Environ Monit Assess (2019) 191: 752

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-019-7841-1

Review of climate change impacts on predicted river

streamflow in tropical rivers
Mahsa Jahandideh-Tehrani & Hong Zhang &
Fernanda Helfer & Yingying Yu

Received: 13 June 2019 / Accepted: 24 September 2019 / Published online: 15 November 2019
# Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Abstract Tropical regions are characterized by hydro- Keywords Climate change projections . River
logical extreme events, which are likely to be exacer- discharge . Model uncertainty . Downscaling method .
bated by climate change. Therefore, quantifying the Bias correction . Hydrological model
extent to which climate change may damage a hydro-
logical system becomes crucial. This paper aims to
evaluate the findings from previous research on
Introduction
projected impacts of climate change on hydrological
systems located in regions bounded by the Tropic of
According to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Inter-
Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn. It intends to provide
governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2014),
an in-depth understanding of the climatic conditions,
further warming and changes in components of the
applied approaches, climate change impacts on future
climate system is predicted due to continued emissions
streamflow, and measures to reduce prediction uncer-
of greenhouse gases and climate change. It is also very
tainty in the tropics. The review revealed that there is a
likely that extreme precipitation events will occur more
significant variation in the magnitude of climate change
often and intense. Additionally, the heat waves will last
impacts on streamflow in the tropics. The reason for the
longer and become more frequent (IPCC 2014). There-
inconsistent trend prediction is that projections are
fore, more rigorous hydrological cycle with significant
heavily dependent on the trajectory of greenhouse gas
changes in precipitation, temperature, and evapotrans-
emissions, climate model structural differences, and un-
piration is predicted (Middelkoop et al. 2001). These
certainty of downscaling methods and hydrological
changes affect runoff and water availability, and thus
models. Therefore, to minimize the uncertainty and
influence the discharge regime of the rivers. The inten-
maximize confidence in streamflow projections, it is
sity and characteristics of climate change impacts vary
essential to apply multi-member model ensembles and
from region to region. Some regions are expected to
to clarify the adaptation strategy (coping, adjusting, or
experience water deficiency, and others are expected to
transforming).
experience more severe flooding. The increased fre-
quency of floods and droughts consequently lead to
significant economic losses, including reduction in crop
M. Jahandideh-Tehrani (*) : H. Zhang : F. Helfer yields (Abbaspour et al. 2009) and severe damages to
School of Engineering, Griffith University, Gold Coast, QLD infrastructure (Dang et al. 2016). Therefore, determining
4222, Australia
the likely changes in river discharge under climate
e-mail: mahsa.jahandideh-tehrani@griffithuni.edu.au
change conditions becomes essential for planning and
Y. Yu designing future water management regulations and
CSIRO Land and Water, Canberra, Australia structures (Middelkoop et al. 2001).
752 Page 2 of 23
Tropical land regions of the earth occupy a substan-
tial fraction of the global land area, covering approxi-
mately 19% of the land surface (Peel et al. 2007). These
regions are roughly located between the Tropics of
Cancer and Capricorn and are strongly influenced by
solar energy. The solar energy affects the hydrological
cycle in the tropics more than any other region
(Latrubesse et al. 2005). This leads to high variability
in precipitation and evaporation (Gu et al. 2007). Addi-
tionally, tropical rivers are characterized by high to very
high runoff values and experience flooding more often
than other regions. The tropics are the world’s largest
focus of thunderstorms as well as being the birthplace of
tropical cyclones which often achieve their maximum
force in the tropics as well (Syvitski et al. 2014). There-
fore, it is vital to examine the changes in streamflow
magnitudes of tropical rivers resulting from these vola-
tile weather conditions, particularly under climate
change.
According to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Re-
port (IPCC 2007), climate change is unequivocal
and is expected to affect all variables of the hy-
drologic cycle, with impacts on the temperature,
magnitude and intensity of precipitation,
streamflow, droughts, and floods. According to
Huang et al. (2013), a 100-year global linear trend
(1906–2005) indicates 0.74 °C increase in the
global mean temperature. This warming is the
cause of higher evaporation and air humidity, and
changes in precipitation (Huang et al. 2013).
It has been widely reported that climate variations
will cause an increase in precipitation rates in most parts
of the world (Wang et al. 2013; Rana et al. 2014; Apurv
et al. 2015; Karandish et al. 2016; Singh et al. 2016;
Masood and Takeuchi 2016; Mehr and Kahya 2017; Li
et al. 2017). However, a few studies demonstrated that
climate change will decline future precipitation
(Raghavan et al. 2017; Pattnayak et al. 2017). The trend
of precipitation changes may vary between the wet and
dry seasons. For instance, in Iran, Malaysia, and Eastern
Africa, total rainfall is projected to increase in the wet
season and decrease in the dry season (Ashofteh et al.
2013; Onyutha et al. 2016; Tan et al. 2017). Addition-
ally, different regions within same countries are expect-
ed to experience different precipitation changes. For
example, decreasing trends of precipitation are estimat-
ed for the Northern Arabian Peninsula, while increasing
trends of precipitation are estimated for the Southern
Arabian Peninsula (Almazroui et al. 2017).
Environ Monit Assess (2019) 191: 752
Numerous studies have investigated the impacts of
climate change on future streamflow of various rivers
located in different parts of the globe (e.g., Jahandideh-
Tehrani et al. 2015; Ouyang et al. 2015; Kara and Yucel
2015; Ashofteh et al. 2016; Pichuka et al. 2017;
Shahvari et al. 2019). In the majority of these investiga-
tions, both climate and hydrologic models were applied.
Routinely, the hydrological models are first calibrated
using observed streamflow data. Next, the models are
applied to simulate the future climate data and to gen-
erate predicted streamflow. Finally, the predicted and the
observed historical streamflow data are compared and
analyzed to identify and quantify the impacts of climate
change on river discharge. According to the published
studies, some countries are predicted to experience in-
crease in projected streamflow under climate change,
including China, Sweden, Denmark, and Malaysia
(Estrup et al. 2006; Graham et al. 2007; Li et al. 2013;
Amin et al. 2017; Yu et al. 2017), while some countries
are predicted to experience decrease in projected
streamflow, such as Vietnam, Iran, and Germany
(Menzel and Bu 2002; Khoi and Suetsugi 2012;
Jahandideh-Tehrani et al. 2015). Streamflow changes
may also vary within a year. In Nepal, for example,
Shrestha et al. (2016) estimated streamflow decreases
during spring and summer, while autumn and winter
will have increased streamflow.
The study of climate change impacts on future tem-
perature, rainfall, and streamflow is vital, particularly in
the regions limited to the tropical boundaries, as the
rivers and basins in these areas are under the influence
of complex hydrological regimes. Additionally, the
knowledge of climate change impacts is limited, and
there is a need for an in-depth study of the climatic
conditions, applied methods, impacts of climate change
on future streamflow, uncertainty sources of projections,
and measures for uncertainty treatments in regions be-
tween tropical boundaries. Therefore, the review aims to
present an overview of the studies that focus on future
streamflow trends driven by climate change projections
in tropical regions. The specific objectives of this review
are:
1. Examination of temperature, rainfall, and
streamflow conditions in regions between tropical
boundaries
2. Evaluation of tools and approaches used in climate
change impact assessment studies in regions be-
tween tropical boundaries
Environ Monit Assess (2019) 191: 752
3. Finding a trend for future streamflow change under
climate change conditions in regions between trop-
ical boundaries
4. Identification of sources of uncertainty in
streamflow projections under climate change
5. Proposing measures to reduce uncertainty and in-
crease confidence in the predictions of streamflow
under climate change conditions
In summary, this study will analyze climate change
models, downscaling methods, hydrological modelling
approaches, and findings reported in studies conducted
in the tropics. This study will increase our knowledge of
methodological approaches used in the assessment of
climate change impacts on river discharge and facilitate
the conduct of similar studies in other locations.
Literature sources and review method
A conventional literature review method was employed
in this study to find relevant literature and analyze
findings. The main focus was on literature dealing with
impacts of climate change on future streamflow in trop-
ical regions. To ensure a broad coverage, nine scientific
databases were consulted: Scopus, Web of Science,
Proquest, SienceDirect, IEEE1 library, Wiley Online
Library, ASCE 2 Journals, Taylor & Francis,
SpringerLink, and Google Scholar. The combined key-
words used in the search for papers were “Climate
Change,” “Tropical Regions,” “Streamflow,” and “Tro-
pics.” Only peer-reviewed publications were consid-
ered. After finding publications based on this search
strategy, publications focusing on future streamflow
trends, tropical regions, and river streamflow (rather
than extreme flow) were kept for analysis. In order to
synthesize the outcomes of these papers, the applied
climate models, bias correction, downscaling methods,
hydrological models, greenhouse gas emission scenari-
os, and case studies were examined. A compilation table
was constructed to organize the selected papers and their
outcomes by continent and region. Furthermore, the
projected trends for streamflow changes were analyzed
for each country separately.
1
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
2
American Society of Civil Engineers
Page 3 of 23 752
Tropical regions
The tropics refer to the regions bounded by the Tropic of
Cancer (23° 27′ N) and the Tropic of Capricorn (23° 27′
S) as shown in Fig. 1 (Gopal 2013). Due to the high
angles of the sun, solar energy is greatly accumulated in
these regions, which leads to a warm climate without
strong winters (Latrubesse et al. 2005). The greatest
angle of elevation of the sun ranges between 43° and
90° during the day between the tropics of Cancer and
Capricorn (Edelman et al. 2014).
Climate condition
Based on Köppen’s classification (Peel et al. 2007),
climatological regimes in the tropics are characterized
by having mean annual temperature above 18 °C all the
year with a significant amount of rainfall. According to
Köppen-Geiger (Geiger, 1954), the tropical climate is
classified into three main subtypes: (i) tropical rainfall
forest climate (Af)—permanently wet regions with
some rain in all months, with the average precipitation
of at least 60 mm; (ii) monsoon climate (Am)—driest
months with precipitation less than 60 mm, but more
than 1/25 the total annual precipitation; and (iii) period-
ically dry savanna climate (Aw)—driest months with
more than 60 mm, but less than 1/25 the total annual
precipitation. However, the present study is not limited
to the stated three climates, and the reviewed literature is
limited to the tropical boundaries (regions bounded by
the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn) as
shown in Fig. 1.
The tropical regions are considered the most vulner-
able areas in the world in terms of natural weather
disasters. Thus, the study of the impacts of climate
change on the tropics has been attracting a large amount
of attention by researchers. Tropical regions, in general,
experience hot and humid weather, extreme rainfall,
cyclones, and considerably high solar radiation. The
tropics experience extremely high rainfall during the
wet season and extremely low rainfall during the dry
season (Herawati 2015), which can often lead to cata-
strophic weather events. For example, in 1970, the
Bhola Cyclone occurred along the coast of Bangladesh
and led to the death of approximately 300,000 people by
generating 9.1 m storm surge (Needham et al. 2015).
Extreme droughts are often observed in the Sahel re-
gion. Catastrophic droughts occurred in this region over
the period of 1969–1973, resulting in the loss of
752 Page 4 of 23 Environ Monit Assess (2019) 191: 752

