Next Article in Journal
pH-Dependent Degradation of Diclofenac by a Tunnel-Structured Manganese Oxide
Previous Article in Journal
Interpopulation Variability in Dietary Traits of Invasive Bleak Alburnus alburnus (Actinopterygii, Cyprinidae) Across the Iberian Peninsula
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Separating the Impacts of Climate Change and Human Activities on Runoff: A Review of Method and Application

1
Research Base of Karst Eco−Environments at Nanchuan in Chongqing of Ministry of Nature Resources & Chongqing Engineering Research Center for Remote Sensing Big Data, School of Geographical Sciences, Southwest University, Chongqing 400715, China
2
Graduate School of Global Environmental Studies, Sophia University, Tokyo 102-8554, Japan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Water 2020, 12(8), 2201; https://doi.org/10.3390/w12082201
Submission received: 5 July 2020 / Revised: 30 July 2020 / Accepted: 3 August 2020 / Published: 5 August 2020

Abstract

:
Separating the impact of climate change and human activities on runoff is an important topic in hydrology, and a large number of methods and theories have been widely used. In this paper, we review the current papers on separating the impacts of climate and human activities on runoff, summarize the progress of relevant research methods and applications in recent years, and discuss future research needs and directions.

1. Introduction

Water is the substance on which all the organisms on the earth depend for their survival, and the operation of nature and the development of human society are inseparable from it [1]. About 75% of the Earth’s surface is covered with water, while freshwater resources account for only 2.5% of the Earth’s water, less of which can be easily utilized by human beings [2]. However, the problems of population expansion, resource shortage, and environmental deterioration in the world make the scarcity of water resources more and more serious [3,4]. Therefore, how to evaluate water resources scientifically is the precondition for efficient management and rational utilization of water resources. Runoff, as an important indicator of water resources, is the result of interaction between climate and underlying surface [5,6]. It is not only disturbed by human activities, but also very sensitive to climate changes [7]. Therefore, separating the effects of climate change and human activities on runoff is helpful to understand the formation process and evolution law of water resources.
The effects of human activities and climate change on runoff appear in all aspects of the water cycle. Human activities mainly affect the hydrological process by changing the underlying surface conditions of the basin, including the impacts of land use [8], water conservation measures [9], and water conservancy projects [10] on the processes of runoff yield and concentration. In addition, human beings also influence hydrological processes through agricultural irrigation [11], groundwater exploitation [12], and urban water supply and drainage [13]. Human activities have changed natural hydrological processes [14,15]. Human-induced land-use change leads to a decrease in global scale terrestrial evapotranspiration at a rate of 3500 km3/year, which may directly lead to a 7.6% increase in runoff [16]. Dam construction and unsustainable groundwater consumption lead to changes in surface water and aquifer storage, which contribute to global sea level rise [17,18,19]. Reservoirs operation and irrigation have reduced the global discharge from 1981 to 2000 by 2.1% [20]. Climate change mainly affects runoff by changing precipitation and evapotranspiration. On a long-term scale, runoff is equal to the difference between precipitation and evapotranspiration, that is to say, precipitation is the supplement of runoff and evapotranspiration is the consumption of runoff. According to the fourth report of IPCC, the global temperature has increased by 0.85 °C and continues to increase [21]. The increase of temperature will not only promote the melting of glaciers and snow into precipitation [22,23,24], but also affect the evapotranspiration.
Separating the impacts of climate change and human activities on runoff is the basis of water resources research and one of the hot topics in hydrological research [25]. Methods including the hydrological model, scenario combination, Budyko framework, paired catchment, and empirical statistics have been used in such studies. In addition, machine learning has recently been used to separate the impacts of climate change and human activities on water resources [26,27]. Therefore, in this paper, we first review the key to separating the impacts of climate change and human activities on runoff, and then summarize each method and its application.

2. Key to Separating the Impacts of Climate Change and Human Activities on Runoff

2.1. Determination of Reference Period and Human Activities Interference Period

In the study of separating the impacts of climate change and human activities on runoff, the first problem to be solved is to determine the reference period and human activities interference period. Generally, the method of abrupt change test is used to identify the change point of runoff series. The period before the change point is regarded as the reference period, when the impact of human activities on runoff is too insignificant to be ignored. Therefore, runoff is considered to be only affected by climate change in the reference period. The period after the change point is regarded as the human activities interference period, when the impact of human activities on runoff becomes significant and runoff is affected by both climate change and human activities. The commonly abrupt change test of hydrological variables include accumulative anomaly, Mann–Kendall test, Pettitt’s test, order cluster analysis, and double-mass curves [28,29,30,31,32,33].
Due to the different hypothesis and precondition of different abrupt change tests, the positions of the change point of the same hydrological series may be different. We use order cluster analysis, Pettitt’s test, and the Mann–Kendall test to identify the change point of annual runoff in Minjiang watershed from 1956 to 2017 (Figure 1). The results show that the change points identified by ordered cluster analysis were in 1993 (Figure 1a), and the change points identified by the Pettitt’s test were also in 1993 (Figure 1b), while the Mann–Kendall test determined three change points in 1996–1999 (Figure 1c). Therefore, in practical application, at least two methods should be used and then determine the change point location according to the actual situation of the specific study area.
However, although we can determine the location of the change point, we cannot directly determine whether this abrupt change in runoff is due to human activity or to a significant change in climate. However, we can answer this question by simultaneously detecting whether climate factors change significantly before and after the change point. If the climate change is significant, it can be considered that the abrupt change of runoff is caused by significant climate change, otherwise human activities will be responsible for the abrupt change of runoff.

2.2. Research Framework

In the past, researchers have developed many methods, including the hydrological model, scenario combination, paired catchment, Budyko framework, and empirical statistics, to separate the impacts of climate change and human activities on runoff [34,35,36]. When using all the above methods, the research always assumes that climate change and human activities are relatively independent, and, based on this assumption, the research framework is developed:
Δ Q t o t a l = Q p o s t     Q p r e
Δ Q t o t a l = Δ Q c + Δ Q h
η c = Δ Q c Δ Q t o t a l   ×   100 %
η h = Δ Q h Δ Q t o t a l   ×   100 %
where Δ Q t o t a l is the total amount of runoff change, Q p o s t is the runoff in the human activities interference period, Q p r e is the runoff in the reference period, Δ Q c is the runoff change caused by climate change, Δ Q h is the runoff change caused by human activities, η c is the contribution rate of climate change to runoff, and η h is the contribution rate of human activities to runoff.

