Agricultural Water Management 231 (2020) 105983

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Agricultural Water Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agwat

Insights from socio-hydrological modeling to design sustainable wastewater T

reuse strategies for agriculture at the watershed scale
Hanseok Jeonga,b,*, Rabin Bhattaraib, Jan Adamowskic, David J. Yud,e,f,g
a
Department of Environmental Engineering, Seoul National University of Science and Technology, Seoul, 01811, Republic of Korea
b
Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, 61801, USA
c
Department of Bioresource Engineering, McGill University, 21 111 Lakeshore Road, Ste. Anne de Bellevue, QC, Canada
d
Lyles School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA
e
Department of Political Science, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA
f
Center for the Environment, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA
g
OJeong Eco-Resilience Institute, Korea University, Seoul, Republic of Korea

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Wastewater reuse in agriculture can be a viable option to solve future freshwater shortages but may need an
Coupled human and water systems additional treatment process (Stage-II) to become a safe option. As wastewater reuse interacts with many facets
Irrigation of coupled human and water systems, the introduction of Stage-II treatment systems in wastewater reuse in
Possibility space agriculture must be understood in terms of socio-hydrology. This paper builds on a place-based socio-hydro-
Socio-hydrology
logical model of a wastewater-reused watershed in South Korea and uses it to: (1) identify key parameters in
Urbanization
human and water systems that have a significant impact on wastewater reuse in agriculture; (2) explore the
Water reuse
impacts of changing agricultural environments by altering the key parameters; and (3) develop the possibility
space of future changes from current decision-making. Key parameters concern the characteristics of urbani-
zation, domestic water use, and greenhouse cultivation. Urbanization can reduce the demand for Stage-II irri-
gation within an urbanizing watershed by reducing irrigation areas and increasing water availability. Domestic
water use has a large impact on the economics of indirect wastewater reuse. Greenhouse cultivation influences
the demand for Stage-II irrigation, mainly by reducing water availability. Moreover, it could further affect the
demand if the communities evolved to have a greater concern for the use of groundwater resources. The pos-
sibility space shows that wastewater reuse has a strong influence on groundwater and could relieve agricultural
water deficits through the diversification of irrigation sources, and could be a more economical irrigation
practice than groundwater irrigation under changing agricultural environments.

1. Introduction
Irrigation accounts for about 70 % of global water withdrawals
(Alexandratos and Bruinsma, 2012). Predicted population growth, cli-
mate change, and resulting water scarcity pose a major threat to water
for agricultural production (De Fraiture and Wichelns, 2010), and are
forcing societies to look for alternative sources of irrigation water. A
growing number of studies suggest that wastewater is a viable alter-
native source of irrigation water in countries facing increased water
shortages (Grant et al., 2012; Hanjra et al., 2012). Treated wastewater
is being widely used as agricultural water around the world (United
Nations World Water Assessment Programme (UNWWAP, 2017), and
previous studies estimate that more than 10 % of the world’s population
consumes agricultural products cultivated with wastewater irrigation
(World Health Organization (WHO, 2006). Many countries have started
to develop guidelines and technologies to use treated wastewater as a
safe irrigation source (Paranychianakis et al., 2015). In particular, the
combined use of a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) and a re-
clamation system (Stage-II treatment after WWTP, e.g., reverse osmosis,
ultraviolet disinfection) produces quality irrigation water that helps
achieve a safe agricultural environment (Contreras et al., 2017). Re-
lying solely on a WWTP could lead to treated water that still contains
high concentrations of salts, heavy metals, organic compounds, emer-
ging contaminants, and nutrients (Chiou, 2008; Muñoz et al., 2009).
When this water is used over long periods of time, these may accu-
mulate in the soil and adversely affect crop growth (Mapanda et al.,
2005; Tal, 2016). Therefore, a Stage-II treatment system is re-
commended to process the water further to make it safe for irrigation

