Water Cycle 3 (2022) 86–99

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Water Cycle
journal homepage: www.keaipublishing.com/en/journals/water-cycle/

Effect of climate change on water availability in Bilate catchment,

Southern Ethiopia
Muluneh Legesse Edamo a, Kedir Mohammed Bushira c, *, Tigistu Yisihak Ukumo b,
Mesfin Amaru Ayele a, Matusal Arja Alaro b, Habtamu Bogale Borko b
a
Faculty of Hydraulic and Water Resources Engineering, Arba Minch University, Ethiopia
b
Faculty of Water Resources and Irrigation Engineering, Arba Minch University, Ethiopia
c
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Namibia University of Science and Technology, Windhoek, Namibia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This study aims to evaluate the effect of climate change on water availability in the Bilate catchment, Southern
Water availability Ethiopia. The bias-corrected outputs of five climate models and their ensemble mean were used for the baseline
Bilate watershed (1976–2005), the 2050s, and 2080s under Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP) for both RCP4.5 and
Climate change
RCP8.5 scenarios. A semi-distributed physically-based Hydrologic Engineering Center of Hydrologic Modeling
HEC-HMS
System (HEC-HMS) was used to perform rainfall-runoff simulation after sensitivity analysis, calibration, and
RCP
validation. The forecasted temperatures of the watershed will increase in the future. The forecasting from all the
climate models indicated that rainfall of the watershed will increase by 34% in the 2050s and 21% in 2080s under
RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 respectively. The discharge projection for almost all climate models shows an increment up to
27% whereas it will decline up to 30% under RCP 4.5 and RCP8.5 respectively in the 2050s. In the 2080s, nearly
all climate models will show an increment up to 25% in discharge whereas it will decrease up to 32% under
RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 respectively. This research paves the way to reduce the impacts of changing climate for
sustainable water resources management.

1. Introduction It is not yet possible to realize variations in precipitation on global or

Climate change is exacerbating over the earth's surface on a regular
basis, partly in response to increased human activities [1]. Internal and
external forcing may cause changes in climate variables in a variety of
ways, across a variety of periods and in various geographical areas [2].
Changes in solar radiation and volcanism are examples of external forces
that contribute to the natural variability of climate system. Moreover,
deforestation and industrial development that may occur because of
human activities are thought to be driving forces for climate change as it
raise the greenhouse gas effect, disturbing the natural atmospheric
composition [3].
Recent studies suggests that average temperatures in the earth's at-
mosphere will continue to increase as greenhouse gases levels rise at all
levels on the earth's surface [4]. For example, world average temperature
is predicted to rise by 1.5
C in 2050s [5]. The warming is likely to be
larger than the global annual mean warming in all Africa [6] and this
would result due to the likely increase in minimum temperature more
rapidly than maximum temperatures [7].
even hemispheric scales. Some regions will experience increases, other
regions will experience decreases and yet others will not experience
significant changes at all [8]. A large decline in summer seasonal rainfall
has been observed in sub-Saharan Africa since the 1950s but precipita-
tion appears to have increased progressively over the Soviet Union dur-
ing the last century [9]. Changes in precipitation occurrence, duration,
and prediction are likely to be one of the most pervasive and deleterious
effects of climate change in Ethiopia [10]. The decrease or increase of the
water volume has an impact on the life and properties in the catchment.
Changes in regional precipitation will have an impact on water avail-
ability, resulting in lower crop yields and the potential for widespread
malnutrition [11–14]. The influence of climate change requires great
care to secure the environment for life [15].
Climate change will put developing countries like Ethiopia at a
greater risk. Nowadays, significant portion of the country is exposed to
drought and desertification. As a result, climate change and its conse-
quences are a cause for concern in the country. More frequent and dra-
matic periodic fluctuations in sea surface temperature (El Ni~ no) and the

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: kdrmohammed@gmail.com (K.M. Bushira).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watcyc.2022.06.001
Received 25 December 2021; Received in revised form 13 June 2022; Accepted 16 June 2022
Available online 22 June 2022
2666-4453/© 2022 The Authors. Publishing Services by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of KeAi Communications Co. Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
M.L. Edamo et al. Water Cycle 3 (2022) 86–99

Table 1 evapotranspiration are the major climatic variables that need due
Details of CORDEX-RCMs and the driving GCMs. attention to conduct successful rain fed agriculture. They did not use any
RCM Institute Driving Projection Reference climate model to forecast rainfall variability in the catchment.
GCM Tekle [19], used the GCM and RCM with A2a and B2a as input to the
CCLM4 Climate Limited-area MPI-M- Rotated [60] soil and water assessment tool (SWAT) model. Their study concluded that
Modeling Community MPI-ESM- pole there is an increase in the water demand due to an increase of human
(CLMcom) LR needs of water for different purposes. They stated that Statistical
RCA4 Sveriges CNRM- Rotated [34] Downscaling Model (SDSM) has the ability to replicate the historical
Meteorologiska och CERFACS- pole
Hydrologiska CNRM-CM5
maximum and minimum temperature than precipitation. However, they
Institute (SMHI) did not use bias correction and hence there is systematic error anticipated
RACMO22T Koninklijk ICHEC-EC- Rotated (Meijgaard in the final output of this study. Their use of single GCM makes the result
Nederlands EARTH_ pole et al., 2008) questionable. Wagesho [20], on the other hand, observed that the surface
Meteorologisch
runoff component in the study catchment increases progressively since
Institut, (KNMI),
Netherlands 1970s. Extreme daily stream flow at Alaba Kulito in Bilate River is
HIRHAM5 Danmarks ICHEC-EC- Rotated ([33] characterized by increasing trend during the analysis period but annual
Meterologiske EARTH pole stream flow does not show significant monotonic trend [21]. also
Institut (DMI) analyzed the water resources potential of the catchment with respect to
REMO2009 Helmholtz-Zentrum ICHEC-EC- Rotated [36]
Geesthacht, Climate EARTH pole
precipitation variability. They concluded that precipitation depends on
Service Center, Max altitude in the catchment. The variables of climate data are limited,
Planck Institute for which makes the results questionable.
Meteorology The previous studies in the Bilate catchment used the global circu-
lation model (GCM) and regional circulation model (RCM) which were
downloaded from Coordinated Regional Climate Downscaling Experi-
air pressure of the overlying atmosphere (Southern Oscillation) events
ment (CORDEX). CORDEX delivers forecasts for RCP4.5, which assumes
are expected as a result of climate change, resulting in widespread famine
stabilization of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations at levels
in the region [16]. Studying the effects of climate change and developing
corresponding to radiative forcing of 4.5 W m2 in 2100 [22,23]; and
adaptation strategies as part of a major strategy is crucial.
RCP8.5, which assumes continued increases in greenhouse gas emissions
There are several studies in Bilate catchment concerned with the
throughout the twenty-first century [24]. The Intergovernmental Panel
climate change. Mekonnen et al. [17] assessed the impact of climate
on climate change (IPCC) Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES)
change on flood frequency in Bilate catchment and summarized that
comprises A2a (Medium-High Emissions), and B2a (Medium-Low Emis-
Bilate catchment will experience a significant climate change for the next
sion) scenarios [25]. Both A2a and B2a describe a “regionalization”,
30 years. However, the authors did not clarify the type and accuracy of
meaning a varied world development. A2a defines a highly diversified
models used. Moreover, these studies focused on short-term period
future world with provincially oriented economies. The B2a is also
ignoring the mid-term (2041–2070) and long-term (2071–2100) climate
locally-oriented but with a general development towards environmental
change effects [18]. investigated the temporal and spatial variability of
safety and social evenhandedness [26]. In section 2.2 and Table 1, the
rainfall in the highlands of Bilate River. They concluded that rainfall and

Fig. 1. Location map of the study area.

