Applying Climate Change Risk Management Tools to Integrate Streamflow Projections and Social Vulnerability
Shifts in streamflow, due to future climate and land use change, may pose risks to nearby human communities. Projecting the spatial distribution and impacts of these risks requires consideration of biophysical and socioeconomic factors. Models like the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) can project spatial distributions of hydrologic risk due to shifting biophysical factors like climate and land use, but cannot account for socioeconomic factors influencing a community’s capacity to adapt to future streamflow changes. To address this limitation, we used a risk matrix to classify subbasins in a large river basin in the southeastern USA based on (1) percent increase in SWAT simulated 10-year and extreme high flows due to climate and land use change between baseline (1982–2002) and projected (2050–2070) periods and (2) degree of community vulnerability according to a Social Vulnerability Index (SVI). We compared spatial distributions of high-risk subbasins based on SWAT results, SVI results, and the integration of SWAT and SVI results using a risk matrix. Large increases in simulated 10-year and extreme high flows occurred in middle and lower parts of the river basin, and socially vulnerable communities were distributed throughout. We identified 16, 7, and 14 unique high-risk subbasins using SWAT results, SVI results, and SWAT and SVI results, respectively. By using a risk matrix, we identified subbasins with vulnerable communities that are projected to experience future increases in streamflow due to climate and land use change. These results serve as a starting point for subsequent climate change adaptation planning.
Keywordsclimate change adaptation planning land use change social vulnerability soil water assessment tool water resources
SMS and KMS were supported by an appointment to the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USFS) Research Participation Program administered by the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) through an interagency agreement between the United States Department of Energy (DOE) and the USFS. ORISE is managed by Oak Ridge Associated Universities (ORAU) under DOE contract number DE-SC0014664. All opinions expressed in this paper are the authors’ and do not necessarily reflect the policies and views of USFS. The manuscript was greatly improved by reviews from two anonymous reviewers, Dr. Louis Iverson and Dr. Travis Warzineak. All data and scripts associated with this publication are available on GitHub at https://github.com/sheilasaia/paper-yadkin-swat-svi-study and Zenodo (DOI: http://www.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2635878).
- Carter LM, Jones JW, Berry L, Burkett V, Murley JF, Obeysekera J, and others. 2014. Chapter 17: Southeast and the Caribbean. In: Melillo JM, Richmond TC, Yohe GW, Eds. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment. Washington, DC: U.S. Global Change Research Program. pp 396–417.Google Scholar
- Carter LM, Terando A, Dow K, Hiers K, Kunkel KE, Lascurain A, and others. 2018. Chapter 19: Southeast. In: Reidmiller DR, Avery CW, Easterling DR, Kunkel KE, Lewis KLM, Maycock TK, Stewart BC, Eds. Impacts, risks, and adaptation in the United States: Fourth National Climate Assessment. Washington, DC: U.S. Global Change Research Program. pp 743–808.Google Scholar
- Emanuel RE. 2018. Flawed environmental justice analyses. Science 357:260.Google Scholar
- ESRI. 2011. ArcGIS desktop: release 10. Redlands: Environmental Systems Research Institute.Google Scholar
- Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2018. Guidance for flood risk analysis and mapping: accepting numerical models for use in the NFIP. Guidance Document 98. p 12.Google Scholar
- Flanagan BE, Gregory EW, Hallisey EJ, Heitgerd JL, Lewis B. 2011. A Social Vulnerability Index for disaster management. J Homel Secur Emerg Manag 8:3.Google Scholar
- Hayhoe K, Wuebbles DJ, Easterling DR, Fahey DW, Doherty S, Kossin J, and others. 2018. Chapter 2: Our Changing Climate. In: Reidmiller DR, Avery CW, Easterling DR, Kunkel KE, Lewis KLM, Maycock TK, Stewart BC, Eds. Impacts, risks, and adaptation in the United States: Fourth National Climate Assessment. Washington, DC: United States Global Research Program. pp 72–144.Google Scholar
- Interagency Advisory Committee on Water Data (IACWD). 1982. Flood flow frequency: United States Geological Survey, Interagency Advisory Committee on Water Data, bulletin 17B of the hydrology subcommittee. Reston: United States Department of the Interior. p 194.Google Scholar
- International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2014. Climate Change 2014: synthesis report. In: Core Writing Team, Pachauri RK, Meyer LA, Eds. Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva: IPCC. p 151.Google Scholar
