Articles | Volume 22, issue 9
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-4793-2018
© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-4793-2018
© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Research article
| 
17 Sep 2018
Research article |
| 17 Sep 2018
| 17 Sep 2018
Evaluation of impacts of future climate change and water use scenarios on regional hydrology
Seungwoo Chang
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Water Institute, University of Florida, 570 Weil Hall, P.O. Box 116601,
Gainesville, FL 32611, USA
Wendy Graham
Water Institute, University of Florida, 570 Weil Hall, P.O. Box 116601,
Gainesville, FL 32611, USA
Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, University of
Florida, 570 Weil Hall, P.O. Box 116601, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA
Jeffrey Geurink
Tampa Bay Water, 2575 Enterprise Rd, Clearwater, FL 33763-1102, USA
Nisai Wanakule
Tampa Bay Water, 2575 Enterprise Rd, Clearwater, FL 33763-1102, USA
Tirusew Asefa
Tampa Bay Water, 2575 Enterprise Rd, Clearwater, FL 33763-1102, USA
Related authors
Seungwoo Chang, Wendy D. Graham, Syewoon Hwang, and Rafael Muñoz-Carpena
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 20, 3245–3261, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-3245-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-3245-2016, 2016
Short summary
Short summary
Projecting water deficit depends on how researchers combine possible future climate scenarios such as general circulation models (GCMs), evapotranspiration estimation method (ET), and greenhouse gas emission scenarios. Using global sensitivity analysis, we found the relative contribution of each of these factors to projecting future water deficit and the choice of ET estimation method are as important as the choice of GCM, and greenhouse gas emission scenario is less influential than the others.
Seungwoo Chang, Wendy D. Graham, Syewoon Hwang, and Rafael Muñoz-Carpena
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 20, 3245–3261, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-3245-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-3245-2016, 2016
Short summary
Short summary
Projecting water deficit depends on how researchers combine possible future climate scenarios such as general circulation models (GCMs), evapotranspiration estimation method (ET), and greenhouse gas emission scenarios. Using global sensitivity analysis, we found the relative contribution of each of these factors to projecting future water deficit and the choice of ET estimation method are as important as the choice of GCM, and greenhouse gas emission scenario is less influential than the others.
S. Hwang and W. D. Graham
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 17, 4481–4502, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-4481-2013, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-4481-2013, 2013
Related subject area
Subject: Water Resources Management | Techniques and Approaches: Uncertainty analysis
Robust multi-objective optimization under multiple uncertainties using the CM-ROPAR approach: case study of water resources allocation in the Huaihe River basin
Actionable human-water systems modeling under uncertainty
Evaluating the impact of post-processing medium-range ensemble streamflow forecasts from the European Flood Awareness System
Coupled effects of observation and parameter uncertainty on urban groundwater infrastructure decisions
Disentangling sources of future uncertainties for water management in sub-Saharan river basins
Possibilistic response surfaces: incorporating fuzzy thresholds into bottom-up flood vulnerability analysis
Future hot-spots for hydro-hazards in Great Britain: a probabilistic assessment
Planning for climate change impacts on hydropower in the Far North
Describing the interannual variability of precipitation with the derived distribution approach: effects of record length and resolution
Dissolved oxygen prediction using a possibility theory based fuzzy neural network
Projected changes in US rainfall erosivity
Approximating uncertainty of annual runoff and reservoir yield using stochastic replicates of global climate model data
Assessment of precipitation and temperature data from CMIP3 global climate models for hydrologic simulation
Robust global sensitivity analysis of a river management model to assess nonlinear and interaction effects
Sensitivity and uncertainty in crop water footprint accounting: a case study for the Yellow River basin
Irrigation efficiency and water-policy implications for river basin resilience
On an improved sub-regional water resources management representation for integration into earth system models
Statistical analysis of error propagation from radar rainfall to hydrological models
The implications of climate change scenario selection for future streamflow projection in the Upper Colorado River Basin
Prioritization of water management under climate change and urbanization using multi-criteria decision making methods
Crop yields response to water pressures in the Ebro basin in Spain: risk and water policy implications
Jitao Zhang, Dimitri Solomatine, and Zengchuan Dong
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 3739–3753, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-3739-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-3739-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Faced with the problem of uncertainty in the field of water resources management, this paper proposes the Copula Multi-objective Robust Optimization and Probabilistic Analysis of Robustness (CM-ROPAR) approach to obtain robust water allocation schemes based on the uncertainty of drought and wet encounters and the uncertainty of inflow. We believe that this research article not only highlights the significance of the CM-ROPAR approach but also provides a new concept for uncertainty analysis.
Laura Gil-García, Nazaret M. Montilla-López, Carlos Gutiérrez-Martín, Ángel Sánchez-Daniel, Pablo Saiz-Santiago, Josué M. Polanco-Martínez, Julio Pindado, and C. Dionisio Pérez-Blanco
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2024-61, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2024-61, 2024
Revised manuscript accepted for HESS
Short summary
Short summary
This paper presents an interdisciplinary model for quantifying uncertainties in water allocation under climate change. It combines climate, hydrological, and microeconomic experiments with a decision support system. Multi-model analyses reveal potential futures for water management policies, emphasizing nonlinear climate responses. As illustrated in the Douro River Basin, minor water allocation changes have significant economic impacts, stresssing the need for adaptation strategies.
