Climatic Change

, Volume 123, Issue 2, pp 225–239 | Cite as

Evaluation of hydrological effect of stakeholder prioritized climate change adaptation options based on multi-model regional climate projections

  • Ajay Gajanan Bhave
  • Ashok Mishra
  • Narendra Singh Raghuwanshi


An integrated process involving participatory and modelling approaches for prioritizing and evaluating climate change adaptation options for the Kangsabati reservoir catchment is presented here. We assess the potential effects of climate change on water resources and evaluate the ability of stakeholder prioritized adaptation options to address adaptation requirements using the Water Evaluation And Planning (WEAP) model. Two adaptation options, check dams and increasing forest cover, are prioritized using pair-wise comparison and scenario analysis. Future streamflow projections are generated for the mid-21st century period (2021–2050) using four high resolution (~25 km) Regional Climate Models and their ensemble mean for SRES A1B scenario. WEAP simulations indicate that, compared to a base scenario without adaptation, both adaptation options reduce streamflow. In comparison to check dams, increasing forest cover shows greater ability to address adaptation requirements as demonstrated by the temporal pattern and magnitude of streamflow reduction. Additionally, over the 30 year period, effectiveness of check dams in reducing streamflow decreases by up to 40 %, while that of forest cover increases by up to 47 %. Our study highlights the merits of a comparative assessment of adaptation options and we conclude that a combined approach involving stakeholders, scenario analysis, modelling techniques and multi-model projections may support climate change adaptation decision-making in the face of uncertainty.

Supplementary material

10584_2014_1061_MOESM1_ESM.docx (176 kb)
ESM 1(DOCX 175 kb)


  1. Adger WN, Arnell NW, Tompkins EL (2005) Successful adaptation to climate change across scales. Glob Environ Chang 15(2):77–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen RG, Pereira LS, Raes D, Smith M (1998) Crop evapotranspiration—guidelines for computing crop water requirements—FAO Irrigation and drainage paper 56, FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  3. Arnell N (2010) Adapting to climate change: an evolving research programme. Clim Chang 100:107–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bandyopadhyay A, Bhadra A, Swarnakar RK, Raghuwanshi NS, Singh R (2012) Estimation of reference evapotranspiration using a user-friendly decision support system: DSS_ET. Agric For Meteorol 154:19–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bhave AG, Mishra A, Groot A (2013) Sub-basin scale characterization of climate change vulnerability, impacts and adaptation in an Indian River basin. Reg Environ Chang 1–12. doi:10.1007/s10113-013-0416-8
  6. Central Ground Water Board. Water level information, Ground Water Information System. URL:
  7. Coreau A, Pinay G, Thompson JD, Cheptou PO, Mermet L (2009) The rise of research on futures in ecology: rebalancing scenarios and predictions. Ecol Lett 12(12):1277–1286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. de Bruin K, Dellink RB, Ruijs A, Bolwidt L, van Buuren A, Graveland J, de Groot RS, Kuikman PJ, Reinhard S, Roetter RP, Tassone VC, Verhagen A, van Ierland EC (2009) Adapting to climate change in the Netherlands: an inventory of climate adaptation options and ranking of alternatives. Clim Chang 95:1–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. De Winnaar G, Jewitt GPW, Horan M (2007) A GIS-based approach for identifying potential runoff harvesting sites in the Thukela River basin, South Africa. Phys Chem Earth 32(15):1058–1067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Govt. of India (2008) National action plan on climate change. URL:
  11. Govt. of West Bengal (2003) Performance evaluation study and system analysis of Kangsabati reservoir project. Vol. I and IIGoogle Scholar
  12. Hajkowicz S, Collins K (2007) A review of multiple criteria analysis for water resource planning and management. Water Resour Manag 21(9):1553–1566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Huntjens P, Lebel L, Pahl-Wostl C, Camkin J, Schulze R, Kranz N (2012) Institutional design propositions for the governance of adaptation to climate change in the water sector. Glob Environ Chang 22(1):67–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Im ES, Jung IW, Chang H, Bae DH, Kwon WT (2010) Hydroclimatological response to dynamically downscaled climate change simulations for Korean basins. Clim Chang 100(3–4):485–508Google Scholar
  15. Immerzeel WW, Bierkens MFP (2012) Asia’s water balance. Nat Geosci 5(12):841–842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mathison C, Wiltshire A, Dimri AP, Falloon P, Jacob D, Kumar P, Moors E, Ridley J, Siderius C, Stoffel M, Yasunari T (2012) Regional projections of North Indian climate for adaptation studies. Sci Total Environ 365. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.04.066
  17. Mehta VK, Haden VR, Joyce BA, Purkey DR, Jackson LE (2013) Irrigation demand and supply, given projections of climate and land-use change, in Yolo County, California. Agric Water Manag 117:70–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mittal N, Mishra A, Singh R (2013) Combining climatological and participatory approaches for assessing changes in extreme climatic indices at regional scale. Clim Chang. doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0760-1 Google Scholar
  19. Moors EJ, Groot A, Biemans H, Terwisscha van Scheltinga C, Siderius C, Stoffel M, Huggel C, Wiltshire A, Mathison C, Ridley J, Jacob D, Kumar P, Bhadwal S, Gosain A, Collins DN (2011) Adaptation to changing water resources in the Ganges basin, northern India. Environ Sci Pol 14(7):758–769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Moriasi D, Arnold J, Van Liew M, Bingner R, Harmel R, Veith T (2007) Model evaluation guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations. Trans ASABE 50:885–900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Purkey DR, Joyce B, Vicuna S, Hanemann MW, Dale LL, Yates D, Dracup JA (2008) Robust analysis of future climate change impacts on water for agriculture and other sectors: a case study in the Sacramento Valley. Clim Chang 87(1):109–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ramakrishnan D, Bandyopadhyay A, Kusuma KN (2009) SCS-CN and GIS-based approach for identifying potential water harvesting sites in the Kali Watershed, Mahi River Basin, India. J Earth Syst Sci 118(4):355–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Refsgaard JC, Arnbjerg-Nielsen K, Drews M, Halsnæs K, Jeppesen E, Madsen H, Markandya A, Olesen JE, Porter JR, Christensen JH (2013) The role of uncertainty in climate change adaptation strategies—a Danish water management example. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob 18(3):337–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Stonestrom DA, Scanlon BR, Zhang L (2009) Introduction to special section on impacts of land use change on water resources. Water Resour Res 45(7)Google Scholar
  25. Verburg PH, Koomen E, Hilferink M, Pérez-Soba M, Lesschen JP (2012) An assessment of the impact of climate adaptation measures to reduce flood risk on ecosystem services. Landsc Ecol 27(4):473–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Yates D, Sieber J, Purkey D, Huber Lee A, Galbraith H (2005a) WEAP21: a demand, priority, and preference driven water planning model: part 2, aiding freshwater ecosystem service evaluation. Water Int 30(4):487–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Yates D, Sieber J, Purkey D, Huber Lee A (2005b) WEAP21: a demand, priority, and preference driven water planning model: part 1, model characteristics. Water Int 30(4):501–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ajay Gajanan Bhave
    • 1
  • Ashok Mishra
    • 1
  • Narendra Singh Raghuwanshi
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Agricultural and Food EngineeringIndian Institute of Technology KharagpurKharagpurIndia

Personalised recommendations