- Kunkel KE, Stevens LE, Stevens SE, Sun L. 2013. Regional climate trends and scenarios for the U.S. National Climate Assessment. Part 2. Climate of the Southeast U.S. NOAA Technical Report NESDIS 142-2. Washington, DC. p 103.Google Scholar
- McNulty S, Meyers JM, Caldwell P, Sun G. 2013. Chapter 3: climate change summary. In: Wear DN, Greis JG, Eds. The southern forest futures project: technical report. Ashville, NC: United States Department of Agricultural Forest Service Research and Development Southern Research Station. General technical report SRS-179. pp 27–43.Google Scholar
- Moriasi DN, Arnold JG, Van Liew MW, Bingner RL, Harmel RD, Veith TL. 2007. Model evaluation guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations. Trans Am Soc Agric Biol Eng 50:885–900.Google Scholar
- Neitsch SL, Arnold JG, Kiniry JR, Williams JR. 2011. Soil and water assessment tool theoretical documentation. Texas Water Resources Institute technical report no. 406. Temple, TX. p 647.Google Scholar
- Ojima D, Iverson LR, Sohngen BL, Vose JM, Woodall CW, Domke GM, Peterson DL, Littell JS, Matthews SN, Prasad AM, Peters MP, Yohe GW, Friggens MM. 2014. Chapter 9: Risk Assessment. In: Peterson DL, Vose JM, Patel-Weynand T, Eds. Climate change and United States Forests. Dordrecht: Springer. p 261.Google Scholar
- Python Software Foundation. 2010. Python language reference, version 2.7. Available at http://www.python.org/.
- R Core Team. 2017. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. URL: https://www.R-project.org/.
- Raiffa H, Schlaiffer R. 2000. Applied statistical decision theory. New York: Wiley Classics. p 356p.Google Scholar
- Schwartz HG. 2010. Adaptation and the impacts of climate change on transportation. The bridge: linking engineering and society. Natl Acad Eng 40:5–13.Google Scholar
- Schwartz, HG, Meyer M, Burbank CJ, Kuby M, Oster C, Posey J, Russo EJ, Rypinski A. 2014: Chapter 5: transportation. In: Melillo JM, Richmond TC, Yohe GW, Eds. Climate change impacts in the United States: the third national climate assessment. Washington, DC: U.S. Global Change Research Program. pp 130–149.Google Scholar
- Srinivasan V, Sanderson M, Garcia M, Konar M, Blöschl G, Sivapalan M. 2017. Prediction in a socio-hydrological world. Hydrol Sci J 62:338–45.Google Scholar
- Suttles KM. 2017. Assessment of watershed vulnerability to land use and climate change. North Carolina State University, Master’s thesis.Google Scholar
- United States Census Bureau (USCB). 2008. A compass for understanding and using American community survey data: what general data users need to know. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office. p 68.Google Scholar
- United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2009. Technical guidance on implementing the stormwater runoff requirements for federal projects under section 438 of the energy independence and security act. USEPA report 841-B-09-001. Washington, DC: Office of Water. p 63.Google Scholar
- United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USFS). 2012. Future scenarios: a technical document supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment. General technical report RMRS-GTR-272. USFS, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. p 34.Google Scholar
- Vogelmann JE, Howard SM, Yang L, Larson CR, Wylie BK, Van Driel JN. 2001. Completion of the 1990’s national land cover data set for the conterminous United States. Photogramm Eng Remote Sensing 67:650–62.Google Scholar
- Walsh J, Wuebbles D, Hayhoe K, Kossin J, Kunkel K, Stephens G, and others. 2014. Ch. 2: our changing climate. In: Melillo JM, Richmond TC, Yohe GW, Eds. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: the third national climate assessment. Washington, DC: United States Global Change Research Program. pp 19–67.Google Scholar
- Wear, DN. 2013. Chapter 4: forecasts of land uses. In: Wear DN, Greis JG, Eds. The southern forest futures project: technical report. General technical report SRS-179. Ashville, NC: United States Department of Agricultural Forest Service Research and Development, Southern Research Station. pp 45–71.Google Scholar
- Wear DN, Huggett R, Greis JG. 2013. Chapter 2: constructing alternative futures. In: Wear DN, Greis JG, Eds. The southern forest futures project: technical report. General technical report SRS-179. Ashville, NC: United States Department of Agricultural Forest Service Research and Development, Southern Research Station. pp 11–26.Google Scholar
- Yohe G. 2010. Risk assessment and risk management for infrastructure planning and investment. The bridge: linking engineering and society. Natl Acad Eng 40:14–21.Google Scholar