87
M.L. Edamo et al.
Fig. 2. Annual cycle of rainfall (1990–2005).
RCPs and the five climate models utilized in this study were described in
depth.
Climate change has negative consequences for long-term develop-
ment and water resource planning and management [10]. Because of
differences in soil type, topography, anthropogenic activities, and
meteorological circumstances, the impact of climate change on stream-
flow varied among regions [27]. Human development increased
streamflow and caused significant floods while decreasing streamflow
variability [28]. Runoff changes meaningfully and is mainly affected due
to climate change [29]. Quantifying the effects of climate change on
runoff in the Bilate watershed is crucial for studying the flow regime
behavior because of climatic variability. The major objective of this study
is to evaluate the effects of climate change on water availability in Bilate
catchment by the HEC-HMS and multiple climate models. Therefore, the
output of this research was vital for river basin management.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Study area
Bilate catchment is one of the sub-basins of the Abaya-Chamo
catchment of the Rift Valley Lake basin. It is located in the south-
western part of Ethiopia. Bilate River is located approximately between
37.79
and 38.34
E longitudes and 6.56
–8.12
N latitudes (Fig. 1). The
altitude of the watershed ranges from 1300 m at Lake Abaya to 3050 m
above sea level at Ambaricho Mountain [18]. The above range indicates
the catchment consists of a diversified landscape within a short distance.
2.2. Data
The secondary data such as rainfall, temperature, relative humidity,
and sunshine hours were collected from the National Meteorological
Agency (NMA) of Ethiopia. Streamflow data were obtained from the
Ministry of Water, Irrigation, and Energy (MoWIE).
Downscaled rainfall and temperature data for the period 1976–2100
were downloaded from the spatial grid resolutions of all Coordinated
Regional Climate Downscaling Experiment (CORDEX) Africa programs
for both RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 emission scenarios in the form of NetCDF
(Network Common Data Form) (https://esgf-node.llnl.gov/projects/e
sgf-llnl/). The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in the United
States (US) developed the Intermediate Emissions scenario (RCP4.5).
Here radiative forcing is stabilized shortly after the year 2100, consistent
with a future with relatively ambitious emissions reductions. RCP8.5
(high Emissions scenario), is consistent with a future with no policy
changes to reduce emissions. The International Institute developed this
scenario for Applied System Analysis in Austria. It is characterized by
increasing greenhouse gas emissions that lead to high greenhouse gas
concentrations over time [10]. Five RCM models such as Climate
Limited-Area Modeling Community Version 4 (CCLM4), Rossby Center
88
Water Cycle 3 (2022) 86–99
Atmospheric Version 4 (RCA4), Regional Atmospheric Climate Model
Version22 (RACMO22T), High-Resolution Hamburg Climate Model
Version 5 (HIRAM5), and Regional Model (REMO2009) were used. A
detailed explanation of all RCMs in CORDEX-Africa was described in
Kim's study [30].
The selected GCM-RCMs are developed by different research institute
and universities over different countries. The hydrostatic Hamburg
Climate Model Version 5 (HIRAM5) [31] is a completely new regional
climate model (RCM) [32], based on a subset of the High Resolution
Limited Area Model (HIRLAM) and European Center Hamburg Model
(ECHAM) models, combining the dynamics of the former model with the
physical parameterization schemes of the latter. The physical parame-
terization has also greatly been modified [33].
In the last couple of years, since 2005, the next version of the hy-
drostatic KNMI regional climate model RACMO has been developed and
applied in a number of projects. This version, hereafter referred to as
RACMO2.2, constitutes an update of the RACMO2 cycle [10,31]. The
hydrostatic RCA4 model [34] has data produced with several horizontal
resolutions but for this analysis 0.44
resolution data is used [35].
REgional MOdel (REMO2009) is a hydrostatic regional climate model
of three-dimensional atmospheric RCM developed at the Max Planck
Institute of Meteorology [36]. Similarly, CCLM4 is fifth-order upwind
non-hydrostatic regional climate model [37]. The detail of the RCMs
used in this research were also described in Table 1. All models have a
0.44
x 0.44
grid resolution.
Until recently, the resolution of operational numerical weather pre-
diction models has been limited by computing power and operational
time constraints on resolutions in which the hydrostatic approximation is
almost perfectly valid. Operational forecasts therefore have relied mainly
on hydrostatic models, which applied extremely well in numerical sim-
ulations of the global circulation of both the atmosphere and the ocean at
the spatial and temporal resolutions that were available at the time [38].
In parallel, the development of non-hydrostatic atmospheric models,
which retain the vertical acceleration term and thus capture strong ver-
tical convection, has also been pursued over a period of more than four
decades, especially for mesoscale investigations of sudden storms. As
computer systems have become faster and memory has become more
affordable over the past decade, there has been a corresponding increase
in the spatial resolution of both numerical weather prediction and
climate simulation models. This improvement has facilitated a transition
from highly developed hydrostatic models towards non-hydrostatic
models. Over the past decade, atmospheric research institutions have
begun replacing their operational hydrostatic models with non-
hydrostatic versions [39].
2.2.1. Rainfall and temperature
Analysis of the daily rainfall data of eight meteorological stations in
the area shows that the catchment receives an average rainfall of 1230
mm per annum. There is a high spatial and temporal variation of rainfall.
M.L. Edamo et al. Water Cycle 3 (2022) 86–99

Fig. 3. Annual cycle temperature (1990–2005).

Angacha obtains higher rainfall (164.86 mm) in August and low rainfall α and scale parameter β, is often assumed to agree with the optimal
(19.25 mm) in December (Fig. 2). Bilate Tena and Alaba Kulito stations temperature distribution [45].
acquire minimum rainfall (76.74 mm and 100.33) in July respectively.

  1 ðxμÞ2
Durame gets little rainfall (13.1 mm) in December. fN xμ; σ 2 ¼ pffiffiffiffiffi*e 2σ2 ; x 2 R (3)
The monthly temperature of the watershed was 23.86
C  1.5
C σ * 2π
(Fig. 3). Bodity School accepts mean temperature (16.9
C) in August.
where, μ and σ are respectively determined by the mean and standard
Fonko obtains low mean temperature (17.2
C  2.2
C) in July. Hosana
deviation. The corrected temperature can be expressed in terms of
acquires average minimum temperature (16
C) in September. Bilate
Gaussian CDFs (FN) and its inverse (F1
N ) as
Tena receives high mean temperature (23.32
C  1.5
C and 21.6
C 
1.5
C) in March and December respectively. Bilate Tena is hotter than

  
cor
Thst;m:d ¼ FN 1 FN Thst;m:d μhst;m ; σ 2 hst;m μobs;m ; σ 2 obs;m (4)
other stations of the watershed.
cor
where, Thst;m:d denote the corrected temperature on the dth day of the mth
2.3. Method month and Thst;m;d denote the temperature from Regional Climate Models
(RCMs) output during the relevant period.
2.3.1. Bias correction of climate data
Climate models cannot be directly used for impact assessment 2.3.2. Simulated rainfall and temperature from climate models
without bias correction [40]. Hence, it is very important to correct the Statistical measures test the performance of models. These are the
raw climate data in order to produce a better climate projection. Bias bias in %, root mean squared error (RMSE) in mmyear1, correlation
correction is therefore applied to compensate for any tendency of over- coefficient (corr) and coefficient of variation (CV) in % [46].
estimation or underestimation of the mean of downscaled variables. Bias measures whether the average tendency of the simulated data is
Distribution mapping of precipitation and temperature method was used larger or smaller than the observed values. Bias is expressed in percent-
for bias adjustment [41]. The distribution mapping method [42] corrects age; the lower the absolute value of the bias, the better will be the model
the distribution shape of the daily climatic variables based on cumulative performance. Root mean square error (RMSE) has the unit of observed
distribution functions (CDFs) were made for both the observed variable which makes its interpretation relatively easy. RMSE value close
(1990–2005) and the regional climate models (RCMs) simulated to zero indicates better performance of a model. Correlation coefficient
(1976–2100) for all days of the month. Thereafter, the value of RCM (corr) is used to evaluate the linear relationship between the observed
simulated climatic variables of day within month m was searched on the and modeled rainfall amounts. The value of 1.0 suggests perfect linear
empirical cumulative distribution function (ECDFs) of the RCM simula- relationship between the model output and observed data [47].
tions together with its corresponding cumulative probability. Then, the
value of climatic variables of same cumulative probability was situated P
n
ðRRCM  RRCM ÞðRobs  Robs Þ
on the ECDFs of observations The Gamma distribution with shape α and
corr ¼ rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
i¼1
ffi (5)
scale β parameters are frequently thought to be appropriate for precipi- P n P n
ðRRCM  RRCM Þ2 ðRobs  Robs Þ2
tation probability distributions [43], and earlier research have proven i¼1 i¼1
that it is effective [44].
ðRRCM  Robs Þ
1 x Bias ¼ x100 (6)
fγ ðxjα; βÞ ¼ xα1 * α *e β ; x  0; α; β > 0‫׀‬ (1) RRCM
β *ΓðαÞ
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
uN
where, Γð:Þ is the Gamma function; and α and β are the form and scale uP
u ðRRCM  Robs Þ2
parameter, respectively. ti¼1
RMSE ¼ (7)


   N
Pcor
hst;m;d ¼ Fγ 1
Fγ Phst;m;d μhst;m;d ; α2 hst;m μobs;m ; α2 obs;m (2)
δR
where, Fγ and F1
γ respectively represent the Gamma Cumulative Distri- CV ¼ x100 (8)
R
bution Functions (CDFs) and their inverse, Pcor
hst;m:d denote the corrected
precipitation on the dth day of the mth month, Phst;m;d denote the pre- where R represents estimated statistics individually either for RCM or
cipitation from Regional Climate Models (RCMs) outputs during the observed rainfall amount; RCM and obs subscripts represent rainfall
relevant period; the subscripts d and m are specific days and months, amount over the watershed from RCM simulation or observed datasets,
respectively; and μ denotes the mean value. In relation to temperature, respectively. δ indicates standard deviation of either the RCM or
the Gaussian distribution (normal distribution), with location parameter observed rainfall data.