3. Methods and Applications

3.1. Hydrological Model

The hydrological model is a series of equations that use many parameters to describe basin characteristics to estimate runoff [37]. The model is driven by hydrological, meteorological, and underlying surface data, in which precipitation and runoff data must be input. When the hydrologic model is used to separate the impacts of climate change and human activities on runoff, the general procedure is to first use the hydrological, meteorological, and underlying surface data in the reference period to calibrate the model parameters, and it is assumed that these parameters can reflect the natural runoff yield of the basin. Then, one only needs input the meteorological data of the human activities interference period into the calibrated model to simulate the natural runoff of this period. The difference between the actual runoff and the simulated runoff in the human activities interference period is the impact of human activities on runoff, and the difference between the simulated value and the actual runoff of the reference period is the impact of climate change on runoff, which can be expressed as:
Δ Q h = Q p o s t Q s i m
Δ Q c = Q s i m   Q p r e
where Q s i m is the runoff only effected by climate change simulated by the model in the human activities interference period.
After a long-term development, researchers have used many hydrological models to separate the impact of climate change and human activities on runoff (Table 1). Generally speaking, hydrological models refer to the models that consider the physical process of runoff formation process, using some physical and empirical parameters to summarize runoff formation [38], which can be divided into lumped model and distributed model. Lumped models such as SIMHYD (a simplified version of the HYDROLOG model), the Xinanjiang model, etc., do not consider the spatial differences of underlying surface characteristics, the hydrological process or the input variables of the model, and the input variables are in the form of watershed averages [39]. For distributed models, such as SWAT (Soil and Water Assessment Tool), VIC (the Variable Infiltration Capacity), HBV (the Hydrologiska Byrans Vattenavdelning), GBHM (Geomorphology Based Hydrological Model), TOPMODEL (topography-based hydrological model), etc., the watershed is divided into small units and taken as the calculation object, so that the spatial differences of hydrological process, input variables, boundary conditions and watershed geometric characteristics are fully considered [40]. These hydrological models have been tested for a long time, so the analysis results are believable. However, there are still some shortcomings. On the one hand, the existing studies are based on point data to calibrate and validate the model and then apply the same set of parameters to the region, which makes the hydrological model have high uncertainty. On the other hand, a large number of observed data or hydrological process parameters are needed to train model parameters, and a high accuracy of data is required.

3.2. Scenario Combination

Scenario combinations are usually coupled with hydrological models when used to separate the impact of climate change and human activities on runoff [48]. Researchers combine different periods of climate and land-use/cover change (LUCC) to obtain different scenarios, and then analyzed the differences of simulated runoff under different scenarios. Generally, there are four scenarios:
  • S1: Climate in the reference period and LUCC in the reference period.
  • S2: Climate in the human activities interference period and LUCC in the reference period.
  • S3: Climate in the reference period and LUCC in the human activities interference period.
  • S4: Climate in the human activities interference period and LUCC in the human activities interference period.
Therefore, the impacts of climate change and human activities on runoff can be expressed as:
Δ Q c = Q s i m 2 Q s i m 1
Δ Q h = Q sim 3 Q s i m 1
Among them,   Q s i m 2 is the simulated runoff under scenario S2, and Q s i m 3 is the simulated runoff under scenario S3.
Scenario combination coupled with the hydrological model is also used to predict the runoff change under future scenarios. The simulation of future scenarios includes the simulation of future climate and the simulation of future LUCC. General Circulation Models (GCMs) are often used to predict future climate, and the estimated concentration of greenhouse gases under future emission scenarios is used as input to simulate the response of the atmosphere to changes in greenhouse gas concentrations [49]. However, due to the limitation of GCMs’ resolution for regional applications, researchers propose to nest Regional Climate Models (RCMs) based on GCMs or to improve the resolution of GCMs’ output by statistical methods [50]. Nijssen et al. [51] used VIC to couple four GCMs to study the hydrological responses of nine large continental river basins to climate change in the future and concluded that the annual runoff in tropical and mid latitudes would decrease, while that in high latitudes would increase. Zhang et al. [52] used VIC coupled with Providing Regional Climates for Impacts Studies (PRECIS) to study the potential impacts of climate change on runoff in the Huaihe River Basin under A2, B2 and A1B scenarios and found that global warming will aggravate regional floods and water shortage. Land-use prediction in the future is implemented by LUCC models, which mainly address the location (where the change occurs) or the quantity (what rate of change) in the process of land-use change [53]. The existing LUCC models can be divided into three types: (1) Pattern-based models, which focus on describing and extrapolating the past, such as the Conversion of Land Use and its Effects at Small regional extent (CLUE-S), a Cellular Automaton Model (CA) [54,55]. (2) Process-based models, which represent the environment and decision-making process that causes pattern change, such as Agent-Based Models (ABM) [56]. (3) Hybrid models, such as the CA-Markov model [57]. Numerous studies have used GCMs/RCMs and LUCC models to assess the hydrological effects of climate and LUCC in future scenarios [58,59,60,61,62].
The scenario combination method can simulate runoff process in multiple scenario modes by coupling hydrological models, which has a more realistic physical basis, but also makes this method require a variety of high-precision data to drive. In addition, due to the gap between the combined scenario and the ideal state assumed by the researchers, the analysis results will be affected.

3.3. Budyko Framework

In recent years, the Budyko framework has been widely used to study the impact of climate change and human activities on runoff because of its clear physical concept and concise mechanism. Budyko believes that in a closed basin, the long-term evapotranspiration (E) of the land surface is mainly determined by the water supply of the atmosphere and the evapotranspiration capacity of the land surface, and there is a boundary condition (Figure 2): in extremely arid areas, the evapotranspiration capacity is far greater than the water supply, then the evapotranspiration is equal to the water supply; in extremely humid areas, the water supply is far greater than the evapotranspiration capacity, then the evapotranspiration is equal to the evapotranspiration capacity [63,64]. On the year or multi-year scale, precipitation (P) represents the water supply, and potential evapotranspiration (ET0) represents the evapotranspiration capacity. Later, the ratio of ET0 to P is defined as “Aridity index”, and the ratio of E to P is defined as “evapotranspiration index” [65].
With the development of the Budyko framework, a large number of functions describing the relationship between drought index and evapotranspiration index appear (Table 2). The original Budyko framework only considered the influence of P and ET0 on E, and ignored the influence of other unknown reasons. There are two interpretations of the unknown reasons: (1) the underlying surface characteristics of the basin, such as soil [66], vegetation [67], and topography [68]; (2) the seasonality of climate variables [69], precipitation depth [70], and precipitation frequency [66]. In order to explain the influence of unknown parameters, researchers introduce parameters such as ω ,   n ,   and   w into the Budyko function. At present, most researchers think that the parameters represent the characteristics of underlying surface [71]. Although each Budyko function has different forms, it follows the boundary of the Budyko framework (Figure 2). So, Zhou [72] expresses the Budyko function as:
E P = F ( E T 0 P ,   c )
where c represents the underlying surface characteristics of the basin, and different c represents different forms of Budyko functions.
When using Budyko framework to study the impact of climate change and human activities on runoff, the elasticity method [83] and decomposition method [84] are the most representative.
The elasticity method is to introduce climate elasticity coefficient to express the sensitivity of runoff to climate variables. The elastic coefficient is defined as the ratio of runoff change to climate variable change:
ε x = l i m Δ x / x 0 Δ Q / Q Δ x / x = Q x   ×   x Q
ε x is the elasticity coefficient of runoff to climate variable x. If ε x is 0.1, it means that a 10% increase in x will cause a 1% increase in Q. On a long-term scale, the water balance of a watershed can be expressed as:
P = E + Q  
Then, according to Equations (9)–(11), there are:
d Q c Q = ε P d P P + ε E T o d E T 0 E T 0
It can also be expressed as:
Δ Q c Q = ε P Δ P P + ε E T o Δ E T 0 E T 0
Wang and Hejazi [84] put forward a decomposition method based on the Budyko framework, which considers that climate change causes the basin state to change along the Budyko curve, while human activities will make the basin state change in the vertical direction. As shown in Figure 3, the watershed state A1 in the reference period moves to A1’ along the Budyko curve under the influence of climate change, and, due to the interference of human activities, the watershed state changes to A2 along the vertical direction. Therefore, the runoff change caused by human activities can be expressed as:
Δ Q h = (   E 2 P 2 E 2 P 2   ) P 2
where E 2 P 2 is calculated with Budyko curve in the reference period, E 2 P 2 is calculated by Budyko curve in the period of the human activities interference period, and P2 is the precipitation in the period of human activity disturbance.
Because the Budyko framework has a certain physical basis and can reflect the relationship between water and energy in the basin, many studies use it to study the impact of climate change and human activities on runoff (Table 3). Studies have shown that the Budyko framework is better than the hydrological model method at analyzing the impact of climate change on annual runoff in large areas and limited data areas, but it is not suitable for the analysis of runoff variation in the given scenario [85]. In addition, ET0 must be calculated when using the Budyko framework, although researchers have developed many ET0 algorithms [86,87,88,89,90], there is no system to verify the ET0 calculation results.

