Advertisement

Modeling Earth Systems and Environment

, Volume 4, Issue 1, pp 221–240 | Cite as

Integrated water resources management under climate change scenarios in the sub-basin of Abaya-Chamo, Ethiopia

  • Behailu Hussen
  • Ayalkebet Mekonnen
  • Santosh Murlidhar Pingale
Original Article

Abstract

In this study, the impact of climate change on surface water availability and its allocation system was carried out within Bilate watershed in the Abaya-Chamo sub-basin of Rift Valley Lakes Basin in Ethiopia. Predicted rainfall and temperature time series data were obtained from regional climate outputs of Coordinated Regional Climate Downscaling Experiment (CORDEX)-Africa for the three representative concentration pathways (RCP) scenarios (RCP2.6, RCP4.5, and RCP8.5) for the four time periods (2015–2020, 2021–2025, 2026–2030 and 2031–2035). The result revealed that the future maximum and minimum temperature can be increased during all three scenarios. However, precipitation showed an increase or decreasing trend in future scenarios at different time scales. Further, SWAT model was calibrated and validated to simulate the future streamflow under RCP2.6 and RCP8.5 scenarios. WEAP model was employed for integrated water resources allocations under selected climate change scenarios. The SWAT model performance was found satisfactory during calibration [correlation coefficient (R2) = 0.77, Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE) = 0.755, percent deviation (D) = 2.558] and validation period (R2 = 0.798, NSE = 0.778, D= − 3.93). The model output shows that there may be an annual decrease in flow upto − 12.1 and − 16.21% for RCP2.6 and RCP8.5 scenarios. The annual surface water availability was found to be 570 million cubic meter (MCM) in the Bilate watershed for the current accounted year 2015. However, the current utilization of these resources is very limited about 51.49 MCM (9.03%) in the basin including domestic, livestock and minor agricultural activities. Furthermore, four scenarios were developed based on different set of assumptions in the basin up to 2035. It was estimated that total annual consumption will be around 14.53, 20.43, 37.47 and 44.46% for the reference, scenario one, two and three, respectively. This study also determines the environmental flow requirements (25% of the mean annual flow volume) to maintain the basic ecological functioning in the basin and regulate flow for downstream uses. This study was found that integrated water resources management strategy in the basin could utilize water resources potential effectively in the future. Therefore, this study is useful for the different stakeholders in the study region for the optimal allocation of water resources under climate change scenarios.

Keywords

Water resources allocations Climate change WEAP model SWAT Ethiopia 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The financial assistance provided by the Water Resources Centre, Arba Minch University is duly acknowledged. Dr. Abdella Kemal, Scientific Director and Dr. Samuel Dagalo, Director, Water Resources Centre, Arba Minch Water Technology Institute are also acknowledged for his support. We would like to acknowledge the Ethiopian Ministry of Water, Irrigation and Energy, National Meteorological Agency and International Water Management Institute for providing the necessary data. We also gratefully acknowledge the anonymous reviewers whose comments greatly improved the paper.

References

  1. Arnold JG, Srinivasan R, Muttiah RS, Williams JR (1998) Large area hydrologic modelling and assessment Part I: model development. J Am Water Resour Assoc 34(1):73–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Awulachew SB, Smakhtin V, Molden D (2012) The Nile river basin: water, agriculture, governance and livelihoods. International Water Management Institute (IWMI), Colombo, Sri LankaGoogle Scholar
  3. Chaemiso SE, Abebe A, Pingale SM (2016) Assessment of the impact of climate change on surface hydrological processes using SWAT: a case study of Omo-Gibe river basin, Ethiopia. Model Earth Syst Environ 2:205.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-016-0257-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Clarke L, Edmonds J, Jacoby H, Pitcher H, Reilly J, Richels R (2007) Scenarios of greenhouse gas emissions and atmospheric concentrations. Department of Energy, Office of Biological & Environmental Research. The U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research, Washington, 7 DC USAGoogle Scholar
  5. Daniel EB, Camp JV, Leboeuf EJ et al (2011) Watershed modeling and its applications: a state-of-the-art review. Open Hydrol J 5:26–50.  https://doi.org/10.2174/1874378101105010026 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dilnesaw A (2006) Modelling of hydrology and soil erosion of Upper Awash River Basin. PhD Thesis. University of BonnGoogle Scholar
  7. Etchells T, Malano H (2005) Identifying uncertainty in water allocation modelling. In: MODSIM05-international congress on modelling and simulation: advances and applications for management and decision making, proceedings. pp 2484–2490Google Scholar
  8. Flint LE, Flint AL, Stolp BJ, Danskin WR (2012) A basin-scale approach for assessing water resources in a semiarid environment: San Diego region, California and Mexico. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 16:3817–3833.  https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-16-3817-2012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gebere SB, Alamirew T, Merkel BJ, Melesse AM (2015) Performance of high-resolution satellite rainfall products over data scarce parts of eastern Ethiopia. Remote Sens 7:11639–11663.  https://doi.org/10.3390/rs70911639 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Githui F, Gitau W, Mutua F, Bauwens W (2009) Climate change impact on SWAT simulated streamflow in western Kenya. Int J Climatol 29:1823–1834.  https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.1828 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. GWP (2009) A handbook for integrated water resources management in basinsGoogle Scholar
  12. IPCC (2007) IPCC fourth assessment report (AR4). Ipcc 1:976. p 02767783Google Scholar
  13. Lenhart T, Eckhardt K, Fohrer N, Frede H-G (2002) Comparison of two different approaches of sensitivity analysis. Phys Chem Earth Parts A/B/C 27:645–654.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-7065(02)00049-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Loucks DP (1997) Quantifying trends in system sustainability. Hydrol Sci J 42:513–530.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02626669709492051 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mayol MD (2015) Assessment of surface water resources and its allocation: case study of Bahr el-Jebel river sub-basin south Sudan. Unpublished MSc thesis, Mekelle University, EthiopiaGoogle Scholar
  16. McCartney MP (2007) Decision support systems for large dam planning and operation in Africa. International Water Management Institute, IWMI Working Paper 119, Sri Lanka, Colombo, pp. 47Google Scholar
  17. Mccartney MP, Arranz R (2007) Evaluation of historic, current and future water demand in the Olifants River Catchment, South AfricaGoogle Scholar
  18. Morris MD (1991) Factorial sampling plans for preliminary computational experiments. Technometrics 33:161–174.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00401706.1991.10484804 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Neitsch SL, Arnold JG, Kiniry JR, Williams JR, King KW (2005) Soil and water assessment tool technical documentation. Version 2005. Texas Water Resources Institute, College Station, Texas. TWRI report TR-191, p 506Google Scholar
  20. Riahi K, Grübler A, Nakicenovic N (2007) Scenarios of long-term socio-economic and environmental development under climate stabilization. Technol Forecast Soc Change 74:887–935.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2006.05.026 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Roa-García MC (2014) Equity, efficiency and sustainability in water allocation in the Andes: Trade-offs in a full world. Water Altern 7:298–319Google Scholar
  22. Sang J (2005) Modelling the impact of changes in land use, climate and reservoir storage on flooding in the Nyando basin. M.Sc. Thesis. Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology, KenyaGoogle Scholar
  23. Santhi C, Arnold JG, Williams JR, Dugas WA, Srinivasan R, Hauck LM (2001) Validation of the SWAT model on a large river basin with point and nonpoint sources. J Am Water Resour Assoc 37(5):1169–1188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. SEI (2008) WEAP: water evaluation and planning system, tutorial. Stockholm environment. Stockholm Environment Institute, Boston CenterGoogle Scholar
  25. Sethi R, Pandey BK, Krishan R, Khare D, Nayak PC (2015) Performance evaluation and hydrological trend detection of a reservoir under climate change condition. Model Earth Syst Environ 1:33.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-015-0035-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Setyorini A, Khare D, Pingale SM (2017) Simulating the impact of land use/land cover change and climate variability on watershed hydrology in the Upper Brantas basin, Indonesia. Appl Geomatics  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12518-017-0193-z Google Scholar
  27. Shiferraw A, McCartney M (2008) Investigating environmental flow requirements at the source of the Blue Nile River. In: Paper presented at the International Nile Basin Development Forum, Khartoum, Sudan, 3–5 November 2008. 14pGoogle Scholar
  28. Smakhtin V, Anputhas M (2006) An assessment of environmental flow requirements of Indian river basins. International Water Management Institute, Colombo. (IWMI research report 107)Google Scholar
  29. Tadesse N (2006) Surface waters potential of the Hantebet basin, Tigray, Northern Ethiopia. Agri Eng Int CIGR EJ VIII: 1–31Google Scholar
  30. UNEP (2009) Water security and ecosystem services, the critical connection, a contribution to the United Nations World Water Assessment Program (WWAP). (Unit Nation Environmental Program (UNEP))Google Scholar
  31. UNESCAP (2000) Principles and practices of water allocation among water-use sectors. ESCAP water resources series no 80, BangkokGoogle Scholar
  32. van Vuuren DP, Edmonds J, Kainuma M et al (2011) The representative concentration pathways: an overview. Clim Change 109:5–31.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0148-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wang L (2005) Cooperative water resources allocation among competing users, PhD thesis, Department of Systems Design Engineering. University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  34. WMO (2012) Technical material for water resources assessment (WMO-No.1095). GenevaGoogle Scholar
  35. Yang H, Zehnder A (2007) “Virtual water”: an unfolding concept in integrated water resources management. Water Resour Res.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2007WR006048 Google Scholar
  36. 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):501–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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):487–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Behailu Hussen
    • 1
  • Ayalkebet Mekonnen
    • 1
  • Santosh Murlidhar Pingale
    • 2
  1. 1.Water Resources Research Centre, Arba Minch Water Technology InstituteArba Minch UniversityArba MinchEthiopia
  2. 2.Faculty of Water Resources and Irrigation Engineering, Arba Minch Water Technology InstituteArba Minch UniversityArba MinchEthiopia

Personalised recommendations