89
M.L. Edamo et al.
Table 2
Annual cycle performance of Rainfall.
Observed and GCM-RCM Average Annual rainfall (mmˑyear1)
Observed 1230
MPI-CCLM4 1096.4
ICHEC-HIRAM5 1095.0
ICHEC-RACMO22T 1082.6
CNRM-RCA4 1100.2
ICHEC-REMO2009 1088.5
2.3.3. Climate change impact analysis
Annual, seasonal and monthly impact of climate change on rainfall
and streamflow was analyzed. The percentage change in annual, seasonal
and monthly stream flow of all the periods were calculated by using [10]:
 
RQ;RF;Tmin ;Tmax ðdd;mm;yyyyÞ  RQ;RF;Tmin ;Tmax ðbaselineÞ
%change ¼ *100
RQ;RF;Tmin ;Tmax ðbaselineÞ
where, R represents the simulated data from climate models, the sub-
scripts Q stand for streamflow, RF stands for rainfall, Tmin stands for
minimum temperature, Tmax stands for maximum temperature, dd, mm
and yyyy refer to the daily, monthly and yearly values respectively.
2.3.4. HEC-HMS model
(HEC-HMS) designed to simulate the rainfall-runoff processes
particularly for dendritic watershed [48,49]. The input data used for
HEC-HMS was streamflow, sunshine hour, relative humidity, and
rainfall.
Calibration considered the least sensitive model parameter first and
subsequently followed the more sensitive parameters by systematic
adjustment of the initial values to optimize the candidate parameters
which provides the best fit between the observed streamflow and simu-
lated flow [49]. Model calibration was carried out by lessening the dif-
ference between the models computed and observed streamflow data.
Then model validation was conducted, using the model parameters fixed
during the model calibration and other set of data. Therefore, of the total
sample data, two-third of the observed data was used for calibration and
one-third was used for validation.
2.3.5. Performance of HEC-HMS model
Model simulation has been evaluated using efficiency criteria such as
Nash Sutcliff (NSE), and Relative Volume Error (RVE) in percentage.
The Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE) indicates how well the plot of
observed versus simulated streamflow values fit the 1:1 line [50,51]. NSE
ranges between -∞ and 1.0. Values between 0.75 and 1.0, 0.60 and 0.75,
and 0.36 and 0.50, generally indicate a very good, good, and satisfactory
model performance, respectively. The NSE value of 0.00 indicates the
mean observed value is a better predictor than the simulated value,
which indicates unacceptable model performance [52]. If NSE is nega-
tive, model predictions are very poor, and the average value of output is a
better estimate than the model prediction. The NSE is given by Ref. [53]
as:
n

P 2
Qo;i  Qs;i
NSE ¼ 1  P
i¼1
n
2
Qo;i  Qo;i
i¼1
where, Qo,i is the observed streamflow at the time step i, Qs,i is the
simulated flow at the time step i, n is the number of observations and the
bar symbol denotes the mean of the data.
The percentage error in total runoff volume (RVE), on the other hand,
ranges between -∞ to þ ∞. The model performance is very good, good,
and satisfactory if RVE values are between 5% and 5%, 5%–10%, and
10% to 5%, respectively. The RVE is given by Ref. [47]:
Water Cycle 3 (2022) 86–99
Bias (%) CV(%) RMSE (mmˑyear1) Corr()
– 11.03 – –
1.04 18.88 207.12 0.06
1.16_ 19.80 216.95 0.73
2.33 11.94 130.76 0.05
0.69 18.79 206.69 0.52
1.78 19.62 214.01 0.02
n

P 
Qo;i  Qs;i
RVE ¼ 1  i¼1
P
n  100 (11)
Qo;i
i¼1
3. Results and discussions
(9)
3.1. Performance of simulated rainfall and temperature
The annual total rainfall of the Bilate catchment and simulated
rainfall from the climate models were evaluated. The observed and
simulated annual average rainfall of the catchment is presented in
Table 2. Accuracy of models is not the same in representing the observed
rainfall. The smallest bias is 0.69% for CNRM-RCA4 which indicates the
better performance while ICHEC-RACMO22T has the largest value
(2.33%). The performance of ICHEC-HIRAM5 model was better in
terms of corr (0.73). The CV value of ICHEC-RACMO22T (11.9%) is close
to the observed value (11.03%) which shows the presence of less varia-
tion between the observed and simulated rainfall. CNRM-RCA4 model
tried to capture observed average annual rainfall (1100.2 mmˑyear1). In
Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE), a value close to zero indicates the best
performance of the RCM model. A value greater than zero indicates the
poor performance of the RCM model between simulated and observed
rainfall amounts. Errors in climate models can be caused by a range of
factors. Errors or biases are due to limited spatial resolution (large grid
sizes), simplified thermodynamic processes and physics, or incomplete
understanding of the global climate system. regional climate models
(RCMs) are commonly used to transfer large-scale global climate model
(GCM) data to smaller scales and to provide more detailed regional in-
formation. Due to systematic and random model errors, however, RCM
simulations often show considerable deviations from observations [42].
CORDEX delivers a unique and new set of climate projections
dynamically downscaled, using different Regional Climate Models
(RCMs) over different domains around the world, including Africa [54].
All RCMs simulate basic climatic variables (daily precipitation, maximum
(Tmax), and minimum (Tmin) surface air temperatures), but systematic
biases also occur across the models, which leads to bias correction before
applying the climate data for hydrological analysis [55]. used five RCMs
such as REMO2009, HIRAM5, CCLM4-8, and RCA4 and the authors
described that the climate models did not capture observed rainfall or
temperature. All RCM models simulate climatic variables, but the
magnitude is different [56]. The climate models used in this study
revealed variation in capturing the observed rainfall and temperature in
previous studies [10].
(10) In recent years, the Global Climate Models (GCMs) and Regional
Climate Models (RCMs) driven hydrological models are in frequent use to
draw rainfall and temperature projections. However, the projections
have frequently been proved to be unreliable. Recently, another devel-
oping subject of multi-model ensembles has added feathers to the cap of
the climate modeling community, however, this field has yet to be
attempted in catchment water availability studies. Climate models and
hydrological models are constantly being upgraded. The multi-model
ensembles are projected to produce higher confidence in the model
outputs about the future runoff regimes of the catchment than the single
climate model (Bhatt & Mall, 2015).
90
M.L. Edamo et al.
Fig. 4. Annual cycle of rainfall (1990–2005).
Fig. 5. Annual cycle of uncorrected minimum and maximum temperature (1990–2005).
Simulated rainfall overestimated and underestimated the observed
rainfall of the watershed (Fig. 4). ICHEC-HIRAM5, CNRN-RCA4 and ICHEC-
REMO2009 overestimated observed rainfall in May, June, July, August,
September and October. All The models underestimated observed rainfall in
January, February, March and December. The probable reason for having
underestimation climate model are because of the limitation of using the
hydrostatic version at a higher resolution as appraised by the model's de-
velopers, and the same is also concluded in the recent experiments [57,58].
Major imperfections in the models prevent proper simulation of
important elements of the climate system, including temperature and
precipitation. Large differences between model predictions and obser-
vations frequently exist when comparing these elements or features. In
some cases computer models fail to simulate even the correct sign of the
observed parameters [59].
Climate models are important to forecast the variability of climatic
variables. The disadvantage is that the models only consider the natural
Earth system and not the interaction between humans and nature [60].
The disadvantages associated with climate models are an incomplete
understanding of the climate system, an imperfect ability to transform
our knowledge into accurate mathematical equations, the limited power
of computers, the models’ inability to reproduce important atmospheric
phenomena, and inaccurate representations of the complex natural in-
terconnections (Legates, 2002). On the other hand each climate model is
used to reproduce the climate of the twentieth century and to forecast the
climate of the future (Gent, 2013; [10]. They are critical instruments for
studying the effects of global warming. Climate models are also useful for
91
Water Cycle 3 (2022) 86–99
estimating water resource availability for future planning and manage-
ment (Bhatt & Mall, 2015).
The climate models underestimated observed maximum temperature
of the catchment (Fig. 5). CNRM-RCA4, ICHEC-REMO2009 and MPI-
CCLM4 slightly underestimated observed maximum temperature but
MPI-CCLM4 captured in February. ICHEC-HIRAM5 and ICHEC-
RACMO22T entirely underestimated observed maximum temperature.
Many studies also indicated that climate models may overestimate or
underestimate observed maximum temperature [55].
The climate models overestimated as well as undervalued observed
minimum temperature of the watershed (Fig. 5). ICHEC-RACMO22T
underestimated observed minimum temperature in January, February,
March, April, October, November and December but slightly captured in
May, June, July, August and September. CNRM-RCA4 model fairly
overestimated the observed minimum temperature. MPI-CCLM4 model
overestimated observed minimum temperature [46]. faced over-
estimation and underestimation of observed minimum temperature.
The spatial distribution of average annual rainfall and temperature in
the Bilate catchment is presented in Fig. 6. High average annual rainfall
(1320 mm) was recorded in upper part of the catchment.
3.2. Bias correction
The bias correction was applied to correct the large systematic errors
in simulations of climate models. MPI-CCLM4, ICHEC-REMO2009,
ICHEC-RACMO22T, ICHEC-HIRAM5, and CNRM-RCA4 captured the
M.L. Edamo et al. Water Cycle 3 (2022) 86–99

Fig. 6. The spatial distribution of simulated average data (1990–2005 a) Rainfall b) Tmax and c) Tmin.

observed rainfall after bias-correction. Therefore, climate models’ output

should be bias-corrected before any hydrological modeling.
There are many criteria by which a subset of models can be selected,
for instance, based on the skill in reproducing past climate [61] and the
range of projected climate changes ([62]. Others have implemented
automated algorithms based on the clustering of climate extreme indices
to identify a representative subset of climate models [63].
However, no single climate model can capture the entire range of
possibilities for all factors, regions, or seasons. Working with a restricted
selection of models, as [64] demonstrated, can result in inconsistency in
climate change signals [65]. discovered that, depending on the season
and region of interest, the five models employed in ISI-MIP reflect
50–90% of the complete range of temperature estimates and 30–80% of
precipitation projections.
[66] discussed the cause of inherent errors and uncertainties occur- Fig. 7. Bias corrected annual rainfall cycle of GCM-RCM projected climate
ring due to the simplification of highly complex atmospheric physics in data (1976–2005).
GCMs. They found multiple model ensemble was a good fit for the situ-
ation in comparison to individual GCMs mainly due to the compensation minimum temperature. Researchers supported bias correction of simu-
of individual errors. lated data from climate models [69].
Some studies that have focused on the impact of climate change using
single RCMs should perhaps re-assess their finding based on multiple 3.3. Rainfall and temperature variability in baseline period (1976–2005)
climate models output [67]. According to Ref. [68]; all RCMs are not
equal when it comes to their performance in a localized study area. The The entire climate model indicated the increasing sign from January
performance varies from model to model and region-to-region. RCMs to April. On the other hand, the models showed decrement from August
that achieve good results in some areas may fail in other places [10]. to December (Fig. 7). ICHEC-RACMO22T and CNRM-RCA4 models
In this study, climate models were selected based on previous studies captured the lowest (0 and 3.5 mm) rainfall in January respectively. The
of the catchment which perform better than other climate models [10]. simulated monthly rainfall for all climate models slightly decreased in
As they studied, the previous knowledge of selecting climate models from June and July. ICHEC-REMO2009 and MPI-CCLM4 models captured high
multiple GCM-RCMs models is better to limit the number of climate rainfall (149.7 mm and 139 mm) in April respectively. ICHEC-HIRAM5
models. model predicted 144.3 mm rainfall in August.
MPI-CCLM4, ICHEC-REMO2009, ICHEC-RACMO22T, ICHEC-HIRAM5 All climate model indicated the increasing sign from September to
and CNRM-RCA4 captured the observed maximum and minimum tem- December in monthly maximum and minimum temperature (Fig. 8). On the
perature after bias correction. Now, we can use models output in rainfall- other hand, the models showed decrement from April to August. CNRM-
runoff modeling of the catchment without any doubt since the observed RCA4 models captured the high monthly maximum temperature (28.4
C
and simulated data were the same after systematic error reduction.  1.5
C and 27.3
C  1.5
C) in February and December respectively.
The forced Regional Climate Models (RCMs) to the local area is coarse ICHEC-REMO2009 model showed 22.5
C  1.5
C in September. MPI-
and biased when compared to Global Climate Models (GCM) [10]. The CCLM4 models captured high maximum temperature (28.6
C  1.5
C)
distribution mapping of precipitation and temperature approach of bias in March. ICHEC-HIRAM5 model predicted 26.5
C  1.5
C in January.
correction reduced the errors from the models and fit the observed ICHEC-RACMO22T model estimated 22.5
C  1.5
C in August.

92
M.L. Edamo et al. Water Cycle 3 (2022) 86–99

Fig. 8. Bias corrected annual maximum and minimum temperature cycle of GCM-RCM projected climate data under baseline period (1976–2005).

Fig. 9. Bias corrected annual rainfall cycle of GCM-RCM projected climate data (2050s).

The minimum temperature of the Bilate catchment forecasted by all scenario, there may be an increase of about 29% in the 2050s. In the case
the climate models were was low (7.2
C  0.5
C) in August. On the of the B2a scenario, the precipitation will change by 32% to 33% in
other hand, the models predicted high (13
C  0.92
C) minimum 2050s. Nevertheless, the use of single climate model makes the results
temperature in March. CNRM-RCA4 model predicted 12.8
C  2.1
C questionable.
temperature in December. The simulated monthly maximum temperature has shown varying
signals in the mid-term (2050s). Under MPI-CCLM4 and RCP4.5 scenario
in the 2050s, the monthly maximum temperature of the Bilate catchment
3.4. Projected changes in rainfall and temperature in mid-term period
will vary by 1.4
C  0.2
C from January to December (Fig. 10). How-
(2041–2070) or 2050s
ever, under RCP8.5, it will rise by 1.3
C  0.1
C over the same period.
With the RCP4.5 scenario, the ICHEC-HIRAM5 model predicted a change
There is a mixed-signal from the climate models in simulating the
in maximum temperature would rise by 1.2
C  0.2
C in the 2050s. In
monthly rainfall in the mid-term (2050s) periods (Fig. 9). For MPI-
the 2050s, it will similarly increase by 1.4
C  0.8
C under RCP8.5.
CCLM4 in the 2050s, monthly rainfall in the Bilate catchment will
Under RCP4.5, the ICHEC-RACMO22T model predicted a 1.5
C  0.1
C
change by 22.1% to 10.4% under RCP4.5. For RCP8.5, however, it will
increase in maximum temperature in the 2050s. In the same time span,
change by 24.5% to 3.5% during the same time span. For RCP4.5, the
the model predicted 1.6
C  0.1
C under RCP8.5. CNRM-RCA4 model
predicted rainfall from the ICHEC-HIRAM5 model showed a change by
indicated the change by 1.4
C  0.1
C in the 2050s under RCP4.5. The
33.1% to 13.2% in the 2050s. However, in the 2050s, it will change by
model also showed the change of 1.6
C  0.5
C under RCP8.5 in the
25.7% to 3.9% under RCP8.5. With the RCP4.5 scenario, the ICHEC-
2050s. The ICHEC-REMO2009 model pointed the change of rainfall by
RACMO22T model predicted a change in rainfall of 29.9% to 4.2% in
1.3
C  0.1
C under RCP4.5 in the 2050s. It also showed the change by
the 2050s. Meanwhile, the model indicated 30.3% to 3.2% under
1.4
C  0.3
C under RCP8.5 in 2050s (Fig. 11).
RCP8.5 for the same period. Using RCP4.5, the CNRM-RCA4 model
The monthly minimum temperature of the Bilate catchment will
predicted a change of 29.1% to 0.5% in the 2050s. The model also
change by 1.1
C  0.6
C from January to December for MPI-CCLM4
showed the change of 30.2% to 2.2% under RCP8.5 in the 2050s. The
under RCP4.5 scenario in the 2050s. Under RCP8.5, however, it will
ICHEC-REMO2009 model pointed to the change of rainfall by 30.9% to
change by 1.0
C  0.1
C during the same period. Under RCP4.5, the
11.3% under RCP4.5 in the 2050s. It also showed the change by 26.7%
ICHEC-HIRAM5 model predicted a shift in minimum temperature will
to 8.7% under RCP8.5 in the 2050s. According to Ref. [70] for the A2a

93
M.L. Edamo et al.
Fig. 10. Bias corrected annual maximum and minimum temperature cycle of GCM-RCM projected climate data under RCP4.5 (2050s).
Fig. 11. Bias corrected annual maximum and minimum temperature cycle of GCM-RCM projected climate data under RCP8.5 (2050s).
increase by 1.1
C  0.3
C in the 2050s. In the 2050s, it will likewise
change by 1.8
C  0.7
C under RCP8.5. Under RCP4.5, the ICHEC-
RACMO22T model predicted an increase in minimum temperature by
0.95
C  0.1
C in the 2050s. Under RCP8.5, however, the model pre-
dicted 1.4
C  0.1
C. Under RCP4.5, the CNRM-RCA4 model predicted
a change of 0.1
C  1.1
C in the 2050s. The model predicted a change of
1.92
C  0.2
C under RCP8.5 in the same period. Under RCP4.5, the
ICHEC-REMO2009 model predicted a 1.32
C  0.1
C increase in
rainfall in the 2050s. It also revealed 1.1
C  0.13
C shift in the 2050s
under RCP8.5 (Fig. 11).
3.5. Predicted changes of seasonal and annual rainfall and temperature in
2080s
The monthly rainfall of the Bilate catchment will change by 28.4% to
30.2% for MPI-CCLM4 under RCP4.5 in the 2080s (Fig. 12). On the
other hand, it will change by 42.1% to 13.2% under RCP8.5 in the same
period. The simulated rainfall from the ICHEC-HIRAM5 model indicated
the change from 45.1% to 34.5% in the 2080s under RCP4.5. It will also
change by 43.5% to 27.5% under RCP8.5 in the 2080s. ICHEC-
RACMO22T model showed the change of rainfall by 42.7% to 29.5%
in the 2080s under RCP4.5. On the other hand, the model showed 33.8%
to 33.2% under RCP8.5 in the same period. CNRM-RCA4 model indi-
cated the change by 32.5% to 5.1% in the 2080s under RCP4.5. The
94
Water Cycle 3 (2022) 86–99
model also showed the change of 20.5% to 18.3% under RCP8.5 in the
2080s. The ICHEC-REMO2009 model pointed to the change of rainfall by
36.5% to 33.3% under RCP4.5 in the 2080s. It also showed the change
by 39.8% to 25.6% under RCP8.5 in 2080s. The results obtained here
are also in agreement with other studies in the study catchment. However
climate change studies in Bilate catchment neglected the long-term
period [70]; Demissie et al., 2016). This study will serve as a good in-
formation source for water resource management in Bilate catchment.
The monthly maximum temperature of the Bilate catchment will
change by 1.3
C  0.2
C for MPI-CCLM4 under RCP4.5 in the 2080s. On
the other hand, it will change by 1.7
C  0.21
C from January to
December under RCP8.5 in the same period. The simulated maximum
temperature from the ICHEC-HIRAM5 model indicated the change by
1.6
C  0.5
C in the 2080s under RCP4.5. It will also change by 1.7
C
 0.25
C under RCP8.5 in the 2080s. The ICHEC-RACMO22T model
showed the maximum temperature change by 1.3
C  0.1
C in the
2080s under RCP4.5. On the other hand, the model showed 1.7
C 
0.11
C under RCP8.5 in the same period. CNRM-RCA4 model indicated
the change by 1.5
C  0.1
C in the 2080s under RCP4.5 (Fig. 13). The
model also showed the change of 1.22
C  0.1
C under RCP8.5 in the
2080s. The ICHEC-REMO2009 model pointed to the change of maximum
temperature by 1.74
C  0.4
C under RCP4.5 in the 2080s. It also
showed the change by 1.63
C  0.2
C under RCP8.5 in the 2080s. The
maximum temperature of the Bilate catchment will rise in the future.
M.L. Edamo et al.
Fig. 12. Bias corrected annual rainfall cycle of GCM-RCM projected climate data (2080s).
Fig. 13. Bias corrected annual maximum and minimum temperature cycle of GCM-RCM projected climate data under RCP4.5 (2080s).
Previous studies in the catchment ignored the use of multiple climate
models, bias correction, and the long-term effect of climate change [17,
19,71–73].
Under the RCP4.5 scenario, the monthly minimum temperature in the
Bilate watershed will rise by 1.3
C  0.14
C in the 2080s. Under
RCP8.5, however, it will change by 1.25
C  0.2
C in the same period,
from January to December. The ICHEC-HIRAM5 model predicted a shift
in minimum temperature of 1.3
C  0.3
C in the 2080s under the
RCP4.5 scenario. In the 2080s, it will likewise change by 1.83
C  0.1
C
under RCP8.5 climate change scenario. Under RCP4.5, the ICHEC-
RACMO22T model predicted a minimum temperature change of 1.1


C  0.2
C in the 2080s. In the same period, the model predicted 1.5
C
 0.11
C under RCP8.5. Under RCP4.5, the CNRM-RCA4 model pre-
dicted a shift of 1.5
C  0.1
C in the 2080s. In the 2080s, the model
predicted a shift of 1.22
C  0.5
C under RCP8.5. Under RCP4.5, the
ICHEC-REMO2009 model predicted a 1.9
C  0.6
C increase in mini-
mum temperature in the 2080s. It also showed an increase of 1.8
C 
0.1
C in the 2080s under RCP8.5 (Fig. 14). In the mid and long term, the
minimum temperature of the Bilate catchment will increase in the future.
The rise of minimum temperature in Ethiopia was also indicated in other
research work earlier [72] despite, it was not specified for the Bilate
catchment.
95
Water Cycle 3 (2022) 86–99
3.6. HEC-HMS model calibration and validation
There was a good agreement between the simulated and observed
flow hydrographs (Fig. 15).
Noble enactment was obtained in terms of reproducing the observed
pattern of the streamflow hydrograph during calibration and validation
(NSE ¼ 0.64 and 0.60) respectively. The model was accepted when
evaluated using objective functions. The RVE for the calibration period
was 5.30%, which suggested that the model showed good performance in
estimating observed streamflow volume, and good performance in esti-
mating observed streamflow volume during the validation period (6.1%)
was established. However, the peaks in the years 2000, and 2001 were
not captured well in the observed hydrograph, this might be related to
the poor spatial coverage of the precipitation data within the catchment
and model uncertainty. Despite advancements in modeling many pro-
cesses, hydrological models remain unreliable [74]. The input and cali-
bration data, model structure, and parameters all contribute to model
uncertainty [75]. Natural process variability and observation errors can
both cause uncertainty. On the other hand, even if a model is a perfect
depiction of the hydrologic system, parameter uncertainty might occur
due to mistakes in the calibration data because of observation errors. Due
to the lack of a unified theory, limited knowledge, and numerical and
M.L. Edamo et al. Water Cycle 3 (2022) 86–99

Fig. 14. Bias corrected maximum and minimum temperature cycle of GCM-RCM projected climate data under RCP8.5 (2080s).

Fig. 15. Observed and simulated stream flow for calibration and validation period at Bilate Tena gauging station.

Fig. 16. Seasonal rainfall changes in 2050s and 2080s.

process simplifications, an exact description of a hydrological system is
difficult [76]. Model structure has a significant impact on model per-
formance [77].
3.7. Projected changes of rainfall and temperature in Bilate catchment
The climate models’ simulations show a varied rainfall between mid-
term (2050s) and long-term (2080s) with respect to baseline period
(1976–2005).
Under RCP4.5 scenario, there is an increasing and decreasing sign in
the annual and seasonal rainfall change. The rainfall of the autumn,
spring, summer, winter, and annual will likely change by 2.15, 0.82,
1.65, 5.92, and 1.75% respectively for all climate models. These
finding shares the truth with results of [71]. RCP 8.5 scenario shows a
variation in annual and seasonal rainfall. The average rainfall of the four
seasons and annual will probably change by 5.4, 0.25, 1.23, 6.84, and
0.8% respectively (Fig. 16). The findings of [78] are related to these
results however the use of single climate model makes the results
unreliable.
RCP4.5 scenario exhibit mixed signals in the direction of seasonal and
annual rainfall. The average rainfall of the four seasons and annual will
probably change by 7, 3.2, 7, 14 and 10% respectively for all climate

96
M.L. Edamo et al.
Fig. 17. Seasonal streamflow changes in Bilate Catchment in 2050s and 2080s.
models. RCP 8.5 scenario shows a discrepancy in annual and seasonal
rainfall. The average rainfall of the four seasons and annual will likely
change by 6.4, 0.1, 0.83, 2.4, and 0.95% respectively.
The annual mean maximum temperature over the catchment for the
2050s will rise in magnitude up to 1.9
C  0.7
C under RCP4.5 and
RCP8.5 respectively whereas it will increase up to 2.1
C  1.5
C in
2080s under RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 respectively for all climate models.
The annual minimum temperature over the catchment for the 2050s
increased in magnitude up to 3
C  0.1
C under RCP4.5 and 2.3
C 
0.5
C for RCP8.5 with respect to baseline period. The annual mean
minimum temperature of the catchment will increase up to 4.3
C  0.8


C and 4.85
C  1.3
C in 2080s under RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 respectively
for all climate models.
3.8. Simulated changes of seasonal and annual streamflow in Bilate
catchment
The RCP4.5 scenario shows different annual and seasonal streamflow
change. The flow of the four seasons and annually will change by 6.42,
1.1, 3, 5.8 and 1.4% respectively. In RCP8.5 scenario, there is also a
mixed sign in the direction of annual and seasonal streamflow change.
The range of change is 1.0 to 14.5% and 7 to 17.6% for summer and
winter seasons, respectively. On average the streamflow of the four
seasons and annually will likely change by 8.8, 0.8, 5.8, 5 and 4%
respectively (Fig. 17).
Under RCP4.5 scenario, there is a varied signal in the way of annual
and seasonal streamflow change. On average the streamflow for the four
seasons and annual will likely change by 2.15, 0.42, 1.55, 5.92 and
1.75% respectively. Under RCP8.5 scenario, there is mixed signals. On
average, the streamflow of the four seasons and annual will possibly
change by 5.4, 0.61, 1.23, 6.84 and 0.8% respectively.
According to Tekle [70], the average total annual flow of the catch-
ment might decrease up to 18.1% and 16.3% for A2a scenario and 17.7%
and 16.8% for B2a scenario of 2011–2040 and 2041–2070 periods
respectively but they are missing the long-term (2071–2100) periods.
The falling trend of the average annual flow volume is mainly associated
with a relatively higher reduction in summer season flow volume by
between 22.1 and 23.5% for the A2a scenario and between 20.9 and
22.1% for the B2a scenario.
4. Conclusions
The findings of this research indicated that climate change can affect
the availability of water in Bilate catchment. Five climate models were
used in this research. The climate change analysis was performed for
baseline (1976–2005), 2050s and 2080s. The rainfall runoff simulation
was done on HEC-HMS model and it generated the future flow. The
97
Water Cycle 3 (2022) 86–99
probable changes of projected precipitation, temperature and streamflow
for all climate models were concluded. The annual rainfall of Bilate
catchment will likely change by 28.38% under RCP4.5 and  9.55%
under RCP8.5 in 2050s. The annual rainfall will also change by 20.18%
under RCP4.5 and  37.93% under RCP8.5 in 2080s. The annual
streamflow will probably change by 10.98% under RCP4.5 and 
8.30% under RCP8.5 in 2050s. Annually, the streamflow will likely
change by 27.30% under RCP4.5 and  32.07% under RCP8.5 in
2080s. This study used multiple climate models for an impact assessment
on water availability. In addition, the ensemble mean of these multiple
climate models are considered in depth in this study. Multiple model
ensembles have provided the opportunity for scientists to compare
catchment level hydrological estimates against single-model projections.
However, in terms of research on this subject in Ethiopia as well as other
parts of the world, numerous model ensembles have yet to be employed
to analyze important competing water demand catchments for their
water resource potential in a changing climate scenario.
Funding sources
No fund provided was from any source.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] G.F. Boru, Z.B. Gonfa, G.M. Diga, Impacts of climate change on stream flow and
water availability in Anger sub-basin, Nile Basin of Ethiopia, Sustain. Water
Resour.Manag. 5 (4) (2019) 1755–1764, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40899-019-
00327-0.
[2] M. Abdollahbeigi, Non-climatic factors causing climate change, J. Chem. Rev. 2 (4)
(2020) 292–308. http://www.jchemrev.com/article_118056.html.
[3] A. Nica, A. Popescu, D.-C. Ibanescu, Human influence on the climate system,
Current Trends Natural Sci. 8 (15) (2019) 209–215. http://www.natsci.upit.ro.
[4] J. Chen, H. Cui, Y. Xu, Q. Ge, Long-term temperature and sea-level rise stabilization
before and beyond 2100: estimating the additional climate mitigation contribution
from China's recent 2060 carbon neutrality pledge, Environ. Res. Lett. 16 (7)
(2021), https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac0cac.
[5] R. Pielke, M.G. Burgess, J. Ritchie, Plausible 2005-2050 emissions scenarios project
between 2
c and 3
c of warming by 2100, Environ. Res. Lett. 17 (2) (2022),
https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac4ebf.
[6] A. Boin, L.A. Fahy, Guardians of public value, in: Guardians of Public Value, 2021,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51701-4.
[7] B.T. Haile, T.T. Zeleke, K.T. Beketie, D.Y. Ayal, G.L. Feyisa, Analysis of El Ni~
no
Southern Oscillation and its impact on rainfall distribution and productivity of
selected cereal crops in Kembata Alaba Tembaro zone, Climate Serv. 23 (2021),
100254, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cliser.2021.100254.
[8] G. Krinner, F. Germany, M. Shongwe, S. Africa, S.B. France, B.B.B.B. Uk,
V.B. Germany, O.B. Uk, C.B. France, R.C. Uk, M.E. Canada, M. Erich, R.W.L. Uk,
M.L. Edamo et al.
S.L. Uk, C. Lucas, Long-term climate change: projections, commitments and
irreversibility, in: Climate Change 2013 the Physical Science Basis: Working Group I
Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, 9781107057, 2013, pp. 1029–1136, https://doi.org/10.1017/
CBO9781107415324.024.
[9] C.K. Folland, T.R. Karl, K.Y. Vinnikov, Observed climate variations and change,
Clim. Change: IPCC Sci. Assessment (1990) 195–238.
[10] T.Y. Ukumo, A. Abebe, T.K. Lohani, M.L. Edamo, Flood hazard mapping and
analysis under climate change using hydro-dynamic model and RCPs emission
scenario in Woybo River catchment of Ethiopia, World J. Eng. (2022), https://
doi.org/10.1108/WJE-07-2021-0410. November.
[11] A. Granados, A. Sordo-Ward, B. Paredes-Beltran, L. Garrote, Exploring the role of
reservoir storage in enhancing resilience to climate change in southern europe,
Water (Switzerland) 13 (1) (2021), https://doi.org/10.3390/w13010085.
[12] L.O. Nyembo, I. Larbi, M. Mwabumba, J.R. Selemani, S.Q. Dotse, A.M. Limantol,
E. Bessah, Impact of climate change on groundwater recharge in the lake Manyara
catchment, Tanzania, Sci. African 15 (2022), e01072, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.sciaf.2021.e01072.
[13] Z.W. Kundzewicz, S. Kanae, S.I. Seneviratne, J. Handmer, N. Nicholls, P. Peduzzi,
R. Mechler, L.M. Bouwer, N. Arnell, K. Mach, R. Muir-Wood, G.R. Brakenridge,
W. Kron, G. Benito, Y. Honda, K. Takahashi, B. Sherstyukov, Le risque d’inondation
et les perspectives de changement climatique mondial et regional, Hydrol. Sci. J. 59
(1) (2014) 1–28, https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2013.857411.
[14] N.W. Arnell, D.P. van Vuuren, M. Isaac, The implications of climate policy for the
impacts of climate change on global water resources, Global Environ. Change 21 (2)
(2011) 592–603, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.01.015.
[15] N. von Uexkull, H. Buhaug, Security implications of climate change: a decade of
scientific progress, J. Peace Res. 58 (1) (2021) 3–17, https://doi.org/10.1177/
0022343320984210.
[16] Keller, G. R., Boak, L. J., & Furniss, M. J. (n.d.). Chapter 4 : Climate Change and
Infrastructure in the Sierra Nevada. 49–179.
[17] Demissie Mekonnen, B.H. Wagesho Negash, Assessment of climate change impact
on flood frequency of Bilate River basin, Ethiopia, Civ. Environ. Res. 8 (12) (2016)
27–43, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2015.03.013%0A10.1080/
02626667.2017.1365149.
[18] G.G. Wodaje, Z. Eshetu, M. Argaw, Temporal and spatial variability of rainfall
distribution and evapotranspiration across altitudinal gradient in the Bilate River
Watershed , Southern Ethiopia, Afr. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 10 (1996–0786)
(2016) 167–180, https://doi.org/10.5897/AJEST2015.2029.
[19] A. Tekle, Assessment of climate change impact on water availability of bilate
watershed, ethiopian rift valley basin, in: IEEE AFRICON Conference, 2015-Novem,
2015, https://doi.org/10.1109/AFRCON.2015.7332041.
[20] W. Negash, Catchment dynamics and its impact on runoff generation: Coupling
watershed modelling and statistical analysis to detect catchment responses, Int. J.
Water Resour. Environ. Eng. 6 (2) (2014) 73–87, https://doi.org/10.5897/
ijwree2013.0449.
[21] S. Thiemann, G. F€ orch, Water resources assessment in the Bilate River catchment-
precipitation variability, Proceedings 73 (October) (2004).
[22] A.M. Thomson, K.V. Calvin, S.J. Smith, G.P. Kyle, A. Volke, P. Patel, S. Delgado-
Arias, B. Bond-Lamberty, M.A. Wise, L.E. Clarke, J.A. Edmonds, RCP4.5: a pathway
for stabilization of radiative forcing by 2100, Climatic Change 109 (1) (2011)
77–94, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0151-4.
[23] H.W. Tenfie, F. Saathoff, D. Hailu, A. Gebissa, Selection of representative general
circulation models for climate change study using advanced Envelope-based and
past performance approach on transboundary river basin, a case of upper Blue nile
basin, Ethiopia, Sustainability 14 (4) (2022), https://doi.org/10.3390/
su14042140.
[24] S.P.M. Bos, T. Pagella, R. Kindt, A.J.M. Russell, E. Luedeling, Climate analogs for
agricultural impact projection and adaptation-a reliability test, Front. Environ. Sci.
3 (OCT) (2015), https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2015.00065.
[25] S. Tesfaye, A.J. Raj, G. Geberesamuel, Assessment of climate change impact on the
Hydrology of Geba catchment , Northern Ethiopia, Am. J. Environ. Eng. 4 (2)
(2014) 25–31, https://doi.org/10.5923/j.ajee.20140402.02.
[26] G. Yang, X.Y. Di, T. Zeng, Z. Shu, C. Wang, H.Z. Yu, Prediction of area burned under
climatic change scenarios: a case study in the Great Xing’an Mountains boreal
forest, J. For. Res. 21 (2) (2010) 213–218, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11676-010-
0035-x.
[27] W. Qiang, X. Youpeng, G. Bin, W. Yuefeng, X. Yu, W. Lei, Runoff spatial responses to
land use change in Xitiaoxi river basin, J. Nat. Resour. 34 (1) (2014) 40–53, https://
doi.org/10.11849/zrzyxb.20160455.
[28] N. Ahmed, G. Wang, M.J. Booij, S. Xiangyang, F. Hussain, G. Nabi, Separation of the
impact of Landuse/Landcover change and climate change on runoff in the upstream
area of the Yangtze river, China, Water Resour. Manag. 36 (1) (2022) 181–201,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-021-03021-z.
[29] M. Aboelnour, M.W. Gitau, B.A. Engel, Hydrologic response in an urban watershed
as affected by climate and land-use change, Water (Switzerland) 11 (8) (2019)
1–23, https://doi.org/10.3390/w11081603.
[30] J. Kim, D.E. Waliser, C.A. Mattmann, C.E. Goodale, A.F. Hart, P.A. Zimdars,
D.J. Crichton, C. Jones, G. Nikulin, B. Hewitson, C. Jack, C. Lennard, A. Favre,
Evaluation of the CORDEX-Africa multi-RCM hindcast: systematic model errors,
Clim. Dynam. 42 (5–6) (2014) 1189–1202, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-013-
1751-7.
[31] E. van Meijgaard, L. H. Van Ulft, F.C. Bosveld, G. Lenderink, a P. Siebesma, The
KNMI regional atmospheric climate model RACMO version 2.1, Technical Report;
TR - 302 (2008) 43.
98
Water Cycle 3 (2022) 86–99
[32] J.H. Christensen, O.B. Christensen, P. Lopez, E. van Meijgaard, M. Botzet, The
HIRHAM 4 regional atmospheric climate model. http://beta.dmi.dk/filead
min/Rapporter/SR/sr96-4.pdf, 1996.
[33] O.B. Christensen, M. Drews, K. Dethloff, K. Ketelsen, I. Hebestadt, A. Rinke,
Technical report 06-17 the HIRHAM regional climate model version 5 ($β$) Jens
Hesselbjerg Christensen Danish climate Centre, DMI Foundation Polar Marine Res.
Colophon 5 (January) (2007) 1–22. Danish Meteorol. Inst., Copenhagen, Denmark.
[34] P. Samuelsson, S. Gollvik, M. Kupiainen, E. Kourzeneva, W. van de Berg, The
surface processes of the Rossby Centre regional atmospheric climate model (RCA4),
SMHI: Norrk€ oping, Sweden 1 (2015) 2358–2381.
[35] M. Wu, G. Nikulin, E. Kjellstr€om, D. Belusic, C. Jones, D. Lindstedt, The impact of
regional climate model formulation and resolution on simulated precipitation in
Africa, Earth System Dynamics 11 (2) (2020) 377–394, https://doi.org/10.5194/
esd-11-377-2020.
[36] A.D. Assamnew, G.M. Tsidu, The performance of regional climate models driven by
various general circulation models in reproducing observed rainfall over East
Africa, Theor. Appl. Climatol. 142 (3–4) (2020) 1169–1189, https://doi.org/
10.1007/s00704-020-03357-3.
[37] R. Zentek, G. Heinemann, Verification of the regional atmospheric model CCLM
v5.0 with conventional data and lidar measurements in Antarctica, Geosci. Model
Dev. (GMD) 13 (4) (2020) 1809–1825, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-1809-
2020.
[38] J.D. Gibbon, D.D. Holm, Extreme events in solutions of hydrostatic and non-
hydrostatic climate models, Phil. Trans. Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 369 (2011)
1156–1179, https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2010.0244, 1939.
[39] T. Davies, M.J.P. Cullen, A.J. Malcolm, M.H. Mawson, A. Staniforth, A.A. White,
N. Wood, A new dynamical core of the Met Office's global and regional modelling of
the atmosphere, Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 131 (608) (2005) 1759–1782, https://
doi.org/10.1256/qj.04.101.
[40] B. Y, A. Kemal, The impacts of climate change on rainfall and flood frequency: the
case of Hare Watershed, southern Rift Valley of Ethiopia, J. Earth Sci. Climatic
Change 8 (1) (2017) 1–5, https://doi.org/10.4172/2157-7617.1000383.
[41] H. Maskong, Flood hazard mapping using on-site surveyed flood map, Hecras V.5
and Gis tool: a case study of Nakhon Ratchasima Municipality, Thailand, Int. J.
GEOMATE 16 (54) (2019) 1–8, https://doi.org/10.21660/2019.54.81342.
[42] C. Teutschbein, J. Seibert, Bias correction of regional climate model simulations for
hydrological climate-change impact studies: review and evaluation of different
methods, J. Hydrol. 456 (457) (2012) 12–29, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jhydrol.2012.05.052.
[43] Hall of Franklin Institute, Monthly weather review, J. Franklin Inst. 138 (6) (1894)
1–8, https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-0032(94)90228-3.
[44] M. Enayati, O. Bozorg-Haddad, J. Bazrafshan, S. Hejabi, X. Chu, Bias correction
capabilities of quantile mapping methods for rainfall and temperature variables,
J. Water Climate Change 12 (2) (2021) 401–419, https://doi.org/10.2166/
wcc.2020.261.
[45] G.J. Schoenau, R.A. Kehrig, Method for calculating degree-days to any base
temperature, Energy Build. 14 (4) (1990) 299–302, https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-
7788(90)90092-W.
[46] A.G. Mengistu, T.A. Woldesenbet, Y.T. Dile, Evaluation of the performance of bias-
corrected CORDEX regional climate models in reproducing Baro–Akobo basin
climate, Theor. Appl. Climatol. 144 (1–2) (2021) 751–767, https://doi.org/
10.1007/s00704-021-03552-w.
[47] M.A. Ayele, T.K. Lohani, K.B. Mirani, M.L. Edamo, A.T. Ayalew, Simulating
sediment yield by SWAT and optimizing the parameters using SUFI-2 in Bilate river
of Lake Abaya in Ethiopia, World J. Eng. (2022), https://doi.org/10.1108/wje-07-
2021-0449 ahead-of-p(ahead-of-print).
[48] S. Chakraborty, S. Biswas, Simulation of flow at an ungauged river site based on
HEC-HMS model for a mountainous river basin, Arabian J. Geosci. 14 (20) (2021),
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-021-08385-5.
[49] A. Kastali, A. Zeroual, S. Zeroual, Y. Hamitouche, Auto-calibration of HEC-HMS
model for historic flood event under rating curve uncertainty. Case study: Allala
Watershed, Algeria, KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 26 (1) (2022) 482–493, https://doi.org/
10.1007/s12205-021-1051-4.
[50] G. Mills, Ireland's water budget - model validation and a greenhouse experiment, Ir.
Geogr. 34 (2) (2001) 124–134, https://doi.org/10.1080/00750770109555783.
[51] R.A. Almeida, S.B. Pereira, D.B.F. Pinto, Calibration and validation of the swat
hydrological model for the mucuri river basin swat-cup; flow rate . capacity to
simulate the impact of environmental changes on water resources . In this way , the
aim of this study was to calibrate and validate the, Eng. Agrícola 38 (1) (2018)
55–63.
[52] B. Farokhzadeh, S. Choobeh, H. Nouri, Impacts of climate and land-use change on
runoff (case study: Balighloo Chai basin, Iran), Int. J. Environ. Sustain Dev. 9 (3)
(2018) 86–89, https://doi.org/10.18178/ijesd.2018.9.3.1078.
[53] M. Zeybek, Nash-sutcliffe efficiency approach for Quality improvement, J. Appl.
Mathematics Comput. 2 (11) (2018) 496–503, https://doi.org/10.26855/
jamc.2018.11.001.
[54] A. Meque, B.J. Abiodun, Simulating the link between ENSO and summer drought in
Southern Africa using regional climate models, Clim. Dynam. 44 (7–8) (2015)
1881–1900, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-014-2143-3.
[55] T.A. Demissie, C.H. Sime, Assessment of the performance of CORDEX regional
climate models in simulating rainfall and air temperature over southwest Ethiopia,
Heliyon 7 (8) (2021), e07791, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07791.
[56] I.B. Gregersen, H.J.D. Sørup, H. Madsen, D. Rosbjerg, P.S. Mikkelsen, K. Arnbjerg-
Nielsen, Assessing future climatic changes of rainfall extremes at small spatio-
temporal scales, Climatic Change 118 (3–4) (2013) 783–797, https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10584-012-0669-0.
M.L. Edamo et al.
[57] Mohanty, R. K. S. M. | M. R. M. | P. S. | U. C. (n.d.). 66_Performance of Hydrostatic
and Non-hydrostatic Dynamical Cores in RegCM4 6.Pdf.
[58] G.T. Ayehu, T. Tadesse, B. Gessesse, T. Dinku, Validation of new satellite rainfall
products over the upper Blue nile basin, Ethiopia, Atmos. Meas. Tech. 11 (4) (2018)
1921–1936, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-11-1921-2018.
[59] A. Lupo, W. Kininmonth, Global climate models and their limitations, Climate
Change Reconsidered II: Phys. Sci. (2013) 7–148.
[60] D. Bannister, M. Herzog, H.F. Graf, J. Scott Hosking, C.A. Short, An assessment of
recent and future temperature change over the Sichuan basin, China, using CMIP5
climate models, J. Clim. 30 (17) (2017) 6701–6722, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-
D-16-0536.1.
[61] D.W. Pierce, T.P. Barnett, B.D. Santer, P.J. Gleckler, Selecting global climate models
for regional climate change studies, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 106 (21) (2009)
8441–8446, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0900094106.
[62] C.F. McSweeney, R.G. Jones, R.W. Lee, D.P. Rowell, Selecting CMIP5 GCMs for
downscaling over multiple regions, Clim. Dynam. 44 (11–12) (2015) 3237–3260,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-014-2418-8.
[63] B. Farjad, A. Gupta, H. Sartipizadeh, A.J. Cannon, A novel approach for selecting
extreme climate change scenarios for climate change impact studies, Sci. Total
Environ. 678 (April) (2019) 476–485, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.scitotenv.2019.04.218.
[64] M. Turco, A. Sanna, S. Herrera, M.C. Llasat, J.M. Gutierrez, Large biases and
inconsistent climate change signals in ENSEMBLES regional projections, Climatic
Change 120 (4) (2013) 859–869, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0844-y.
[65] Carol F. McSweeney, R.G. Jones, How representative is the spread of climate
projections from the 5 CMIP5 GCMs used in ISI-MIP? Climate Serv. 1 (2016) 24–29,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cliser.2016.02.001.
[66] D.A. Hughes, S. Mantel, T. Mohobane, An assessment of the skill of downscaled
GCM outputs in simulating historical patterns of rainfall variability in South Africa,
Nord. Hydrol 45 (1) (2014) 134–147, https://doi.org/10.2166/nh.2013.027.
[67] C. Goodess, M. Hulme, T. Osborne, Tyndall
Centre the Identification and
Evaluation of Suitable Scenario Development Methods for the Estimation of Future
Probabilities of Extreme Weather Events, 2001 (July).
99
Water Cycle 3 (2022) 86–99
[68] W.T. Dibaba, K. Miegel, T.A. Demissie, Evaluation of the CORDEX regional climate
models performance in simulating climate conditions of two catchments in Upper
Blue Nile Basin, Dynam. Atmos. Oceans 87 (August) (2019), 101104, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.dynatmoce.2019.101104.
[69] P. Hosseinzadehtalaei, N.K. Ishadi, H. Tabari, P. Willems, Climate change impact
assessment on pluvial flooding using a distribution-based bias correction of regional
climate model simulations, J. Hydrol. 598 (January) (2021), 126239, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.126239.
[70] A. Tekle, Assessment of climate change impact on water availability of bilate
watershed, ethiopian rift valley basin, in: IEEE AFRICON Conference, 2015-
Novem(15), 2015, pp. 148–157, https://doi.org/10.1109/AFRCON.2015.7332041.
[71] M.E. Elshamy, I.A. Seierstad, A. Sorteberg, Impacts of climate change on Blue Nile
flows using bias-corrected GCM scenarios, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 13 (5) (2009)
551–565, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-13-551-2009.
[72] M. Keller, Climate Risks and Development Projects Assessment Report for a
Community-Level Project in, 2009, pp. 1–35. Bread for All, November, 2009, https
://www.iisd.org/cristaltool/documents/BFA-Ethiopia-Assessment-Report-Eng.pdf.
[73] Y.A. Orke, M.H. Li, Hydroclimatic variability in the bilate watershed, Ethiopia,
Climate 9 (6) (2021), https://doi.org/10.3390/cli9060098.
[74] H. Tyralis, G. Papacharalampous, Quantile-based hydrological modelling, Water
(Switzerland) 13 (23) (2021), https://doi.org/10.3390/w13233420.
[75] E. Moges, Y. Demissie, L. Larsen, F. Yassin, Review: sources of hydrological model
uncertainties and advances in their analysis, Water (Switzerland) 13 (1) (2021)
1–23, https://doi.org/10.3390/w13010028.
[76] K. Beven, A Manifesto for the Equifinality thesis Keith Beven Lancaster university,
UK, J. Hydrol. 320 (1–2) (2006) 18–36.
[77] M.B. Butts, J.T. Payne, M. Kristensen, H. Madsen, An evaluation of the impact of
model structure on hydrological modelling uncertainty for streamflow simulation,
J. Hydrol. 298 (1–4) (2004) 242–266, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jhydrol.2004.03.042.
[78] M.A. Robi, A. Abebe, S.M. Pingale, Flood Hazard Mapping under a Climate Change
Scenario in a Ribb Catchment of Blue Nile River Basin , Ethiopia, Graham, 2018,
2004.