3.4. Paired Catchment

The paired catchment method is a classic method to separate the impacts of climate change and human activities on runoff. After Bosch and Hewlett [97] reviewed the impact of vegetation change on water production through catchment experiments, the paired catchment method developed rapidly and was mostly used for the impact of vegetation change on runoff. The paired catchment method requires locate adjacent catchments, which have similar physical geographical characteristics, including slope, slope direction, soil, area, climate, and vegetation, and so on. After catchments go through a correction period, some catchments will be kept in a natural state as controls, and human activities will be conducted in other catchments as treatments. The control and treatment catchments will be observed in parallel. In the calibration period, linear regression is usually made between the control and treatment catchments to predict the runoff without human activities in the control catchments, and then the difference between the predicted runoff and the real runoff is considered to be caused by human activities [98,99]. Stoof et al. [100] used the paired catchment to investigate the hydrological response before and after the fire on the eastern slope of Serra da Lousã in central and northern Portugal and found that vegetation removal played an important role in the increase in runoff after the fire. Cheng et al. [101] studied the effect of vegetation change on the dynamic of catchment storage-discharge using streamflow data from six paired catchment experiments, and found that one of the important mechanisms of runoff variation caused by groundwater storage–discharge relationship variation caused by vegetation change was found. The interaction of surface water–groundwater has a great correlation with the non-stationary change of rainfall–runoff, which may lead to incorrect runoff estimates at a given rainfall than predicted at both seasonal and annual scales [102,103,104]. Meteorological drought also affects the non-stationary change of rainfall–runoff, but it is less than the interaction of surface water–groundwater. Therefore, the interaction of surface water–groundwater should be considered when conducting rainfall–runoff modeling.
Since the method of paired catchment excludes climate change, it can better represent the runoff change caused by the change of underlying surface [99], but the result is very fuzzy, and it is difficult to extrapolate to other regions. Moreover, the study area can only be selected in a small-scale catchment (usually < 1 km2), where the distribution of climate, soil, topography, vegetation and other characteristics between the treatment catchment and the control catchment is more likely to be similar [105]. In addition, due to the long research period, the accumulation of test data is insufficient, and the underlying surface condition of the catchment area cannot guarantee the stability all the time, so the repeatability of the experiment is low.

3.5. Empirical Statistics

Empirical statistics is a common method to study the impact of climate change and human activities on runoff. Because it establishes the relationship between runoff and climate variables, the long-term observation of hydrological and meteorological data is needed [106]. Firstly, the relationship model is established by using the climate variable data and runoff data in the reference period:
Q p r e = f ( c p r e )
where c p r e represents the climatic variables in the reference period. Then, the meteorological data in the human activities disturbance period are input into the model to simulate the natural runoff during that period:
Q s i m = f ( c p o s t )
where c p o s t represents the climatic variables in the human activities interference period. Finally, the influence of human activities on runoff is analyzed by comparing the simulated runoff with the observed runoff in human activities interference period.
The relationship between runoff and climate variables can be linear or non-linear [107,108]. Zhang et al. [109] used linear regression to establish the relationship between precipitation and runoff, and estimated that human activities caused a 41.74% reduction in runoff in the Yi River Basin of China. Du and Shi [110] used multiple stepwise regression to establish the relationship between climate variables and runoff and finally determined that only precipitation and temperature are related to runoff. Additionally, they estimated that precipitation, temperature and human activities are, respectively, responsible for 33.0%, 15.9% and 51.1% of the runoff reduction in the Weihe River Basin. Zhang et al. [111] established a non-linear runoff model driven by precipitation and potential evapotranspiration in the Xitiaoxi River Basin of China and analyzed that the contribution rate of human activities to runoff reduction in the basin was 57.2%.
Empirical statistical methods are very easy to implement because only runoff observation data and meteorological data are needed to simulate the runoff process. The accuracy of model simulation and the reliability of meteorological data are the key to the calculation of this method, so it requires high-quality observation data, but the application of data is relatively simple. In addition, due to the lack of physical mechanism, this method can only analyze the hydrological effects of climate change.

3.6. Machine Learning

Due to the development of big data, the application of machine learning based on big data in hydrological research is increasing [112]. As we all know, in the process of the hydrological cycle, each variable interacts with each other, but the interaction mechanism among many variables is not clear, let alone able to establish their mathematical relationship. However, machine learning can mine useful information from massive data and help to find response patterns among variables. Therefore, using machine learning for hydrological simulation is efficient and intelligent, which can solve the shortcomings of physical models and statistical models in hydrological research, such as accuracy and uncertainty, high computational cost, and large data demand [113,114,115]. Bai et al. [116] trained hybrid models of Depth Belief Networks (DBN) and Neural Network (NN) to predict the Three Gorges reservoir inflow, and the results were highly matched. Tongal and Booij [117] coupled Support Vector Regression (SVR), Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs) and Random Forest (RF) with the base flow separation method to simulate the runoff of four rivers in the United States and found that the separation of base flow can improve the simulation performance of machine learning models. Hu et al. [118] used the framework of integrating long short-term memory (LSTM) and the reduced order model (ROM) in flood forecasting research. After testing with Okushiri tsunam, he found that LSTM-ROM can not only ensure the accuracy of prediction, but also reduce the cost of prediction.
Kratzert et al. [119] trained LSTM with daily meteorological and runoff data from 241 catchments for 15 years to establish rainfall–runoff models, with better performance as the SACSMA + Snow-17 model. The work of Kratzert et al. makes it possible to use machine learning to separate the impacts of climate change and human activity on runoff. Firstly, the machine learning model is trained with the meteorological data and runoff data of the reference period to simulate the natural runoff response to climate, and then the trained model is used to estimate the natural runoff during the human activities disturbance period. The difference between the observed value and the simulated value during the human activities disturbance period is the runoff change caused by human activities, and the impact of climate change on runoff is calculated by comparing the difference between the simulated value and the observed value in the reference period.
Although machine learning has obvious advantages in hydrological simulation, it is limited by the sample sizes [114]. If there is a lack of samples, the trained machine learning model will be difficult to be constrained. Kratzert et al. [119] think that the sample size of 15-year daily data may be the lower bound of machine learning’s demand for data. Therefore, machine learning cannot be applied indiscriminately.

