Assessing Impact of Land Use and Climate Changes on River Flow and Electricity Generation: Case Study at Citarum Watershed of Bandung District Rizaldi Boer, Delon Martinus, Ahmad Faqih and Perdinan Laboratory of Climatology, Department of Geophysics and Meteorology, Bogor Agricultural University E-mail: [email protected]
23
Embed
Assessing Impact of Land Use and Climate Changes on … Bandung District Rizaldi Boer, Delon Martinus, Ahmad Faqih and Perdinan Laboratory of Climatology, Department of Geophysics
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Assessing Impact of Land Use and Climate Changes on River
Flow and Electricity Generation: Case Study at Citarum Watershed
of Bandung DistrictRizaldi Boer, Delon Martinus, Ahmad Faqih and Perdinan
Laboratory of Climatology,Department of Geophysics and Meteorology,
Percent of Total AreaForest AreaPercent of total Area
Critical Land in Citarum
0
30000
60000
90000
120000
150000
180000C
ritic
al L
and
(ha)
Ban
dung
*
Cia
njur
Kar
awan
g
Pur
wak
arta
Ban
dung
City Kot
aC
imah
i
Source: BP-DAS Citarum-Ciliwung (2003)
Community Perception• About 85% of respondents
stated that there is an increase in drought and flood frequency and intensity (Sulandari et al., 2004)
• Dialog between stakeholders and scientist at Bandung, it was suggested that at least 40% of watershed area should be maintained as conservation zone (forest cover) ~ It is believed that increasing forest cover will diminish the damage of flood and drought risk
• In 2010, government targeted to increase forest cover up to 48% of the total areas
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
1989 1993 1999 2001
Year
Fore
st A
rea
(ha)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Percent of Total Area
Forest AreaPercent of total Area
Objectives• To evaluate impact of land use and
climate changes scenarios on river flow at Nanjung (Upper watershed) and on electricity generation
Citarum UpperCatchments
Step of Analysis
Historical Land Use
Observed Stream flow
VIC-BASIN Model
Historical Climate
data
Good?
Develop relationship between % forest
cover and base flow
Select the base flow
Change base flow and run off parameters
Land Use Scenarios
Downscaled GCM to
Study sites
Estimate base flow parameter
VIC-BASIN Model
Climate Scenarios
GCM
CLIMGEN
Evaluate the impact and develop
recommendation
Critical Land and Rehabilitation Plan for the Four Land Use Scenario for Upper
Citarum Watershed
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
160000
2003 Mitigation 1 Mitigation 2 Mitigation 3 Government
ShrubsDam/LakeForest/AgroforestAgricultureCity/Industrial Area
Land Use Scenarios
17%: Baseline
19%: MIT-1
25%: MIT-2
29%: MIT-3
48%: RTRW
y = 0.521Ln(x) - 1.2047R2 = 0.9553
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
10 15 20 25 30Percent Forest Cover (%)
Bas
eflo
w P
aram
eter
Relationship between base flow parameter and forest cover
Citarum
Sumber Jaya
Comparison between observed and Downscaled
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
TIME (Month)
RAI
NFA
LL (m
m)
Observed DataDownscaled Data
Comparison between Observed (Above) and Downscaled Rainfall (Below)
DJF baseline rainfall from downscaling (1961-1990)
106.6 106.8 107 107.2 107.4 107.6 107.8 108 108.2
-7.4
-7.2
-7
-6.8
-6.6
-6.4
-6.2
-6
-5.8
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
106.6 106.8 107 107.2 107.4 107.6 107.8 108 108.2
-7.4
-7.2
-7
-6.8
-6.6
-6.4
-6.2
-6
-5.8
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
DJF baseline rainfall from observation (1961-1990)
MAM baseline rainfall from observation (1961-1990)
106.6 106.8 107 107.2 107.4 107.6 107.8 108 108.2
-7.4
-7.2
-7
-6.8
-6.6
-6.4
-6.2
-6
-5.8
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
MAM baseline rainfall from downscaling (1961-1990)
106.6 106.8 107 107.2 107.4 107.6 107.8 108 108.2
-7.4
-7.2
-7
-6.8
-6.6
-6.4
-6.2
-6
-5.8
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
JJA baseline rainfall from observation (1961-1990)
106.6 106.8 107 107.2 107.4 107.6 107.8 108 108.2
-7.4
-7.2
-7
-6.8
-6.6
-6.4
-6.2
-6
-5.8
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
JJA baseline rainfall from downscaling (1961-1990)
106.6 106.8 107 107.2 107.4 107.6 107.8 108 108.2
-7.4
-7.2
-7
-6.8
-6.6
-6.4
-6.2
-6
-5.8
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
SON baseline rainfall from observation (1961-1990)
106.6 106.8 107 107.2 107.4 107.6 107.8 108 108.2
-7.4
-7.2
-7
-6.8
-6.6
-6.4
-6.2
-6
-5.8
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
SON baseline rainfall from downscaling (1961-1990)
106.6 106.8 107 107.2 107.4 107.6 107.8 108 108.2
-7.4
-7.2
-7
-6.8
-6.6
-6.4
-6.2
-6
-5.8
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
DJF MAM JJA SON
DJF MAM JJA SON
Projected Annual Rainfall at Citarum Watershed
2000
2100
2200
2300
2400
2500
2600
2700
Baseli
neA2 2
020
A2 205
0A2 2
080
B2 202
0B2 2
050
B2 208
0
Annu
al ra
infa
ll
Low Scenario
High Scenario
050
100150200250300350400
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Month
Rai
nfal
l (m
m)
BaselineLow-ScenarioHigh-Scenario
GCM outputs from ECHAM model downloaded from Data Distribution Centre
Result of Validation Using CLIMGEN
050
100150200250300350
1 37 73 109
145
181
217
253
289
325
361
Julian DaySt
ream
flow
(m3/
s) Mean SS_UGCDObserved Streamflow
020406080
100120140
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12Month
Stre
amflo
w (m
3/s)
Mean SS_UGDCObserved Streamflow
Distribution of stream flow under different land use and climate scenarios
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0 200 400 600Discharge (m3/s)
Cum
ulat
ive
Pro
babi
lity
(%)
2001Mit-1Mit-2Mit-3RUTR
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0 200 400 600Discharge (m3/s)
Cum
ulat
ive
Prob
abili
ty (%
)
2001Mit-1Mit-2Mit-3RUTR
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0 200 400 600Discharge (m3/s)
Cum
ulat
ive
Prob
abili
ty (%
)
2001Mit-1Mit-2Mit-3RUTR
Baseline climate
Low Scenario High Scenario
Under baseline and low climate scenarios, increasing forest cover more than 20% and up to 47% of the total land areas would not change the distribution of stream flow Under high climate scenario, the distribution of stream flow under baseline and mitigation 1 land use scenario (percent land use cover is between 17% and 19%) was different from those under Mitigation 2 and 3 scenarios (percent forest cover is between 25% and 29%) and under RTRW (percent forest cover is 48%).
Relationship between Inflow, Outflow and Electricity Generation
y = 2.2137xR2 = 0.9903
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Outflow (m3/s)P
ower
(GW
h)
y = 0.5693x + 42.757R2 = 0.99
y = 0.831x - 14.992R2 = 0.94
020406080
100120140160
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Inflow (m3/s)
Out
flow
(m3/
s)
The result of analysis suggested that If the forest cover were not increased to more than 25%, the frequency of producing electricity power of less than 100 GWhduring dry season will increase under the three climate scenarios. The operation of this HEP in the dry season in critical to meet electricity demand during peak load