Advertisement

Environmental Management

, Volume 53, Issue 4, pp 855–864 | Cite as

Quantifying Outdoor Water Consumption of Urban Land Use/Land Cover: Sensitivity to Drought

  • Shai KaplanEmail author
  • Soe W. Myint
  • Chao Fan
  • Anthony J. Brazel
Article

Abstract

Outdoor water use is a key component in arid city water systems for achieving sustainable water use and ensuring water security. Using evapotranspiration (ET) calculations as a proxy for outdoor water consumption, the objectives of this research are to quantify outdoor water consumption of different land use and land cover types, and compare the spatio-temporal variation in water consumption between drought and wet years. An energy balance model was applied to Landsat 5 TM time series images to estimate daily and seasonal ET for the Central Arizona Phoenix Long-Term Ecological Research region (CAP-LTER). Modeled ET estimations were correlated with water use data in 49 parks within CAP-LTER and showed good agreement (r 2 = 0.77), indicating model effectiveness to capture the variations across park water consumption. Seasonally, active agriculture shows high ET (>500 mm) for both wet and dry conditions, while the desert and urban land cover types experienced lower ET during drought (<300 mm). Within urban locales of CAP-LTER, xeric neighborhoods show significant differences from year to year, while mesic neighborhoods retain their ET values (400–500 mm) during drought, implying considerable use of irrigation to sustain their greenness. Considering the potentially limiting water availability of this region in the future due to large population increases and the threat of a warming and drying climate, maintaining large water-consuming, irrigated landscapes challenges sustainable practices of water conservation and the need to provide amenities of this desert area for enhancing quality of life.

Keywords

Outdoor water use Evapotranspiration Drought Landsat 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant SES-0951366, Decision Center for a Desert City II: Urban Climate Adaptation and Grant and DEB-0423704, Central Arizona Phoenix Long-Term Ecological Research (CAP-LTER). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