⁎
Corresponding author at: 120-1 Chungun Hall, 232 Gongneung-ro, Nowon-gu, Seoul, 01811, Republic of Korea.
E-mail address: hanjeong@seoultech.ac.kr (H. Jeong).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2019.105983
Received 29 January 2019; Received in revised form 15 November 2019; Accepted 16 December 2019
Available online 03 January 2020
0378-3774/ © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
H. Jeong, et al.
(Qadir et al., 2015). Past studies have monitored the impact of Stage-II
irrigation (reclaimed wastewater irrigation following treatment with a
Stage-II system) on crop growth, health of the agricultural environment
and sanitation, and showed that the system can indeed lead to safe
wastewater reuse practices and greater sustainability (Jang et al., 2012;
Reznik et al., 2017).
Despite these benefits, determining whether a Stage-II treatment
system should be installed and how it should be operated is more than a
technical decision problem because of the complexity of the inter-
relationships between Stage-II irrigation and related human and water
systems, rendering the consequences of decisions highly uncertain.
Wastewater reuse in agriculture is partly driven by environmental and
social drivers and interacts with many facets of coupled human and
water systems (Hanjra et al., 2012). For example, changes in population
can directly affect effluent discharge from a WWTP, while changes in
climate and land use can affect agricultural water demand (Malik et al.,
2015). The reuse of treated wastewater can also produce major eco-
nomic benefits since it can replace the development of new freshwater
resources (Yang and Abbaspour, 2007). Further, hydrological condi-
tions can alter the reuse ratio of indirect wastewater reuse (otherwise
known as the ratio of effluent discharge to total stream flow) (Jeong
et al., 2016b), thereby altering the actual reuse amount of treated
wastewater resulting in changes to the economics of employing the
Stage-II treatment system. In other words, hydrological conditions can
change the economic feasibility and demand for Stage-II irrigation and
may change the pattern of agricultural water use, which can then in-
fluence the hydrological conditions themselves. This suggests that de-
cision-making surrounding the installation and operation of Stage-II
treatment systems must consider the two-way feedback of people and
water in a socio-hydrological context. This paper, therefore, aims to
examine the socio-hydrological interrelationships involving Stage-II
irrigation to understand which factors in human and water systems
have a significant impact on agricultural wastewater reuse and how
their effects are propagated to the systems and to the Stage-II irrigation
practice. In approaching this aim, we use modeling to help elucidate the
key drivers that account for these interrelationships and thus help guide
the design of effective policies regarding agricultural wastewater reuse.
Our modeling approach is motivated by socio-hydrology, the science of
people and water. Humans and their actions are considered part of
water cycle dynamics, and the aim is to understand the dynamics of
coupled human and water systems (Sivapalan et al., 2012).
The term Stage-II treatment is used throughout this study to dis-
tinguish it from the regular wastewater treatment (i.e., Stage-I treat-
ment in this study) employed by a WWTP. A Stage-II treatment system
is synonymous with a reclamation system and is a decentralized on-site
wastewater treatment system for formal and indirect reuse (I/C case in
Fig. 1). Stage-II irrigation is often described as a direct and formal form
of wastewater reuse. Wastewater reuse in agriculture is classified as
direct or indirect on the basis of whether or not treated wastewater is
diluted with freshwater (Rutkowski et al., 2007), and as formal or in-
formal on the basis of whether or not it is controlled by government
agencies (Hanjra et al., 2017; Scott et al., 2004) (Fig. 1). Most current
wastewater reuse in agriculture is indirect and informal (Scott et al.,
2004), which can adversely affect crop growth and the aquatic en-
vironment in agricultural fields (Qadir et al., 2015). This kind of reuse
is expected to grow with urbanization, i.e., as urbanization proceeds, it
is expected that more effluents will be discharged into streams and
downstream water quality will be degraded (Hanjra et al., 2017; Sato
et al., 2013). Stage-II treatment after a WWTP can help address these
problems through the use of additional customized water treatment
processes appropriate to a specific agricultural environment.
South Korea provides an excellent testing ground to study waste-
water reuse in agriculture and interrelationships involving Stage-II ir-
rigation because treated wastewater is already in use as an irrigation
water source. About 12 % of WWTPs with a treatment capacity of more
than 500 m3 day−1 currently supply treated wastewater to agricultural
2
Agricultural Water Management 231 (2020) 105983
lands in South Korea, mainly paddy fields (Ministry of Environment
(ME, 2012). The government has also encouraged increased wastewater
reuse to prepare for anticipated future freshwater shortages (Jang et al.,
2010). However, it has been reported that effluent from WWTPs can
degrade downstream irrigation water quality in both urban and rural
areas. A recent investigation found that about 25 % of the WWTPs in
operational use adversely impact irrigation water quality downstream
through informal indirect reuse (Jeong et al., 2016a). Farmers are also
becoming increasingly concerned that the continued use of diluted
treated wastewater as irrigation water produces negative impacts such
as rice lodging (i.e., flattening). This may prompt farmers to increase
the use of groundwater for irrigation, which in turn can be a major
concern for the government due to potential groundwater depletion
(Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs (MLTM, 2011). To
deal with this potential problem, there have been ongoing efforts by the
government to move toward formal wastewater reuse and development
of Stage-II treatment systems for agricultural use (Jang et al., 2010; Kim
et al., 2014). Co-using a Stage-II treatment system can result in a safe
agricultural environment, relieve farmers’ concerns about water
quality, as well as reduce groundwater pumping. This co-use, however,
can significantly increase the cost of wastewater treatment and irriga-
tion, necessitating an economic assessment to support the upgrade
(Hanjra et al., 2015).
There have been many important empirical studies that discuss
different aspects of wastewater reuse in agriculture: crop growth (Cirelli
et al., 2012; Pedrero et al., 2010), environmental impacts (Singh et al.,
2012; Xu et al., 2010), health risk (Fatta-Kassinos et al., 2011; Forslund
et al., 2010), economic evaluation (Drechsel et al., 2015; Hanjra et al.,
2015; Yang and Abbaspour, 2007), and the perceptions of farmers and
the general public (Rutkowski et al., 2007). Nevertheless, these pre-
vious studies have mainly focused on broadening the understanding of
wastewater reuse in agriculture regarding the aspects mentioned above.
They rarely assess how wastewater reuse in agriculture affects the
human and water systems and how changing agricultural environ-
ments, in turn, affect wastewater reuse in agriculture. In addition to
these studies, several modeling studies have been conducted to under-
stand the effects of wastewater reuse in agriculture on hydrological
systems (Jeong et al., 2016b; Kim et al., 2008). However, these mod-
eling studies ignored socio-hydrological interactions. They incorporate
wastewater reuse in agriculture as a factor that affects surface hy-
drology and water quality but do not capture the ways in which these
hydrological aspects can also affect wastewater reuse in agriculture. On
the other hand, Jeong and Adamowski (2016) developed a place-based
socio-hydrological model associated with wastewater reuse in agri-
culture, and captured the detailed causal relationships between was-
tewater reuse-induced hydrological processes (groundwater and surface
hydrology), demand and supply for irrigation waters (including Stage-II
irrigation water), development of irrigation facilities, the economics of
irrigation sources, and investment decisions. Although the study de-
monstrated the potential for application of the developed model, there
are knowledge gaps about which factors in human and water systems
have a major impact on agricultural wastewater reuse systems, how
they change the system-level behavior of wastewater reuse in agri-
culture, and how such models can be used in providing practical in-
sights for informed decision-making.
The current study contributes to bridging these gaps by building on
the place-based socio-hydrological model of Jeong and Adamowski
(2016), which was validated for the study site. We revise and analyze
the model to identify the factors affecting a wastewater reuse scheme
and to understand the possibility space of the wastewater reuse systems’
responses to changing agricultural environments. The possibility space
is defined as possible outcomes of alternative decisions, also known as
alternative futures, that provide insights about the system dynamics,
though they are not necessarily the most likely futures (Sivapalan and
Blöschl, 2015). In doing so, we generate practical insights for waste-
water reuse in agriculture that could help guide decision-making
H. Jeong, et al.
despite uncertainty. Our model analysis proceeds as follows. First, using
a sensitivity analysis, we identify a set of key parameters in social and
hydrological systems that have a strong influence on the future tra-
jectory of wastewater reuse in agriculture. Second, we explore the im-
pacts of changing agricultural environments on wastewater reuse in
agriculture by altering these key parameters. Third, using Monte Carlo
simulations, we investigate how current decision-making can shape the
possibility space of system dynamics in the long run. The possibility
space can provide decision-makers with practical insights that will
enable them to derive strategies for introducing sustainable Stage-II
irrigation.
2. Case study
The Osan River watershed is located in a temperate monsoon cli-
mate. It has an area of 98.3 km2 , a main river length of 16.5 km , a
drainage slope of 10.2 %, and a runoff to rainfall ratio of 0.54. The
average annual precipitation is approximately 1,312 mm, and the
average annual temperature is approximately 12 °C. The watershed has
experienced population growth and undergone rapid urbanization
causing the Osan WWTP to reach its current daily capacity of 140,000
m3 (Fig. 2). The population in the drainage area of the Osan WWTP
increased from 138,650 in 2005 to 297,560 in 2010, and as a result,
urban land increased 77 % (+1463 ha), whereas agricultural land de-
creased 36 % (-1,252 ha). Increased population contributed to an in-
crease in water availability through effluent discharge from the ex-
panded WWTP, since domestic water is supplied from outside the
watershed. The effluent from the Osan WWTP accounts for about 30 %
of stream flow in the Osan River during the irrigation period (Jeong
et al., 2016b), which is the primary source of paddy irrigation from
stream water. Agricultural pumping stations along the Osan River ir-
rigate treated wastewater diluted with stream water to the paddy fields
downstream where reservoir irrigation water is not supplied. This type
of informal indirect wastewater reuse can cause adverse effects on the
agricultural environment and farmers’ health.
In fact, irrigation water used for paddy fields in this area did not
meet water quality standards and had statistically higher salinity and
nutrient concentrations compared to traditional irrigation water from
an agricultural reservoir (Jeong et al., 2016c). Farmers in this area have
reported growth disorders such as rice lodging causing yield loss, and
occasionally complained of discomfort associated with odor from the
3
Agricultural Water Management 231 (2020) 105983
Fig. 1. Classification of wastewater reuse in agriculture in South
Korea. D, I, C, and U represent direct, indirect, formal (con-
trolled), and informal (uncontrolled) reuse, respectively. Stage-II
treatment is usually required for both direct and indirect reuse,
except when treated wastewater (i.e., water after Stage-I treat-
ment) and diluted treated wastewater already satisfy irrigation
water quality standards. Stage-II irrigation in this study refers to
an indirect and formal (I/C) wastewater reuse case and uses a
decentralized on-site Stage-II treatment system.
diluted treated wastewater irrigation. They began to worry that con-
sumers would have a negative perception of their agricultural products,
not only paddy rice but all crops grown in the area, and have increas-
ingly asked for Stage-II treatment systems to ensure quality irrigation
water. This demand will increase in the near future to meet their need
for quality irrigation water for safe and high-quality agricultural pro-
ducts.
However, increasing reservoir irrigation, which currently supplies
about 68 % of the agricultural water demand for paddy fields in the
study area, is impossible because of a consensus to stop further devel-
opment of agricultural reservoirs due to environmental concerns and
urbanization. Furthermore, increasing greenhouse cultivation, which
irrigates with groundwater, is causing a decline in the groundwater
table in the watershed, a growing concern of the government (Ministry
of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs (MLTM, 2011). To satisfy the
increasing demand for quality irrigation water and the target irrigation
rate of about 85 % set by the Korean government (Ministry of Land,
Transport and Maritime Affairs (MLTM, 2011), the development of a
safe irrigation source is essential. Formal indirect wastewater reuse may
be the best option in this area to supply safe and quality irrigation
water, lessen farmers’ concerns, and alleviate the problem of ground-
water depletion. Therefore, it is important to explore possible future
trajectories of this watershed resulting from the evolving agricultural
environment to ensure that investment decisions lead to a sustainable,
formal indirect wastewater reuse.
3. Materials and methods
3.1. Model overview
To gain practical insights for sustainable wastewater reuse, we
utilize a place-based socio-hydrological model representing the inter-
actions between human and water systems of wastewater reuse in
agriculture. This model builds on a previous version by Jeong and
Adamowski (2016), which was developed to study wastewater reuse in
agriculture in the Osan River watershed, and which can be classified as
a deterministic conceptual, semi-lumped hydrological model simulated
at a monthly time scale. The model reflects the change in land use by
using the infiltration ratio for the given land use type, while the wa-
tershed-system is regarded as a single point in space without dimen-
sions (Jeong and Adamowski, 2016). The current model differs from the
H. Jeong, et al.
Fig. 2. Location and land use of the Osan River watershed in central South Korea. Most of the bare soil will become urban land (built-up) in this watershed in the near
future.
previous version in two major ways: the inclusion of a water availability
function in the demand for Stage-II irrigation and the effects of ex-
panded greenhouses on wastewater reuse in agriculture. A more de-
tailed description of these additions is provided later in this section.
The model system is characterized by four main components (hy-
drology, irrigation, demand, and infrastructure), three boundary con-
ditions or external drivers (climate, population, and land use), and an
investment dimension (target irrigation rate and target Stage-II irriga-
tion rate) (Fig. 3). We have combined a scenario-based approach and
4
Agricultural Water Management 231 (2020) 105983
Monte Carlo simulations to test the model system behavior. The four
main components are interrelated as follows. The hydrology component
affects the reuse ratio and water availability, the result of which alters
the demand for Stage-II irrigation in the demand component. Demands
for two types of irrigation sources (Stage-II and groundwater) in the
demand component affect the infrastructure component by changing
the need for facility development of Stage-II irrigation and groundwater
irrigation. The demand and infrastructure components constrain the
irrigation component governing the decisions on the irrigation amounts
Fig. 3. Essential causal relationships between
components of a place-based socio-hydro-
logical model in the study watershed. The
model consists of four main components
(black), three boundary condition components
(blue), and an investment dimension (red). The
main interactions are presented using key de-
rived variables (green) and contexts (grey) (For
interpretation of the references to colour in this
figure legend, the reader is referred to the web
version of this article.).
 Table 1
The major equations in the place-based socio-hydrological model applied to a wastewater reused watershed in South Korea.
Model component Equation Variables and parameters Comments and empirical evidence
H. Jeong, et al.