Fig. 1 Tropical regions (Edelman et al. 2014)

thousands of people (Edelman et al. 2014). In terms of
climate change, according to the IPCC report ( 2007),
the tropics will be experiencing more intense tropical
cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes), larger wind speeds,
heavier rainfall, as well as increased sea-surface air
temperatures in the future. The potential consequences
of climate change in tropical regions, such as water
stress, flood risk, coastal inundation, sea level rise, and
sea water intrusion are summarized in Table 1. Accord-
ing to the IPCC (2007), there is high confidence that
surface runoff and average river discharge will increase
by 10–40% by mid-century in some wet tropical areas.
On the other hand, runoff is estimated to decline by 10–
30% over the dry regions at dry tropics, which is the
result of less rainfall and higher rates of evapotranspira-
tion (IPCC 2007). Thus, there is enough evidence to
accept that extreme events such as droughts, floods, and
high-intensity cyclones will increase in the tropical re-
gions (IPCC 2013).
Temperature
The general climate of the tropical regions is warm, with
a monthly mean temperature above 18 °C in all 12
months of the year. Close to the Equator, the difference
between the highest and the lowest monthly mean tem-
perature is rarely more than 4 °C, and in some areas,
such as Quito and Ecuador, it is less than 1 °C. Moving

Table 1 Potential consequences of climate change in tropical regions (Source: Edelman et al. 2014)

Potential problems Central and South Asia and Northern Africa and Oceania Central and Caribbean
Southern Africa South East Asia Middle East South America