Gwyneth Matthews, Christopher Barnard, Hannah Cloke, Sarah L. Dance, Toni Jurlina, Cinzia Mazzetti, and Christel Prudhomme
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 2939–2968, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-2939-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-2939-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The European Flood Awareness System creates flood forecasts for up to 15 d in the future for the whole of Europe which are made available to local authorities. These forecasts can be erroneous because the weather forecasts include errors or because the hydrological model used does not represent the flow in the rivers correctly. We found that, by using recent observations and a model trained with past observations and forecasts, the real-time forecast can be corrected, thus becoming more useful.
Marina R. L. Mautner, Laura Foglia, and Jonathan D. Herman
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 1319–1340, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-1319-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-1319-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Sensitivity analysis can be harnessed to evaluate effects of model uncertainties on planning outcomes. This study explores how observation and parameter uncertainty propagate through a hydrogeologic model to influence the ranking of decision alternatives. Using global sensitivity analysis and evaluation of aquifer management objectives, we evaluate how physical properties of the model and choice of observations for calibration can lead to variations in decision-relevant model outputs.
Alessandro Amaranto, Dinis Juizo, and Andrea Castelletti
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 245–263, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-245-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-245-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
This study aims at designing water supply strategies that are robust against climate, social, and land use changes in a sub-Saharan river basin. We found that robustness analysis supports the discovery of policies enhancing the resilience of water resources systems, benefiting the agricultural, energy, and urban sectors. We show how energy sustainability is affected by water availability, while urban and irrigation resilience also depends on infrastructural interventions and land use changes.
Thibaut Lachaut and Amaury Tilmant
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 6421–6435, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-6421-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-6421-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Response surfaces are increasingly used to identify the hydroclimatic conditions leading to a water resources system's failure. Partitioning the surface usually requires performance thresholds that are not necessarily crisp. We propose a methodology that combines the inherent uncertainty of response surfaces with the ambiguity of performance thresholds. The proposed methodology is illustrated with a multireservoir system in Canada for which some performance thresholds are imprecise.
Lila Collet, Shaun Harrigan, Christel Prudhomme, Giuseppe Formetta, and Lindsay Beevers
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 22, 5387–5401, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-5387-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-5387-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
Floods and droughts cause significant damages and pose risks to lives worldwide. In a climate change context this work identifies hotspots across Great Britain, i.e. places expected to be impacted by an increase in floods and droughts. By the 2080s the western coast of England and Wales and northeastern Scotland would experience more floods in winter and droughts in autumn, with a higher increase in drought hazard, showing a need to adapt water management policies in light of climate change.
Jessica E. Cherry, Corrie Knapp, Sarah Trainor, Andrea J. Ray, Molly Tedesche, and Susan Walker
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 133–151, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-133-2017, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-133-2017, 2017
Short summary
Short summary
We know that climate is changing quickly in the Far North (the Arctic and sub-Arctic). Hydropower continues to grow in this region because water resources are perceived to be plentiful. However, with changes in glacier extent and permafrost, and more extreme events, will those resources prove reliable into the future? This study amasses the evidence that quantitative hydrology modeling and uncertainty assessment have matured to the point where they should be used in water resource planning.
Claudio I. Meier, Jorge Sebastián Moraga, Geri Pranzini, and Peter Molnar
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 20, 4177–4190, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-4177-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-4177-2016, 2016
Short summary
Short summary
We show that the derived distribution approach is able to characterize the interannual variability of precipitation much better than fitting a probabilistic model to annual rainfall totals, as long as continuously gauged data are available. The method is a useful tool for describing temporal changes in the distribution of annual rainfall, as it works for records as short as 5 years, and therefore does not require any stationarity assumption over long periods.
Usman T. Khan and Caterina Valeo
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 20, 2267–2293, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-2267-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-2267-2016, 2016
Short summary
Short summary
This paper contains a new two-step method to construct fuzzy numbers using observational data. In addition an existing fuzzy neural network is modified to account for fuzzy number inputs. This is combined with possibility-theory based intervals to train the network. Furthermore, model output and a defuzzification technique is used to estimate the risk of low Dissolved Oxygen so that water resource managers can implement strategies to prevent the occurrence of low Dissolved Oxygen.
M. Biasutti and R. Seager
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 19, 2945–2961, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-2945-2015, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-2945-2015, 2015
Short summary
Short summary
We estimate future changes in US erosivity from the most recent ensemble projections of daily and monthly rainfall accumulation. The expectation of overall increase in erosivity is confirmed by these calculations, but a quantitative assessment is marred by large uncertainties. Specifically, the uncertainty in the method of estimation of erosivity is more consequential than that deriving from the spread in climate simulations, and leads to changes of uncertain sign in parts of the south.
M. C. Peel, R. Srikanthan, T. A. McMahon, and D. J. Karoly
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 19, 1615–1639, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-1615-2015, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-1615-2015, 2015
Short summary
Short summary
We present a proof-of-concept approximation of within-GCM uncertainty using non-stationary stochastic replicates of monthly precipitation and temperature projections and investigate the impact of within-GCM uncertainty on projected runoff and reservoir yield. Amplification of within-GCM variability from precipitation to runoff to reservoir yield suggests climate change impact assessments ignoring within-GCM uncertainty would provide water resources managers with an unjustified sense of certainty
T. A. McMahon, M. C. Peel, and D. J. Karoly
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 19, 361–377, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-361-2015, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-361-2015, 2015
Short summary
Short summary
Here we assess GCM performance from a hydrologic perspective. We identify five better performing CMIP3 GCMs that reproduce grid-scale climatological statistics of observed precipitation and temperature over global land regions for future hydrologic simulation. GCM performance in reproducing observed mean and standard deviation of annual precipitation, mean annual temperature and mean monthly precipitation and temperature was assessed and ranked, and five better performing GCMs were identified.
L. J. M. Peeters, G. M. Podger, T. Smith, T. Pickett, R. H. Bark, and S. M. Cuddy
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 3777–3785, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-3777-2014, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-3777-2014, 2014
L. Zhuo, M. M. Mekonnen, and A. Y. Hoekstra
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 2219–2234, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-2219-2014, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-2219-2014, 2014
C. A. Scott, S. Vicuña, I. Blanco-Gutiérrez, F. Meza, and C. Varela-Ortega
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 1339–1348, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-1339-2014, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-1339-2014, 2014
N. Voisin, H. Li, D. Ward, M. Huang, M. Wigmosta, and L. R. Leung
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 17, 3605–3622, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-3605-2013, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-3605-2013, 2013
D. Zhu, D. Z. Peng, and I. D. Cluckie
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 17, 1445–1453, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-1445-2013, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-1445-2013, 2013
B. L. Harding, A. W. Wood, and J. R. Prairie
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 16, 3989–4007, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-16-3989-2012, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-16-3989-2012, 2012
J.-S. Yang, E.-S. Chung, S.-U. Kim, and T.-W. Kim
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 16, 801–814, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-16-801-2012, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-16-801-2012, 2012
S. Quiroga, Z. Fernández-Haddad, and A. Iglesias
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 15, 505–518, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-15-505-2011, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-15-505-2011, 2011
Cited articles
Aalst, M. Van, Adger, N., Arent, D., Barnett, J., Betts, R., Bilir, E.,
Birkmann, J., Carmin, J., Chadee, D., Challinor, A., Chatterjee, M., Cramer,
W., Davidson, D., Estrada, Y., Gattuso, J.-P., Hijioka, Y., Hoegh-Guldberg,
O., Huang, H.-Q., Insarov, G., Jones, R., Kovats, S., Lankao, P. R., Larsen,
J. N., Losada, I., Marengo, J., McLean, R., Mearns, L., Mechler, R., Morton,
J., Niang, I., Oki, T., Olwoch, J. M., Opondo, M., Poloczanska, E.,
Pörtner, H.-O., Redsteer, M. H., Reisinger, A., Revi, A., Schmidt, D.,
Shaw, R., Solecki, W., Stone, D., Stone, J., Strzepek, K., Suarez, A.,
Tschakert, P., Valentini, R., Vicuna, S., Villamizar, A., Vincent, K.,
Warren, R., White, L., Wilbanks, T., Wong, P. P., and Yohe, G.: Climate
Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, Assessment Report 5,
1–76, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415379, 2014.
Abatzoglou, J. T. and Brown, T. J.: A comparison of statistical downscaling
methods suited for wildfire applications, Int. J. Climatol., 32, 772–780,
https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.2312, 2012.
Alcamo, J., Döll, P., Henrichs, T., Kaspar, F., Lehner, B., Rösch,
T., and Siebert, S.: Development and testing of the WaterGAP 2 global model
of water use and availability, Hydrolog. Sci. J., 48, 317–337,
https://doi.org/10.1623/hysj.48.3.317.45290, 2003.
Allen, R. G., Pereira, L. S., Raes, D., and Smith, M.: Crop
evapotranspiration – guidelines for computing crop water requirements, Food
and Agriculture Organization, Rome, FAO Irrigation and drainage paper 56,
1998.
Barnett, J., Dobshinsky, A., Choi, B., Cunningham, A., Dickens, M., Driver,
J., Fan, L., Garcia, J., Gibson, N., Graves, J., Henkel, M., Khedhri, S.,
Lai, J., Lally, J., Lewis, M., Massa, L., Melusky, A., and Ottoson, L.: An
alternative future: Florida in the 21st Century 2020 2040 2060, University of
Central Florida, Orlando, Florida, 2007.
Bentsen, M., Bethke, I., Debernard, J. B., Iversen, T., Kirkevåg, A.,
Seland, Ø., Drange, H., Roelandt, C., Seierstad, I. A., Hoose, C., and
Kristjánsson, J. E.: The Norwegian Earth System Model, NorESM1-M –
Part 1: Description and basic evaluation of the physical climate, Geosci.
Model Dev., 6, 687–720, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-6-687-2013, 2013.
Bicknell, B. R., Imhoff, J. C., Kittle, Jr., J. L., Jobes, T. H., and
Donigian Jr., A. S.: Hydrological Simulation Program – Fortran: HSPF Version
12.2 User's Manual, Environmental Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental
Protection, 2005.
Block, K. and Mauritsen, T.: Forcing and feedback in the MPI-ESM-LR coupled
model under abruptly quadrupled CO2, J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 5,
676–691, https://doi.org/10.1002/jame.20041, 2013.
Block, P. J., Souza Filho, F. A., Sun, L., and Kwon, H. H.: A streamflow
forecasting framework using multiple climate and hydrological models, JAWRA
Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 45, 828–843,
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2009.00327.x, 2009.
Boé, J., Terray, L., Habets, F., and Martin, E.: Statistical and
dynamical downscaling of the Seine basin climate for hydro-meteorological
studies, Int. J. Climatol., 27, 1643–1655, https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.1602, 2007.
Bosshard, T., Carambia, M., Goergen, K., Kotlarski, S., Krahe, P., Zappa, M.,
and Schär, C.: Quantifying uncertainty sources in an ensemble of
hydrological climate-impact projections, Water Resour. Res., 49, 1523–1536,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2011WR011533, 2013.
Chang, J., Zhang, H., Wang, Y., and Zhu, Y.: Assessing the impact of climate
variability and human activities on streamflow variation, Hydrol. Earth Syst.
Sci., 20, 1547–1560, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-1547-2016, 2016.
Chang, S.: Quantifying the relative uncertainties of changes in climate and
water demand for water supply planning, PhD dissertation, University of
Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA, 2017.
Chang, S., Graham, W. D., Hwang, S., and Muñoz-Carpena, R.: Sensitivity
of future continental United States water deficit projections to general
circulation models, the evapotranspiration estimation method, and the
greenhouse gas emission scenario, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 20, 3245–3261,
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-3245-2016, 2016.
Chen, J., Brissette, F. P., Chaumont, D., and Braun, M.: Finding appropriate
bias correction methods in downscaling precipitation for hydrologic impact
studies over North America, Water Resour. Res., 49, 4187–4205,
https://doi.org/10.1002/wrcr.20331, 2013.
Dale, J., Zou, C. B., Andrews, W. J., Long, J. M., Liang, Y., and Qiao, L.:
Climate, water use, and land surface transformation in an irrigation
intensive watershed-Streamflow responses from 1950 through 2010, Agr. Water
Manage., 160, 144–152, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2015.07.007, 2015.
Déry, S. J., Hernández-Henríquez, M. A., Burford, J. E., and
Wood, E. F.: Observational evidence of an intensifying hydrological cycle in
northern Canada, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L13402, https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GL038852,
2009.
Diffenbaugh, N. S. and Field, C. B.: Changes in ecologically critical
terrestrial climate conditions, Science, 341, 486–492,
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1237123, 2013.
Dukes, M. D., Zotarelli, L., Liu, G. D., and Simonne, E. H.: Principles and
Practices of Irrigation Management for Vegetables, IFAS, University of
Florida, 1–14, 2012.
Florida Statewide Agricultural Irrigation Demand: Estimated Agricultural
Water Demand, 2015–2040, The Balmoral Group, Winter Park, Florida, 2017.
Forzieri, G., Feyen, L., Rojas, R., Flörke, M., Wimmer, F., and Bianchi,
A.: Ensemble projections of future streamflow droughts in Europe, Hydrol.
Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 85–108, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-85-2014, 2014.
Georgakakos, A., Fleming, P., Dettinger, M., Peters-Lidard, C., Richmond, T.,
Reckhow, K., White, K., and Yates, D.: Ch. 3: Water Resources, in: Climate
Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment,
edited by: Melillo, J. M., Richmond, T. (T. C.), and Yohe, G. W., U.S. Global
Change Research Program, 69–112, https://doi.org/10.7930/J0G44N6T, 2014.
Geurink, J. S. and Basso, R.: Development, Calibration, and Evaluation of the
Integrated Northern Tampa Bay Hydrologic Model, Tampa Bay Water/Southwest
Florida Water Management District, Clearwater/Brooksville, Florida, 2013.
Ghosh, S. and Mujumdar, P. P.: Statistical downscaling of GCM simulations to
streamflow using relevance vector machine, Adv. Water Resour., 31, 132–146,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2007.07.005, 2008.
Giorgi, F. and Mearns, L.: Calculation of average, uncertainty range, and
reliability of regional climate changes from AOGCM simulations via the
“reliability ensemble averaging”(REA) method, J. Climate, 15, 1141–1158,
https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2002)015<1141:COAURA>2.0.CO;2,
2002.
Green, T. R., Taniguchi, M., Kooi, H., Gurdak, J. J., Allen, D. M., Hiscock,
K. M., Treidel, H., and Aureli, A.: Beneath the surface of global change:
Impacts of climate change on groundwater, J. Hydrol., 405, 532–560,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.05.002, 2011.
Guimberteau, M., Ronchail, J., Espinoza, J. C., Lengaigne, M., Sultan, B.,
Polcher, J., Drapeau, G., Guyot, J.-L., Ducharne, A., and Ciais, P.: Future
changes in precipitation and impacts on extreme streamflow over Amazonian
sub-basins, Environ. Res. Lett., 8, 014035,
https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/1/014035, 2013.
Guo, H., Golaz, J.-C., Donner, L. J., Ginoux, P., and Hemler, R. S.:
Multivariate Probability Density Functions with Dynamics in the GFDL
Atmospheric General Circulation Model: Global Tests, J. Climate, 27,
2087–2108, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00347.1, 2014.
Gupta, S. C., Kessler, A. C., Brown, M. K., and Zvomuya, F.: Climate and
agricultural land use change impacts on streamflow in the upper midwestern
United States, Water Resour. Res., 51, 5301–5317,
https://doi.org/10.1002/2015WR017323, 2015.
Haddeland, I., Heinke, J., Biemans, H., Eisner, S., Flörke, M., Hanasaki,
N., Konzmann, M., Ludwig, F., Masaki, Y., Schewe, J., Stacke, T., Tessler, Z.
D., Wada, Y., and Wisser, D.: Global water resources affected by human
interventions and climate change, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 111, 3251–3256,
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1222475110, 2014.
Harbaugh, A. W. and McDonald, M. G.: User's Documentation for MODFLOW-96, an
update to the U.S. Geological Survey Modular Finite-Difference Ground-Water
Flow Model, Open-File Report, U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report
96-485, 1996.
Harding, B. L., Wood, A. W., and Prairie, J. R.: The implications of climate
change scenario selection for future streamflow projection in the Upper
Colorado River Basin, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 16, 3989–4007,
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-16-3989-2012, 2012.
Hargreaves, G. H. and Allen, R. G.: History and Evaluation of Hargreaves
Evapotranspiration Equation, J. Irrig. Drain. E.-ASCE, 129, 53–63,
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9437(2003)129:1(53), 2003
Hawkins, E. and Sutton, R.: The potential to narrow uncertainty in regional
climate predictions, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 90, 1095–1107,
https://doi.org/10.1175/2009BAMS2607.1, 2009.
Hawkins, E. and Sutton, R.: The potential to narrow uncertainty in
projections of regional precipitation change, Clim. Dynam., 37, 407–418,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-010-0810-6, 2010.
Hawkins, E., Anderson, B., Diffenbaugh, N., Mahlstein, I., Betts, R., Hegerl,
G., Joshi, M., Knutti, R., McNeall, D., Solomon, S., Sutton, R., Syktus, J.,
and Vecchi, G.: Uncertainties in the timing of unprecedented climates,
Nature, 511, E3–E5, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13523, 2014.
Homma, T. and Saltelli, A.: Importance measures in global sensitivity
analysis of nonlinear models, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Safe., 52, 1–17,
https://doi.org/10.1016/0951-8320(96)00002-6, 1996.
Hwang, S. and Graham, W. D.: Development and comparative evaluation of a
stochastic analog method to downscale daily GCM precipitation, Hydrol. Earth
Syst. Sci., 17, 4481–4502, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-4481-2013, 2013.
Hwang, S. and Graham, W. D.: Assessment of Alternative Methods for
Statistically Downscaling Daily GCM Precipitation Outputs to Simulate
Regional Streamflow, Journal of the American Water Resources Association
(JAWRA) 50, 1010–1032, https://doi.org/10.1111/jawr.12154, 2014.
Hwang, S., Graham, W. D., Adams, A., and Geurink, J.: Assessment of the
utility of dynamically-downscaled regional reanalysis data to predict
streamflow in west central Florida using an integrated hydrologic model, Reg.
Environ. Change, 13, 69–80, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-013-0406-x, 2013.
Hwang, S., Graham, W. D., Geurink, J. S., and Adams, A.: Hydrologic
implications of errors in bias-corrected regional reanalysis data for west
central Florida, J. Hydrol., 510, 513–529,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2013.11.042, 2014.
Ines, A. V. M. and Hansen, J. W.: Bias correction of daily GCM rainfall for
crop simulation studies, Agr. Forest. Meteorol., 138, 44–53,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2006.03.009, 2006.
Irmak, S., Odhiambo, L. O., Kranz, W. L., and Eisenhauer, D. E.: Irrigation
Efficiency and Uniformity, and Crop Water Use Efficiency, Biological Systems
Engineering: Papers and Publication, available at:
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/biosysengfacpub/451 (last access:
10 September 2018), 2011.
Jackson, M. C. and Albritton, B.: 2011 Estimated Water Use Report,
Brooksville, FL, 2013.
Jacobs, J. and Dukes, M.: Revision of AFSIRS crop water simulation model,
Summary, St. Johns River Water Management District, Palatka, FL, 2007.