4. Interaction between Human Activities and Climate Change

The relationship between climate change and human activities has always been assumed to be independent of each other in studies that separate their effects on runoff, when in fact they affect each other [120,121]. Haddeland et al. [122] found that the demand for irrigation water will increase with the increase in global average temperature. On the scale of catchment area, climate change is the main cause of land-use and land-cover change, which may change the runoff process [109]. Greenhouse gas emissions lead to global warming and changes in aerosol thickness, which have an impact on precipitation [123,124].
Moreover, even if the assumption that climate change and human activity are independent of each other is accepted, some shortcomings in the separation approaches have been proposed. Yang et al. [125] found that when the first-order Taylor expansion of Budyko functions is used to calculate the contribution of climate to runoff, the increased P or reduced ET0 will lead to the underestimation of climate contribution, while the decreased P or increased ET0 overestimates the contribution of climate. Xu et al. [126] pointed out that the empirical statistical method only distinguishes the impacts of precipitation and non-precipitation factors on runoff, thus underestimating the contribution of climate change to runoff.
Therefore, it is impractical to completely separate climate change from human activities. If it is expected to accurately quantify the impact of specific human activities and each climatic element on runoff, more efforts are needed.

5. Conclusions

The separation of the impacts of climate change and human activities on hydrological variables is the basic work of water resources assessment. It is not only conducive to the rational development and scientific management of regional water resources, but also of great significance for decision makers to cope with global climate change. After reviewing the relevant studies on separating the impacts of climate change and human activities on runoff, this paper finds that, although the hydrological model, scenario combination, paired catchment, Budyko framework, and empirical statistics have been developed and great progress has been made, there are still some problems to be further explored in the future:
  • At present, an abrupt change test is often used to determine the reference period and the human activities interference period, but it can only explain the variation of hydrological series statistically. However, some change points in the time series of hydrological variables may only be change in a series period, not a real variation point. How to find and verify the real mutation point and demonstrate the objectivity and reliability of mutation need further research.
  • The contribution rates calculated by using different methods to separate the impacts of climate change and human activities on runoff may be different. Most researchers use various methods to verify each other at the same time, but the results still have great uncertainty.
  • The existing studies on separating the impacts of climate change and human activities on runoff are based on the fact that human activities and climate change are relatively independent. However, it is a fact that human activities have an impact on climate change, and there is no feasible method to distinguish the changes caused by human activities and natural climate fluctuations in climate change.
  • In the application of the hydrological model, there are few studies considering the uncertainty of model calibration and model scale. How to quantify these uncertainties and explain the differences between them in order to improve the accuracy of the research results also needs to be further studied.

Author Contributions

Writing—original draft preparation, F.Z., D.-R.D., and W.-Y.S.; Writing—review and editing, M.-G.M. and W.-Y.S.; help and discussion, M.-G.M. and W.-Y.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Chongqing Basic Research and Frontier Exploration Program (No. cstc2018jcyjAX0187), the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (No. SWU116087), and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 41975114 and 41830648).