Increased water stress and x x x x

decreased water security
Water security and supsply x x
variability impacts
Increased flood risk x x
Increased coastal inundation, sea x x x x
level rise and storm surge
Sea water intrusion x x
Environ Monit Assess (2019) 191: 752
away from the Equator makes the annual temperature
variation relatively larger, but it rarely exceeds 15 °C.
Therefore, the Equatorial zone is featured by consistent
warmth and small fluctuations in temperature from day
to day. Regarding the consistent temperature, many
regions locating within 15° latitude of the Equator,
particularly islands and coastal areas, have the highest
recorded temperature less than 5 °C above the average
daytime maximum temperature in the warmest month.
This is due to the stability provided by the ocean tem-
peratures (Edelman et al. 2014).
Atmospheric temperature records indicate that
warming has been occurring in the tropical troposphere
since 1960s (Santer et al. 2005). Vuille and Bradley
(2000) found that the tropical Andes’ temperature has
increased by 0.10–0.11 °C since 1939. They also
showed that the temperature trend varied depending on
the altitude, with the warming trend generally reducing
with increasing elevation. Vecchi and Soden (2007)
have also claimed that the Indian Ocean temperatures
have remained relatively unchanged, whereas the rest of
the tropics’ temperatures have become warmer. On av-
erage, the tropics’ temperature has increased by 0.7–0.8
°C over the last century, and climate models predict a
further increase of 1–2 °C by 2050 and 1–4 °C by 2100
(Edelman et al. 2014).
Rainfall
The climate of the tropical regions is characterized by
high humidity and rainfall, with rainfall being the most
variable element in these regions (Mc Gregor and
Nieuwolt 1998). Both the quantity and the temporal
distribution of rainfall are important since they are ap-
plied to distinguish the climatic zones in the tropics
(Latrubesse et al. 2005). Latrubesse et al. (2005) cate-
gorized tropical rainfall into three main types: (i) con-
vective, (ii) cyclonic, and (iii) orographic. In general,
tropical climates have small spatial variations in temper-
ature, but large spatial variation in precipitation. The
tropics include both the driest and wettest areas of the
world such as the Atacama Desert, on the west coast of
South America, with mean annual rainfall less than 1
mm, and Western Colombia and Hawaii, with more than
10,000 mm annual total rainfall (Edelman et al. 2014).
In addition to rainfall quantity, the frequency and
intensity of the rainfall are quite variable in the tropics.
Duitenzorg in Indonesia, for example, experiences in-
tense and brief thunderstorms almost daily. It averages
Page 5 of 23 752
322 days per year with thunderstorms. Rio Branco in
Brazil, as for another example, experiences 100 mm of
rainfall spread during the months of the dry season, and
burst, intense rains in the months of the wet season
(Latrubesse et al. 2005).
The trend for rainfall changes in tropical regions is
quite variable. In two studies conducted by Wentz et al.
(2007) and Adler et al. (2008), the analysis of the rainfall
trend using observed climate data demonstrated that
monthly average precipitation has been increasing since
1979 in the tropical regions situated within the latitudes
30° S and 30° N. Another study by Gu et al. (2007)
demonstrated that rainfall in the tropical regions situated
within the latitudes 25° S and 25° N has been experienc-
ing an upward linear trend (0.06 mm/day per decade)
over the ocean, and a downward linear trend (− 0.01
mm/day per decade) over land. To be more exact, 5.5%
increase and 1% decrease has occurred over a 27-year
period (1979–2005) in tropical oceans and lands,
respectively. Feng et al. (2013) focused on the seasonal
distribution and variability of rainfall and found in-
creases in the inter-annual variability of seasonality in
most of the dry tropical areas.
Streamflow
Tropical river systems are highly affected by the annual
and inter-annual variability of the Inter-Tropical Con-
vergence Zone (ITCZ) (Syvitski et al. 2014). In terms of
water discharge, of the ten largest rivers in the world,
eight of them are tropical rivers: The Amazon, Congo,
Orinoco, Brahmaputra, Parana, and three tributaries of
the Amazon River, including the Negro, Madeira, and
Japura rivers. All tropical rivers experience high but
variable peak flows over both the wet and dry seasons.
Additionally, some tropical rivers have two flood peaks
within a year: (1) principle flood peak and (2) secondary
flood peak (Latrubesse et al. 2005). Due to the complex-
ity of tropical climates, it is difficult to define a unique
regime for tropical rivers. Nonetheless, Latrubesse et al.
(2005) classified tropical rivers into two main groups:
(1) rivers with clear high and low discharges and (2)
rivers with two flood peaks over a year. Syvitski et al.
(2014) described that most tropical rivers are character-
ized by strong seasonality. For instance, the Godavari
River in India can deliver extremely high discharge
(thousands of m3/s), while also becoming completely
dry during the same year (Syvitski et al. 2014).
752 Page 6 of 23
The framework of climate change impact assessment
on river hydrology
Climate change has significant impacts on all aspects of
the hydrological cycle. Numerous modelling studies
have been used to assess the impacts of climate change
on runoff in different regions (Pilling and Jones 2002;
Maurer 2007; Fowler and Kilsby 2007; Ranger et al.
2011; Wang et al. 2012; Aissia et al. 2012; Huang et al.
2013; Camici et al. 2014; Teferi et al. 2015; Apurv et al.
2015; Sorribas et al. 2016; Duan et al. 2017). Figure 2
indicates the approach of most studies for evaluating
climate change impacts on future river runoff. The first
step is the selection of a general circulation model
(GCM) model over the current and future periods. The
next step is to select an emission scenario for climate
change impact assessment. Next, bias correction and/or
downscaling methods are applied to convert GCM pro-
jections for climatic variables into regional scale for the
purpose of regional climate change impact assessment.
After downscaling the GCM data, a simulation model is
required for obtaining river runoff and flow conditions
using the future rainfall and other climate data. The
observed and simulated hydrological conditions of the
river need to be compared in order to calibrate the
simulation model and find a trend of changes over time.
In order to analyze the results, scenarios can be defined,
such as the consideration of changes in land use, river
morphology, human activities, and reservoir construc-
tion and operation.
The main four steps, mentioned in the framework in
Fig. 2, will be discussed in the following sections.
GCMs and emission scenarios
Projections of future climate change are usually made
using GCMs. Amongst other climatic variables, GCMs
predict precipitation and temperature under possible
future scenarios or historical trajectories, including
changes/trends in CO2 concentration, industry, econo-
my, land use, and population. GCMs simulate heat/mass
exchange processes between atmosphere, ocean, and
earth surface in a three-dimensional form (Schlesinger
1983). Their outputs include many climate aspects such
as the atmosphere and ocean temperatures, precipitation,
wind, cloud cover, and sea ice extent. Additionally,
GCMs are tested against historical observations for cal-
ibration and validation (IPCC 2014).
Environ Monit Assess (2019) 191: 752
Fig. 2 Framework of climate change impact assessment on river
hydrology
The climate model intercomparison project (CMIP)
is a standard experimental framework for the purpose to
study the output of coupled atmosphere-ocean GCMs.
CMIP provides standard or benchmark experiments that
indicate critical tests of a model’s ability for simulating
the observed climate. CMIP5 (CMIP Phase 5) is the
most extensive among CMIPs, which can potentially
enhance a standard set of model simulations to (1) assess
how accurate the models are in simulating the recent
past; (2) project future climate change on two time
scales, including long-term (out to 2100 and beyond)
and near term (out to about 2035); and (3) identify the
uncertainty in model projections. CMIP5 includes de-
cadal length predictions and long-term simulations
(IPCC 2013). Considering that horizontal resolution of
the climate data is too low to resolve important features
at regional scales, downscaling techniques and/or bias
removal are required to derive site-scale climate infor-
mation from the coarser resolution GCM outputs.
Climate change has been and will continue being
significantly dependent on human activities in the com-
ing years. These human activities define the amount of
emission and concentration of greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere. In 2000, the IPCC published different emis-
sion scenarios in the Special Report on Emission Sce-
narios (SRES), each of which was based on various
assumptions of greenhouse gas emissions and economic
and industrial growth. The emissions of greenhouse
gases in these scenarios were established according to
factors such as population changes, economic and in-
dustrial growth, and the policy importance of the
Environ Monit Assess (2019) 191: 752
environment. The four main greenhouse gases emission
scenarios established through IPCC were (1) A1, (2) A2,
(3) B1, and (4) B2. In the A1 emission scenario, a
positive forecast is applied to the future of the global
economy and new industry supply. This scenario con-
siders the largest population growth in mid-century and
predicts a subsequent downward trend; furthermore, it
assumes a rapid improvement in economic growth and
new technology. The A1 emission scenario is classified
into three subgroups: (1) A1F1 (use of fossil fuels), (2)
A1T (use of non-fossil fuels), and (3) A1B (use of both
fossil fuels and non-fossil fuels). A2 emission scenario
considers large population growth and slow economic
growth. Population distribution remains constant in the
B1 emission scenario, which assumes a larger popula-
tion in mid-century, since when this trend is similarly
downward; moreover, rapid changes in economic
growth are considered. The rate of population growth
in the B2 emission scenario is lower than the A1 sce-
nario, and the economy grows at an average rate. In the
B2 scenario, more attention is focused on environmental
conservation (IPCC 2000).
In 2014, four new pathways, namely representative
concentration pathways (RCPs), were developed for
climate modelling and research, which have replaced
the four emission scenarios from IPCC (2014). RCPs
result from scientific collaboration between climate
modellers, emission experts, and ecosystem modellers.
The word “representative” emphasizes that RCPs indi-
cate a larger set of scenarios in the current scientific
literature. The term “concentration pathway” signifies
that introduced RCPs are not the final scenarios; in other
words, RCPs are not complete in terms of fully integrat-
ed socio-economic, emission, and climate projections.
Radiative forcing levels of + 8.5, + 6, + 4.5, and + 2.6
W/m2 in the year 2100 relative to pre-industrial values
gave rise to the four RCPs: (1) RCP 8.5, (2) RCP 6, (3)
RCP 4.5, and (4) RCP 2.6 (Van Vuuren et al. 2011).
Give the comparison between RCPs and SRES, a
parallel approach is applied in the development of
RCP scenarios, which allows for policy changes in
the socio-economic scenarios, while SRES uses a
sequential approach for scenario determination,
where political and legislative actions have no
impact on the development of these scenarios.
Therefore, if there is a change in any previous
scenarios of RCPs, changes can be imposed to
one individual scenario, without restarting the
whole sequence of scenarios.
Page 7 of 23 752
Downscaling methods and bias correction
GCM projections for climatic variables (e.g., tempera-
ture, rainfall, wind, vapor pressure, etc.) are usually
coarse in resolution (typically 80–300 km), and there-
fore, they are usually unsuitable for regional scale ap-
plication, such as in the assessment of the impact of
climate change on river streamflow. Due to their coarse
resolution, GCMs are incapable of capturing local cli-
mate features affected by smaller scale variations of land
cover and topography. As such, the influence of these
variations on climatic variables (e.g., on precipitation
and temperature) is eliminated, although these variations
play a pivotal role in the formation and distribution of
these variables. To solve this resolution problem, cli-
mate predictions from GCMs should be first translated
for regional impact assessment, using some sort of
downscaling techniques. There are two general methods
for downscaling climate change projections: (1) statisti-
cal downscaling and (2) dynamic downscaling.
Statistical downscaling uses observed relationships
between large-scale climate variables (predictors) and
small-scale climate variables (predicted) to generate
fine-grain time series from GCM outputs. In other
words, regional variables are expressed as a function
(a statistical model) of large-scale variables. For in-
stance, rainfall at a site may be correlated with large-
scale atmospheric pressure fields. If such a relationship
exists, this relationship (i.e., this model) can be used to
project future rainfall using pressure fields simulated by
a GCM. The relationship between the two variables is
achieved through regression methods (e.g., multiple
regression statistics, principal component or canonical
correlation analysis, neural networks) (Bhend et al.
2015). The most simplistic and common type to statis-
tical downscaling is the “bias-corrected spatial down-
scaling” method (Räty et al. 2014). This method consists
of computing the biases between recent climate obser-
vations and recent climate derived from GCMs, and
then adjusting the GCM future climate projections for
these biases, thus generating a new time series for the
site under study. In other words, a relationship is first
obtained between recent climate observations (fine
scale) and recent climate GCM model outputs (larger
scale), for a same variable, and this relationship is used
to generate a finer-scale future time series from the
larger-scale future time series derived from GCMs. An-
other simplistic method is the delta change method or
change factor method. In this method, the present value
752 Page 8 of 23
for a variable of interest, such as temperature, that a
GCM produces, is subtracted from the future projected
value for this variable of interest. This difference is then
added to current observed climate for that variable in a
local (finer) scale to obtain an estimate of possible future
values at fine scale for that variable. This method com-
bines the amount of change from the GCM with the
spatial and temporal variability from observed (current)
climate (Helfer et al. 2012; Jahandideh-Tehrani et al.
2015).
Dynamic downscaling nests a fine-scale climate
model (or regional climate model (RCM)) within a
GCM. In other words, GCM outputs are used as bound-
ary conditions in RCM modelling. Dynamic methods
are used to obtain a finer and more precise representa-
tion of regional-scale features. In general, although dy-
namic methods provide higher precision, they are ex-
pensive and time consuming. The National Centers for
Environmental Prediction Regional Spectral Model
(NCEP/RSM), Regional Climate Model (RegCM),
Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) System, and
Providing Regional Climates for Impacts Studies
(PRECIS) model are examples of models used for dy-
namic downscaling (De Sales and Xue 2010).
The ability of GCMs and RCMs for simulating
Earth’s climate system is limited due to their inherent
simplifications. Therefore, model outputs have different
kinds of biases compared to the observed climate. These
biases are obstacles to the direct use of model outputs in
climate change impact assessment. Consequently, mod-
el outputs are statistically verified based on model per-
formance in simulating the present climate. This post-
processing step is routinely used in model data for the
purpose of promoting the feasibility of impact model
simulations. Bias correction methods apply a transfor-
mation algorithm to adjust original data from GCM or
RCM outputs to match observed data. The purpose is to
obtain the possible biases between the simulated and
observed climate variables in order to correct both con-
trol and scenario runs. To be more precise, bias correc-
tion approaches utilize the difference between RCM/
GCM outputs and the observation time series for the
control period to modify the RCM/GCM outputs for the
future period (Teutschbein and Seibert 2012). Bias cor-
rection methods can be classified into two main groups:
(1) employing the statistics (mean, standard deviation
and coefficient of variation) of future simulations; and
(2) estimating the cumulative probability of correcting
variables (Watanabe et al. 2012). Some typical examples
Environ Monit Assess (2019) 191: 752
of bias correction methods are (1) linear scaling, (2)
local intensity scaling, (3) power transformation, (4)
variance scaling, (5) distribution transfer, (6) the delta-
change approach, (7) daily translation, (8) daily bias
correction, (9) quantile mapping based on empirical
distribution, and (10) quantile mapping based on gam-
ma distribution (Teutschbein and Seibert 2012; Chen
et al. 2013).
Simulation model
In order to evaluate climate change impacts on
streamflow, hydrological models are frequently applied.
These models employ predicted rainfall and other cli-
mate data (e.g., soil properties, vegetation cover, soil
moisture content, watershed topography, features of
groundwater aquifer) as boundary conditions to drive
the hydrologic processes, such as infiltration, runoff,
and discharge. Such modelling results can be applied
to analyze climate impacts in relation to river hydrology
implications. Different hydrological models are catego-
rized based on model inputs and parameters and the
extent of applied physical principles (Devi et al. 2015).
Hydrological models in a river basin can be classified
into different groups such as empirical models versus
physical models, and lumped models versus distributed
models (Devi et al. 2015). Pechlivanidi et al. (2011)
classified hydrological models according to the model
structure, spatial distribution, stochasticity, and spatial-
temporal resolutions. Model structure classification
leads to (1) empirical (metric) models, (2) conceptual
models, and (3) physics-based models. Other classifica-
tions of models mentioned in studies are (1) lumped and
distributed models, (2) deterministic and stochastic
models, (3) time-scale based classification, and (4)
space-based classification (Pechlivanidi et al. 2011;
Devi et al. 2015). Empirical models are observation-
oriented as they need existing data for their mathemat-
ical equations. The performance of these models de-
pends on the range of available data, and therefore, they
are valid within boundaries, which leads to limited
confidence in the results. Conceptual models include
the physical elements of a catchment. The calibration
process of these models involves curve fitting, which
makes the interpretation and prediction of land use
changes less reliable. Physically based models use state
variables, which are the function of both time and space.
The main advantage of these models is that they do not
require extensive hydrological data for calibration. In
Environ Monit Assess (2019) 191: 752
many studies, the combinations of previously defined
models are applied, and are called hybrid models, in-
cluding two or more elements of stated models.
Many developing countries suffer from lack of me-
teorological and hydrological data, which limits their
capacity to plan efficient water resources management
(Gebremichael and Hossain 2010). Therefore, in addi-
tion to the stated hydrological models, the runoff data
can be obtained from the global data sets and remote
sensing, which ensure high-quality data in terms of
spatial and temporal resolution. In order to provide
access to remote sensing data, the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration (NASA) has launched the
Earth Observing System (EOS) program to collect in-
formation about Earth’s ocean, atmosphere, and land
surfaces through satellites (Tang et al. 2009). To manage
and easily access vast amounts of NASA remote sensing
data, the Goddard Earth Sciences Data and Information
Services Centre (GES DISC) hosted the NASA
Geospatial Interactive Online Visualization ANd aNal-
ysis Infrastructure (Giovanni) system which has been
developed in 2003 (Acker et al. 2014). Giovanni is a
Web-based online tool to visualize, analyze, and access
a wide variety of remote sensing data, without having to
download the data (Acker et al. 2014). The surface
runoff data can be downloaded through Giovnni portals
such as the North American Land Data Assimilation
System (NLDAS) which provides precipitation, land
surface states (e.g., soil moisture and surface tempera-
ture), and fluxes (e.g., evaporation and runoff) by inte-
grating observations with land surface modeling (Rui
et al. 2011). The National Climate Assessment - Land
Data Assimilation System (NCA-LDAS) is another
Giovanni portal for obtaining routing variables, such
as runoff, flooded area, and streamflow, driven by the
atmospheric forcing data from North American Land
Data Assimilation System Phase 2 (NLDAS-2) (Xia
et al. 2012). The obtained precipitation and surface
runoff data from Giovanni can potentially benefit cli-
mate prediction models.
Review of climate change impacts on tropical rivers
The reviewed studies on climate change projections of
future streamflow in the tropical regions are summarized
in Tables 2, 3, 4, and 5 for Asia, Africa, Central and
South America, and Australia, respectively. These tables
contain information about (1) study location, (2) climate
Page 9 of 23 752
change models, (3) bias correction and/or downscaling
methods, (4) hydrological modelling, (5) a summary of
key findings, and (6) references.
As can be seen in Table 2, highly different streamflow
projections have been reported. Both positive and nega-
tive changes in streamflow are projected for the tropical
areas of Asia. In Thailand, one study conducted in the
upper Ping River Basin shows a decline in streamflow
(Sharma and Babel 2013). In Bangladesh, three basins
(the Brahmaputra, Ganges, and Meghna basins) have
been studied under six climate models (Masood et al.
2015; Masood and Takeuchi 2016). Significant increase
in river discharge is projected for all three basins, with the
Meghna basin experiencing the largest increase. There-
fore, with high confidence, it can be accepted that Ban-
gladesh will experience increased streamflow under cli-
mate change. India, Malaysia, and Vietnam have different
predictions for streamflow under climate change. In In-
dia, four different catchments were studied, and different
trends in streamflow were obtained. The Mahanadi River
and the Upper Sind River basins are expected to have
increased streamflow, while The River Chaliyar is pre-
dicted to experience reduced streamflow (Asokan and
Dutta 2008; Narsimlu et al. 2013; Raneesh and Santosh
2017). The streamflow of the Brahmani River basin
shows both increasing (considering rise of both rainfall
and temperature) and decreasing (considering the rise of
temperature only) trends (Islam et al. 2012). Similar to
India, in Malaysia different streamflow trends have been
obtained for several watersheds of the Peninsular Malay-
sia. While the Muda, Dungun, Kelantan, Terengganu,
Pahang, and Perak River watersheds are expected to
experience significant increase in streamflow, the
streamflow of other watersheds, including the Selangor,
Johor, Southern Peninsular, and Kedah, are expected to
remain almost unchanged (Shaaban et al. 2011; Amin
et al. 2017). The Klang watershed, at the west coast of
Peninsular Malaysia, is projected to have slight
streamflow decrease (Kabiri et al. 2015). In Vietnam,
the Song Cau watershed, the Sesan catchment and the
Vu Gia-Thu Bon catchment will experience significant
increases in streamflow (Phan et al. 2011; Raghavan et al.
2012; Duong et al. 2016). The streamflow of the Be River
Catchment in Vietnam is expected to decrease (− 5.6–
5%) under six GCMs and increase (25.5%) under one
other GCM (Khoi and Suetsugi 2012, 2014). The appli-
cation of different climate models and methodologies
lead to these inconsistent predictions within the same
catchment, as each methodology and each model take
752 Page 10 of 23 Environ Monit Assess (2019) 191: 752