Ji, D., Wang, L., Feng, J., Wu, Q., Cheng, H., Zhang, Q., Yang, J., Dong, W.,
Dai, Y., Gong, D., Zhang, R.-H., Wang, X., Liu, J., Moore, J. C., Chen, D.,
and Zhou, M.: Description and basic evaluation of Beijing Normal University
Earth System Model (BNU-ESM) version 1, Geosci. Model Dev., 7, 2039–2064,
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-7-2039-2014, 2014.
Kay, A. L. and Davies, H. N.: Calculating potential evaporation from climate
model data: A source of uncertainty for hydrological climate change impacts,
J. Hydrol., 358, 221–239, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2008.06.005, 2008.
Kingston, D. G., Todd, M. C., Taylor, R. G., Thompson, J. R., and Arnell, N.
W.: Uncertainty in the estimation of potential evapotranspiration under
climate change, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L20403, https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GL040267,
2009.
Kløve, B., Ala-Aho, P., Bertrand, G., Gurdak, J. J., Kupfersberger, H.,
Kværner, J., Muotka, T., Mykrä, H., Preda, E., Rossi, P., Uvo, C. B.,
Velasco, E., and Pulido-Velazquez, M.: Climate change impacts on groundwater
and dependent ecosystems, J. Hydrol., 518, 250–266,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2013.06.037, 2014.
Koedyk, L. P. and Kingston, D. G.: Potential evapotranspiration method
influence on climate change impacts on river flow: a mid-latitude case study,
Hydrol. Res., 47, 951–963, https://doi.org/10.2166/nh.2016.152, 2016.
Kundzewicz, Z. W., Mata, L. J., Arnell, N. W., Döll, P., Jimenez, B.,
Miller, K., Oki, T., Şen, Z., and Shiklomanov, I.: The implications of
projected climate change for freshwater resources and their management,
Hydrolog. Sci. J., 53, 3–10, https://doi.org/10.1623/hysj.53.1.3, 2008.
Kundzewicz, Z. W., Mata, L. J., Arnell, N. W., Döll, P., Jimenez, B.,
Miller, K., Oki, T., and Şen, Z.: Water and climate projections,
Hydrolog. Sci. J., 54, 406–415, https://doi.org/10.1623/hysj.54.2.406, 2009.
Langousis, A., Mamalakis, A., Deidda, R., and Marrocu, M.: Assessing the
relative effectiveness of statistical downscaling and distribution mapping in
reproducing rainfall statistics based on climate model results, Water Resour.
Res., 52, 471–494, https://doi.org/10.1002/2015WR017556, 2016.
Lin, B., Chen, X., Yao, H., Chen, Y., Liu, M., Gao, L., and James, A.:
Analyses of landuse change impacts on catchment runoff using different time
indicators based on SWAT model, Ecol. Indic., 58, 55–63,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.05.031, 2015.
Liu, M., Adam, J. C., and Hamlet, A. F.: Spatial-temporal variations of
evapotranspiration and runoff/precipitation ratios responding to the changing
climate in the pacific northwest during 1921–2006, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos.,
118, 380–394, https://doi.org/10.1029/2012JD018400, 2013.
Ma, Z. M., Kang, S. Z., Zhang, L., Tong, L., and Su, X. L.: Analysis of
impacts of climate variability and human activity on streamflow for a river
basin in arid region of northwest China, J. Hydrol., 352, 239–249,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2007.12.022, 2008.
Matheussen, B., Kirschbaum, R. L., Goodman, I. A., O'Donnell, G. M., and
Lettenmaier, D. P.: Effects of land cover change on streamflow in the
interior Columbia River Basin (USA and Canada), Hydrol. Process., 14,
867–885,
https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1085(20000415)14:5<867::AID-HYP975>3.0.CO;2-5,
2000.
Maurer, E. P. and Hidalgo, H. G.: Utility of daily vs. monthly large-scale
climate data: an intercomparison of two statistical downscaling methods,
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 12, 551–563, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-12-551-2008, 2008.
Maurer, E. P., Hidalgo, H. G., Das, T., Dettinger, M. D., and Cayan, D. R.:
The utility of daily large-scale climate data in the assessment of climate
change impacts on daily streamflow in California, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.,
14, 1125–1138, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-14-1125-2010, 2010.
McAfee, S. A.: Methodological differences in projected potential
evapotranspiration, Climatic Change, 120, 915–930,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0864-7, 2013.
Milliman, J. D., Farnsworth, K. L., Jones, P. D., Xu, K. H., and Smith, L.
C.: Climatic and anthropogenic factors affecting river discharge to the
global ocean, 1951–2000, Global Planet. Change, 62, 187–194,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2008.03.001, 2008.
Mood, A. M., Graybill, F. A., and Boes, D. C.: Introduction to theory of
statistics, McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York City, NY, USA, 1974.
Muerth, M. J., Gauvin St-Denis, B., Ricard, S., Velázquez, J. A., Schmid,
J., Minville, M., Caya, D., Chaumont, D., Ludwig, R., and Turcotte, R.: On
the need for bias correction in regional climate scenarios to assess climate
change impacts on river runoff, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 17, 1189–1204,
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-1189-2013, 2013.
Murray, S. J., Foster, P. N., and Prentice, I. C.: Future global water
resources with respect to climate change and water withdrawals as estimated
by a dynamic global vegetation model, J. Hydrol., 448–449, 14–29,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.02.044, 2012.
Patterson, L. A., Lutz, B., and Doyle, M. W.: Climate and direct human
contributions to changes in mean annual streamflow in the South Atlantic ,
USA, Water Resour. Res., 49, 7278–7291, https://doi.org/10.1002/2013WR014618, 2013.
Quintana Seguí, P., Ribes, A., Martin, E., Habets, F., and Boé, J.:
Comparison of three downscaling methods in simulating the impact of climate
change on the hydrology of Mediterranean basins, J. Hydrol., 383, 111–124,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.09.050, 2010.
Rupp, D. E.: An evaluation of 20th century climate for the Southeastern
United States as simulated by Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5
(CMIP5) global climate models, U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report
2016-1047, 32 pp., https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20161047, 2016.
Saltelli, A.: Sensitivity analysis: Could better methods be used?,
J. Geophys. Res., 104, 3789–3793, https://doi.org/10.1029/1998JD100042, 1999.
Saltelli, A., Ratto, M., Andres, T., Campolongo, F., Cariboni, J., Gatelli,
D., Saisana, M., and Tarantola, S.: Global sensitivity analysis: the primer,
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2008.
Saltelli, A., Annoni, P., Azzini, I., Campolongo, F., Ratto, M., and
Tarantola, S.: Variance based sensitivity analysis of model output. Design
and estimator for the total sensitivity index, Comput. Phys. Commun., 181,
259–270, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2009.09.018, 2010.
Siriwardena, L., Finlayson, B. L., and McMahon, T. A.: The impact of land use
change on catchment hydrology in large catchments: The Comet River, Central
Queensland, Australia, J. Hydrol., 326, 199–214,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.10.030, 2006.
Smajstrla, A. G.: Technical Manual: Agricultural field scale irrigation
requirements simulation (AFSIRS) model, Version 5.5, Gainesville, FL, 1990.
Solomon, S., Qin, D., Manning, M., Alley, R. B., Berntsen, T., Bindoff, N.
L., Chen, Z., Chidthaisong, A., Gregory, J. M., Hegerl, G. C., Heimann, M.,
Hewitson, B., Hoskins, B. J., Joos, F., Jouzel, J., Kattsov, V., Lohmann, U.,
Matsuno, T., Molina, M., Nicholls, N., Overpeck, J., Raga, G., Ramaswamy, V.,
Ren, J., Rusticucci, M., Somerville, R., Stocker, T. F., Whetton, P., Wood,
D., and Wratt, R. A.: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis,
Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by: Solomon, S., Qin, D.,
Manning, M., Chen, Z., Marquis, M., Averyt, K. B., Tignor, M., and Miller, H.
L., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY,
USA, 2007.
Stoll, S., Hendricks Franssen, H. J., Butts, M., and Kinzelbach, W.: Analysis
of the impact of climate change on groundwater related hydrological fluxes: a
multi-model approach including different downscaling methods, Hydrol. Earth
Syst. Sci., 15, 21–38, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-15-21-2011, 2011.
Tampa Bay Water: Water Demand Management Plan, Final Report, Hazen and
Sawyer, 274 pp., 2013.
Tan, X. and Gan, T. Y.: Contribution of human and climate change impacts to
changes in streamflow of Canada, Sci. Rep., 5, 17767,
https://doi.org/10.1038/srep17767, 2015.
Tariq, A., Lempert, R. J., Riverson, J., Schwartz, M., and Berg, N.: A
climate stress test of Los Angeles' water quality plans, Climatic Change,
144, 625–639, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-017-2062-5, 2017.
Taylor, K. E., Stouffer, R. J., and Meehl, G. A.: An Overview of CMIP5 and
the Experiment Design, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 93, 485–498,
https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00094.1, 2012.
Teutschbein, C. and Seibert, J.: Bias correction of regional climate model
simulations for hydrological climate-change impact studies: Review and
evaluation of different methods, J. Hydrol., 456–457, 12–29,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.05.052, 2012.
Thompson, J. R., Green, A. J., and Kingston, D. G.: Potential
evapotranspiration-related uncertainty in climate change impacts on river
flow: An assessment for the Mekong River basin, J. Hydrol., 510, 259–279,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2013.12.010, 2014.
Tihansky, A. B.: Sinkholes, west-central Florida, U.S. Geological Survey,
Tampa, FL, 1999.
Tihansky, A. B. and Knochenmus, L. A.: Karst features and hydrogeology in
west-central Florida – A field perspective, in: U.S. Geological Survey Karst
Interest Group Proceedings, edited by: Kuniansky, E. L., U.S. Geological
Survey, Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4011, 198–211, avalable at:
http://water.usgs.gov/ogw/karst/kigconference/abt_karstfeatures.htm
(last access: 1 September 2018), 2001.
Vano, J. A. and Lettenmaier, D. P.: A sensitivity-based approach to
evaluating future changes in Colorado River discharge, Clim. Change, 122,
621–634, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-1023-x, 2013.
Vorosmarty, C. J., Green, P., Salisbury, J., and Lammers, R. B.: Global Water
Resources: Vulnerability from Climate Change and Population Growth, Science,
289, 284–288, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.289.5477.284, 2000.
Walsh, J., Wuebbles, D., Hayhoe, K., Kossin, J., Stephens, G., Thorne, P.,
Vose, R., Wehner, M., Willis, J., Anderson, D., Doney, S., Feely, R., Hennon,
P., Kharin, V., Knutson, T., Landerer, F., Lenton, T., Kennedy, J., and
Somerville, R.: Ch. 2: Our Changing Climate, in: Climate Change Impacts in
the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment, edited by: Melillo,
J. M., Richmond, T. (T.C.), and Yohe, G. W., U.S. Global Change Research
Program, 19–67, https://doi.org/10.7930/J0KW5CXT, 2014.
Wang, D. and Hejazi, M.: Quantifying the relative contribution of the climate
and direct human impacts on mean annual streamflow in the contiguous United
States, Water Resour. Res., 47, W00J12, https://doi.org/10.1029/2010WR010283, 2011.
Wang, W., Xing, W., and Shao, Q.: How large are uncertainties in future
projection of reference evapotranspiration through different approaches?, J.
Hydrol., 524, 696–700, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.03.033, 2015.
Watanabe, S., Hajima, T., Sudo, K., Nagashima, T., Takemura, T., Okajima, H.,
Nozawa, T., Kawase, H., Abe, M., Yokohata, T., Ise, T., Sato, H., Kato, E.,
Takata, K., Emori, S., and Kawamiya, M.: MIROC-ESM 2010: model description
and basic results of CMIP5-20c3m experiments, Geosci. Model Dev., 4,
845–872, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-4-845-2011, 2011.
Wood, A. W., Maurer, E. P., Kumar, A., and Lettenmaier, D. P.: Long-range
experimental hydrologic forecasting for the eastern United States, J.
Geophys. Res., 107, 4429, https://doi.org/10.1029/2001JD000659, 2002.
Xiao-Ge, X., Tong-Wen, W., Jiang-Long, L., Zai-Zhi, W., Wei-Ping, L., and
Fang-Hua, W.: How well does BCC_CSM1. 1 reproduce the 20th century climate
change over China?, Atmospheric and Oceanic Science Letters, 6, 21–26,
available at:
http://159.226.119.58/aosl/CN/article/downloadArticleFile.do?attachType=PDF&id=332
(last access: 12 January 2015), 2013.
Yan, B., Fang, N. F., Zhang, P. C., and Shi, Z. H.: Impacts of land use
change on watershed streamflow and sediment yield: An assessment using
hydrologic modelling and partial least squares regression, J. Hydrol., 484,
26–37, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2013.01.008, 2013.
Ye, X., Zhang, Q., Liu, J., Li, X., and Xu, C.: Distinguishing the relative
impacts of climate change and human activities on variation of streamflow in
the Poyang Lake catchment, China, J. Hydrol., 494, 83–95,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2013.04.036, 2013.
Yukimoto, S., Adachi, Y., Hosaka, M., Sakami, T., Yoshimura, H., Hirabara,
M., Tanaka, T. Y., Shindo, E., Tsujino, H., Deushi, M., Mizuta, R., Yabu, S.,
Obata, A., Nakano, H., Koshiro, T., Ose, T., and Kitoh, A.: A New Global
Climate Model of the Meteorological Research Institute: MRI-CGCM3 – Model
Description and Basic Performance, Journal of the Meteorological Society of
Japan, Ser. II, 90A, 23–64, https://doi.org/10.2151/jmsj.2012-A02, 2012.
Zhang, F. and Georgakakos, A. P.: Joint variable spatial downscaling,
Climatic Change, 111, 945–972, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0167-9, 2012.
Zheng, H., Zhang, L., Zhu, R., Liu, C., Sato, Y., and Fukushima, Y.:
Responses of streamflow to climate and land surface change in the headwaters
of the Yellow River Basin, Water Resour. Res., 45,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2007WR006665, 2009.
Zieyel, E. R.: The Collected Works of John W. Tukey,
Technometrics, 30, 363–363,
https://doi.org/10.1080/00401706.1988.10488428, 1988.
Technometrics, 30, 363–363,
https://doi.org/10.1080/00401706.1988.10488428, 1988.
Short summary
It is important to understand potential impacts of climate change and human water use on streamflow and groundwater levels. This study used climate models with an integrated hydrologic model to project future streamflow and groundwater level in Tampa Bay for a variety of future water use scenarios. Impacts of different climate projections on streamflow were found to be much stronger than the impacts of different human water use scenarios, but both were significant for groundwater projection.
It is important to understand potential impacts of climate change and human water use on...