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers and editors for their valuable comments and suggestions.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Milly, P.C.D.; Dunne, K.A.; Vecchia, A.V. Global pattern of trends in streamflow and water availability in a changing climate. Nature 2005, 438, 347–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Oki, T.; Kanae, S. Global hydrological cycles and world water resources. Science 2006, 313, 1068–1072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Bogardi, J.J.; Fekete, B.M.; Vörösmarty, C.J. Planetary boundaries revisited: A view through the ‘water lens’. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2013, 5, 581–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Seckler, D.; Barker, R.; Amarasinghe, U. Water Scarcity in the Twenty-first Century. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 1999, 15, 29–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Anderson, M.G. Encyclopedia of Hydrological Sciences; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2005; ISBN 0470848944. [Google Scholar]
  6. Korzun, V.I. World Water Balance and Water Resources of the Earth; UNESCO: Paris, France, 1978. [Google Scholar]
  7. Huntington, T.G. Evidence for intensification of the global water cycle: Review and synthesis. J. Hydrol. 2006, 319, 83–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Bronstert, A.; Niehoff, D.; Bürger, G. Effects of climate and land-use change on storm runoff generation: Present knowledge and modelling capabilities. Hydrol. Process. 2002, 16, 509–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Nyssen, J.; Clymans, W.; Descheemaeker, K.; Poesen, J.; Vandecasteele, I.; Vanmaercke, M.; Zenebe, A.; van Camp, M.; Haile, M.; Haregeweyn, N. Impact of soil and water conservation measures on catchment hydrological response—A case in north Ethiopia. Hydrol. Process. 2010, 24, 1880–1895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. LI, Z.; LI, X. Impacts of Engineering Measures for Water Conservancy on Annual Runoff in the Chaohe River Basin Based on an Empirical Statistical Model. Acta Geogr. Sin. 2008, 9, 958–968. [Google Scholar]
  11. Lorente, C.; Causape, J.; Glud, R.N.; Hancke, K.; Merchan, D.; Muniz, S.; Val, J.; Navarro, E. Impacts of agricultural irrigation on nearby freshwater ecosystems: The seasonal influence of triazine herbicides in benthic algal communities. Sci. Total Env. 2015, 503, 151–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Changming, L.; Jingjie, Y.; Kendy, E. Groundwater exploitation and its impact on the environment in the North China Plain. Water Int. 2001, 26, 265–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Miller, J.D.; Kim, H.; Kjeldsen, T.R.; Packman, J.; Grebby, S.; Dearden, R. Assessing the impact of urbanization on storm runoff in a peri-urban catchment using historical change in impervious cover. J. Hydrol. 2014, 515, 59–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Zhang, X.; Zwiers, F.W.; Hegerl, G.C.; Lambert, F.H.; Gillett, N.P.; Solomon, S.; Stott, P.A.; Nozawa, T. Detection of human influence on twentieth-century precipitation trends. Nature 2007, 448, 461–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Seager, R.; Ting, M.; Held, I.; Kushnir, Y.; Lu, J.; Vecchi, G.; Huang, H.-P.; Harnik, N.; Leetmaa, A.; Lau, N.-C. Model projections of an imminent transition to a more arid climate in southwestern North America. Science 2007, 316, 1181–1184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Sterling, S.M.; Ducharne, A.; Polcher, J. The impact of global land-cover change on the terrestrial water cycle. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2013, 3, 385–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Döll, P.; Fiedler, K.; Zhang, J. Global-scale analysis of river flow alterations due to water withdrawals and reservoirs. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2009, 13, 2413–2432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Pokhrel, Y.N.; Hanasaki, N.; Yeh, P.J.-F.; Yamada, T.J.; Kanae, S.; Oki, T. Model estimates of sea-level change due to anthropogenic impacts on terrestrial water storage. Nat. Geosci. 2012, 5, 389–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Gleeson, T.; Wada, Y.; Bierkens, M.F.P.; van Beek, L.P.H. Water balance of global aquifers revealed by groundwater footprint. Nature 2012, 488, 197–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Biemans, H.; Haddeland, I.; Kabat, P.; Ludwig, F.; Hutjes, R.W.A.; Heinke, J.; von Bloh, W.; Gerten, D. Impact of reservoirs on river discharge and irrigation water supply during the 20th century. Water Resour. Res. 2011, 47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Pachauri, R.K.; Allen, M.R.; Barros, V.R.; Broome, J.; Cramer, W.; Christ, R.; Church, J.A.; Clarke, L.; Dahe, Q.; Dasgupta, P. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2014; ISBN 9291691437. [Google Scholar]
  22. Change, I.C. The Scientific Basis; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  23. Yang, T.; Wang, C.; Chen, Y.; Chen, X.; Yu, Z. Climate change and water storage variability over an arid endorheic region. J. Hydrol. 2015, 529, 330–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Zhou, J.; Wang, L.; Zhang, Y.; Guo, Y.; Li, X.; Liu, W. Exploring the water storage changes in the largest lake (S elin C o) over the T ibetan P lateau during 2003–2012 from a basin-wide hydrological modeling. Water Resour. Res. 2015, 51, 8060–8086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Hulme, M.; Barrow, E.M.; Arnell, N.W.; Harrison, P.A.; Johns, T.C.; Downing, T.E. Relative impacts of human-induced climate change and natural climate variability. Nature 1999, 397, 688–691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Guo, L.; Shan, N.; Zhang, Y.; Sun, F.; Liu, W.; Shi, Z.; Zhang, Q. Separating the effects of climate change and human activity on water use efficiency over the Beijing-Tianjin Sand Source Region of China. Sci. Total Env. 2019, 690, 584–595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Zhu, S.; Xu, Z.; Luo, X.; Wang, C.; Zhang, H. Quantifying the Contributions of Climate Change and Human Activities to Drought Extremes, Using an Improved Evaluation Framework. Water Resour. Manag. 2019, 33, 5051–5065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Mann, H.B. Nonparametric tests against trend. Econom. J. Econom. Soc. 1945, 13, 245–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kendall, M.G. Rank Correlation Methods; Charles Griffin and Company: London, UK, 1948. [Google Scholar]
  30. Weber, K.; Stewart, M. A critical analysis of the cumulative rainfall departure concept. Ground Water 2004, 42, 935–938. [Google Scholar]
  31. Pettitt, A.N. A non-parametric approach to the change-point problem. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. C (Appl. Stat.) 1979, 28, 126–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Ding, J. Statistical detection for transition point in flood time sequences. J. Wuhan Univ. Hydraul. Electr. Eng. 1986, 5, 35–37. [Google Scholar]
  33. Searcy, J.K.; Hardison, C.H. Double-Mass Curves; US Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, USA, 1960.
  34. Wang, W.; Shao, Q.; Yang, T.; Peng, S.; Xing, W.; Sun, F.; Luo, Y. Quantitative assessment of the impact of climate variability and human activities on runoff changes: A case study in four catchments of the Haihe River basin, China. Hydrol. Process. 2013, 27, 1158–1174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Samaniego, L.; Bardossy, A. Simulation of the impacts of land use/cover and climatic changes on the runoff characteristics at the mesoscale. Ecol. Model. 2006, 196, 45–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Huo, Z.; Feng, S.; Kang, S.; Li, W.; Chen, S. Effect of climate changes and water-related human activities on annual stream flows of the Shiyang river basin in arid north-west China. Hydrol. Process. 2008, 22, 3155–3167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Devia, G.K.; Ganasri, B.P.; Dwarakish, G.S. A review on hydrological models. Aquat. Procedia 2015, 4, 1001–1007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Xu, C.-Y. Climate change and hydrologic models: A review of existing gaps and recent research developments. Water Resour. Manag. 1999, 13, 369–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Seiller, G.; Anctil, F.; Perrin, C. Multimodel evaluation of twenty lumped hydrological models under contrasted climate conditions. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2012, 16, 1171–1189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Li, X.; Cheng, G.; Lin, H.; Cai, X.; Fang, M.; Ge, Y.; Hu, X.; Chen, M.; Li, W. Watershed system model: The essentials to model complex human-nature system at the river basin scale. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 2018, 123, 3019–3034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Zeng, S.; Zhan, C.; Sun, F.; Du, H.; Wang, F. Effects of climate change and human activities on surface runoff in the Luan River Basin. Adv. Meteorol. 2015, 2015, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Zhan, C.; Zeng, S.; Jiang, S.; Wang, H.; Ye, W. An integrated approach for partitioning the effect of climate change and human activities on surface runoff. Water Resour. Manag. 2014, 28, 3843–3858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Ma, H.; Yang, D.; Tan, S.K.; Gao, B.; Hu, Q. Impact of climate variability and human activity on streamflow decrease in the Miyun Reservoir catchment. J. Hydrol. 2010, 389, 317–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Kazemi, H.; Sarukkalige, R.; Badrzadeh, H. Evaluation of streamflow changes due to climate variation and human activities using the Budyko approach. Environ. Earth Sci. 2019, 78, 713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Dong, W.; Cui, B.; Liu, Z.; Zhang, K. Relative effects of human activities and climate change on the river runoff in an arid basin in northwest China. Hydrol. Process. 2014, 28, 4854–4864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Wang, G.Q.; Zhang, J.Y.; Pagano, T.C.; Lin, J.L.; Liu, C.S. Identifying contributions of climate change and human activity to changes in runoff using epoch detection and hydrologic simulation. J. Hydrol. Eng. 2013, 18, 1385–1392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Jiang, S.; Ren, L.; Yong, B.; Singh, V.P.; Yang, X.; Yuan, F. Quantifying the effects of climate variability and human activities on runoff from the Laohahe basin in northern China using three different methods. Hydrol. Process. 2011, 25, 2492–2505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Li, Z.; Liu, W.-Z.; Zhang, X.-C.; Zheng, F.-L. Impacts of land use change and climate variability on hydrology in an agricultural catchment on the Loess Plateau of China. J. Hydrol. 2009, 377, 35–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Stocker, T.F.; Qin, D.; Plattner, G.-K.; Tignor, M.; Allen, S.K.; Boschung, J.; Nauels, A.; Xia, Y.; Bex, V.; Midgley, P.M. Contribution of working group I to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. In Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2013; Volume 1535. [Google Scholar]
  50. Laprise, R. Regional climate modelling. J. Comput. Phys. 2008, 227, 3641–3666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Nijssen, B.; O’Donnell, G.M.; Hamlet, A.F.; Lettenmaier, D.P. Hydrologic sensitivity of global rivers to climate change. Clim. Chang. 2001, 50, 143–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Zhang, J.Y.; Wang, G.Q.; Pagano, T.C.; Jin, J.L.; Liu, C.S.; He, R.M.; Liu, Y.L. Using hydrologic simulation to explore the impacts of climate change on runoff in the Huaihe River basin of China. J. Hydrol. Eng. 2013, 18, 1393–1399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Veldkamp, A.; Lambin, E.F. Predicting land-use change. Agric. Ecosyst. Env. 2001, 85, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Verburg, P.H.; Soepboer, W.; Veldkamp, A.; Limpiada, R.; Espaldon, V.; Mastura, S.S.A. Modeling the spatial dynamics of regional land use: The CLUE-S model. Environ. Manag. 2002, 30, 391–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Batty, M.; Couclelis, H.; Eichen, M. Urban Systems as Cellular Automata; SAGE Publications Sage: London, UK, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  56. Parker, D.C.; Manson, S.M.; Janssen, M.A.; Hoffmann, M.J.; Deadman, P. Multi-agent systems for the simulation of land-use and land-cover change: A review. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 2003, 93, 314–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Sang, L.; Zhang, C.; Yang, J.; Zhu, D.; Yun, W. Simulation of land use spatial pattern of towns and villages based on CA–Markov model. Math. Comput. Model. 2011, 54, 938–943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Kim, J.; Choi, J.; Choi, C.; Park, S. Impacts of changes in climate and land use/land cover under IPCC RCP scenarios on streamflow in the Hoeya River Basin, Korea. Sci. Total Env. 2013, 452, 181–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Yang, W.; Long, D.; Bai, P. Impacts of future land cover and climate changes on runoff in the mostly afforested river basin in North China. J. Hydrol. 2019, 570, 201–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Wang, Q.; Xu, Y.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Xiang, J.; Xu, Y.; Wang, J. Individual and combined impacts of future land-use and climate conditions on extreme hydrological events in a representative basin of the Yangtze River Delta, China. Atmos. Res. 2020, 236, 104805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Yang, W.; Long, D. Analysis of Land Use and Land Cover Changes and Their Impacts on Future Runoff in the Luanhe River Basin in North China Using Markov and SWAT. AGUFM 2017, 2017, H53I-1593. [Google Scholar]
  62. Wu, F.; Zhan, J.; Su, H.; Yan, H.; Ma, E. Scenario-based impact assessment of land use/cover and climate changes on watershed hydrology in Heihe River Basin of northwest China. Adv. Meteorol. 2015, 2015, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Budyko, M.I. The heat balance of the earth’s surface. Sov. Geogr. 1961, 2, 3–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Budyko, M.I.; Miller, D.H. Climate and Life; Academic press: New York, NY, USA, 1974. [Google Scholar]
  65. Henning, D.; Flohn, H. Climate Aridity Index Map; U.N. Conference on Desertification; UNEP: Nairobi, Kenya, 1977. [Google Scholar]
  66. Milly, P.C.D. Climate, interseasonal storage of soil water, and the annual water balance. Adv. Water Resour. 1994, 17, 19–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Donohue, R.; Roderick, M.; McVicar, T.R. On the importance of including vegetation dynamics in Budyko’s hydrological model. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2007, 11, 983–995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Yang, D.; Sun, F.; Liu, Z.; Cong, Z.; Ni, G.; Lei, Z. Analyzing spatial and temporal variability of annual water-energy balance in nonhumid regions of China using the Budyko hypothesis. Water Resour. Res. 2007, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Potter, N.J.; Zhang, L.; Milly, P.C.D.; McMahon, T.A.; Jakeman, A.J. Effects of rainfall seasonality and soil moisture capacity on mean annual water balance for Australian catchments. Water Resour. Res. 2005, 41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Gao, G.; Chen, D.; Xu, C.-Y.; Simelton, E. Trend of estimated actual evapotranspiration over China during 1960–2002. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 2007, 112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Berghuijs, W.; Greve, P. A review of the Budyko water balance framework. In Proceedings of the EGU General Assembly, Vienna, Austria, 12–17 April 2015. [Google Scholar]
  72. Zhou, S.; Yu, B.; Huang, Y.; Wang, G. The complementary relationship and generation of the Budyko functions. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2015, 42, 1781–1790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Schreiber, P. Über die Beziehungen zwischen dem Niederschlag und der Wasserführung der Flüsse in Mitteleuropa. Z. Meteorol 1904, 21, 441–452. [Google Scholar]
  74. Ol’Dekop, E.M. On evaporation from the surface of river basins. Trans. Meteorol. Obs. 1911, 4, 200. [Google Scholar]
  75. Pike, J.G. The estimation of annual run-off from meteorological data in a tropical climate. J. Hydrol. 1964, 2, 116–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Turc, L. Le bilan d’eau des sols: Relations entre les précipitations, l’évaporation et l’écoulement. Ann. Agron. 1954, 5, 491–595. [Google Scholar]
  77. Fu, B.P. On the calculation of the evaporation from land surface. Sci. Atmos. Sin. 1981, 5, 23–31. [Google Scholar]
  78. Zhang, L.; Dawes, W.R.; Walker, G.R. Response of mean annual evapotranspiration to vegetation changes at catchment scale. Water Resour. Res. 2001, 37, 701–708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Yang, H.; Yang, D.; Lei, Z.; Sun, F. New analytical derivation of the mean annual water-energy balance equation. Water Resour. Res. 2008, 44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Mezentsev, V.S. More on the calculation of average total evaporation. Meteorol. Gidrol. 1955, 5, 24–26. [Google Scholar]
