Water Resources Management

, Volume 31, Issue 2, pp 609–628 | Cite as

Combined Assessment of Climate Change and Socio-Economic Development as Drivers of Freshwater Availability in the South of Portugal

  • Tibor Y. StigterEmail author
  • Marta Varanda
  • Sofia Bento
  • João Pedro Nunes
  • Rui Hugman


A combined assessment of the potential impacts from climate change (CC) and socio-economic development (SED) on water resources is presented for the most important aquifer in the south of Portugal. The goal is to understand how CC and SED affect the currently large pressures from water consuming and contaminating activities, predominantly agriculture. Short-term (2020–2050) and long-term (2070–2100) CC scenarios were developed and used to build aquifer recharge and crop water demand scenarios, using different methods to account for uncertainty. SED scenarios were developed using bottom-up and top-down methods, and discussed at workshops with farmers and institutional stakeholders in the water sector. Groundwater use was quantified for each scenario. Together with the recharge scenarios, these were run through a calibrated groundwater flow model, to study their individual and joint impacts on groundwater levels and discharge rates into a coastal estuary. Recharge scenarios show clear negative long-term trends and short-term increase in temporal variability of recharge, though short-term model uncertainties are higher. SED scenario 1 (SED1), predicting intensification and decline of small farms, considered the most likely by all workshop participants, shows a large drop in agricultural area and water demand. SED2, a most desired scenario by farmers, foresees growth and modernization of agriculture, but proves unsustainable in combination with predicted CC without efficient adaptation measures. The results thus reveal that CC in the region will dynamically interact with economic factors, and going one step beyond, CC could be directly integrated as a constraint in the development of SED scenarios. Exercises involving the integration of CC and SED regionally based scenarios, constructed in both bottom-up and top- down fashion and discussed in participatory contexts are still rarely used for adaptation, and specifically adaptation of agriculture to water scarcity. The joint analysis of CC and SED revealed challenging, as it involved the use of different methods across the border between natural and social sciences. In our view this method contributes in an encouraging manner to a more holistic and transdisciplinary water management, by allowing a more plausible identification of what (and if) adaptation measures are needed.


Climate change Socio-economic development Scenarios for water resources Groundwater flow model South Portugal 



The research that supports this paper was performed within the scope of the CLIMWAT and AQUIMED projects funded under the CIRCLE-2 ERA-Net. The authors wish to acknowledge the Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia for supporting this network. The collaboration of Claudia Gervasi was crucial for the development of the SED scenarios.


  1. Allen RG, Pereira LS, Raes D, Smith M (1998) Crop evapotranspiration – guidelines for computing crop water requirements FAO. Irrigation and Drainage Paper nr 56Google Scholar
  2. Bennett EM, Zurek MB (2006) Integrating epistemologies though scenarios. In: Reid WV, Berkes F, Wilbanks T, Capistrano D (eds) Bridging scales and knowledge systems: concepts and applications in ecosystem assessment. Island Press, Washington, pp 275–294Google Scholar
  3. Berkhout F, Hertin J, Jordan A (2002) Socioeconomic futures in climate change impact assessment: using scenarios as ‘learning machines’. Glob Environ Chang 12:83–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brouyère S, Carabin G, Dassargues A (2004) Climate change impacts on groundwater resources: modelled deficits in a chalky aquifer, Geer basin, Belgium. Hydrogeol J 12:123–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Candela L, von Igel W, Elorza FJ, Aronica G (2009) Impact assessment of combined climate and management scenarios on groundwater resources and associated wetland (Majorca, Spain). J Hydrol 376:510–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dripps WR, Bradbury KR (2007) A simple daily soil–water balance model for estimating the spatial and temporal distribution of groundwater recharge in temperate humid areas. Hydrogeol J 15:433–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Eakin H, Magaña V, Smith J, Moreno JL, Martínez JM, Landavazo O (2007) A stakeholder driven process to reduce vulnerability to climate change in Hermosillo, Sonora, Mexico. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 12:935–955CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ebi KL, Hallegatte S, Kram T et al (2014) New scenario framework for climate change research background process and future directions. Clim Chang 122:363–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Faysse N, Rinaudo J-D, Bento S et al (2014) Participatory analysis for adaptation to climate change in Mediterranean agricultural systems: making use of possible choices in process design. Reg Environ Chang 14(S1):57–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fung A (2006) Varieties of participation in complex governance. Public Adm Rev Dec(SI):66–75Google Scholar
  11. Giorgi F (2006) Climate change hot-spots. Geophys Res Lett 33:L08707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goderniaux P, Brouyère S, Blenkinsop S, Burton A, Fowler HJ, Orban P, Dassargues A (2011) Modeling climate change impacts on groundwater resources using transient stochastic climatic scenarios. Water Resour Res 47:W12516, 17 ppCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hagemeier-Klose M, Beichler SA, Davidse BJ, Deppish S (2014) Knowledge loop: inter- and transdisciplinary cooperation and adaptation of climate change knowledge. Int J Disaster Risk Sci 5:21–32. doi: 10.1007/s13753-014-0015-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Harrison PA, Holman IP, Cojocaru G, Kok K, Kontogianni K, Metzger MJ, Gramberger G (2013) Combining qualitative and quantitative understanding for exploring cross-sectoral climate change impacts, adaptation and vulnerability in Europe. Reg Environ Chang 13:761–780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Harrison PA, Holman IP, Berry PM (2015) Assessing cross-sectoral climate change impacts, vulnerability and adaptation: an introduction to the CLIMSAVE project. Clim Chang 128:153–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hatzilacou D, Kallis G, Mexa A, Coccosis H, Svoronou E (2007) Scenario workshops: a useful method for participatory water resources planning? Water Resour Res 43:W06414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hawkins E, Sutton R (2009) The potential to narrow uncertainty in regional climate predictions. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 90:1095–1107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Holman IP, Allen DM, Cuthbert MO, Goderniaux P (2012) Towards best practice for assessing the impacts of climate change on groundwater. Hydrogeol J 20:1–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hugman R, Stigter TY, Monteiro JP, Nunes L (2012) Influence of aquifer properties and the spatial and temporal distribution of recharge and abstraction on sustainable yields in semi-arid regions. Hydrol Process 26:2791–2801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jackson CR, Meister R, Prudhomme C (2011) Modelling the effects of climate change and its uncertainty on UK Chalk groundwater resources from an ensemble of global climate model projections. J Hydrol 399:12–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Klein JT (2010) Creating interdisciplinary campus cultures. Jossey Bass, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  22. Koskinen L, Laitinen M, Lofman J, Meling K, Meszaros F (1996) FEFLOW: a finite element code for simulating groundwater flow heat transfer and solute transport. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Development and Application of Computer Techniques to Environmental Studies, pp 287–296Google Scholar
  23. Kuruppu N (2009) Adapting water resources to climate change in Kiribati: the importance of cultural values and meaning. Environ Sci Pol 12(7):799–808Google Scholar
  24. Lorenzoni I, Jordan A, Hulme M, Turner MK, O’Riordan T (2000) A co-evolutionary approach to climate change impact assessment: part I. Integrating socio-economic and climate change scenarios. Glob Environ Chang 10:57–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lowe P, Phillipson J (2009) Barriers to research collaboration across disciplines: scientific paradigms and institutional practices. Environ Plan A 41(5):1171–1184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Monteiro JP, Vieira J, Nunes L, Fakir Y (2006) Inverse calibration of a regional flow model for the Querença-Silves aquifer system, Algarve-Portugal. Integrated water resources management and challenges of the sustainable development, IAH Marrakech, pp 44Google Scholar
  27. Nakićenović N, Swart R (eds) (2000) Special report on emissions scenarios: a special report of working group III of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  28. Nohara D, Kitoh A, Hosaka M, Oki T (2006) Impact of climate change on river discharge projected by multimodel ensemble. J Hydrometeorol 7(5):1076–1089CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Norgaard RB (1994) Development betrayed: the end of progress and a co-evolutionary revisioning of the future. Routledge, London, p 296Google Scholar
  30. Oliveira MM, Oliveira L, Lobo Ferreira JP (2008) Estimativa da recarga natural no Sistema Aquífero de Querença-Silves (Algarve) pela aplicação do modelo BALSEQ_MOD. In: Proc. of 9.° Congresso da Água, Cascais, 2–4 April 2008, CD 15 ppGoogle Scholar
  31. Ondersteijn CJM, Beldman ACG, Daatselaar CHG, Giesen GWJ, Huirne RBM (2002) The Dutch mineral accounting system and the European nitrate directive: implications for N and P management and farm performance. Agric Ecosyst Environ 92:283–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, van der Linden PJ, Hanson CE (eds) (2007) Contribution of Working Group II to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  33. Patel M, Kok K, Rothman DS (2007) Participatory scenario construction in land use analysis: an insight into the experiences created by stakeholder involvement in the Northern Mediterranean. Land Use Policy 24:546–561Google Scholar
  34. Peterson GD, Beard Jr. TD, Beisner BE, Bennett EM, Carpenter SR, Cumming GS, Dent CL, Havlicek TD (2003) Assessing future ecosystem services: a case study of the Northern Highlands Lake District, Wisconsin, Conservation Ecology 7(3): 1. [online] URL:
  35. Rinaudo JD, Montginoul M, Varanda M, Bento S (2012) Envisioning innovative groundwater regulation policies through scenario workshops in France and Portugal. Irrig Drain 61(1):65–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Roncoli C (2006) Ethnographic and participatory approaches to research on farmers’ responses to climate predictions. Clim Res 33:81–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rounsevell MDA, Metzger MJ (2010) Developing qualitative scenario storylines for environmental change assessment. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Chang 1(4):606–619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Scanlon BR, Mace RE, Barrett ME, Smith B (2003) Can we simulate regional groundwater flow in a karst system using equivalent porous media models? Case study, Barton Springs Edwards aquifer, USA. J Hydrol 276:137–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Silva ACF, Tavares P, Shapouri M, Stigter TY, Monteiro JP, Machado M, Cancela da Fonseca L, Ribeiro L (2012) Estuarine biodiversity as an indicator of groundwater discharge. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 97:38–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stigter TY, Monteiro JP, Nunes LM (2009) Screening of sustainable groundwater sources for integration into a regional drought-prone water supply system. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 13:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Stigter TY, Carvalho Dill AMM, Ribeiro L (2011) Major issues regarding the efficiency of monitoring programs for nitrate contaminated groundwater. Environ Sci Technol 45:8674–8682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Stigter TY, Nunes JP, Pisani B et al (2014) Comparative assessment of climate change and its impacts on three coastal aquifers in the Mediterranean. Reg Environ Chang 14(S1):41–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Thompkins EL (2008) Scenario-based stakeholder engagement: incorporating stakeholders preferences into coastal planning for climate change. J Environ Manag 88:1580–1592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. UNESCO (2010) World social science report: knowledge divides, UNESCO Publishing.
  45. Van der Helm R (2003) Challenging futures studies to enhance EU’s participatory river basin management. Phys Chem Earth 28:563–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Van Der Linden P, Mitchell JFB (eds) (2009) ENSEMBLES: climate change and its impacts: summary of research and results from the ENSEMBLES project. Met Office Hadley Ctr, ExeterGoogle Scholar
  47. Varanda M, Bento S (2012) Alterações climáticas e circulação do saber entre ciência e prática: uma via de um sentido, dois sentidos ou um beco sem saída. 2ª Jornada Ciêntifica da Rede MUSSI “Redes e processos info-comunicacionais: mediações, memórias, apropriações”, ANAIS 2012. ISBN: 978-85-85471-18-4Google Scholar
  48. Vieira J, Cunha MC, Nunes L, Monteiro JP, Ribeiro L, Stigter T, Nascimento J, Lucas H (2011) Optimization of the operation of large-scale multisource water supply systems. J Water Res Pl-ASCE 137:150–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wesche SD, Armitage DR (2013) Using qualitative scenarios to understand regional environmental change in the Canadian North. Reg Environ Chang 14:1095–1108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wetherald RT, Manabe S (2002) Simulation of hydrologic changes associated with global warming. J Geophys Res 107(D19):4379–4393CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.UNESCO-IHEDepartment of Water Science and EngineeringDelftThe Netherlands
  2. 2.SOCIUS/Instituto Superior de Economia e GestãoUniversidade de LisboaLisbonPortugal
  3. 3.SOCIUS/Instituto Superior de Economia e GestãoUniversidade de LisboaLisbonPortugal
  4. 4.CESAM and Department of Environment and PlanningUniversidade de AveiroAveiroPortugal
  5. 5.Geo-Systems Centre/CVRMUniversidade do AlgarveFaroPortugal

Personalised recommendations