4.5 Article

Uncertainty assessment in river flow projections for Ethiopia's Upper Awash Basin using multiple GCMs and hydrological models

Journal

HYDROLOGICAL SCIENCES JOURNAL
Volume 65, Issue 10, Pages 1720-1737

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/02626667.2020.1767782

Keywords

Upper Awash Basin; hydrological modelling; climate change; uncertainty

Funding

  1. UK Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) [NE/M008932/1, NE/M008584/1, NE/M008207/1]
  2. Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) [NE/M008932/1, NE/M008584/1, NE/M008207/1]
  3. UK Department for International Development (DfID): Unlocking the Potential of Groundwater for Poverty Alleviation (UPGro) consortium project [NE/M008932/1, NE/M008584/1, NE/M008207/1]
  4. NERC [NE/M008932/1, NE/M008584/1, NE/M008622/1, NE/M008207/1, bgs06003] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Uncertainty in climate change impacts on river discharge in the Upper Awash Basin, Ethiopia, is assessed using five MIKE SHE hydrological models, six CMIP5 general circulation models (GCMs) and two representative concentration pathways (RCP) scenarios for the period 2071-2100. Hydrological models vary in their spatial distribution and process representations of unsaturated and saturated zones. Very good performance is achieved for 1975-1999 (NSE: 0.65-0.8;r: 0.79-0.93). GCM-related uncertainty dominates variability in projections of high and mean discharges (mean: -34% to +55% for RCP4.5, - 2% to +195% for RCP8.5). Although GCMs dominate uncertainty in projected low flows, inter-hydrological model uncertainty is considerable (RCP4.5: -60% to +228%, RCP8.5: -86% to +337%). Analysis of variance uncertainty attribution reveals that GCM-related uncertainty occupies, on average, 68% of total uncertainty for median and high flows and hydrological models no more than 1%. For low flows, hydrological model uncertainty occupies, on average, 18% of total uncertainty; GCM-related uncertainty remains substantial (average: 28%).

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available