Table 2 Summary of climate change impacts on future streamflow in Asia

Country/region Climate model Bias correction/ Hydrological Key findings Reference

type (GCM or downscaling method modelling
RCM) and
scenarios

Bangladesh (Meghna Basin) One GCM Monthly bias A global-scale Mean annual runoff (Masood
(A1B) correction hydrologic model increases by 34 and and
(calculating the ratio H08 39% over 2015–2039 Takeuc-
between the and the 2075–2099 hi 2016)
long-term monthly periods, respectively.
mean precipitation
of the WFD data and
that of the
MRI-AGCM data
for each month)
Bangladesh Five GCMs Monthly bias A global-scale By the end of the (Masood
(Ganges-Brahmaputra-- (A1B) correction hydrologic model century, runoff is et al.
Meghna Basin) (calculating the ratio H08 projected to increase 2015)
between the by 16.2, 33.1 and
long-term monthly 39.7% in the
mean precipitation Brahmaputra,
of the WFD data and Ganges, and Meghna,
that of the respectively.
MRI-AGCM data
for each month)
India (the River Chaliyar) One GCM Nonlinear bias SWAT (physically Streamflow is expected (Raneesh
(A2, B2) correction (Leander based model) to decline under two &
and Buishand 2007). scenarios. Santosh,
The use of PRECIS 2017)
RCM for
downscaling.
India (the Upper Sind River One GCM The use of PRECIS SWAT (physically The average annual (Narsimlu
Basin) (A1B) RCM for based model) streamflow will et al.
downscaling. increase by 16.4 and 2013)
93.5% over the
mid-century and
end-century,
respectively.
India (the Brahmani River Six GCMs PRMS run under the Annual streamflow will (Islam
Basin) (A2) platform of MMS) decrease by 6 and et al.
(distributed model) 11% under 2 and 4°C 2012)
temperature rise,
respectively.
However, considering
the rise of both
rainfall and
temperature, the
annual streamflow
will increase by 62%.
India (the Mahanadi River One GCM Simple downscaling IISDHM (distributed The intensity of flood in (Asokan &
Basin) (A2) based on Thiessen model) September and Dutta,
polygons. drought in April will 2008)
increase over
2050–2100.
Malaysia (Malaysia Peninsular) One RCM RegHCM-PM The RegHCM-PM Mean monthly (Shaaban
(consists of a streamflow remains et al.
mesoscale consistent during 2011)
atmospheric model both the future and
component and a historical periods for
Environ Monit Assess (2019) 191: 752 Page 11 of 23 752

Table 2 (continued)

Country/region Climate model Bias correction/ Hydrological Key findings Reference

type (GCM or downscaling method modelling
RCM) and
scenarios

regional land all watersheds except

hydrology model the Kelantan and
component) Pahang. These two
watersheds will
experience significant
increase in
streamflow.
Malaysia (Klang watershed) One GCM Statistical downscale HEC-HMS The average annual (Kabiri
(A2, B2) modelling. Mean (physically based mean discharge will et al.
and variance of data model) decrease by 9.4, 4.9 2015)
was adjusted by bias %, and increase by
correction. 3.4 % under the A2 in
the 2020s, 2050s, and
2080s, respectively.
The mean annual
discharge will
decrease about 17.3,
14.3 and 6.2 % under
the B2 scenario in the
2020s, 2050s, and
2080s, respectively.
Malaysia (Malaysia Peninsular) One RCM, Dynamic downscaling WEHY model Mean monthly flow is (Amin
boundary (physically based projected to increase et al.
condition model) over 2040–2100. 2017)
from
ensemble of
15 GCMs
(B1, A1FI,
A1B, A2)
Thailand (the upper Ping River One GCM Spatial downscaling HEC-HMS Annual streamflow will (Sharma
Basin) (A2, B2) techniques. GG (physically based decrease between and
transformation model) 13–19%. Babel
Method for bias 2013)
correction.
Vietnam (the Be River Seven GCMs SWAT (physically Six GCMs suggest that (Khoi and
Catchment) (A1B, A2, based model) the river flow will Suetsugi
B1, B2) change by small 2012)
amounts (− 5.6–5%
compared with the
baseline), while one
GCM shows a large
increase of 25.5% in
river flow.
Vietnam (Song Cau watershed) Stochastic Statistical downscaling SWAT (physically Mean annual discharge (Phan et al.
Weather based model) will increase under all 2011)
Generator emission scenarios
(LARS_W- for 2020s, 2030s, and
G) 2050s.
Software (B1,
B2, A2)
Vietnam (the Be River Ensemble of Delta change SWAT (physically Streamflow will (Khoi and
Catchment) four GCMs downscaling based model) decrease between 0.7 Suetsugi
(A1B, B1) and 6.9% due to 2014)
climate change, while
752 Page 12 of 23 Environ Monit Assess (2019) 191: 752

Table 2 (continued)

Country/region Climate model Bias correction/ Hydrological Key findings Reference

type (GCM or downscaling method modelling
RCM) and
scenarios

streamflow will
decrease between 2.0
and 3.9% due to the
combined impacts of
land-use and climate
changes
(2020–2080).
Vietnam (the Sesan catchment One RCM, Dynamic downscaling SWAT (physically Streamflow is likely to (Raghavan
of the Lower Mekong Basin) boundary (WRF-NCEP). based model) increase over both et al.
condition Dakbla and Poko 2012)
from one river basins,
GCM (A2) especially during the
peak rainfall season.
Vietnam (Vu Gia–Thu Bon One RCM, Dynamic downscaling MIKE SHE The river flow might (Duong
catchment) boundary (RCM WRF) (physically based increase up to 200% et al.
condition model) during rainy season 2016)
from three and reduce to roughly
GCMs (A2) 7–30% during dry
season.

WFD Water and Global Change Forcing Data, MRI-AGCM Meteorological Research Institute Atmospheric General Circulation Model,
SWAT Soil and Water Assessment Tool, PRMS Precipitation Runoff Modeling System, MMS Modular Modeling System, IISDHM The
Institute of Industrial Science Distributed Hydrological Model, RegHCM-PM Regional hydroclimate model of Peninsular Malaysia, HEC-
HMS Hydrologic Engineering Center- Hydrologic Modelling System, WEHY Watershed Environmental Hydrology, GG Gamma–Gamma,
WRF-NCEP Weather Research and Forecasting model, RCM WRF Regional Climate Model: Weather Research and Forecasting, SHE
Système Hydrologique Européen

different assumptions, leading to various outputs. The
discrepancies in the projected streamflow is the result of
many factors, such as catchment size, methodology
framework, and land use change. Due to these discrep-
ancies, it is difficult to draw a general conclusion regard-
ing the trends of streamflow in Asia.
As can be shown in Table 3, in Africa, there has been
some studies on the Nile River basin, indicating in-
creased streamflow over early century and decreased
streamflow over both mid and late century (Elshamy
et al. 2009; Kim and Kaluarachchi 2009; Beyene et al.
2010; Booij et al. 2011). Additionally, studies on the
Lake Tana Basin in Ethiopia (Abdo et al. 2009; Setegn
et al. 2011), the White Volta and Pra river basins in
Ghana (Kankam-Yeboah et al. 2017), the Okavango
river basin in Angola, Namibia, and Botswana
(Andersson et al. 2006), as well as the Volta River basin,
the Senegal and the Gambia rivers in west Africa
(Dezetter et al. 2009; Sood et al. 2017) demonstrated
that the streamflow will decrease under climate change.
By contrast, investigating the Nyando catchment, the
Nzoia river catchment, the Mara River basin in Kenya
(Githui et al. 2009; Taye et al. 2011; Dessu and Melesse
2013), as well as the Sassandra and Chari rivers in west
Africa (Dezetter et al. 2009) shows that future
streamflow will experience an increased trend. Overall,
Ethiopia and Ghana are likely to experience a decline in
streamflow, while Kenya will probably experience in-
creased streamflow.
Tables 4 shows the seven studied basins in Central
and South America. The Rio Grande River and the
Amazon River in Brazil are expected to experience
streamflow increase (Nobrega et al. 2011; Viola et al.
2015; Sorribas et al. 2016). The Ipanema catchment and
the Tapajos Basin in Brazil, as well as the Rio Lempa
Basin, in Central America (name Guatemala, Honduras,
and Mexico), are projected to experience decreased
streamflow under climate change (Maurer 2009;
Montenegro and Ragab 2010; Mohor et al. 2015). In
Ecuador, the Paute River Basin is expected to experi-
ence increasing trend in streamflow (Buytaert et al.
2009).
Environ Monit Assess (2019) 191: 752 Page 13 of 23 752

Table 3 Summary of climate change impacts on future streamflow in Africa

Country/region Climate Bias correction/downscaling Hydrological Key findings Reference

model type method modelling
(GCM or
RCM) and
scenarios

Angola, Namibia Four Delta change downscaling Modified version of River flow will decrease by (Andersson et al.
and Botswana GCMs the monthly 20% (14%) under A2 (B2), 2006)
(the Okavango (A2, B2) Pitman model respectively over
River Basin) (semi distributed 2050–2080. Flow will
model) decrease by 26% (17%)
under A2 (B2),
respectively over
2070–2099.
Ethiopia (the Blue Ensemble Bias correction with NFS model Mean annual runoff (Elshamy et al.
Nile Basin) of 17 distribution mapping (conceptual coefficient will reduce by 2009)
GCMs approach and adjusting the distributed 3.5%.
(A1B) fitted distributions within a model)
GCM grid cell (spatially
downscaled)
Ethiopia (the Six GCMs Triangular cubic interpolation A two-layer water Mild increases in runoff. Low (Kim and
Upper Blue (A2) method for downscaling balance model flow will increase. Kaluarachchi
Nile River (lumped model) 2009)
Basin)
Ethiopia (the Lake Ensemble The historical modification SWAT (physically Five of the nine models (Setegn et al.
Tana Basin) of nine approach for downscaling based model) indicate significant 2011)
GCMs reductions in annual
(A1B, streamflow over the
B1, A2) 2080–2100 period.
Ethiopia (the One GCM Statistical downscaling model HBV (semi Runoff volume in the wet (Abdo et al. 2009)
Gilgel Abay (A2, B2) distributed season will reduce by 11.6
catchment in conceptual and 10.1% under A2 and
the Lake Tana model) B2, respectively, in 2080s.
Basin)
Ghana (the White Two GCMs A stochastic weather SWAT (physically The White Volta Basin: the (Kankam-Yeboah
Volta and Pra (A1FI) generator based model) mean annual streamflow et al. 2017)
River Basins) LARS-WG will reduce by 22 and 50%
in the 2020s and 2050s,
respectively. The Pra
Basin: streamflow will
decrease by 22 and 46%
over the 2020s and 2050s,
respectively.
Kenya (equatorial Ensemble Frequency perturbation Two hydrological Mean runoff and extreme (Taye et al. 2011)
lakes region) of 17 downscaling approach models: VHM peak flows will increase in
GCMs and NAM the 2050s in Nyando
(A1B, (lumped catchment, while the Lake
B1) conceptual Tana catchment has unclear
model) trend for mean volumes
and high/low flows.
Kenya (Nzoia Five GCMs SWAT (physically On average, streamflow will (Githui et al.
river catchment (A2, B2) based model) increase. ECHAM4 shows 2009)
in the Lake the highest increase in
Victoria Basin) annual runoff, while
HADCM3 indicates the
lowest runoff increase.
CCSR indicates a decrease
in baseflow under A2 for
2020.
752 Page 14 of 23 Environ Monit Assess (2019) 191: 752

Table 3 (continued)

Country/region Climate Bias correction/downscaling Hydrological Key findings Reference

model type method modelling
(GCM or
RCM) and
scenarios

Kenya/Tanzania Five GCMs Delta and direct statistical SWAT (physically River flow volume will (Dessu and
(the Mara River (A1B, downscaling based model) increase significantly for Melesse 2013)
Basin) A2, B1) the periods 2046–2065 and
2081–2100.
Southern Africa One RCM RCM and statistical A development of Average annual runoff will (Arnell et al.
(A2) downscaling. the macroscale decrease by 20%, and small 2003)
runoff model increase is also expected in
described by northern Tanzania and
Arnell (1999) western Madagascar.
(conceptual
model)
West Africa (the One RCM, Dynamic downscaling SWAT (physically River flow will decrease up to (Sood et al. 2017)
Volta River bound- (COSMO-CLM). Bias based model) 40%.
Basin) ary correction using data from
condi- the Climate Research Unit
tion from (Mitchell and Jones 2005)
one as a reference.
GCM
(A1B)
West Africa (four One GCM Superimposing the GCM grid The hydrological Runoff will decrease in the (Dezetter et al.
main rivers: the (A2) on the finer CRU grid. model GR2M Senegal and Gambia 2009)
Senegal, the (conceptual catchments, while runoff
Gambia, the model) will increases for that of the
Sassandra and Chari and the Sassandra.
the Chari)
The Nile River Ensemble Using empirical The VIC In almost all 11 GCMs, the (Beyene et al.
Basin of 11 quantile–quantile mapping (semi-distributed Nile River is expected to 2010)
GCMs for downscaling. For bias grid-based land experience increase in
(A2, B1) correction the resampling surface model) streamflow early in the
approach of Wood et al. study period (2010–2039),
(2002, 2004) was applied while streamflow is
to create a daily time series expected to decrease
for the hydrology model. during mid- (2040–2069)
and late- (2070–2099)
century.
The Nile River Three Bias correction by The HBV (semi Discharges are expected to (Booij et al. 2011)
upstream Lake GCMs multiplying daily GCM distributed decrease by 40 and 60% for
Nasser (B1 and values with the ratio of the conceptual 2065 and 2100,
A2) mean monthly observed model) respectively
value and the mean
monthly GCM simulated
value for the respective
month.

NFS The Nile Forecast Center, HBV Hydrologiska Byråns Vattenbalansavdelning, LARS-WG Weather Generator Long Ashton Research
Station, VHM A Dutch abbreviation for “generalized lumped conceptual and parsimonious model structure identification and calibration”,
NAM The Danish “Nedbør-Afstrømnings-Model”, ECHAM4 European Centre HAMburg 4, HADCM3 Hadley Centre Coupled Model
(version 3), CCSR Centre for Climate Research System, COSMO-CLM The Consortium for Small-scale Modeling in Climate Model, CRU
Climatic Research Unit, VIC variable infiltration capacity
Environ Monit Assess (2019) 191: 752 Page 15 of 23 752

Table 4 Summary of climate change impacts on future streamflow in Central and South America

Brazil (the Ipanema Two A hydrological Streamflow will decrease by 34, 65, (Montenegro
catchment) GCMs distributed and 72% for the time spans 2010– and Ragab
(B1, A2) catchment scale 2039, 2040–2069, and 2070–2099, 2010)
model (DiCaSM) respectively.

Brazil (the Amazon Five Bias correction using both MGB-IPH model Mean and maximum river discharge (Sorribas
Basin) GCMs distribution mapping (distributed is projected to increase over et al.
(RCP (“quantile-quantile”) and model) (2070–2099) 2016)
8.5) the delta-change
methods
Brazil (the Upper One RCM Dynamic downscaling The LASH model The annual runoff is expected a small (Viola et al.
Grande River (A1B) (Distributed, reduction over 2011–2040, but for 2015)
Basin) Semi physical) 2041–2099, the trend will change
to strong increase.
Brazil (the Rio One GCM Dynamic downscaling MGB-IPH model Mean annual river discharge will (Nobrega
Grande Basin) (A1B, (distributed increase by 5–10%. et al. 2011)
A2, B1, model)
B2)
Brazil (the Tapajos Four Dynamic downscaling MHD-INPE Decreasing discharge is predicted (Mohor et al.
Basin) GCMs model over 2011–2099. 2015)
(RCP (Distributed)
4.5)
Central America (the Ensemble Statistical downscaling and The VIC (Liang Median of reservoir inflow will (Maurer
Rio Lempa Basin) of 16 systematic bias et al., 1994) change by 13% (B1) and 24% (A2) 2009)
GCMs correction (distributed, over 2070–2099. Frequency of low
(B1, physically-- flow years increases.
A2) based model)
Ecuador (Four Ensemble Conceptual model The average monthly discharge will (Buytaert
mesoscale of 20 remain almost constant. The et al.
hydrological GCMs inter-annual variability in monthly 2009)
catchments in the (A1B) discharge ranges between ± 30 and
Paute River Basin) ± 65%.

MGB-IPH An Acronym from the Portuguese for Large Basins Model and Institute of Hydraulic Research, LASH Lavras Simulation of
Hydrology

Only a few studies have been conducted in the trop-
ical regions of Australia (Northern Australia), and there-
fore, the knowledge of streamflow changes in this re-
gion is limited. Petheram et al. (2012) studied
Australia’s northern regions (Timor Sea, Gulf of
Carpentaria, and the most northern section of the
northeast coast) using 15 GCMs. This study showed
that seven GCMs indicated 29% increase in mean an-
nual runoff, whereas the other GCMs indicated 26%
decrease. Therefore, no specific trend of streamflow
change could be obtained for Australia.

Table 5 Summary of climate change impacts on future streamflow in Australia

Country/region Climate model Bias Hydrological Key findings Reference

type (GCM or correction/ modelling
RCM) and downscaling
scenarios method

Australia, Northern Ensemble of 15 Statistical Five Seven GCMs show 29% increase in mean (Petheram
regions ( Timor Sea, GCMs downscaling lumped-- annual runoff, while other GCMs show et al.
Gulf of Carpentaria, (A1B) (empirical conceptual 26% decrease (during 2046–2065 2012)
and North-East Coast) scaling rainfall-runoff relative to 1930–2007)
method) models
752 Page 16 of 23
From the analysis of the above studies, it can be
concluded that establishing a unique trend for the
world’s tropical rivers is impossible due to high com-
plexity of the tropical climates and uncertainty of cli-
mate change predictions. As a result, authors have found
different trends for projected discharges, both in the
tropical regions as well as in individual tropical coun-
tries. This is due to the influence of several factors on the
response of individual catchments, including emission
scenarios, climate model characteristics, studied pe-
riods, land use changes, human activities, agricultural
activities, and different bias correction and downscaling
methods. Consequently, the corresponding uncertainties
in climate change impacts predictions, as well as those
uncertainties in model simulations, should be investi-
gated precisely in order to minimize inappropriate pro-
jections. Regarding the difference between the features
of each climate model, most studies applied more than
one climate model in order to produce more reliable
results in the form of a range of possible outcomes.
Moreover, most studies utilized bias correction methods
to improve the downscaled data of the climate models,
thus reducing, to some extent, the uncertainty of the
research outcomes. To reduce the uncertainties and pre-
vent inconsistent trend predictions, historical observa-
tions should be compared with model outputs, and only
models that indicate a satisfactory agreement between
the historical and simulated data, should be selected.
Applied methods
As stated before, reviewed studies applied different
tools to evaluate and predict the impacts of climate
change on tropical streamflow. In terms of climate
models, GCMs are the most commonly applied climate
models as they are able to simulate more climate as-
pects, and have also been validated against historical
observations. Among the greenhouse gas emission sce-
narios, the A2 emission scenario, which is based on
large population growth and slow economic growth in
the future, is the most favorable one. However, most
studies applied more than one emission scenario and
made comparisons in order to consider all possible
scenarios for economic, human activity, and population
growth rates. Most of the reported studies applied sta-
tistical downscaling and/or bias correction of the RCM
and/or GCM outputs to provide reliable information at
regional and basin scales with regard to spatially coarse
resolution of local land conditions. Among the statistical
Environ Monit Assess (2019) 191: 752
downscaling approaches, the delta change and the bias-
corrected spatial downscaling methods are the most
widely used approaches (Andersson et al. 2006; Helfer
et al. 2012; Khoi and Suetsugi 2012; Dessu and Melesse
2013; Khoi and Suetsugi 2014; Sorribas et al. 2016).
The delta change technique is generally based on calcu-
lating the differences between the simulated future cli-
mate and the simulated present climate, and then adding
these changes to recent climate observations. By con-
trast, the bias-corrected spatial downscaling method is
based on computing the biases between the modelled
current climate and the observed current climate, and
then, by assuming constant model bias, adjusting the
modelled future climate for the calculated biases. The
quantile-quantile transformation (also called quantile
mapping) is another statistical method which was ap-
plied in some studies (e.g., Beyene et al. 2010; Sorribas
et al. 2016).
According to Tables 2, 3, 4, and 5, the statistical
downscaling is the most applied tool to generate local
climate variables. The second most applied tool is the
dynamic downscaling technique (i.e., the use of regional
climate models). The dynamic downscaling approach is
based on equations of conservation of mass, energy and
momentum, and as such, it accounts for physical inter-
actions between most land-atmosphere processes. Het-
erogeneity in regional topography, vegetation, soil, and
climate is considered in dynamic downscaling (Amin
et al. 2017), which leads to more reliable results. Bias
correction is another approach to correct GCM/RCM
model outputs for future periods. Several methods for
bias correction have been used, such as monthly bias
correction (calculating the ratio between the long-term
monthly mean of the observed and simulated climate
data for each month) (e.g., Masood et al. 2015; Masood
and Takeuchi 2016), or distribution mapping (e.g.,
Elshamy et al. 2009; Sorribas et al. 2016). The GG
transformation method was applied by Sharma and
Babel (2013) to reduce the biases between the daily
GCM simulated precipitation and observed rainfalls.
They also improved the prediction of rainfall amount
and frequency, as well as number of rainy days through
GG.
As stated before, in order to evaluate climate change
impacts on streamflow at watershed scale, hydrological
models, driven by future climate data (e.g., temperature,
rainfall and evapotranspiration) are used for predicting
the streamflow changes. According to Tables 2, 3, 4, and
5 numerous papers emphasized using the SWAT model
Environ Monit Assess (2019) 191: 752
(e.g., Githui et al. 2009; Setegn et al. 2011; Phan et al.
2011; Raghavan et al. 2012; Khoi and Suetsugi 2012;
Narsimlu et al. 2013; Dessu and Melesse 2013; Khoi
and Suetsugi 2014; Sood et al. 2017; Kankam-yeboah
et al. 2017; Raneesh and Santosh 2017). Other applied
hydrological models were the MGB-IPH model (e.g.,
Nobrega et al. 2011; Sorribas et al. 2016), the NFS
model (e.g., Elshamy et al. 2009), the HBV model
(e.g., Abdo et al. 2009) and the VIC model (e.g., Maurer
2009; Beyene et al. 2010). For more detailed streamflow
studies, physically based models such as HEC-HMS
(e.g., Sharma and Babel 2013; Kabiri et al. 2015), and
MIKE-SHE (e.g., Duong et al. 2016) were applied.
Overall, it can be concluded that the uncountable
number of methodological frameworks lead to inconsis-
tent predictions, with not enough evidence to make
results reliable. Therefore, it is vital to synthesize knowl-
edge by applying multi-member model ensembles and
model intercomparison projects (e.g., water projects;
agricultural projects; urban development planning).
The approach for the treatment of uncertainty could vary
based on the required adaptation. The adaptation strate-
gy could be either coping, adjusting, or transforming,
and each strategy will require specific uncertainty
treatment.
Key findings and discussions
The large number of studies reviewed in this paper show
that there are several influencing factors on the response
of individual catchments to projected climate change.
Therefore, reported streamflow projections across re-
gions located between the tropical boundaries is various,
which makes it difficult to draw general conclusions
regarding the future streamflow trend. A summary of
the main findings of the reviewed literature is listed as
follows:
& Evaluation of temperature, rainfall, and streamflow
conditions in regions between tropical boundaries:
Hot and humid weather, extreme rainfall, and con-
siderable high solar radiation are the main features
of the climate for the tropical regions. In terms of
temperature, the mean annual temperatures are
above 18 °C, and the increasing distance from the
Equator makes the annual temperature variations
larger. In terms of rainfall patterns, tropical rainfall
is highly variable, with the wettest and driest parts of
the world being located in the tropics. To be more
Page 17 of 23 752
exact, the frequency and intensity of the rainfall vary
across the tropics. For example, Duitenzorg in Indo-
nesia is characterized by intense thunderstorms all
year round, while Rio Branco in Brazil experiences
only 100 mm rainfall during the dry season
(Latrubesse et al. 2005). In terms of streamflow
temporal pattern, the streamflow is highly variable
even within a single year. For example, rivers of the
Indian subcontinent can potentially deliver extreme
discharge, while they can also become completely
dry within the same year (Syvitski et al. 2014).
These rainfall and streamflow variabilities confirm
the necessity of investigating future rainfall and
streamflow conditions in the tropics at regional
and/or local scales.
& Evaluation of tools and approaches used in climate
change impact assessment studies in regions be-
tween tropical boundaries: Climate change model
outputs, greenhouse gas emission scenarios, bias
correction and downscaling methods, as well as
hydrological models are the required tools for eval-
uating the impacts of climate change on future
streamflow. These tools consist of different ap-
proaches and have different classifications. After
analysing the results of the studied papers, it could
be concluded that the different applications of the
various methods is one of the reasons for different
streamflow projections, regardless of catchment
size, topographic features, land use pattern changes,
and human activities. Most of the studies from the
literature review applied more than one climate
model and bias correction methods in order to obtain
more accurate predictions and reduce uncertainty.
GCM outputs and the A2 scenarios are the most
frequently applied driving forces and greenhouse
gas emission scenarios, respectively. The reason
for the popularity of GCM model outputs is that
they are tested against historical observations as well
as their potential in simulating complex climate
aspects. In terms of downscaling methods, the delta
change is the most widely applied method due to its
simplicity and the ability to preserve the observed
pattern of temporal and spatial variability of climate
data. Among the hydrological modelling ap-
proaches, the SWAT model is the most favorable
tool as it considers the physical features of the
catchment. The studies which applied the SWAT
model emphasized its capability in capturing the
impacts of land management practices (e.g., land
752 Page 18 of 23
use and land cover changes, reservoir management,
groundwater withdrawals, and water transfer) on
water, sediment, and agricultural chemical yields in
large complex watersheds. The possibility of inte-
grating SWAT into a GIS system is another impor-
tant reason which leads to this extensive use.
& Finding a trend for future streamflow change under
climate change conditions in regions between trop-
ical boundaries: The analysis of projected
streamflow trends in tropical countries revealed that
there is no clear trend for the entire regions limited to
the tropical boundaries. Some tropical countries,
such as Ethiopia and Ghana, are expected to expe-
rience a reduction in annual mean streamflow; other
countries, such as Bangladesh and Kenya, are ex-
pected to experience an increase in annual mean
streamflow; and some other countries, like Ecuador,
are expected to have no significant changes in an-
nual mean streamflow. Additionally, inconsistent
predictions within the same catchment are observed
in the reviewed research. In Vietnam, for example,
the Be River Catchment is expected to experience
small amounts of streamflow changes, varying from
− 5.6 to 5.0%, according to six GCMs. The same
catchment is expecting a 25.5% increase in
streamflow according to another GCM.
& Identification of sources of uncertainty in
streamflow projections under climate change: Pre-
dictions of future streamflow vary mostly due to the
uncertainties associated with climate model predic-
tions. These predictions are heavily dependent on
the trajectory of greenhouse gas emissions over the
coming decades, which is affected by socioeconom-
ic and technological factors, which are uncertain
variables. Other sources of uncertainties in climate
change arise from model structural differences, cli-
mate parameters, initial conditions, climate data res-
olution, downscaling methods, and hydrological
models. Due to unceratinties in the stated sources,
an uncountable numbers of methodological frame-
works have been applied. There is insufficient evi-
dence to acknowledge the most efficient methodol-
ogy as same rivers indicated distinct trend projec-
tions depending on the adopted methodology.
& Proposing measures to reduce uncertainty and in-
crease confidence in the predictions of streamflow
under climate change conditions: For minimizing
the uncertainties, the optimal climate change impact
assessment tool should include multi-models, multi-
Environ Monit Assess (2019) 191: 752
scenarios, and multi-downscaling techniques, which
is impractical due to time and computational limita-
tions. Consequently, the most efficient solution is to
synthesize knowledge by applying multi-member
model ensembles and model intercomparison pro-
jects (e.g., water projects and agricultural projects).
Additionally, the approach for the treatment of un-
certainty will vary based on the required adaptation.
The adaptation strategy could be coping, adjusting,
or transforming, and each strategy requires specific
uncertainty treatment.
Conclusions
Hydrological variability is one of the main challenges
facing integrated water resource management. Consid-
ering both the volatile and changeable weather condi-
tions in the tropics and the importance of tropical rivers,