References

  1. Allen RG, Tasumi M, Morse A, Trezza R (2007) Satellite-based energy balance for mapping evapotranspiration with internalized calibration (METRIC)—model. J Irrig Drain Eng 133:380–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. AZMET: The Arizona meteorological network (2012). http://ag.arizona.edu/azmet/index.html. Accessed 31 Oct 2012
  3. Baker LA, Brazel AJ, Selover N, Martin C, McIntyre N, Steiner F, Nelson A, Musacchio L (2002) Urbanization and warming of Phoenix (Arizona, USA): impacts, feedbacks, and mitigation. Urban Ecosyst 6:183–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Balling RC, Brazel SW (1987) Time and space characteristics of the Phoenix urban heat island. J Ariz-Nev Acad Sci 21:75–81Google Scholar
  5. Balling RC Jr, Cubaque C (2009) Estimating future residential water consumption in Phoenix, Arizona based on simulated changes in climate. Phys Geogr 30:308–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Balling RC Jr, Gober P (2007) Climate variability and residential water use in the city of Phoenix, Arizona. J Appl Meteorol Climatol 46:1130–1137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Balling RC Jr, Gober P, Jones N (2007) Sensitivity of residential water consumption to variations in climate: an intraurban analysis of Phoenix. Water Resour Res, Arizona. doi: 10.1029/2007WR006722 Google Scholar
  8. Bastiaanssen WGM (2000) SEBAL based sensible and latent heat fluxes in the irrigated Gedez Basin, Turkey. J Hydrol 229:87–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bastiaanssen WGM, Menenti M, Feddes RA, Holtslag AAM (1998) Remote sensing surface energy balance algorithm for land (SEBAL): 1. Formulation. J Hydrol 213:198–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bonan GB (2000) The microclimates of a suburban Colorado (USA) landscape and implications for planning and design. Landsc Urban Plan 49:97–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bonan GB (2002) Ecological climatology—concepts and applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 678 ppGoogle Scholar
  12. Brazel AJ, Gober P, Lee SJ, Grossman-Clarke S, Zehnder J, Hedquist B, Comparri E (2007) Determinants of changes in the regional urban heat island in metropolitan Phoenix (Arizona, USA) between 1990 and 2004. Climate Res 33:171–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brazel AJ, Selover N, Vose R, Heisler G (2000) Tale of two climates—Baltimore and Phoenix urban LTER sites. Climate Res 15:123–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Buyantuyev A (2007) Land cover classification using landsat enhanced thematic mapper (ETM) data—year 2005. http://caplter.asu.edu/data/?id=377. Accessed 26 Dec 2012
  15. Buyantuyev A, Wu J (2009) Urbanization alters spatiotemporal patterns of ecosystem primary production: a case study of the Phoenix metropolitan region, USA. J Arid Environ 73:512–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Buyantuyev A, Wu J (2010) Urban heat islands and landscape heterogeneity: linking spatiotemporal variations in surface temperatures to land-cover and socioeconomic patterns. Landsc Ecol 25:17–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chavez PS Jr (1996) Image-based atmospheric corrections—revised and improved. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 62:1025–1036Google Scholar
  18. City of Phoenix—water services department: 2011 water resources plan. http://phoenix.gov/webcms/groups/internet/@inter/@dept/@wsd/documents/web_content/wsd2011wrp.pdf. Accessed 7 Mar 2013
  19. de Teixeira AHC (2010) Determining regional actual evapotranspiration of irrigated crops and natural vegetation in the São Francisco River basin (Brazil) using remote sensing and Penman–Monteith equation. Remote Sens 2:1287–1319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Elhadddad A, Gracia LA (2008) Surface energy balance-based model for estimating evapotranspiration taking into account spatial variability in weather. J Irrig Drain Eng 134:681–689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fast JD, Tocolini JC, Redman R (2005) Pseudovertical temperature profiles and the urban heat island measured by a temperature datalogger network in Phoenix, Arizona. J Appl Meteorol 44:3–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gober P (2010) Decision making under uncertainty: A new paradigm for water management and practice. In: Wang LK, Yang CT (eds) Handbook of water engineering, vol 15. Humana Press Inc, New York, 49 ppGoogle Scholar
  23. Gober P, Wentz EA, Lant T, Tschudi MK, Kirkwood CW (2011) WaterSim: a simulation model for urban water planning in Phoenix, Arizona, USA. Environ Plan Bull 38:197–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gober P, Middel A, Brazel AJ, Myint SW, Chang H, Duh J-D, House-Peters L (2012) Tradeoffs between water conservation and temperature amelioration in Phoenix and Portland: implications for urban sustainability. Urban Geogr 33:1030–1054CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Grimm NB, Faeth SH, Golubiewski NE, Redman CL, Wu J, Bai X, Briggs JM (2008) Global Change and the Ecology of Cities. Science 319:756–760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Grimmond CSB (2007) Urbanization and global environmental change: local effects of urban warming. Geogr J 173:83–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hankerson B, Kjaersgaard J, Hay C (2012) Estimation of evapotranspiration from fields with and without cover crops using remote sensing and in situ methods. Remote Sens 4:3796–3812CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Harlan S, Brazel AJ, Prashad L, Stefanov WL, Larsen L (2006) Neighborhood microclimates and vulnerability to heat stress. Soc Sci Med 63:2847–2863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hart MA, Sailor DJ (2009) Quantifying the influence of land-use and surface characteristics on spatial variability in the urban heat island. Theor Appl Climatol 95:397–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hawkins TW, Brazel A, Stefanov W, Bigler W, Saffell EM (2004) The role of rural variability in urban heat island determination for Phoenix, Arizona. J Appl Meteorol 43:476–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Idso SB, Jackson RD, Reginato RJ (1975) Estimating evaporation: a technique adaptable to remote sensing. Science 189:991–992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Imhoff ML, Tucker CJ, Lawrence WT, Stutzer DC (2000) The use of multisource satellite and geospatial data to study the effect of urbanization on primary productivity in the United States. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens 38:2549–2556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. IPCC (2007) Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. In: Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, Tignor M, Miller HL (eds) Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 996 ppGoogle Scholar
  34. Jenerette DA, Harlan SL, Stefanov WL, Martin CA (2011) Ecosystem services and urban heat riskscape moderation: water, green spaces and social inequality in Phoenix, USA. Ecol Appl 21:2637–2651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kaplan S, Myint S (2012) Estimating irrigated agricultural water use through Landsat TM and a simplified surface energy balance modeling in the semi-arid environments of Arizona. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 78:849–859CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kunkel KE, Stevens LE, Stevens SE, Sun L, Janssen E, Wuebbles D, Redmond KT, Dobson JG (2013) Regional Climate Trends and Scenarios for the U.S. National Climate Assessment. Part 5. Climate of the Southwest U.S., NOAA Technical Report NESDIS 142-5, 79 ppGoogle Scholar
  37. Liu W, Hong Y, Khan SI, Huang M, Voeix B, Caliskan S, Grout T (2010) Actual evapotranspiration estimation for different land use and land cover in urban regions using Landsat 5 data. J Appl Remote Sens. doi: 10.117/1.3525566 Google Scholar
  38. Liu S, Hu G, Lu L, Mao D (2007) Estimation of regional evapotranspiration by TM/ETM+ data over heterogeneous surfaces. Photogramm Eng Rem S 73:1169–1178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Markham BL, Barker JL (1986) Landsat MSS and TM post-calibration dynamic rangers, exoatmospheric reflectance and at-satellite temperatures. EOSAT Landsat Tech Notes (Aug):3–8Google Scholar
  40. Martin CA (2001) Landscape water use in Phoenix, Arizona. Desert Plants 17:26–31Google Scholar
  41. Mayer PM, DeOreo WB (1999) Residential end uses of water. AWWA Research Foundation and American Water Works Association ReportGoogle Scholar
  42. Morehouse BJ, Carter RH, Tschankert P (2002) Sensitivity of urban water resources in Phoenix, Tucson, and Sierra Vista, Arizona, to severe drought. Clim Res 21:283–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pielke RA (2001) Influence of the spatial distribution of vegetation and soils on the prediction of cumulus convective rainfall. Rev Geophys 32:151–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ruhoff RL, Paz AR, Collischonn W, Aragao LEOC, Rocha HR, Malhi YS (2012) A MODIS-based energy valance to estimate evapotranspiration for clear-sky days in Brazilian tropical savannas. Remote Sens 4:703–725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rundel PW, Gibson AC (1996) Ecological communities and processes in the Mojave Desert ecosystem. Rock Valley, Nevada, pp 55–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sarrat C, Lemonsu A, Masson V, Guedalia D (2006) Impact of urban heat island on regional atmospheric pollution. Atmos Environ 40:1743–1758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sheppard PR, Comrie AC, Packin GD, Angersbach K. Hughes MK (1999) The Climate of the Southwest. CLIMAS report series CL 1-99. Institute for the Study of Planet Earth, the University of Arizona, Tucson, AZGoogle Scholar
  48. Sun Z, Wang Q, Matsushita B, Fukushima T, Quyang Z, Watanabe M (2009) Development of a simple remote sensing evapotranspiration model (Sim-ReSET): algorithm and model test. J Hydrol 376:476–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shai Kaplan
    • 1
    Email author
  • Soe W. Myint
    • 1
  • Chao Fan
    • 1
  • Anthony J. Brazel
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Geographical Sciences and Urban PlanningTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations