Skip to main content

Assessing the degree of hydrologic stress due to climate change

A Correction to this article was published on 21 October 2019

This article has been updated

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Change history

  • 21 October 2019

    In the discussion of Eq. (1), reference is made to an example calculation of the metric that should have been provided in the right-hand panel of Fig. 1.

  • 21 October 2019

    In the discussion of Eq. (1), reference is made to an example calculation of the metric that should have been provided in the right-hand panel of Fig. 1.

  • 21 October 2019

    In the discussion of Eq. (1), reference is made to an example calculation of the metric that should have been provided in the right-hand panel of Fig. 1.

References

  1. Amrhein V, Greenland S, McShane B (2019) Retire statistical significance. Nature 567(March):7–9

    Google Scholar 

  2. Arnell NW, Gosling SN (2013) The impacts of climate change on river flow regimes at the global scale. J Hydrol 486:351–364

    Article  Google 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):592–603

    Article  Google 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 100:433–461

    Article  Google 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), 1–13

  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):WR09537

    Article  Google 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 20:1221–1228

    Article  Google 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):035006

    Article  Google 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):783–799

    Article  Google 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):301–319

    Article  Google 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):e1288

    Article  Google 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):10539–10583

    Article  Google 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 7:10

    Article  Google 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.

  15. Filipek S, Keith WE, Giese J (1987) The status of the instream flow issue in Arkansas, 422 1987. Proc Arkansas Acad Sci 41:43–48

    Google 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 27:1547–1578

    Article  Google 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 492:254–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Giorgi F, Gutowski WJ (2015) Regional dynamical downscaling and the CORDEX initiative. Annu Rev Environ Resour 40(1):467–490

    Article  Google 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

    Article  Google 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

    Article  Google 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:1–19

  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) 323:391–393

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hewitt C, Buontempo C, Newton P (2013) Using climate predictions to better serve society’s needs. Eos 94(11):105–107

    Article  Google 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):1965–1978

    Article  Google 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)

  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, Peru

  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. 229–269

  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 Organization

  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 51:572–581

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Markovic D, Carrizo SF, Karcher O, Walz A, David JW (2017) Vulnerability of European freshwater catchments to climate change. Glob Chang Biol 23:3567–3580

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. McMahon TA, Mein RG (1986) River and reservoir yield. Water Resources Publications, 368pp

  32. McMahon TA, Vogel R, Peel M, Pegram G (2007) Global streamflows—part 1: characteristics of annual streamflows. J Hydrol 347:243–259

    Article  Google 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):W09508

    Article  Google 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 19:1615–1639

    Article  Google 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 20:4356–4376

    Article  Google 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 55:147–170

    Article  Google 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 390:198–209

    Article  Google 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 Climatol

  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):3245–3250

    Article  Google 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. 109–230

  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):555–571

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Sivakumar B, Singh VP (2012) Hydrologic system complexity and nonlinear dynamic concepts for a catchment classification framework. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 16:4119–4131

    Article  Google 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 6:12–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Taylor KE, Stouffer RJ, Meehl GA (2012) An overview of CMIP5 and the experiment design. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 93:485–498

    Article  Google 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):2011

    Google Scholar 

  47. Van Vliet MTH, Ludwig F, Kabat P (2013) Global streamflow and thermal habitats of freshwater fishes under climate change. Clim Chang 121:739–754

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Vorosmarty G, Salisbury L (2000) Global water resources: vulnerability from climate change and population growth. Science 289(5477):284–288

    Article  Google 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):555

    Article  Google 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 96:68–82

    Article  Google 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):04018049

    Article  Google 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)

    Article  Google 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):1867–1886

    Article  Google 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):3185–3196

    Article  Google 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 18:92–109

    Google 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 126:67–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

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

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R. J. Nathan.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nathan, R.J., McMahon, T.A., Peel, M.C. et al. Assessing the degree of hydrologic stress due to climate change. Climatic Change 156, 87–104 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02497-4

Download citation