Assessment of the Impact of Climate Change on Water Availability in the Citarum River Basin, Indonesia: The Use of Statistical Downscaling and Water Planning Tools

  • I. Putu Santikayasa
  • Mukand S. Babel
  • Sangam Shrestha
Chapter
Part of the Springer Water book series (SPWA)

Abstract

Climate change would significantly affect the water resources system globally as well as at basin level. Moreover, future changes in climate would affect water availability, run-off, and the flow of the river. This study evaluates the impact of possible future climate change scenarios on the hydrology of the catchment area of the Citarum River Basin, Indonesia. The water evaluation and planning (WEAP) tool was used for hydrological modelling in the study area. The statistical downscaling model (SDSM) was used to downscale the daily temperatures and precipitation in the four sub-catchments of the study area. The global climate variables for A2 and B2 scenarios obtained from Hadley Centre Coupled Model version 3 (HadCM3) was used. After model calibration and testing of the downscaling procedure, the streamflow and evapotranspiration (ET) were projected for three future periods: short term (2010–2039), midterm (2040–2069), and long term (2070–2099). The impacts of climate change on the basin hydrology are assessed by comparing the present and future streamflow and the estimated ET. The temperature is projected to increase in the future. The results of the water balance study suggest increasing precipitation and run-off as well as potential ET losses over the sub-catchment in the study area.

Keywords

WEAP Statistical downscaling Climate change Water planning 

References

  1. Alemayehu T, McCartney M, Kebede S (2010) The water resource implications of planned development in the Lake Tana catchment, Ethiopia. Ecohydrology Hydrobiol 10:211–221CrossRefGoogle 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, Rome, 300:6541Google Scholar
  3. Bae D, Jung IW, Chang H (2008) Potential changes in Korean water resources estimated by high-resolution climate simulation. Clim Res 35:213–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boer R, Dasanto BD, Perdinan, Martinus D (2005) Hydrology balance of Citarum watersheds under current and future climate. Technical Report of AIACC Project integrated assessment of climate change impacts, adaptation and vulnerability in watershed areas and communities in Southeast Asia. Indonesia component (AIACC AS21). Bogor Agricultural University, Indonesia, p 17Google Scholar
  5. Christensen N, Wood A, Voisin N, Lettenmaier D, Palmer R (2004) The effects of climate change on the hydrology and water resources of the Colorado river Basin. Clim Change 62:337–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Evans J, Schreider S (2002) Hydrological impacts of climate change on inflows to Perth, Australia. Clim Change 55:361–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fowler H, Kilsby C, Stunell J (2007) Modelling the impacts of projected future climate change on water resources in north-west England. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 11:1115–1126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fowler HJ, Kilsby CG (2007) Using regional climate model data to simulate historical and future river flows in northwest England. Clim Change 80:337–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fujihara Y, Tanaka K, Watanabe T, Nagano T, Kojiri T (2008) Assessing the impacts of climate change on the water resources of the Seyhan river Basin in Turkey: use of dynamically downscaled data for hydrologic simulations. J Hydrol 353:33–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hay LE, Clark MP (2003) Use of statistically and dynamically downscaled atmospheric model output for hydrologic simulations in three mountainous basins in the western United States. J Hydrol 282:56–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hay LE et al (2002) Use of regional climate model output for hydrologic simulations. J Hydrometeorology 3:571–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. IPCC (2007) Climate change 2007: summary for policy maker of synthesis report. Core Writing Team, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA Google Scholar
  13. Joyce B, Mehta V, Purkey D, Dale L, Hanemann M (2011) Modifying agricultural water management to adapt to climate change in California’s central valley. Clim Change 109:299–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kalnay E, Kanamitsu M, Kistler R, Collins W, Deaven D, Gandin L, Joseph D (1996) The NCEP/NCAR 40-year reanalysis project. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 77(3):437–471Google Scholar
  15. 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 Manage 117:70–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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 ASABE 50(3):885–900Google Scholar
  17. Naylor RL, Battisti DS, Vimont DJ, Falcon WP, Burke MB (2007) Assessing risks of climate variability and climate change for Indonesian rice agriculture. Proc Nat Acad Sci 104:7752–7757Google Scholar
  18. Purkey D, Huber-Lee A, Yates D, Hanemann M, Herrod-Julius S (2007) Integrating a climate change assessment tool into stakeholder-driven water management decision-making processes in California. In: Craswell E, Bonnell M, Bossio D, Demuth S, Giesen N (eds) Integrated assessment of water resources and global change. Springer, Netherlands, pp 315–329Google Scholar
  19. Rosenzweig C, Strzepek KM, Major DC, Iglesias A, Yates DN, McCluskey A, Hillel D (2004) Water resources for agriculture in a changing climate: international case studies. Glob Environ Change 14:345–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Wilby RL, Hay LE, Leavesley GH (1999) A comparison of downscaled and raw GCM output: implications for climate change scenarios in the San Juan River basin, Colorado. J Hydrol 225:67–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Wilby RL, Dawson CW, Barrow EM (2002) SDSM—a decision support tool for the assessment of regional climate change impacts. Environ Model Softw 17:145–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Wilby RL et al (2000) Hydrological responses to dynamically and statistically downscaled climate model output. Geophys Res Lett 27:1199–1202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wood AW, Leung LR, Sridhar V, Lettenmaier DP (2004) Hydrologic implications of dynamical and statistical approaches to downscaling climate model outputs. Clim Change 62:189–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Yates D, Sieber J, Purkey D, Huber-Lee A (2005) WEAP21–a demand, priority, and preference-driven water planning model—Part 1: model characteristics. Water Int 30:487–500Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • I. Putu Santikayasa
    • 1
    • 2
  • Mukand S. Babel
    • 1
  • Sangam Shrestha
    • 1
  1. 1.Water Engineering and Management, School of Engineering and TechnologyAsian Institute of Technology (AIT)Klong Luang, Pathum ThaniThailand
  2. 2.Department of Geophysics and MeteorologyBogor Agricultural UniversityBogorIndonesia

Personalised recommendations