it is essential to have accurate prediction of future
streamflow under climate change. In this study, we
summarized the projected climate change impacts on
streamflow in the regions between the tropical bound-
aries. Present review also highlighted that uncountable
number of methodological frameworks have been used,
which leads to inconsistent streamflow predictions. Dif-
ferent streamflow predictions is the result of influencing
factors (e.g., climate models, greenhouse gas emission
scenarios, hydrological models, climate data resolution,
etc.), which are considered as sources of uncertainty. In
order to increase the confidence in the streamflow pre-
dictions, it is necessary to clarify the adaptation strategy
and synthesize knowledge by applying multi-member
model ensembles and model intercomparison projects.
The present overview could potentially provide deci-
sion makers with helpful information about the trends of
streamflow changes considering different climate
models and emission scenarios. In addition, an overview
of previous research helps researchers find research
issues in the realm of climate change. Based on the
present review, the issues associated with the reviewed
study can be summarized in having little attention to the
potential uncertainty of climate models, emission sce-
narios and particularly hydrological models. These is-
sues lead to many discrepancies in the trends of
streamflow changes even within one country. Addition-
ally, another issue is the low applications of dynamic
downscaling, which can model spatial and temporal
Environ Monit Assess (2019) 191: 752
variabilities efficiently. Many researchers applied statis-
tical downscaling methods rather than dynamic down-
scaling due to the simplicity of statistical downscaling,
while efforts should be made to use dynamic downscal-
ing more frequently as they provide more accurate and
precise results. Regarding the significant difference of
precipitation in the dry and wet seasons and strong
seasonality of the tropics, it is recommended that climate
change impact analysis on streamflow should be studied
separately in the stated seasons to provide accurate
predictions.
Funding Information Funding for this project has been provid-
ed by Griffith University Postgraduate Research School through
the GUPRS scholarship, and Griffith University International
Postgraduate Research School through the GUIPRS scholarship.
Supplemental Data
No data, models, or code were generated or used during the
study.
References
Abbaspour, K. C., Faramarzi, M., Ghasemi, S. S., & Yang, H.
(2009). Assessing the impact of climate change on water
resources in Iran. Water Resources Research, 45(10), 1–16.
Abdo, K. S., Fiseha, B. M., Rientjes, T. H. M., Gieske, A. S. M., &
Haile, A. T. (2009). Assessment of climate change impacts on
the hydrology of Gilgel Abay catchment in Lake Tana basin ,
Ethiopia. Hydrological Processes, 23(26), 3661–3669.
Acker, J., Soebiyanto, R., Kiang, R., & Kempler, S. (2014). Use of
the NASA Giovanni data system for geospatial public health
research: example of weather-influenza connection. ISPRS
International Journal of Geo-Information, 3(4), 1372–1386.
Adler, R. F., Gu, G., Wang, J. J., Huffman, G. J., Curtis, S., &
Bolvin, D. (2008). Relationships between global precipita-
tion and surface temperature on interannual and longer time-
scales (1979-2006). Journal of Geophysical Research-
Atmospheres, 113(D22), 1976–2006.
Aissia, M. A., Chebana, F., Ouarda, T. B. M. J., Roy, L.,
Desrochers, G., Chartier, I., & Robichaud, É. (2012).
Multivariate analysis of flood characteristics in a climate
change context of the watershed of the Baskatong reservoir,
Province of Québec, Canada. Hydrological Processes, 26(1),
130–142.
Almazroui, M., Islam, M. N., Saeed, F., & Alkhalaf, A. K. (2017).
Assessing the robustness and uncertainties of projected
changes in temperature and precipitation in AR5 Global
Climate Models over the Arabian Peninsula. Atmospheric
Research, 194, 202–213.
Amin, M. Z. M., Shaaban, A. J., Ercan, A., Ishida, K., Kavvas, M.
L., Chen, Z. Q., & Jang, S. (2017). Future climate change
impact assessment of watershed scale hydrologic processes
in Peninsular Malaysia by a regional climate model coupled
with a physically-based hydrology modelo. Science of the
Total Environment, 575, 12–22.
Page 19 of 23 752
Andersson, L., Wilk, J., Todd, M. C., Hughes, D. A., Earle, A.,
Kniveton, D., et al. (2006). Impact of climate change and
development scenarios on flow patterns in the Okavango
River. Journal of Hydrology, 331(1-2), 43–57.
Apurv, T., Mehrotra, R., Sharma, A., Goyal, M. K., & Dutta, S.
(2015). Impact of climate change on floods in the
Brahmaputra basin using CMIP5 decadal predictions.
Journal of Hydrology, 527, 281–291.
Arnell, N. W. (1999). A simple water balance model for the
simulation of streamflow over a large geographic domain.
Journal of Hydrology, 217(3-4), 314–335.
Arnell, N. W., Hudson, D. A., & Jones, R. G. (2003). Climate
change scenarios from a regional climate model : Estimating
change in runoff in southern Africa. Journal of Geophysical
Research-Atmospheres, 108(D16), 4519.
Ashofteh, P. S., Bozorg-Haddad, O., & Mariño, M. A. (2013).
Scenario assessment of streamflow simulation and its transi-
tion probability in future periods under climate change. Water
Resources Management, 27(1), 255–274.
Ashofteh, P. S., Bozorg-Haddad, O., Loáiciga, H. A., Asce, F., &
Mariño, M. A. (2016). Evaluation of the impacts of climate
variability and human activity on streamflow at the basin
scale. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943-4774.0001038.
Asokan, S. M., & Dutta, D. (2008). Analysis of water resources in
the Mahanadi River Basin, India under projected climate
conditions. Hydrological Processes, 22(18), 3589–3603.
Beyene, T., Lettenmaier, D. P., & Kabat, P. (2010). Hydrologic
impacts of climate change on the Nile River Basin : implica-
tions of the 2007 IPCC scenarios. Climatic Change, 100(3-
4), 433–461.
Bhend, J., Watterson, I., Grose, M., Ekstrӧm, M., & Whetton, P.
(2015). Climate change projection methods. In Ekstrӧm, M.,
Gerbing, C., Grose, M., Bhend, J., Webb, L., & Risbey, J.
(Eds.), Climate change in Australia, 78-88.
Booij, M. J., Tollenaar, D., Van Beek, E., & Kwadijk, J. C. J.
(2011). Simulating impacts of climate change on river dis-
charges in the Nile basin. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth,
36(13), 696–709.
Buytaert, W., Ce, R., & Timbe, L. (2009). Predicting climate
change impacts on water resources in the tropical Andes :
Effects of GCM uncertainty. Geophysical Research Letters,
36(7), 1–5.
Camici, S., Brocca, L., Melone, F., & Moramarco, T. (2014).
Impact of Climate Change on Flood Frequency Using
Different Climate Models and Downscaling Approaches.
Journal of Hydrologic Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0000959.
Chen, J., Brissette, P., Chaumont, D., & Braun, M. (2013). Finding
appropriate bias correction methods in downscaling precipi-
tation for hydrologic impact studies over North America.
Water Resources Research, 49(7), 4187–4205.
Dang, T. C., Cochrane, T. A., Arias, M. E., Van, P. D. T., & De
Vries, T. T. (2016). Hydrological alterations from water in-
frastructure development in the Mekong floodplains.
Hydrological Processes, 30(21), 3824–3838.
De Sales, F., & Xue, Y. (2010). Assessing the dynamic-
downscaling ability over SOuth America using the
intensity-scale verification technique. International Journal
of Climatology, 31(8), 1205–1221.
752 Page 20 of 23
Dessu, S. B., & Melesse, A. M. (2013). Impact and uncertainties of
climate change on the hydrology of the Mara River basin,
Kenya / Tanzania. Hydrological Processes, 27(20), 2973–
2986.
Devi, G. K., Ganasri, B. P., & Dwarakish, G. S. (2015). A Review
on Hydrological Models. Aquatic Procedia. 4(Icwrcoe),
1001-1007.
Dezetter, A., Servat, E., Paturel, J. E., Mahé, G., & Dieulin, C.
(2009). Using general circulation model outputs to assess
impacts of climate change on runoff for large hydrological
catchments in West Africa. Hydrological Sciences Journal,
54(1), 77–89.
Duan, J. G., Bai, Y., Dominguez, F., Rivera, E., & Meixner, T.
(2017). Framework for incorporating climate change on
flood magnitude and frequency analysis in the upper Santa
Cruz River. Journal of Hydrology, 549, 194–207.
Duong, N., Gourbesville, P., Tue, M., & Srivatsan, V. (2016). A
deterministic hydrological approach to estimate climate
change impact on river flow : Vu Gia – Thu Bon catchment,
Vietnam. Journal of Hydro-Environment Research, 11, 59–
74.
Edelman, A., Gelding, A., Konovalov, E., McComiskie, R.,
Penny, A., Roberts, N., Templeman, S., et al. (2014). State
of the Tropics 2014 report. Report. James Cook University,
Cairns.
Elshamy, M. E., Seierstad, I. A., & Sorteberg, A. (2009). Impacts
of climate change on Blue Nile flows using bias-corrected
GCM scenarios. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 13,
551–565.
Estrup, H., Kronvang, B., Larsen, S. E., Christian, C., Strange, T.,
& Koch, E. (2006). Climate-change impacts on hydrology
and nutrients in a Danish lowland river basin. Science of the
Total Environment, 365(1-3), 223–237.
Feng, X., Porporato, A., & Rodriguez-iturbe, I. (2013). Changes in
rainfall seasonality in the tropics. Nature Climate Change, 3,
811–815.
Fowler, H. J., & Kilsby, C. G. (2007). Using regional climate
model data to simulate historical and future river flows in
northwest England. Climatic Change, 80(3-4), 337–367.
Gebremichael, M., & Hossain, F. (2010). Satellite rainfall appli-
cations for surface hydrology. Dordrecht: Springer.
Geiger, R. (1954). Kassifikation der klimate nach W. Köppen
(Classification of climates after W. Köppen). In: Landolt-
Börnstein-Zahlenwerte und Funktionen aus Physik,
Chemie, Astronomie, Geophysik und Technik, 3, Springer:
Berlin, 603–607.
Githui, F., Gitau, W., & Bauwens, W. (2009). Climate change
impact on SWAT simulated streamflow in western Kenya.
International Journal of Climatology, 29(12), 1823–1834.
Gopal, B. (2013). Future of wetlands in tropical and subtropical
Asia, especially in the face of climate change. Aquatic
Sciences, 75(1), 39–61.
Graham, L. P., Andréasson, J., & Carlsson, B. (2007). Assessing
climate change impacts on hydrology from an ensemble of
regional climate models , model scales and linking methods–
a case study on the Lule River basin. Climatic Change, 81(1),
293–307.
Gu, G., Adler, R. F., Huffman, G. J., & Curtis, S. (2007). Tropical
Rainfall Variability on Interannual-to-Interdecadal and
Longer Time Scales Derived from the GPCP Monthly
Product. Journal of Climate, 20, 4033–4046.
Environ Monit Assess (2019) 191: 752
Helfer, F., Lemchert, C., & Zhang, H. (2012). Impacts of climate
change on temperature and evaporation from a large reservoir
in Australia. Journal of Hydrology, 475, 365–378.
Herawati, H. (2015). Impact of Climate Change on Streamflow in
the Tropical Lowland of Kapuas River , West Borneo,
Indonesia. Procedia Engineering, 125, 185–192.
Huang, S., Hattermann, F. F., Krysanova, V., & Bronstert, A.
(2013). Projections of climate change impacts on river flood
conditions in Germany by combining three different RCMs
with a regional eco-hydrological model. Climatic Change,
116(3-4), 631–663.
IPCC, Special Report of Working Group III of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2000).
Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES). IPCC,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
IPCC, Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (2007). Climate Change 2007: Synthesis
Report. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 104.
IPCC, Contribution of Working Groups I to the Fifth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(2013). Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 109-113.
IPCC, Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (2014). Climate Change 2014: Synthesis
Report. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland: Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, pp 151.
Islam, A., Sikka, A. K., Saha, B., & Singh, A. (2012). Streamflow
Response to Climate Change in the Brahmani River Basin,
India. Water Resources Management, 26(6), 1409–1424.
Jahandideh-Tehrani, M., Bozorg-Haddad, O., & Loáiciga, H. A.
(2015). Hydropower Reservoir Management Under Climate
Change : The Karoon Reservoir System. Water Resources
Management, 29(3), 749–770.
Kabiri, R., Bai, V. R., & Chan, A. (2015). Assessment of hydro-
logic impacts of climate change on the runoff trend in Klang
Watershed , Malaysia. Environmental Earth Sciences, 73(1),
27–37.
Kankam-Yeboah, K., Obuobie, E., Amisigo, B., Kankam-Yeboah,
K., Obuobie, E., Amisigo, B., & Opoku-ankomah, Y. (2017).
Impact of climate change on streamflow in selected river
basins in Ghana Impact of climate change on streamflow in
selected river basins in Ghana. Hydrological Sciences
Journal, 58(4), 773–788.
Kara, F., & Yucel, I. (2015). Climate change effects on extreme
flows of water supply area in Istanbul: utility of regional
climate models and downscaling method. Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment, 187(9), 1–18.
Karandish, F., Mousavi, S. S., & Tabari, H. (2016). Climate
change impact on precipitation and cardinal temperatures in
different climatic zones in Iran : analyzing the probable
effects on cereal water-use efficiency. Stochastic
Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, 31(8), 2121–
2146.
Khoi, D. N., & Suetsugi, T. (2012). Uncertainty in climate change
impacts on streamflow in Be River Catchment, Vietnam.
Water Environment Journal, 26(4), 530–539.
Khoi, D. N., & Suetsugi, T. (2014). The responses of hydrological
processes and sediment yield to land-use and climate change
Environ Monit Assess (2019) 191: 752
in the Be River Catchment, Vietnam. Hydrological
Processes, 28(3), 640–652.
Kim, U., & Kaluarachchi, J. J. (2009). Climate change impacts on
water resource in the Upper Blue Nile River Basin, Ethiopia.
Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 45(6),
1361–1378.
Latrubesse, E. M., Stevaux, J. C., & Sinha, R. (2005). Tropical
rivers. Geomerphology, 70(3-4), 187–206.
Leander, R., & Buishand, T. A. (2007). Resampling of regional
climate model output for the simulation of extreme river
flows. Journal of Hydrology, 332(3-4), 487–496.
Li, F., Zhang, Y., Xu, Z., Teng, J., Liu, C., & Liu, W. (2013). The
impact of climate change on runoff in the southeastern
Tibetan Plateau. Journal of Hydrology, 505, 188–201.
Li, J., Evans, J., Johnson, F., & Sharma, A. (2017). A comparison
of methods for estimating climate change impact on design
rainfall using a high-resolution RCM. Journal of Hydrology,
547, 413–427.
Masood, M., & Takeuchi, K. (2016). Climate change impacts and
its implications on future water resource management in the
Meghna Basin. Futures, 78-79, 1–18.
Masood, M., Yeh, P., Hanasaki, N., & Takeuchi, K. (2015). Model
study of the impacts of future climate change on the hydrol-
ogy of Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna basin. Hydrology and
Earth System Sciences, 19(2), 747–770.
Maurer, E. P. (2007). Uncertainty in hydrologic impacts of climate
change in the Sierra Nevada, California , under two emissions
scenarios. Climatic Change, 82(3-4), 309–325.
Maurer, E. P. (2009). Climate model based consensus on the
hydrologic impacts of climate change to the Rio Lempa basin
of Central America. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences,
13, 183–194.
Mc Gregor, G. R., & Nieuwolt, S. (1998). Tropical climatology:
an introduction to the climates of the low latitudes. New
YorK: John Wiley & Sons.
Mehr, A. D., & Kahya, E. (2017). Climate Change Impacts on
Catchment-Scale Extreme Rainfall Variability : Case Study
of Rize Province, Turkey. Journal of Hydrologic
Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-
5584.0001477.
Menzel, L., & Bu, G. (2002). Climate change scenarios and runoff
response in the Mulde catchment (Southern Elbe, Germany).
Journal of Hydrology, 267(1-2), 53–64.
Middelkoop, H., Daamen, K., Gellens, D., Grabs, W., Kwadijk, J.
C. J., Lang, H., et al. (2001). Impact of climate change on
hydrological regimes and water resources management in the
Rhine basin. Climatic Change, 49(1-2), 105–128.
Mitchell, T. D., & Jones, P. D. (2005). An improved method of
constructing a database of monthly climate observations and
associated high-resolution grids. International Journal of
Climatology, 25(6), 693–712.
Mohor, G. S., Rodriguez, D. A., Tomasella, J., & Junior, J. L. S.
(2015). Exploratory analyses for the assessment of climate
change impacts on the energy production in an Amazon run-
of-river hydropower plant. Journal of Hydrology: Regional
Studies, 4(Part B), 41–59.
Montenegro, A., & Ragab, R. (2010). Hydrological response of a
Brazilian semi-arid catchment to different land use and cli-
mate change scenarios: a modelling study. Hydrological
Processes, 24(19), 2705–2723.
Page 21 of 23 752
Narsimlu, B., Gosain, A. K., & Chahar, B. R. (2013). Assessment
of future climate change impacts on water resources of Upper
Sind River Basin , India using SWAT model. Water
Resources Management, 27(10), 3647–3662.
Needham, H. F., Keim, B. D., & Sathiaraj, D. (2015). A review of
tropical cyclone-generated storm surges: Global data sources,
observations, and impacts. Reviews of Geophysics, 53(2),
545–591.
Nobrega, M. T., Collischonn, W., Tucci, C. E. M., & Paz, A. R.
(2011). Uncertainty in climate change impacts on water
resources in the Rio Grande Basin, Brazil. Hydrology and
Earth System Sciences, 15(2), 585–595.
Onyutha, C., Tabari, H., Rutkowska, A., & Nyeko-ogiramoi, P.
(2016). Comparison of different statistical downscaling
methods for climate change rainfall projections over the
Lake Victoria basin considering CMIP3 and CMIP5.
Journal of Hydro-environment Research, 12, 31–45.
Ouyang, F., Zhu, Y., & Fu, G. (2015). Impacts of climate change
under CMIP5 RCP scenarios on streamflow in the
Huangnizhuang catchment. Stochastic Environmental
Research and Risk Assessment, 29(7), 1781–1795.
Pattnayak, K. C., Kar, S. C., Dalal, M., & Pattnayak, R. K. (2017).
Projections of annual rainfall and surface temperature from
CMIP5 models over the BIMSTEC countries. Global and
Planetary Change, 152, 152–166.
Pechlivanidi, I. G., Jackson, B. M., Mcintyre, N. R., & Wheater,
H. S. (2011). Catchment scale hydrological modelling: a
review of model types, calibration appraoches and
uncertaintity analysis methods in the context of recent devel-
opments in technology and applications. Global NEST
Journal, 13(3), 193–214.
Peel, M. C., Finlayson, B. L., & Mcmahon, T. A. (2007). Updated
world map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification.
Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 11(5), 1633–1644.
Petheram, C., Rustomji, P., McVicar, T. R., Cai, W., Chiew, F. H.
S., Vleeshouwer, J., Van Niel, T. G., Li, L. T., Cresswell, R.
G., Dnohue, R. J., Teng, J., & Perraud, J. M. (2012).
Estimating the impact of projected climate change on runoff
across the tropical Savannas and semiarid rangelands of
Northern Australia. American Meteorological Society, 13,
483–503.
Phan, D. B., Wu, C. C., & Hsieh, S. C. (2011). Impact of climate
change on stream discharge and sediment yield in Northern
Vietnam. Water Resources, 38(6), 827–836.
Pichuka, S., Prasad, R., Maity, R., & Kunstmann, H. (2017).
Development of a method to identify change in the pattern
of extreme streamflow events in future climate : Application
on the Bhadra reservoir inflow in India. Journal of
Hydrology: Regional Studies, 9, 236–246.
Pilling, C. G., & Jones, J. A. A. (2002). The impact of future
climate change on seasonal discharge , hydrological process-
es and extreme flows in the Upper Wye experimental catch-
ment, mid-Wales. Hydrological Processes, 16(6), 1201–
1213.
Raghavan, S. V., Vu, M. T., & Liong, S. Y. (2012). Assessment of
future streamflow over the Sesan catchment of the Lower
Mekong Basin in Vietnam. Hydrological Processes, 26(24),
3661–3668.
Raghavan, S. V., Vu, M. T., & Liong, S. Y. (2017). Ensemble
climate projections of mean and extreme rainfall over
Vietnam. Global and Planetary Change, 148, 96–104.
752 Page 22 of 23
Rana, A., Foster, K., Bosshard, T., Olsson, J., & Bengtsson, L.
(2014). Impact of climate change on rainfall over Mumbai
using Distribution-based Scaling of Global Climate Model
projections. Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies, 1, 107–
128.
Raneesh, K. Y., & Santosh, G. T. (2017). A study on the impact of
climate change on streamflow at the watershed scale in the
humid tropics. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 56(6), 946–
965.
Ranger, N., Hallegatte, S., Bhattacharya, S., Bachu, M., Priya, S.,
Dhore, K., et al. (2011). An assessment of the potential
impact of climate change on flood risk in Mumbai.
Climatic Change, 104(1), 139–167.
Räty, O., Räisänen, J., Ylhäisi, S., & J. (2014). Evaluation of delta
and bias correction methods for future daily precipitation:
intermodel cross-validation using ENSEMBLES simula-
tions. Climate Dynamics, 42(0-10), 2287–2303.
Rui, H., Teng, W. L., Vollmer, B., Mocko, D. M., Beaudoing, H.
K., & Rodell, M. (2011). NASA Giovanni portals for
NLDAS/GLDAS online visualization, analysis, and inter-
comparison. NASA Technical Report. https://ntrs.nasa.
gov/search.jsp?R=20140009183. Accessed 12 Sept 2019.
Santer, B. D., Wigley, T. M. L., Mears, C., Wentz, F. J., Klein, S.
A., Seidel, D. J., Taylor, K. E., et al. (2005). Amplification of
surface temperature trends and variability in the tropical
atmosphere. Science, 309, 1551–1556.
Schlesinger, M. E. (1983). A review of climate model simulations
of CO 2 induced-warming. International Journal of
Environmental Studies, 20(2), 103–114.
Setegn, S. G., Rayner, D., Melesse, A. M., & Dargahi, B. (2011).
Impact of climate change on the hydroclimatology of Lake
Tana Basin , Ethiopia. Water Resources Research, 47, 1–13.
Shaaban, A. J., Amin, M. Z. M., Chen, Z. Q., & Ohara, N. (2011).
Regional modeling of climate change impact on Peninsular
Malaysia water resources. Journal of Hydrologic
Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-
5584.0000305.
Shahvari, N., Khalilian, S., Mosavi, S. H., & Mortazavi, S. A.
(2019). Assessing climate change impacts on water resources
and crop yield: a case study of Varamin plain basin, Iran.
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 191, 1–12.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-019-7266-x.
Sharma, D., & Babel, M. S. (2013). Application of downscaled
precipitation for hydrological climate-change impact assess-
ment in the upper Ping River Basin of Thailand. Climate
Dynamics, 41(9-10), 2589–2602.
Shrestha, S., Shrestha, M., & Babel, M. S. (2016). Modelling the
potential impacts of climate change on hydrology and water
resources in the Indrawati River Basin , Nepal.
Environmental Earth Sciences, 75(4), 1–13.
Singh, R., Arya, D. S., Taxak, A. K., & Vojinovic, Z. (2016).
Potential impact of climate change on rainfall intensity-
duration-frequency curves in Roorkee, India. Water
Resources Management, 30(13), 4603–4616.
Sood, A., Muthuwatta, L., & Mccartney, M. (2017). A SWAT
evaluation of the effect of climate change on the hydrology of
the Volta River basin. Water International, 38(3), 297–311.
Sorribas, M. V., Paiva, R. C. D., Melack, J. M., Bravo, J. M.,
Jones, C., Carvalho, L., et al. (2016). Projections of climate
change effects on discharge and inundation in the Amazon
basin. Climatic Change, 136(3-4), 555–570.
Environ Monit Assess (2019) 191: 752
Syvitski, J. P. M., Cohen, S., Kettner, A. J., & Brakenridge, G. R.
(2014). How important and different are tropical rivers ? —
An overview. Geomorphology, 227, 5–17.
Tan, M. L., Ibrahim, A. L., Yusop, Z., Chua, V. P., & Chan, N. W.
(2017). Climate change impacts under CMIP5 RCP scenarios
on water resources of the Kelantan River Basin, Malaysia.
Atmospheric Research, 189, 1–10.
Tang, Q., Gao, H., Lu, H., & Lettenmaier, D. P. (2009). Remote
sensing: hydrology. Progress in Physical Geography, 33(4),
490–509.
Taye, M. T., Ntegeka, V., Ogiramoi, N. P., Willems, P., Leuven, U.,
& Division, H. (2011). Assessment of climate change impact
on hydrological extremes in two source regions of the Nile
River Basin. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 15, 209–
222.
Teferi, M., Willems, P., & Block, P. (2015). Implications of climate
change on hydrological extremes in the Blue Nile basin : a
review. Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies, 4, 280–293.
Teutschbein, C., & Seibert, J. (2012). Bias correction of regional
climate model simulations for hydrological climate-change
impact studies : review and evaluation of different methods.
Journal of Hydrology, 456-457, 12–29.
Van Vuuren, D. P., Edmonds, J., Kainuma, M., Riahi, K.,
Thomson, A., Hibbard, K., et al. (2011). The representative
concentration pathways: an overview. Climatic Change,
109(1), 5–31.
Vecchi, G. A., & Soden, B. J. (2007). Effect of remote sea surface
temperature change on tropical cyclone potential intensity.
Nature, 450(7172), 1066–1070.
Viola, M. R., de Mello, C. R., Chou, S. C., Yanagi, S. N., &
Gomes, J. L. (2015). Assessing climate change impacts on
Upper Grande River Basin hydrology, Southeast Brazil.
International Journal of Climatology, 35(6), 1054–1068.
Vuille, M., & Bradley, R. S. (2000). Mean annual temperature
trends and their vertical structure in the tropical Andes.
Geophysical Research Letters, 27(23), 3885–3888.
Wang, Z., Ficklin, D. L., Zhang, Y., & Zhang, M. (2012). Impact
of climate change on stream fl ow in the arid Shiyang River
Basin of northwest China. Hydrological Processes, 26(18),
2733–2744.
Wang, D., Hagen, S. C., & Alizad, K. (2013). Climate change
impact and uncertainty analysis of extreme rainfall events in
the Apalachicola River basin, Florida. Journal of Hydrology,
480, 125–135.
Watanabe, S., Kanae, S., Seto, S., Yeh, P. J., Hirabayashi, Y., &
Oki, T. (2012). Intercomparison of bias-correction methods
for monthly temperature and precipitation simulated by mul-
tiple climate models. Journal of Geophysical Research-
Atmospheres, 117(D23), 1–13.
Wentz, F. J., Ricciardulli, L., Hilburn, K., & Mears, C. (2007).
How much more rain will global warming bring? Science,
317(5835), 233–235.
Wood, A. W., Maurer, E. P., Kumar, A., & Lettenmaier, D. P.
(2002). Long-range experimental hydrologic forecasting for
the eastern United States. Journal of Geophysical Research-
Atmospheres, 107(D20).
Wood, A. W., Leung, L. R., Sridhar, V., & Lettenmaier, D. P.
(2004). Hydrologic implications of dynamical and statistical
approaches to downscaling climate model outputs. Climatic
Change, 62(1-3), 189–216.
Environ Monit Assess (2019) 191: 752
Xia, Y., Mitchell, K., Ek, M., Sheffield, J., Cosgrove, B., Wood, E.,
Luo, L., Alonge, C., Wei, H., Meng, J., Livneh, B.,
Lettenmaier, D. P., Koren, V., Duan, Q., Mo, K., Fan, Y., &
Mocko, D. (2012). Continental-scale water and energy flux
analysis and validation for the North American Land Data
Assimilation System project phase 2 (NLDAS-2): 1.
Intercomparison and application of model products.
International Journal of Geophysical Research
Atmospheres. https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JD016048.
Page 23 of 23 752
Yu, Z., Gu, H., Wang, J., Xia, J., & Lu, B. (2017). Effect of
projected climate change on the hydrological regime of the
Yangtze River Basin, China. Stochastic Environmental
Research and Risk Assessment, 32(1), 1–16.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional
affiliations.