liu, Multi-objective optimal operations based
on improved NSGA-II for hanjiang to wei river water diversion project China,
Water 11 (6) (2019).
[25] K. Deb, A. Pratap, S. Agarwal, T.A.M.T. Meyarivan, A fast and elitist multi-
objective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 6 (2) (2002)
182e197.
464 N. Suwal et al. / Renewable Energy 158 (2020) 453e464
[26] M.J. Reddy, D.N. Kumar, Optimal reservoir operation using multi-objective
evolutionary algorithm, Water Resour. Manag. 20 (6) (2006) 861e878.
[27] J.D. Kern, D. Patino-Echeverri, G.W. Characklis, An integrated reservoir-power
system model for evaluating the impacts of wind integration on hydropower
resources, Renew. Energy 71 (2014) 553e562.
[28] S. Sichilalu, F. Wamalwa, E.T. Akinlabi, Optimal control of wind-hydrokinetic
pumpback hydropower plant constrained with ecological water flows,
Renew. Energy 138 (2019) 54e69.
[29] V.U. Smakhtin, N. Eriyagama, Developing a software package for global
desktop assessment of environmental flows, Environ. Model. Software 23 (12)
(2008) 1396e1406.
[30] M.D. Bejarano, A. Sordo-Ward, I. Gabriel-Martin, L. Garrote, Tradeoff between
economic and environmental costs and benefits of hydropower production at
run-of-river-diversion schemes under different environmental flows sce-
narios, J. Hydrol. 572 (2019) 790e804.
[31] E. Fernandez, E. Lopez, F. Lopez, C.A. Coello Coello, Increasing selective pres-
sure towards the best compromise in evolutionary multiobjective optimiza-
tion: the extended NOSGA method, Inf. Sci. 181 (1) (2011) 44e56.
[32] C.A.C. Coello, G.B. Lamont, D.A. Van Veldhuizen, Evolutionary Algorithms for
Solving Multi-Objective Problems, Springer, New York, 2007.
[33] S.-J. Wang, C.-J. Ni, Application of projection pursuit dynamic cluster model in
regional partition of water resources in China, Water Resour. Manag. 22 (10)
(2007) 1421e1429.
[34] A. Kuriqi, A. Pinheiro, A. Sordo-Ward, L. Garrote, Trade-off between envi-
ronmental flow policy and run-of-river hydropower generation in Mediter-
ranean climate, Eur. Water 60 (2017) 123e130.
[35] D. Młyn
ski, A. Operacz, A. Wałe˛ ga, Sensitivity of methods for calculating
environmental flows based on hydrological characteristics of watercourses
regarding the hydropower potential of rivers, J. Clean. Prod. 250 (2020).
[36] M. Premalatha, A. Tabassum, T. Abbasi, S.A. Abbasi, A critical view on the eco-
friendliness of small hydroelectric installations, Sci. Total Environ. 481 (2014)
638e643.
[37] J. OuYang, F. Yang, S.W. Yang, Z.P. Nie, The improved NSGA-II approach,
J. Electromagn. Waves Appl. 22 (2e3) (2012) 163e172.
[38] L. Wang, T.-g. Wang, Y. Luo, Improved non-dominated sorting genetic algo-
rithm (NSGA)-II in multi-objective optimization studies of wind turbine
blades, Appl. Math. Mech. 32 (6) (2011) 739e748.
[39] P.D. Wentzell, S. Hou, C.S. Silva, C.C. Wicks, M.F. Pimentel, Procrustes rotation
as a diagnostic tool for projection pursuit analysis, Anal. Chim. Acta 877
(2015) 51e63.
[40] J.B. Kruskal, Toward a Practical Method Which Helps Uncover the Structure of
a Set of Multivariate Observations by Finding the Linear Transformation
Which Optimizes a New “Index of Condensation, Academic Press, New York,
1969.
[41] J.H. Friedman, J.W. Tukey, A projection pursuit algorithm for exploratory data
analysis, IEEE Trans. Comput. 100 (9) (1974) 881e890.
[42] L. Scrucca, A. Serafini, Projection pursuit based on Gaussian mixtures and
evolutionary algorithms, J. Comput. Graph Stat. (2019) 1e14.
[43] A. Kuriqi, A.N. Pinheiro, A. Sordo-Ward, L. Garrote, Influence of hydrologically
based environmental flow methods on flow alteration and energy production
in a run-of-river hydropower plant, J. Clean. Prod. 232 (2019) 1028e1042.
[44] M. Ardıçlıog lu, A. Kuriqi, Calibration of channel roughness in intermittent
rivers using HEC-RAS model: case of Sarimsakli creek, Turkey, SN Appl. Sci. 1
(9) (2019).
[45] A. Kuriqi, G. Koçileri, M. Ardiçliog lu, Potential of Meyer-Peter and Müller
approach for estimation of bed-load sediment transport under different hy-
draulic regimes, Model. Earth Sys. Environ. 6 (1) (2019) 129e137.
[46] C. Papadaki, K. Soulis, L. Ntoanidis, S. Zogaris, N. Dercas, E. Dimitriou,
Comparative assessment of environmental flow estimation methods in a
mediterranean mountain river, Environ. Manag. 60 (2) (2017) 280e292.
[47] J.M. Ahn, S. Lee, T. Kang, Evaluation of dams and weirs operating for water
resource management of the Geum River, Sci. Total Environ. 478 (2014)
103e115.