  81. Choudhury, B. Evaluation of an empirical equation for annual evaporation using field observations and results from a biophysical model. J. Hydrol. 1999, 216, 99–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Zhang, L.; Hickel, K.; Dawes, W.R.; Chiew, F.H.S.; Western, A.W.; Briggs, P.R. A rational function approach for estimating mean annual evapotranspiration. Water Resour. Res. 2004, 40, 89–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Schaake, J.C. From climate to flow. In Climate Change and US Water Resources; Waggoner, P.E., Ed.; John Wiley and Sons Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1990; pp. 177–206. [Google Scholar]
  84. Wang, D.; Hejazi, M. Quantifying the relative contribution of the climate and direct human impacts on mean annual streamflow in the contiguous United States. Water Resour. Res. 2011, 47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  85. Teng, J.; Chiew, F.H.S.; Vaze, J.; Marvanek, S.; Kirono, D.G.C. Estimation of climate change impact on mean annual runoff across continental Australia using Budyko and Fu equations and hydrological models. J. Hydrometeorol. 2012, 13, 1094–1106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Penman, H.L. Natural evaporation from open water, bare soil and grass. Math. Phys. Sci. 1948, 193, 120–145. [Google Scholar]
  87. Thornthwaite, C.W. An approach toward a rational classification of climate. Geogr. Rev. 1948, 38, 55–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Monteith, J.L. Evaporation and environment. Symp. Soc. Exp. Biol. 1965, 19, 205–234. [Google Scholar]
  89. Priestley, C.H.B.; Taylor, R.J. On the assessment of surface heat flux and evaporation using large-scale parameters. Mon. Weather Rev. 1972, 100, 81–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Allen, R.G.; Pereira, L.S.; Raes, D.; Smith, M. Crop Evapotranspiration-Guidelines for Computing Crop Water Requirements-FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 56; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nation: Rome, Italy, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  91. Shahid, M.; Cong, Z.; Zhang, D. Understanding the impacts of climate change and human activities on streamflow: A case study of the Soan River basin, Pakistan. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 2018, 134, 205–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Xu, X.; Yang, D.; Yang, H.; Lei, H. Attribution analysis based on the Budyko hypothesis for detecting the dominant cause of runoff decline in Haihe basin. J. Hydrol. 2014, 510, 530–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Fenta, A.A.; Yasuda, H.; Shimizu, K.; Haregeweyn, N. Response of streamflow to climate variability and changes in human activities in the semiarid highlands of northern Ethiopia. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2017, 17, 1229–1240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Zhan, C.S.; Jiang, S.S.; Sun, F.B.; Jia, Y.W.; Niu, C.W.; Yue, W.F. Quantitative contribution of climate change and human activities to runoff changes in the Wei River basin, China. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2014, 18, 3069–3077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  95. Ma, Z.; Kang, S.; Zhang, L.; Tong, L.; Su, X. Analysis of impacts of climate variability and human activity on streamflow for a river basin in arid region of northwest China. J. Hydrol. 2008, 352, 239–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Zhang, Y.; Guan, D.; Jin, C.; Wang, A.; Wu, J.; Yuan, F. Analysis of impacts of climate variability and human activity on streamflow for a river basin in northeast China. J. Hydrol. 2011, 410, 239–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Bosch, J.M.; Hewlett, J.D. A review of catchment experiments to determine the effect of vegetation changes on water yield and evapotranspiration. J. Hydrol. 1982, 55, 3–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Hornbeck, J.W.; Adams, M.B.; Corbett, E.S.; Verry, E.S.; Lynch, J.A. Long-term impacts of forest treatments on water yield: A summary for northeastern USA. J. Hydrol. 1993, 150, 323–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Brown, A.E.; Zhang, L.; McMahon, T.A.; Western, A.W.; Vertessy, R.A. A review of paired catchment studies for determining changes in water yield resulting from alterations in vegetation. J. Hydrol. 2005, 310, 28–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Stoof, C.R.; Vervoort, R.W.; Iwema, J.; van den Elsen, E.; Ferreira, A.J.D.; Ritsema, C.J. Hydrological response of a small catchment burned by experimental fire. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2012, 16, 267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  101. Cheng, L.; Zhang, L.; Chiew, F.H.S.; Canadell, J.G.; Zhao, F.; Wang, Y.-P.; Hu, X.; Lin, K. Quantifying the impacts of vegetation changes on catchment storage-discharge dynamics using paired-catchment data. Water Resour. Res. 2017, 53, 5963–5979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Saft, M.; Western, A.W.; Zhang, L.; Peel, M.C.; Potter, N.J. The influence of multiyear drought on the annual rainfall-runoff relationship: An A ustralian perspective. Water Resour. Res. 2015, 51, 2444–2463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Deb, P.; Kiem, A.S.; Willgoose, G. A linked surface water-groundwater modelling approach to more realistically simulate rainfall-runoff non-stationarity in semi-arid regions. J. Hydrol. 2019, 575, 273–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Deb, P.; Kiem, A.S.; Willgoose, G. Mechanisms influencing non-stationarity in rainfall-runoff relationships in southeast Australia. J. Hydrol. 2019, 571, 749–764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Seibert, J.; McDonnell, J.J. Land-cover impacts on streamflow: A change-detection modelling approach that incorporates parameter uncertainty. Hydrol. Sci. J. J. Sci. Hydrol. 2010, 55, 316–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  106. Wu, J.; Miao, C.; Zhang, X.; Yang, T.; Duan, Q. Detecting the quantitative hydrological response to changes in climate and human activities. Sci. Total Env. 2017, 586, 328–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Liu, C.M.; Fu, G.B. The Impact of Climatic Change on the Hydrological Situation of China; Climate Change and Its Influence; Meteorological Press: Beijing, China, 1993. [Google Scholar]
  108. Peng, S.; Liu, W.; Wang, W.; Shao, Q.; Jiao, X.; Yu, Z.; Xing, W.; Xu, J.; Zhang, Z.; Luo, Y. Estimating the effects of climatic variability and human activities on streamflow in the Hutuo River Basin, China. J. Hydrol. Eng. 2013, 18, 422–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Zhang, H.; Xu, W.; Xu, X.; Lu, B. Responses of streamflow to climate change and human activities in a river basin, Northeast China. Adv. Meteorol. 2017, 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Du, J.; Shi, C.-X. Effects of climatic factors and human activities on runoff of the Weihe River in recent decades. Quat. Int. 2012, 282, 58–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Zhang, C.; Zhang, B.; Li, W.; Liu, M. Response of streamflow to climate change and human activity in Xitiaoxi river basin in China. Hydrol. Process. 2014, 28, 43–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Ardabili, S.; Mosavi, A.; Dehghani, M.; Várkonyi-Kóczy, A.R. Deep learning and machine learning in hydrological processes climate change and earth systems a systematic review. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Global Research and Education, Balatonfüred, Hungary, 4–7 September 2019; pp. 52–62. [Google Scholar]
  113. Mosavi, A.; Ozturk, P.; Chau, K.-W. Flood prediction using machine learning models: Literature review. Water 2018, 10, 1536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  114. Shen, C. A Transdisciplinary Review of Deep Learning Research and Its Relevance for Water Resources Scientists. Water Resour. Res. 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Chemura, A.; Rwasoka, D.; Mutanga, O.; Dube, T.; Mushore, T. The impact of land-use/land cover changes on water balance of the heterogeneous Buzi sub-catchment, Zimbabwe. Remote Sens. Appl. Soc. Env. 2020, 18, 100292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Bai, Y.; Chen, Z.; Xie, J.; Li, C. Daily reservoir inflow forecasting using multiscale deep feature learning with hybrid models. J. Hydrol. 2016, 532, 193–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Tongal, H.; Booij, M.J. Simulation and forecasting of streamflows using machine learning models coupled with base flow separation. J. Hydrol. 2018, 564, 266–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Hu, R.; Fang, F.; Pain, C.C.; Navon, I.M. Rapid spatio-temporal flood prediction and uncertainty quantification using a deep learning method. J. Hydrol. 2019, 575, 911–920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Kratzert, F.; Klotz, D.; Brenner, C.; Schulz, K.; Herrnegger, M. Rainfall–runoff modelling using Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) networks. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2018, 22, 6005–6022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  120. Hu, J.; Ma, J.; Nie, C.; Xue, L.; Zhang, Y.; Ni, F.; Deng, Y.; Liu, J.; Zhou, D.; Li, L. Attribution Analysis of Runoff change in Min-tuo River Basin based on SWAt model simulations, china. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  121. Wang, G.Q.; Zhang, J.Y.; Xuan, Y.Q.; Liu, J.F.; Jin, J.L.; Bao, Z.X.; He, R.M.; Liu, C.S.; Liu, Y.L.; Yan, X.L. Simulating the Impact of Climate Change on Runoff in a Typical River Catchment of the Loess Plateau, China. J. Hydrol. 2013, 14, 1553–1561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Haddeland, I.; Heinke, J.; Biemans, H.; Eisner, S.; Flörke, M.; Hanasaki, N.; Konzmann, M.; Ludwig, F.; Masaki, Y.; Schewe, J. Global water resources affected by human interventions and climate change. Environ. Sci. Med. 2014, 111, 3251–3256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  123. Barnett, T.P.; Pierce, D.W.; Hidalgo, H.G.; Bonfils, C.; Santer, B.D.; Das, T.; Bala, G.; Wood, A.W.; Nozawa, T.; Mirin, A.A. Human-induced changes in the hydrology of the western United States. Science 2008, 319, 1080–1083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  124. Ntelekos, A.A.; Smith, J.A.; Donner, L.; Fast, J.D.; Gustafson, W.I., Jr.; Chapman, E.G.; Krajewski, W.F. The effects of aerosols on intense convective precipitation in the northeastern United States. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. J. Atmos. Sci. Appl. Meteorol. Phys. Oceanogr. 2009, 135, 1367–1391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Yang, H.; Yang, D.; Hu, Q. An error analysis of the Budyko hypothesis for assessing the contribution of climate change to runoff. Water Resour. Res. 2014, 50, 9620–9629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Xu, Y.; Wang, S.; Bai, X.; Shu, D.; Tian, Y. Runoff response to climate change and human activities in a typical karst watershed, SW China. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0193073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. Three different abrupt change test methods were used to identify the change point of annual runoff in Minjiang watershed from 1956 to 2017: (a) is the result of order cluster analysis and the identified change point was in 1993; (b) is the result of Pettitt’s test and the identified change point also appeared in 1993 (α = 0.01); (c) is the result of the Mann–Kendall test and the change point location is between 1996 and 1999 (α = 0.05). S is the statistic of order cluster analysis, Uk is the statistic of Pettitt’s test, UF and UB are the statistics of Mann-Kendall test.
Figure 1. Three different abrupt change test methods were used to identify the change point of annual runoff in Minjiang watershed from 1956 to 2017: (a) is the result of order cluster analysis and the identified change point was in 1993; (b) is the result of Pettitt’s test and the identified change point also appeared in 1993 (α = 0.01); (c) is the result of the Mann–Kendall test and the change point location is between 1996 and 1999 (α = 0.05). S is the statistic of order cluster analysis, Uk is the statistic of Pettitt’s test, UF and UB are the statistics of Mann-Kendall test.
Water 12 02201 g001
Figure 2. Boundary conditions of the Budyko framework and different Budyko-type functions. The red dotted lines represent the boundary conditions of the Budyko framework, and the colored lines are different Budyko-type functions.
Figure 2. Boundary conditions of the Budyko framework and different Budyko-type functions. The red dotted lines represent the boundary conditions of the Budyko framework, and the colored lines are different Budyko-type functions.
Water 12 02201 g002
Figure 3. Decomposition method based on the Budyko framework (modified from Berghuijs and Greve [71]). A1 represents the basin state in the reference period, A2 represents the basin state in the human activities interference period, and A1′ represents the basin state only under the influence of climate change.
Figure 3. Decomposition method based on the Budyko framework (modified from Berghuijs and Greve [71]). A1 represents the basin state in the reference period, A2 represents the basin state in the human activities interference period, and A1′ represents the basin state only under the influence of climate change.
Water 12 02201 g003
Table 1. Hydrological models and scenario combinations for research on the impact of climate change and human activities on runoff.
Table 1. Hydrological models and scenario combinations for research on the impact of climate change and human activities on runoff.
Study AreaModelTimeTrendContribution (%) 1Dominant FactorReference
Luan River BasinSWAT SIMHYD1958–2009Decrease42.1% for SWAT46.8% for SIMHYDHuman activityZeng et al. [41]
Guanzhong RiverSIMHYD1958–2008Decrease34.2%Human activityZhan et al. [42]
Miyun Reservoir catchmentGBHM1956–2005Decrease55%Climate changeMa et al. [43]
Harvey River CatchmentHBV1971–2015Decrease56%Climate changeKazemi et al. [44]
Northwest ChinaSWAT1957–2008Decrease14.3%Human activityDong et al. [45]
Kuyehe River basinVIC1955–2008Decrease25.1–41.4%Human activityWang et al. [46]
Northern ChinaVIC-3L1964–2008Decrease11%Human activityJiang et al. [47]
1 Contribution only refers to the contribution of climate change to runoff.
Table 2. Relationship between the aridity index and evapotranspiration index based on the Budyko framework.
Table 2. Relationship between the aridity index and evapotranspiration index based on the Budyko framework.
ReferenceFunctionSupplement
Schreiber [73] E P = 1     e (   a s c h P ) a s c h is the adjustment coefficient, and this function has no clear physical mechanism.
Ol’Dekop [74] E P = E T 0 P t a n h ( E T 0 P ) 1 Revised from Schreibe’s research, and the function has no physical mechanism to support.
Pike [75] E P = E T 0 P ( E T 0 P ) 2 + 1 Revised from Turc [76].
Budyko and Miller [64] E P = E T 0 P t a n h ( E T 0 P ) 1 [ 1     e (   E T 0 P ) ] Based on the research of Schreiber and Ol’dekop, their functions are geometrically averaged.
Fu [77] E P = 1 + E T 0 P     [ ( E T 0 P ) ω + 1 ]   1 ω It is derived from dimensional analysis and mathematical derivation and has clear physical meaning. ω [ 1 , + ] , which is the control parameter of hydrothermal coupling 1.
Zhang et al. [78] E P = ( 1 + ω E T 0 P ) ( 1 + ω E T 0 P + ( E T 0 P ) 1 ) Modified from the function of Fu’s function.
Yang et al. [79] E P =   [ ( E T 0 P ) n + 1 ]   1 n n is a dimensionless parameter without physical meaning. This function is revised based on the research of Turc [76], Mezentsev [80], and Choudhury [81].
Zhang et al. [82] E P = ( 1 + w E T 0 P ) ( 1 + w E T 0 P + ( E T 0 P ) 1 ) w ( 0 , 2 ] , indicating the water use coefficient of vegetation, reflecting the difference of evapotranspiration of soil water absorbed by vegetation. For forest, w = 2 ; for Gramineae, w = 0.5 .
1   ω = n + 0.72 [79].
Table 3. Studies on the impact of climate change and human activities on runoff based on the Budyko framework.
Table 3. Studies on the impact of climate change and human activities on runoff based on the Budyko framework.
Study AreaTimeTrendContribution (%) 1Dominant FactorReference
Soan River basin1983–2012Decrease65.92%Climate changeShahid et al. [91]
Haihe basin1956–2005Decrease22.4%Human activityXu et al. [92]
Agula watershed1992–2012Decrease22%Human activityFenta et al. [93]
Wei River basin1958–2008Decrease22–29%Human activityZhan et al. [94]
Shiyang river basin1950–2005Decrease64.5–87.9%Climate changeMa et al. [95]
Guanzhong River1958–2008Decrease39.31–47.25%Human activityZhan et al. [42]
Luan River Basin1958–2009Decrease28.3–37.5%Human activityZeng et al. [41]
Miyun Reservoir catchment1956–2005Decrease51%Climate changeMa et al. [43]
Harvey River Catchment1971–2015Decrease55%Climate changeKazemi et al. [44]
Hun-Tai River basin1961–2006Decrease43%Human activityZhang et al. [96]
1 Contribution only refers to the contribution of climate change to runoff.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zeng, F.; Ma, M.-G.; Di, D.-R.; Shi, W.-Y. Separating the Impacts of Climate Change and Human Activities on Runoff: A Review of Method and Application. Water 2020, 12, 2201. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12082201

AMA Style

Zeng F, Ma M-G, Di D-R, Shi W-Y. Separating the Impacts of Climate Change and Human Activities on Runoff: A Review of Method and Application. Water. 2020; 12(8):2201. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12082201

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zeng, Feng, Ming-Guo Ma, Dong-Rui Di, and Wei-Yu Shi. 2020. "Separating the Impacts of Climate Change and Human Activities on Runoff: A Review of Method and Application" Water 12, no. 8: 2201. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12082201

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop