Advertisement

Climatic Change

, Volume 156, Issue 1–2, pp 87–104 | Cite as

Assessing the degree of hydrologic stress due to climate change

  • R. J. NathanEmail author
  • T. A. McMahon
  • M. C. Peel
  • A. Horne
Article

Abstract

Hydrologists are commonly involved in impact, adaption and vulnerability assessments for climate change projections. This paper presents a framework for how such assessments can better differentiate between the impacts of climate change and those of natural variability, an important differentiation as it relates to the vulnerability to water availability under change. The key concept involved is to characterize “hydrologic stress” relative to the range of behaviour encountered under baseline conditions, where the degree to which climate change causes the behaviour of a system to shift outside this baseline range provides a non-dimensional measure of stress. The concept is applicable to any system that is subject to climate forcings, though the approach is applied here to a range of examples illustrative of many environmental and engineering applications. These include hydrologic systems that are dependent on the frequency of flows above or below selected thresholds, those that are dominated by storage and those which are sensitive to the sequencing of selected flow components. The analyses illustrate that systems designed or adapted to accommodate high variability are less stressed by a given magnitude of climate impacts than those operating under more uniform conditions. The metrics characterize hydrologic stress in a manner that can facilitate comparison across different regions, or across different assets within a region. Adoption of the approach requires reliance on the use of climate ensembles that represent aleatory uncertainty under both baseline and impacted conditions, and this has implications for how the outputs of climate models are provided and utilized.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Avril Horne gratefully acknowledges the funding provided by the Australian Research Council (LP170100598 and DE180100550).

References

  1. Amrhein V, Greenland S, McShane B (2019) Retire statistical significance. Nature 567(March):7–9Google Scholar
  2. Arnell NW, Gosling SN (2013) The impacts of climate change on river flow regimes at the global scale. J Hydrol 486:351–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arnell NW, van Vuuren DP, Isaac M (2011) The implications of climate policy for the impacts of climate change on global water resources. Glob Environ Change: Hum Policy Dimens 21(2):592–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beyene T, Lettenmaier DP, Kabat P (2010) Hydrologic impacts of climate change on the Nile River Basin: implications of the 2007 IPCC scenarios. Clim Chang 100:433–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bond, N. R., Grigg, N., Roberts, J., McGinness, H., Nielsen, D., O’Brien, M., Overton, I., Pollino, C., Reid, J. R. W., and Stratford, D. (2018) Assessment of environmental flow scenarios using state-and-transition models. Freshwater Biology, (2017), 1–13Google Scholar
  6. Brown C, Ghile Y, Laverty M, Li K (2012) Decision scaling: linking bottom-up vulnerability analysis with climate projections in the water sector. Water Resour Res 48(9):WR09537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chapman S, Mustin K, Renwick AR, Segan DB (2014) Publishing trends on climate change vulnerability in the conservation literature reveal a predominant focus on direct impacts and long time-scales. Divers Distrib 20:1221–1228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Döll P (2009) Vulnerability to the impact of climate change on renewable groundwater resources: a global-scale assessment. Environ Res Lett 4(3):035006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Döll P, Zhang J (2010) Impact of climate change on freshwater ecosystems: a global-scale analysis of ecologically relevant river flow alterations. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 14(5):783–799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ekström M, Grose MR, Whetton PH (2015) An appraisal of downscaling methods used in climate change research. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Chang 6(3):301–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ekström M, Gutmann ED, Wilby RL, Tye MR, Kirono DGC (2018) Robustness of hydroclimate metrics for climate change impact research. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Water 5(4):e1288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eyring V, Bony S, Meehl GA, Senior C, Stevens B, Stouffer RJ, Taylor KE (2016) Overview of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) experimental design and organisation. Geosci Model Dev Discuss 8(12):10539–10583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fay PA, Guntenspergen GR, Olker JH, Johnson WC (2016) Climate change impacts on freshwater wetland hydrology and vegetation cover cycling along a regional aridity gradient. Ecosphere 7:10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Field, C.B., Barros, V.R., Mach K.J., Mastrandrea M.D., et al. (eds.) (2014) Climate change 2014: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Part : global and sectoral aspects. Contribution of working group II to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, USA, 1132 pp.Google Scholar
  15. Filipek S, Keith WE, Giese J (1987) The status of the instream flow issue in Arkansas, 422 1987. Proc Arkansas Acad Sci 41:43–48Google Scholar
  16. Fowler HJ, Blenkinsop S, Tebaldi C (2007) Review: linking climate change modelling to impacts studies: recent advances in downscaling techniques for hydrological modelling. Int J Clim J Clim 27:1547–1578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fu G, Charles SP, Chiew FHS, Teng J, Zheng H, Frost AJ, Liu W, Kirshner S (2013) Modelling runoff with statistically downscaled daily site, gridded and catchment rainfall series. J Hydrol 492:254–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Giorgi F, Gutowski WJ (2015) Regional dynamical downscaling and the CORDEX initiative. Annu Rev Environ Resour 40(1):467–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gleckler PJ, Taylor KE, Doutriaux C (2008) Performance metrics for climate models. J Geophys Res 113:D06104.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JD008972 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gosling SN, Taylor RG, Arnell NW, Todd MC (2011) A comparative analysis of projected impacts of climate change on river runoff from global and catchment-scale hydrological models. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 15(1):279–294.  https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-15-279-2011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gosling SN, Zaherpour JJ, Mount NJ, Hattermann FF, Dankers R, Arheimer B, Breuer L, Ding J, Haddeland I, Kumar R, Kundu D, Liu J, van Griensven A, Veldkamp TIE, Vetter T, Wang X, Zhang X (2016) A comparison of changes in river runoff from multiple global and catchment-scale hydrological models under global warming scenarios of 1°C, 2°C and 3°C. Clim Chang:1–19Google Scholar
  22. Hart A (2001) Mann-Whitney test is not just a test of medians: difference in spread can be important. BMJ (formerly the British Medical Journal) 323:391–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hewitt C, Buontempo C, Newton P (2013) Using climate predictions to better serve society’s needs. Eos 94(11):105–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hijmans RJ, Cameron SE, Parra JL, Jones PG, Jarvis A (2005) Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas. Int J Climatol 25(15):1965–1978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Horne A, Nathan R, Poff NL, Bond N, Webb A (2019) Modelling flow-ecology responses in the Anthropocene: challenges for sustainable riverine management. Bioscience (in review)Google Scholar
  26. Jackson J. and Cardenas-Lailhacar C. (2010) Economic feasibility of hydropower systems: a decision support system program. Proc. 8 th Latin American and Caribbean Conference for Engineering and Technology, June 2010, Arequipa, PeruGoogle Scholar
  27. Jiménez-Cisneros, B.E., T. Oki, N.W. Arnell, G. Benito, J.G. Cogley, P. Döll, T. Jiang, and S.S. Mwakalila (2014) Freshwater resources. In: Climate change 2014: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Part A: global and sectoral aspects. Contribution of working group II to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Field, C.B. et al (eds). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 229–269Google Scholar
  28. Klein-Tank, A.M.G., Zwiers, F.W., Zhang, X. (2009) Guidelines on analysis of extremes in a changing climate in support of informed decisions for adaptation, Climate Data and Monitoring, WCDMP-No 72, World Meteorological OrganizationGoogle Scholar
  29. Mantyka-pringle CS, Martin TG, Moffatt DB, Linke S, Rhodes JR (2014) Understanding and predicting the combined effects of climate change and land-use change on freshwater macroinvertebrates and fish. J Appl Ecol 51:572–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Markovic D, Carrizo SF, Karcher O, Walz A, David JW (2017) Vulnerability of European freshwater catchments to climate change. Glob Chang Biol 23:3567–3580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McMahon TA, Mein RG (1986) River and reservoir yield. Water Resources Publications, 368ppGoogle Scholar
  32. McMahon TA, Vogel R, Peel M, Pegram G (2007) Global streamflows—part 1: characteristics of annual streamflows. J Hydrol 347:243–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Peel MC, McMahon TA, Finlayson BL (2010) Vegetation impact on mean annual evapotranspiration at a global catchment scale. Water Resour Res 46(9):W09508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Peel MC, Srikanthan R, McMahon TA, Karoly DJ (2015) Approximating uncertainty of annual runoff and reservoir yield using stochastic replicates of global climate model data. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 19:1615–1639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Perkins SE, Pitman AJ, Holbrook NJ, McAneney J (2007) Evaluation of the AR4 climate models’ simulated daily maximum temperature, minimum temperature, and precipitation over Australia using probability density functions. J Clim 20:4356–4376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Poff NL, Richter BD, Arthington AH, Bunn SE, Naiman RJ, Kendy E, Acremen M, Apse C, Bledsoe BP, Freeman MC, Henriksen J, Jacobson RB, Kennen JG, Merritt DM, O’Keeffe JH, Olden JD, Rogers K, Tharme RE, Warner A (2010) The ecological limits of hydrologic alteration (ELOHA): a new framework for developing regional environmental flow standards. Freshw Biol 55:147–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Prudhomme C, Wilby RL, Crooks S, Kay AL, Reynard NS (2010) Scenario-neutral approach to climate change impact studies: application to flood risk. J Hydrol 390:198–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rössler, O., Fischer, A. M., Huebener, H., Maraun, D., Benestad, R. E., Christodoulides, P., … Vlachogiannis, D. (2017): Challenges to link climate change data provision and user needs - perspective from the COST-action VALUE. Int J ClimatolGoogle Scholar
  39. Schewe J, Heinke J, Gerten D, Haddeland I, Arnell NW, Clark DB, Dankers R, Eisner S, Fekete B, Colón-González FJ, Gosling SN, Kim H, Liu X, Masaki Y, Portmann FT, Satoh Y, Stacke T, Tang Q, Wada Y, Wisser D, Albrecht T, Frieler K, Piontek F, Warszawski L, Kabat P (2014) Multi-model assessment of water scarcity under climate change. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 111(9):3245–3250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Seneviratne, S.I., N. Nicholls, D. Easterling, C.M. Goodess, S. Kanae, J. Kossin, Y. Luo, J. Marengo, K. McInnes, M. Rahimi, M. Reichstein, A. Sorteberg, C. Vera, and X. Zhang, 2012: Changes in climate extremes and their impacts on the natural physical environment. In: Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation. A special report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Field, C.B. et al (eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, USA, pp. 109–230Google Scholar
  41. Sheffield J, Barrett AP, Colle B, Nelun Fernando D, Fu R, Geil KL, … Yin L (2013) North American Climate in CMIP5 Experiments. Part I: Evaluation of Historical Simulations of Continental and Regional Climatology. J Clim 26(23):9209–9245.  https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLID-12-00592.1
  42. Shepherd TG, Boyd E, Calel RA, Chapman SC, Dima-West IM, Fowler HJ et al (2018) Storylines: an alternative approach to representing uncertainty in physical aspects of climate change. Clim Chang 151(3–4):555–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sivakumar B, Singh VP (2012) Hydrologic system complexity and nonlinear dynamic concepts for a catchment classification framework. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 16:4119–4131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Swart RJ, de Bruin K, Dhenain S, Dubois G, Groot A, von der Forst E (2017) Developing climate information portals with users: promises and pitfalls. Climate Services 6:12–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Taylor KE, Stouffer RJ, Meehl GA (2012) An overview of CMIP5 and the experiment design. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 93:485–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Teutschbein C, Wetterhall F, Seibert J (2011) Evaluation of different downscaling techniques for hydrological climate-change impact studies at the catchment scale. Clim Dyn 37(2087–2105):2011Google Scholar
  47. Van Vliet MTH, Ludwig F, Kabat P (2013) Global streamflow and thermal habitats of freshwater fishes under climate change. Clim Chang 121:739–754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Vorosmarty G, Salisbury L (2000) Global water resources: vulnerability from climate change and population growth. Science 289(5477):284–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Vörösmarty CJ, McIntyre PB, Gessner MO, Dudgeon D, Prusevich A, Green P, Glidden S, Bunn SE, Sullivan CA, Liermann CR, Davies PM (2010) Global threats to human water security and river biodiversity. Nature 467(7315):555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wang J, Nathan R, Horne A, Peel MC, Wei Y, Langford J (2017) Evaluating four downscaling methods for assessment of climate change impact on ecological indicators. Environ Model Softw 96:68–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wang J, Horne A, Nathan R, Peel M, Neave I (2018a) Vulnerability of ecological condition to the sequencing of wet and dry spells prior to and during the Murray Darling Basin millennium drought. J Water Resour Planning and Mngt 144(8):04018049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wang J, Nathan R, Horne A (2018b) Assessing the impact of climate change on environmental outcomes in the context of natural climate variability. J Water Resour Plan Manag 144(12)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Yeager SG, Danabasoglu G, Rosenbloom NA, Strand W, Bates SC, Meehl GA et al (2018) Predicting near-term changes in the earth system: a large ensemble of initialized decadal prediction simulations using the community earth system model. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 99(9):1867–1886CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Zhao T, Bennett JC, Wang QJ, Schepen A, Wood AW, Robertson DE, Ramos MH (2017) How suitable is quantile mapping for postprocessing GCM precipitation forecasts. J Clim 30(9):3185–3196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zheng H, Chiew FHS, Charles S, Podger G (2018) Future climate and runoff projections across South Asia from CMIP5 global climate models and hydrological modelling. J Hydrol: Reg Stud 18:92–109Google Scholar
  56. Zomer RJ, Trabucco A, Bossio DA, van Straaten O, Verchot LV (2008) Climate change mitigation: a spatial analysis of global land suitability for clean development mechanism afforestation and reforestation. Agric Ecosyst Envir 126:67–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Infrastructure EngineeringUniversity of MelbourneParkvilleAustralia

Personalised recommendations