Hydrology
Stream water dHstream (t ) (1a) Hstream (t )[106m3]: stream water volume A conceptual hydrological model based on water
= finflow (t ) + freturn (t )+feff (t ) eva (t ) fstream (t ) rec (t ) Is (t )
dt (1b) balance equations is developed to represent the
feff (t )
finflow (t )[106m3month 1]: inflow
(t ) = (1c) hydrology component.
fstream (t ) freturn (t )[106m3month 1]: return flow The return flow was calculated by using the ratio of
feff (t ) = Min { × Dd (t ), Fww (t )} feff (t )[106m3month 1]: effluent discharge agricultural return flow (see Table 2), assumed to
eva (t )[106m3month 1]: evaporation be 0.35 following the MLTM (2011).
The concept of reuse ratio was defined by Jeong
fstream (t )[106m3month 1]: stream flow
et al. (2016b).
rec (t )[106m3month 1]: groundwater recharge
Is (t )[106m3month 1]: Stage-II irrigation
(t )[ ]: reuse ratio
ω[ ]: wastewater generation ratio
Dd (t )[106m3month 1]: domestic water demand
Fww (t )[106m3]: facility capacity of a wastewater treatment plant
Soil water dHsoilwater (t ) (1d) Hsoilwater (t )[106m3]: soil water volume
= i (t ) ET (t ) finter (t ) per (t )
dt
i (t )[106m3month 1]: infiltration
ET (t )[106m3month 1]: evapotranspiration
finter (t )[106m3month 1]: interflow
per (t )[106m3month 1]: percolation
Groundwater dHgw (t ) (1e) Hgw (t )[106m3]: groundwater volume
= per (t ) + rec (t ) fbase (t ) fgwloss (t ) Ig (t ) Igh (t )
dt
fbase (t )[106m3month 1]: base flow
fgwloss (t )[106m3month 1]: groundwater loss flowing out of the watershed

5
Ig (t )[106m3month 1]: groundwater irrigation
Igh (t )[106m3month 1]: greenhouse irrigation
Demand
Agricultural water Dapa (t ) = duapa (t ) × Apa (t ) (2a) Dapa (t )[106m3month 1]: agricultural water demand for paddy fields The unit agricultural water demand for paddy
Dagh (t ) = duagh (t ) × Agh (t ) (2b) fields is computed using the net irrigation water
duapa (t )[106m3month 1ha 1]: unit agricultural water demand for paddy
requirement and irrigation efficiency (Yoo et al.,
fields
2012). And the unit agricultural water demand for
Apa (t )[ha]: total paddy fields
greenhouse crops is calculated using an observed
Dagh (t )[106m3month 1]: agricultural water demand for greenhouse crops unit irrigation rate of a reference greenhouse crop,
duagh (t )[106m3month 1ha 1]: unit agricultural water demand for tomato, in the study area. The unit irrigation rate is
greenhouse crops about 1430 mm year−1.
Agh (t )[ha]: greenhouse area The demand for Stage-II irrigation is motivated by
Ts × Ia (t ) × e v (t )
Nasiri et al. (2013)’s study using the potential
Stage-II irrigation Ds (t ) = (2c) Ds (t )[106m3month 1]: Stage-II irrigation demand
wa (t ) demand for reclaimed wastewater for domestic
(2d) Ts [ ]: target Stage-II irrigation rate
Ia (t ) = It (t ) Ir (t ) water use.
(2e) Ia (t )[106m3month 1]: required additional irrigation water
¯ (t )
wstate
The value of w is assumed to be 1.0 due to a lack of
wa (t ) = 1 × 1 (2f)
w winitial
ev (t )[ ]: economic viability function information. The winitial was assigned after
wa (t )[ ]: water availability function simulating the model using historical weather data
c ¯(t )
( s 1)
ev (t ) = Min cg¯(t ) , 1 It (t )[106m3month 1]: target agricultural water supply (1981-2010) and initial conditions.
e
Ir (t )[106m3month 1]: reservoir irrigation The value of e is calibrated to be 0.13 to have the
w [ ]: community sensitivity to available water same estimate in 2040 for the cs (t ) with a previous
wstate¯ (t ) [106m3]: available water within a watershed calculated as the 10- feasibility study on the study area. Findings and
year moving average of wstate (t ) methods of economic benefits from wastewater
reuse in previous studies are used in the estimation
winitial [106m3]: initial available water within a watershed
of the Stage-II irrigation cost: fertilizer reduction
e [ ]: community sensitivity to economic viability (Jeong et al., 2014), water quality improvement
cs ¯(t ) [$10310 6m 3]: average unit cost of Stage-II irrigation (Jang et al., 2012), and acquisition of water
cg ¯(t ) [$10310 6m 3]: average unit cost of groundwater irrigation resources (Yang and Abbaspour, 2007).
(continued on next page)
Agricultural Water Management 231 (2020) 105983
 Table 1 (continued)

Model component Equation Variables and parameters Comments and empirical evidence
H. Jeong, et al.

Groundwater Dg (t ) = Ia (t ) Is (t ) (2 g) Dg (t )[106m3month 1]: groundwater irrigation demand

irrigation
Domestic water Dd (t ) = dd(pc ) × P (t ) (2 h) dd(pc ) [106m3person 1month 1]: per capita domestic water use
P (t )[person]: total population
Infrastructure
Stage-II irrigation dFs (t ) (3a) Fs (t )[106m3]: facility capacity of Stage-II irrigation The process of each facility development is
= vs (t ) ds (t )
dt (3b) motivated by Nasiri et al. (2013)’s study.
[Ds (t )(1 + µs )]
vs (t )[106m3month 1]: capacity development of Stage-II irrigation
vs (t ) = Max , ds (t )
{ ts } ds (t )[106m3month 1]: depreciation of Stage-II irrigation capacity
µs [ ]: capacity reserve ratio of Stage-II irrigation capacity
ts [month]: development delay of Stage-II irrigation capacity
Groundwater dFg (t ) (3c) Fg (t )[106m3]: facility capacity of groundwater irrigation
= vg (t ) dg (t )
irrigation dt (3d)
[Dg (t )(1 + µg )]
vg (t )[106m3month 1]: capacity development of groundwater irrigation
vg (t ) = Max , dg (t )
tg dg (t )[106m3month 1]: depreciation of groundwater irrigation capacity
µg [ ]: capacity reserve ratio of groundwater irrigation capacity
tg [month]: development delay of groundwater irrigation capacity
Wastewater dFww (t ) (3e) vww (t )[106m3month 1]: capacity development of wastewater treatment
= v ww (t ) dww (t )
treatment plant dt (3f)
[ × Dd (t )(1 + µww )]
dww (t )[106m3month 1]: depreciation of wastewater treatment
vww (t ) = Max , dww (t ) µ ww [ ]: capacity reserve ratio of wastewater treatment capacity
{ tww }
tww [month]: development delay of wastewater treatment capacity
Irrigation
Agricultural It (t ) = Ti × Da (t ) (4a) Ti [ ]: target irrigation rate The area of the reservoir irrigated paddy fields is
water supply assumed to decrease at the same rate as the total
Reservoir Arp (t ) (4b) Arp (t )[ha]: reservoir irrigated paddy fields paddy fields area.

6
Ir (t ) = It (t ) ×
Apa (t ) The crop factor is assigned 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5 for
Stage-II Is (t ) = Min {Ds (t ), Fs (t )} (4c) zucchini, tomato, and paprika, respectively, which
Groundwater Ig (t ) = Min {Dg (t ), Fg (t )} (4d) are representative greenhouse crops in the study
area.
Greenhouse Igh (t ) = fcrop × Dagh (t ) (4e) fcrop [ ]: crop factor of greenhouse cultivation
Boundary conditions
Population P (t )
n (P Qi)2 (5) np (t )[person month 1]: net population change The net population change was estimated by using
= np (t ) Index of agreement (d) = 1 i= 1 i
dt n (| P' | projections from Statistics Korea (2011) until 2060
i= 1 i |Q'i |)2
in the study region.
Land use dAur (t ) (6a) Aur (t )[ha]: urban land area Based on the analysis of land use change in the
= rurpa (t ) + rurup (t ) + rurna (t )
dt (6b) study watershed, changes in land use assume that
rurpa [ha month 1]: urbanization rate of paddy field
dApa (t )
= (rurpa (t ) + rcon (t )) (6c) only agricultural (paddy field and upland) and
dt rurup [ha month 1]: urbanization rate of upland
dAup (t )
(6d) natural lands are changed into urban land, and
= rurup (t ) (6e) rurna [ha month 1]: urbanization rate of natural land greenhouse area is changed to paddy fields.
dt
dAna (t ) rcon [ha month 1]: conversion rate of paddy field to greenhouse
= rurna (t )
dt Aup (t )[ha]: upland area
dAgh (t )
= rcon (t ) Ana (t )[ha]: natural land area
dt
Climate cET ET0 (t ), Hsoilwater (t ) wp ET0 (t ) (7) ET (t )[106m3month 1]: evapotranspiration Downscaled future weather data, including
ET (t ) = precipitation and other items needed to estimate
Hsoilwater (t ) wp, Otherwise cET [ ]: watershed evapotranspiration coefficient
wp [106m3]: wilting point evapotranspiration, by the Korea Meteorological
n (P Qi)2
i= 1 i Administration are used and bias-collected for this
Index of agreement (d) = 1 n (| P' | ET0 (t )[106m3month 1]: reference crop evapotranspiration calculated using
i= 1 i |Q'i |)2
study.
the FAO Penman-Monteith equation and the downscaled
The monthly value of cET is estimated from Jeong
n (P Qi)2
i= 1 i et al. (2016b)’s SWAT modeling results.
scenarioIndex of agreement (d) = 1 n (| P' |
i= 1 i |Q'i |)2

Investment
Target Stage-II Ts × Ia (t ) × e v (t ) (2c)
Ds (t ) =
irrigation rate wa (t )

Target irrigation It (t ) = Ti × Da (t ) (4a)

Agricultural Water Management 231 (2020) 105983

rate
H. Jeong, et al.
of Stage-II irrigation and groundwater irrigation. The irrigation com-
ponent affects the hydrology component by consuming water through
irrigation practices. Changing irrigation capacity in the irrigation
component, at the same time, alters the required additional irrigation
water, which influences the demands for two types of irrigation sources
in the demand component. A WWTP in the infrastructure component
creates effluent discharge, which changes the stream water volume in
the hydrology component. The three external drivers shape changing
boundary conditions. The climate component plays a role as an input
for the hydrology component and also affects the agricultural water
demand in the demand component. The population component changes
the domestic water demand, which creates the development demand
for a WWTP in the infrastructure component. The land use component
affects the hydrology component by changing the infiltration rate and
alters the agricultural water demand by changing the agricultural land
area. Target irrigation rate and target Stage-II irrigation rate in the
investment dimension limit the agricultural water supply in the irri-
gation component and the demand for Stage-II irrigation in the demand
component, respectively. The major equations of the model are pre-
sented in Table 1. Further details on the model structure pertaining to
all its equations are provided in the Supplementary Material.
In this socio-hydrological modeling exercise, we tried to balance
tradeoffs between generality, realism, and precision, as argued by Troy
et al. (2015) and aimed at providing practical insights for informed
decision-making in the watershed. We, therefore, included detailed
modeling processes for the infrastructure and irrigation components,
which define the capacity of irrigation facility and irrigation amount,
respectively. By doing this, the model can provide more realistic esti-
mates for the economic analysis of irrigation sources and changes in the
hydrology component. On the other hand, this has allowed the model to
have a more detailed and complex structure and use scientifically
verified outcomes on wastewater reuse in agriculture. For example,
only the economic benefits of wastewater reuse in agriculture found
from previous studies were used to model the economic processes as-
sociated with Stage-II irrigation. These benefits include a reduction in
fertilization (Jeong et al., 2014), water quality improvement (Jang
et al., 2012), and water resource acquisition (Yang and Abbaspour,
2007). In addition, the economics function includes community sensi-
tivity to the economic viability in the demand for Stage-II irrigation to
reflect a community trying to consider benefits that are difficult to
quantify (Drechsel et al., 2015). Also, a scenario-based approach was
used for the investment dimension rather than modeling it to have a
state variable with an accumulation process and a tipping point, thus
allowing for surprise and uncertainty in the systems. By doing so, we
were able to generate practical insights to determine the appropriate
level of formal wastewater reuse in the watershed. Table 1 includes the
additional rationale and comments explaining how previous studies on
wastewater reuse have contributed to this model.
In this new version of the place-based socio-hydrological model, we
have revised the demand for Stage-II irrigation that couples hydro-
logical and social systems underpinning wastewater reuse in agri-
culture. We newly included a water availability function and a modified
economic function in the demand as presented in Table 1 (Equation 2c).
Due to the importance of water availability in an irrigated watershed
(Elshafei et al., 2014), water availability in the watershed can affect the
demand for Stage-II irrigation from an increase in effluent discharge
and extreme hydrological conditions (e.g., drought) in the long run. The
water availability function (see Equation 2e in Table 1) consists of
available water, calculated as ten-year moving averages of the sums of
stream water volume and groundwater volume as well as community
sensitivity to water availability ( w ). For the economic function, the
formulation was changed to include community sensitivity ( e ) to the
economic viability of wastewater reuse in agriculture (see Equation 2f
in Table 1). With these changes, more flexible economic gradients on
wastewater reuse can be considered. The new formulation also helps
maintain Stage-II irrigation for a certain period under other irrigation
7
Agricultural Water Management 231 (2020) 105983
sources (i.e., groundwater) which can be more economical than Stage-II
treated water. This is an important consideration because Stage-II ir-
rigation can be uneconomical compared to other irrigation practices
over short periods, but can become more economical in the long run.
We also included greenhouse cultivation in land use change as an
emerging trend of agricultural practice in the study area (see Equation
6e in Table 1). Greenhouse cultivation competes for quality irrigation
water and reduces paddy fields, a prominent consumer of Stage-II ir-
rigation. In addition, greenhouse cultivation has expanded and evolved
to consume more quality irrigation water in South Korea to produce
crops with a higher market price, such as tomatoes and paprika. South
Korea’s land area for greenhouse cultivation doubled from 1990
(44,613 ha) to 2015 (90,468 ha), and the study area is one of the largest
greenhouse cultivation complexes in South Korea. Including the land
use change due to greenhouse cultivation helps to develop an informed
understanding from which an agricultural wastewater reuse scheme can
be expanded to a larger scale (e.g., regional and national). The inclusion
of greenhouse cultivation in the model meant that the agricultural
water demand for greenhouse crops had to be factored (see Equation 2b
in Table 1) into the demand component and the greenhouse irrigation
(see Equation 4e in Table 1) into the irrigation component.
3.2. Sensitivity analysis
A modified deterministic approach was used to examine system
behavior sensitivity to each model parameter to determine the most
influential factors in the design of an agricultural wastewater reuse
scheme in the study area. This approach included relative sensitivity
(Sr ), a sensitivity index (SI ) and a general sensitivity degree index (S ),
which considers nonlinear characteristics of system behavior and
overall system performance for the entire simulation period (Cho and
Mostaghimi, 2009; Hamby, 1994; Wei et al., 2012). Table 2 shows
detailed descriptions of the parameters evaluated as more than “slightly
sensitive” to at least one system in the sensitivity analysis. Even though
social and hydrological systems of wastewater reuse in agriculture are
coupled in our study, we separated them by borrowing from traditional
concepts used in both domains. The hydrological system represents the
hydrology component and the social system represents the demand,
irrigation, and infrastructure components as shown in Fig. 3. The un-
certainty parameters of population growth rate (δ) and per capita do-
mestic water use (ζ) were added to the model to more easily demon-
strate their uncertainties.
Changes in input parameters resulting in model output variation can
be described by the relative sensitivity. To take into account the non-
linear behavior of model input parameters, relative sensitivity was
calculated at six different levels: +50, +25, +10, -10, -25, and -50 %.
From these six relative sensitivities, a sensitivity index was calculated to
determine the overall relative sensitivity of the output variables.
Furthermore, the degree of sensitivity of an input parameter to the
output variables, known as the general sensitivity degree index, was
calculated to evaluate the impacts that specific parameters may have on
the target system (Wei et al., 2012). Stream flow, interflow, and base
flow for the hydrological system (hydrology component: Equations 16,
17, and 18); and demand for Stage-II irrigation (demand component:
Equation 2c), facility capacity of Stage-II irrigation (infrastructure
component: Equation 3a), and groundwater irrigation (irrigation com-
ponent: Equation 4d) for the social system were selected as target
variables to represent each component and system. The relative sensi-
tivity, sensitivity index, and general sensitivity degree index are ex-
pressed by:
O / Ob
Sr =
P / Pb (8)
where Sr is relative sensitivity, O is change in the output, Ob is base
output, P is a change in the parameter value, and Pb is the base
parameter value.
H. Jeong, et al. Agricultural Water Management 231 (2020) 105983

Table 2
Selected parameters evaluated to be more than “slightly sensitive” to at least one system in the sensitivity analysis.
Parameters Description Relevant equation Initial Range of
value values

Ti [ ] Target irrigation rate It (t ) = Ti × Da (t ) (4a) 0.85 0.72-1.00

Ts [ ] Target Stage-II irrigation rate Ds (t ) =
Ts × Ia (t ) × e v (t ) (2c) 0.50 0.25-0.75
wa (t )

w [ ] Community sensitivity to ¯ (t )
wstate (2e) 1.0 0.5-1.5
wa (t ) = 1 w × 1
available water winitial

[ ] Uncertainty of population np (t ) = × rg × P (t ) (11) 1.0 0.5-1.5

growth rate rg : population growth rate
[ ] Uncertainty of per capita Dd (t ) = × dd(pc ) × P (t ) (12) 1.0 0.5-1.5
domestic water demand
furbp [ha month 1] Urbanization factor of paddy rurpa (t ) = furpa × np (t ) (13) 0.006 0.003-0.009
field
fcon [ha month 1] Conversion factor of paddy field rcon (t ) = fcon × np (t ) (6e) 0.0005 0.00025-
to greenhouse 0.00075
fcrop [ ] Crop factor of greenhouse Igh (t ) = fcrop × Dagh (t ) (4e) 1.0 0.5-1.5
cultivation
cs(c ) [$10310 6m 3] Unit capital cost of Stage-II Cs (t ) = cs(c ) × Fs (t ) + cs(o) × Is (t ) bfarm (t ) bsocial (t ) (14) 180 90-270
irrigation capacity
Cs (t ) : Stage-II irrigation cost
cs(o) [$10310 6m 3] Unit operation cost of Stage-II 140 70-210
bfarm (t ) : farm benefits from Stage-II irrigation
irrigation
bsocial (t ) : social benefits from Stage-II irrigation
cg(o) [$10310 6m 3] Unit operation cost of Cg (t ) = cg(c ) × Fg (t ) + cg(o) × Ig (t ) (15) 90 45-135
groundwater irrigation
Cg (t ) : groundwater irrigation cost
cg(c ) : unit capital cost of groundwater irrigation
cstream [month 1] Coefficient of stream flow fstream (t ) = cstream × Hstream (t ) (16) 0.98 0.49-1.00
cint [month 1] Coefficient of interflow finter (t ) = cint × (Hsoilwater (t ) fc ) (17) 0.2 0.1-0.3
cbase [month 1] Coefficient of baseflow fbase (t ) = c base × Hgw (t ) (18) 0.55 0.275-0.825
ceva [month 1] Coefficient of evaporation eva (t ) = ceva × Hstream (t ) (19) 0.030 0.015-0.045
cper [month 1] Coefficient of percolation per (t ) = cper × (Hsoilwater (t ) fc ) (20) 0.10 0.05-0.15
fc [106m3] Field capacity 5.0 2.5-7.5
crec [month 1] Coefficient of groundwater rec (t ) = crec × Hstream (t ) (21) 0.10 0.05-0.15
recharge
cgwloss [month 1] Coefficient of groundwater that fgwloss (t ) = cgwloss × Hgw (t ) (22) 0.05 0.025-0.075
flows out of the watershed
sc [106m3] Storage capacity i (t ) = Min {rinf (t ) × Pre (t ), sc Hsoilwater (t )} (23) 20 10-30
rinf (t ) : ratio of infiltration to precipitation
Pre (t ) : precipitation
wp [106m3] Wilting point cET ET0 (t ), Hsoilwater (t ) wp ET0 (t ) (7) 2.0 1.0-3.0
ET (t ) =
Hsoilwater (t ) wp, Otherwise
rinfur [ ] Infiltration ratio of urban land (r infur × Aur (t )) + (rinfpa × Apa (t )) + (r infup × Aup (t )) + (rinfgh × Agh (t )) + (r infna × Ana (t )) (24) 0.36 0.18-0.54
rinf (t ) =
rinfpa [ ] Infiltration ratio of paddy field Aur (t ) + Apa (t ) + Aup (t ) + Agh (t ) + Ana (t ) 0.40 0.20-0.60
rinfup [ ] Infiltration ratio of upland rinfgh : infiltration ratio of greenhouse 0.49 0.245-0.735
rinfna [ ] Infiltration ratio of natural land 0.62 0.31-0.93
rref [ ] Ratio of agricultural return flow Freturn (t ) = rref × (Ir (t ) + Is (t ) + Ig (t ) + Igh (t )) (25) 0.35 0.175-0.525

interactions of socio-hydrological systems, we use a scenario-based

n
1
SI = Sr (i )
n i=1 (9) approach for the investment dimension rather than modeling it as a
delayed response to socio-hydrological systems. This approach was
where SI is the sensitivity index, n is the number of levels of parameter chosen not only because of the complexity of the policy dimension
changes for Sr , and Sr (i ) is the relative sensitivity of level i . (Gober and Wheater, 2015), but also to provide practical insights to
N
determine the appropriate level of wastewater reuse. Five simulation
1 scenarios were designed to assess the impacts of urbanization, domestic
S= |SIi|
N i=1 (10) water use and greenhouse cultivation (Table 3). Ten simulation sce-
narios were constructed to demonstrate the impacts of wastewater
where S is the general sensitivity degree index, N is the number of reuse in agriculture on social and hydrological systems using target
variables, and SIi is the sensitivity index of variable i . irrigation rate (T) and target Stage-II irrigation rate (S), which de-
The sensitivity of the tested parameter is determined from the termines the target amount of Stage-II irrigation (Table 3). The Korean
classifications for relative sensitivity used by Storm et al. (1988), Jesiek government aims to irrigate 84.3 % of paddy fields through irrigation
and Wolfe (2005), and Song et al. (2016): insensitive (S < |0.01|), facilities by 2020 (Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs
slightly sensitive (|0.01| S < |0.10|), moderately sensitive (MLTM, 2011). Therefore, a target irrigation rate of 85 % was used as a
(|0.10| S < |1.00|), sensitive (|1.00| S < |2.00|), and extremely sensi- baseline scenario of agricultural water supply, and a target irrigation
tive (S |2.00|). rate of 90 % was used for future long-term water resources planning. A
target Stage-II irrigation rate of 50 % was used as a baseline scenario,
3.3. Simulation scenarios and a range of 0–100% was tested to find the appropriate rate of
wastewater reuse. The baseline scenario (T85S50), for example, in-
To understand the different consequences of the complex dicates that decision makers aimed to supply 85 % of the agricultural

8
H. Jeong, et al. Agricultural Water Management 231 (2020) 105983

Table 3
Simulation scenarios to understand the impacts of changing agricultural environments and wastewater reuse in agriculture on socio-hydrological systems in the study
watershed.
Scenario Description

Urbanization Baseline Baseline scenario with initial conditions of a population growth rate 1.5 times larger than nearby cities and assuming an analyzed
(P1.5 U1.0) urbanization rate, which has an urbanization factor of 0.006 ha person−1, from paddy field to urban land in the study watershed.
P1.5 U0.5 P and U represent the population growth rate and the urbanization factor from the paddy field to urban land, respectively. P1.0, P1.5, and
P1.5 U1.5 P2.0 indicate a scenario with the same, 1.5 times faster, and 2 times faster population growth rate compared to nearby cities, respectively.
P1.0 U1.0 U0.5, U1.0, and U1.5 assume 0.5 times lower (0.003 ha person−1), the same (0.006 ha person−1), and 1.5 times higher urbanization rate
P2.0 U1.0 (0.009 ha person−1) compared to the baseline scenario, respectively.
Domestic water use Baseline Baseline scenario with initial conditions of a population growth rate of 1.5 times faster than nearby cities and assuming an estimated per
(P1.5 W1.0) capita domestic water use of 295 L person−1 day-1.
P1.5 W0.8 P and W represent the population growth rate and the per capita domestic water use, respectively. P1.0, P1.5, and P2.0 indicate a
P1.5 W1.2 scenario with the same, 1.5 times faster, and 2 times faster population growth rate compared to nearby cities, respectively. W0.8, W1.0,
P1.0 W1.0 and W1.2 assume 0.8 times lower (236 L person−1 day-1), the same (295 L person−1 day-1), and 1.2 times higher estimated per capita
P2.0 W1.0 domestic water use (354 L person−1 day-1) compared to the baseline scenario, respectively.
Greenhouse cultivation Baseline Baseline scenario with initial conditions having a crop factor of 1.0 (tomato) and assuming an analyzed conversion factor of paddy field
(C1.0 G0.5) to greenhouse of 0.0005 ha person−1.
C1.0 G1.0 C and G represent the crop factor and the conversion factor from paddy field to greenhouse, respectively. C0.5, C1.0, and C1.5 indicate a
C1.0 G2.0 scenario with a crop factor of 0.5 (zucchini), 1.0 (tomato), and 1.5 (paprika), respectively. G0.5, G1.0, and G2.0 assume a scenario with
C0.5 G0.5 the conversion factor of 0.0005 ha person−1, 0.001 ha person−1, and 0.002 ha person−1, respectively.
C1.5 G0.5
Wastewater reuse Baseline Baseline scenario with initial conditions targeting to supply 85 % of the agricultural water demand for paddy fields and 50 % of the
(T85 S50) required additional irrigation water to meet the target irrigation rate to be sourced from Stage-II irrigation.
T85 S00 T and S represent the target irrigation rate and the target Stage-II irrigation rate, respectively. T85 and T90 indicate a scenario aiming to
T85 S25 supply 85 and 90 % of the agricultural water demand, respectively. S00, S25, S50, S75, and S100 indicate a scenario aiming to supply 0,
T85 S75 25, 50, 75, and 100 % of the required additional irrigation water to accomplish the target irrigation rate from Stage-II irrigation.
T85 S100
T90 S00
T90 S25
T90 S50
T90 S75
T90 S100

water demand for paddy fields and that 50 % of the required additional possible trajectories. Future climate data of the Representative Con-
irrigation water used to meet the target irrigation rate is sourced from centration Pathway 8.5 (RCP 8.5) scenario was acquired from the
Stage-II irrigation. Korean Meteorological Administration and bias-corrected for the study
Following Sivapalan and Blöschl (2015), for the place-based socio- area using the method of Alcamo et al. (1997).
hydrological models to generate possible future and associated prob-
abilities, a Monte Carlo simulation was employed to simulate possibility 4. Results
spaces to see the impacts of wastewater reuse in agriculture considering
the changing agricultural environments. Uncertainty of population In this section, we first identify the key parameters that are im-
growth rate ( ) , uncertainty of per capita domestic water demand (ζ), portant for developing an agricultural wastewater reuse scheme
urbanization factor of paddy field (furbp ) , conversion factor of paddy through sensitivity analysis (Fig. 4). Second, we investigate the impacts
field to greenhouse (fcon ) , and crop factor of greenhouse cultivation of changing agricultural environments (Figs. 5–7), which the key
(fcrop ) , were used to simulate the impacts of changing agricultural en- parameters bring about, on socio-hydrological systems of wastewater
vironments and to construct scenarios with the Monte Carlo simulation. reuse in agriculture. Third, we explore the possibility space (Figs. 8–11)
Each parameter is assumed to have a uniform distribution. A range of ζ to provide decision-makers with practical insights in designing sus-
(0.8–1.2) was determined based on statistics from nearby cities for per tainable wastewater reuse strategies given the changing agricultural
capita domestic water use ranging from 257 to 451 L person−1 day−1 environments using a Monte Carlo simulation.
(Ministry of Environment, ME, 2016) and the dewatering of economic
growth (Rock, 2000). The per capita domestic water use in the study
4.1. Sensitivity analysis
watershed is 295 L person−1 day−1. The upper and lower bounds of the
possible future per capita domestic water use were lower than for
Parameters evaluated as more than “slightly sensitive” to at least
nearby cities at 236 and 354 L person−1 day−1, respectively. A range of
one system are presented in Fig. 4. Soil characteristics (SC , FC ),
fcrop (0.5–1.5) was determined from the agricultural water consumption
parameters representing runoff processes (cstream, cint , cper , cgre ), and
of the popular greenhouse crops grown in the study area, namely,
land cover (rinfn, rinfur ) were “moderately sensitive” and had a large
zucchini (0.5), tomato (1.0) and paprika (1.5). Unit irrigation rate for
impact on the hydrological system. In addition to hydrological factors
zucchini, tomato, and paprika in this area is 810, 1430, and 2,230 mm
well known for their impacts on the hydrological response (Chen et al.,
year−1, respectively. A range of δ (1.0–2.0) was selected after studying
2013), social factors related to the investment dimension, domestic
the steeper increasing rate of population growth in the study area
water use and a regional farming characteristic had a large impact on
compared to the rate provided by Statistics Korea (SK, 2011) for the
the hydrological system: target irrigation rate (Ti ), per capita domestic
study area and surrounding cities. Ranges of furbp (0.003-0.009) and fcon
water demand (ζ), and crop coefficient of greenhouse cultivation ( fcrop )
(0.0005-0.002) were determined by analyzing land use maps produced
were all rated as “moderately sensitive” (Fig. 4a).
between 2007 and 2009. For fcon , the upper and lower bounds of the
As expected, human activities significantly impacted the social
possible future conversion factor were heightened compared to the
system. The parameters related to the investment dimension, target
baseline rate (0.005) to reflect the current rapid expansion of green-
irrigation rate and target Stage-II irrigation rate, were the most sensi-
house cultivation in the study area. A total of 200 simulations were
tive in the system and were evaluated as “extremely sensitive” and
generated for each scenario projected for 50 years (2011–2060) to show
“moderately sensitive”, respectively (Fig. 4b). The economics of

9
H. Jeong, et al.
irrigation practices (Cs(o) ), uncertainties of domestic water use and po-
pulation change (ζ, δ), and land use change ( furbp ) were “moderately
sensitive” and significantly impacted the social system. The coefficient
of stream flow (cstream ) was evaluated as “moderately sensitive” on the
social system (Fig. 4b). This is because stream flow in the watershed can
significantly alter the demand and the economics of Stage-II irrigation
by directly affecting the stream water and groundwater volumes, and
reuse ratio.
The results from the sensitivity analysis presented the key para-
meters affecting the model and showed the importance of considering
uncertainty arising from changing agricultural environments when
designing an agricultural wastewater reuse scheme, which was directly
represented by the investment dimension (Ti , Ts ) in this study. Changes
to the agricultural environment in the study watershed can be attrib-
uted to urbanization, domestic water use and greenhouse cultivation as
they can be represented by the key parameters, δ and furbp , ζ and δ, and
fcrop and fcon , respectively. They varied on a relatively short-time scale
and had large uncertainties. The impacts of changing agricultural en-
vironments are explored in the following section and parameter un-
certainty is employed to construct the Monte Carlo simulations to see
the possibility space of changes in the socio-hydrological systems that
investment decisions could cause. Although hydrological characteristics
can have a large influence on socio-hydrological systems in this wa-
tershed, they are topographic parameters that vary over a very long-
time scale, and were calibrated to properly reproduce the hydrological
processes in the watershed. Parameters related to the economics of
Stage-II irrigation are left as initial values in the following sections since
they reflect the current level of technology.
4.2. The impacts of changing agricultural environments
4.2.1. Urbanization
The study watershed has undergone significant urbanization invol-
ving population growth and land use change. Generally, this has led to
greater demand for food and consequently agricultural water, which
may potentially raise the demand for agricultural wastewater reuse. In
the investment dimension, therefore, demand for agricultural
Fig. 4. Sensitivity to changes in socio-hydrological parameters in (a) the hydrological system and (b) the social system. The hydrological system is composed of the
hydrology component and the social system constitutes the demand, infrastructure, and irrigation components. Stream flow, interflow and base flow for the hy-
drological system (hydrology component) and demand for Stage-II irrigation (demand component) and facility capacity of Stage-II irrigation (infrastructure com-
ponent), and groundwater irrigation (irrigation component) for the social system are used as target variables to represent each component and system.
10
Agricultural Water Management 231 (2020) 105983
wastewater reuse would increase as the population increases. However,
at the urban watershed scale, urbanization may reduce the demand for
Stage-II irrigation as it accompanies a decrease in agricultural land
reducing agricultural water demand (Fig. 5). Nevertheless, it requires a
Stage-II treatment system for a safe agricultural environment. In the
three urbanization scenarios (P1.5U1.5; P1.5U1.0 (baseline);
P1.5U0.5), paddy field area decreased to about 1,080, 1,310 and
1,530 ha, respectively. To satisfy the target irrigation and Stage-II irri-
gation rates, the simulated average annual agricultural water demand
for the three scenarios ranged from 15.83 to 20.98 million m3, a dif-
ference that contributes to 27.9 % of the baseline agricultural water
demand (18.41 million m3), while the simulated average annual de-
mand for Stage-II irrigation ranged from 1.25 to 1.65 million m3, a
difference that contributes to 27.5 % of the baseline agricultural water
demand (1.45 million m3). Increased domestic water use from urbani-
zation could also partially contribute to reduced demand for Stage-II
irrigation by increasing water availability in the watershed (Fig. 5c).
The demand for Stage-II irrigation in the P2.0U1.0 scenario was similar
to that of P1.5U1.5, while the agricultural water demand in the
P2.0U1.0 scenario was larger than that of P1.5U1.5. Simulation results
showed that reducing agricultural land had a much larger and sub-
stantial impact on wastewater reuse in agriculture than urban popula-
tion growth.
It is important to note that this is a result of a case study where the
domestic water is supplied from outside the watershed. The increased
population from urbanization does not consume water from the wa-
tershed, but only produces more effluent to the watershed, which in-
creases the water availability. Therefore, the relationship between ur-
banization and the demand for Stage-II irrigation at the watershed scale
may be different from other regions. Furthermore, the demand for
Stage-II irrigation will increase nationwide since population growth and
economic development, which increase quality water use (Vörösmarty
et al., 2000), are expected in South Korea. The increased demand for
quality water necessitates securing alternative water sources like
treated wastewater, which plays a role as an exogenous factor to the
watershed that raises the demand.
H. Jeong, et al.
4.2.2. Domestic water use
As the urban population consumes more domestic water, stream
flow in the urbanized watershed will increase (Fig. 6a). The simulated
monthly average stream flow for the three per capita domestic water
use scenarios (P1.5W0.8; P1.5W1.0 (baseline); P1.5W1.2) ranged from
9.04 to 10.55 million m3, a difference that constitutes about 15.4 % of
the baseline stream flow (9.81 million m3), while that for the three
population growth scenarios (P1.0W1.0; P1.5W1.0; P2.0W1.0) ranged
from 9.59 to 10.04 million m3, a difference that constitutes about 4.5 %
of the baseline stream flow. Although increased stream flow might re-
duce Stage-II irrigation due to a decrease in demand for Stage-II irri-
gation from greater water availability, the actual reuse amount of
treated wastewater increased as per capita domestic water use in-
creased (Fig. 6). For example, the simulated monthly average reuse
amount of treated wastewater increased from 0.49 to 0.54 million m3 as
per capita domestic water use increased from 236 (P1.5W0.8) to 354 L
person−1 day-1 (P1.5W1.2). Meanwhile, simulated monthly average
Stage-II irrigation decreased from 1.39 to 1.23 million m3. Fig. 6d shows
the importance of per capita domestic water use to determine the reuse
ratio and the economics of Stage-II irrigation; a high reuse ratio can
contribute to economically viable Stage-II irrigation. The monthly
average cost of Stage-II irrigation for P1.5W1.0 (baseline), P1.5W0.8,
P1.5W1.2, P1.0W1.0 and P2.0W1.0 scenarios were 121, 139, 105, 127,
and 115 US dollars per thousand m3, respectively, for the simulation
period. All scenarios showed lower irrigation cost for Stage-II irrigation
than for groundwater irrigation cost as the monthly average cost of
groundwater irrigation for baseline, P1.5W0.8, P1.5W1.2, P1.0W1.0
and P2.0W1.0 scenarios were 207, 207, 208, 208, and 206 US dollars
per thousand m3, respectively. A difference in the monthly average cost
of Stage-II irrigation in the three per capita domestic water use sce-
narios was bigger than that in the three population growth scenarios as
they ranged -12.9∼15.5 % and -5.0∼5.1 % from the baseline scenario,
respectively.
Fig. 5. The impacts of urbanization on socio-hydrological systems of agricultural wastewater reuse: (a) paddy field area, (b) annual agricultural water demand, (c)
water availability, and (d) demand for Stage-II irrigation in the study watershed.
11
Agricultural Water Management 231 (2020) 105983
4.2.3. Greenhouse cultivation
Greenhouse cultivation, which is an emerging agricultural oppor-
tunity due to its high profitability, is one of the largest consumers of
groundwater in South Korea and is rapidly expanding in the study
watershed. Simulation results from greenhouse cultivation scenarios
showed that changes in crop type and rapid expansion of greenhouse
cultivation could have a substantial impact on the hydrological system
(Fig. 7). The simulated monthly average groundwater volumes ac-
cording to greenhouse cultivation scenarios (C1.0G0.5, C1.0G1.0,
C1.0G2.0) ranged from 1.18 to 1.63 million m3, a difference that con-
stitutes about 31 % of the baseline (C1.0G0.5) groundwater volume
(1.40 million m3). Planting a more water-consuming crop in the
greenhouse had a large impact on the groundwater volume as shown by
C1.5G0.5 (paprika), which had the same estimation of future green-
house area as the baseline (C1.0G0.5 (tomato)), which was estimated at
1.18 million m3, similar to that of C1.0G2.0 (tomato). On the other
hand, greenhouse cultivation had a relatively small impact on waste-
water reuse in agriculture, even if it could significantly change
groundwater volume affecting the demand for Stage-II irrigation and
reduce the paddy field area (Fig. 7). This is because the groundwater
volume in the study area represents only 12 % of the total available
water volume (i.e., sum of stream water and groundwater volume) that
the watershed can produce. The estimated average annual demands for
Stage-II irrigation ranged from 1.38 to 1.48 million m3, a difference that
constitutes about 7 % of the baseline demand (1.45 million m3). The
decrease in the paddy field area due to greenhouse expansion had a
larger impact than groundwater consumption by greenhouse cultiva-
tion on wastewater reuse in agriculture. If the community in the wa-
tershed evolves towards a society sensitive to water availability, par-
ticularly groundwater availability, then the impacts of greenhouse
cultivation would rise.
H. Jeong, et al. Agricultural Water Management 231 (2020) 105983

Fig. 6. The impacts of domestic water use on socio-hydrological systems of agricultural wastewater reuse: (a) monthly mean stream flow, (b) annual Stage-II
irrigation, (c) annual actual reuse amount, and (d) monthly average cost of Stage-II irrigation in the study watershed.

Fig. 7. The impacts of greenhouse cultivation on socio-hydrological systems of agricultural wastewater reuse: (a) greenhouse area, (b) monthly average groundwater
volume, (c) water availability, and (d) demand for Stage-II irrigation in the study watershed.

4.3. The possibility space
4.3.1. Hydrology
Indirect wastewater reuse directly affected stream flow by con-
suming irrigation water from the stream that received the treated ef-
fluent. Monthly mean stream flow for T85S00, T85S25, T85S50
(baseline), T85S75, and T85S100 scenarios for the simulation period
were estimated to range from 9.73 to 9.79 million m3 (Fig. 8), a dif-
ference that constitutes about 0.6 % of the baseline stream flow (9.76
million m3), and indicates that indirect wastewater reuse had little in-
fluence on stream flow. This is due to the seasonality of stream flow in
the watershed, in which stream flow is several times higher during the
irrigation period than the normal flow (Jeong et al., 2016b). This mi-
tigates the impact of Stage-II irrigation on the stream water and causes
the volume of stream flow to be significantly larger than that of intake
volume. Simulation results showed that irrigating predominantly with
groundwater led to locally unsustainable use of groundwater, while
Stage-II irrigation could contribute to sustainable groundwater use
(Fig. 8). Simulated monthly mean groundwater volumes of T85S00,
T85S25, T85S50 (baseline), T85S75, and T85S100 ranged from 1.20 to
1.43 million m3, a difference that constitutes about 18 % of the baseline
groundwater volume (1.31 million m3), for the simulation period. The

12
H. Jeong, et al. Agricultural Water Management 231 (2020) 105983

Fig. 8. Possibility spaces of the monthly mean stream flow and the monthly mean groundwater volume according to the level of agricultural wastewater reuse for the
simulation period (2011–2060). Graph filled with dark and light grey represent 68 % and 100 % of the entire Monte Carlo simulation results from each scenario. Red
and black lines indicate the simulation results of the baseline and each scenario with initial conditions without considering parameter uncertainties (For inter-
pretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.).

results of these scenarios showed that an additional source of irrigation
water should be made available to prevent groundwater exploitation if
the government wants to meet its target irrigation rate of about 85 %.
For scenarios with lower target Stage-II irrigation rates, T85S00,
T85S25, T90S00, and T90S25, the groundwater volume dropped con-
tinuously, and in some cases showed a negative value indicating that
groundwater usage surpassed capacity in the study watershed. There-
fore, for the government target irrigation rate to be reached, developing
a Stage-II irrigation facility to supply more than 50 % of the required
additional irrigation water is recommended to maintain a sustainable
groundwater volume and ensure quality irrigation water in the future.
respectively, for the simulation period. The uncertainties implicit in
coupled human and water systems had a large impact on the demand as
the target Stage-II irrigation rate increased (Fig. 9). A large uncertainty
in the demand occurred when the annual demand exceeded that of the
baseline scenario. This was mainly caused by uncertainty in agricultural
water demand depending on land use change and partially caused by
water availability related to domestic water use. The demands tended
to decrease until the 2020s, when agricultural land continually declined
due to urban expansion, and the decline increased as the target Stage-II
irrigation rate rose. A conservative approach for the design of a Stage-II
irrigation facility is needed to avoid excessive development, especially
for scenarios T85S75, T85S100, T90S75, and T90S100.

4.3.2. Demand for wastewater reuse

The demand for Stage-II irrigation reflected the target irrigation rate 4.3.3. Irrigation facility
and target Stage-II irrigation rate (Fig. 9). Estimates for the average Facilities capable of irrigating with groundwater and Stage-II water
annual demands of T85S00, T85S25, T85S50 (baseline), T85S75, and were needed to meet the required agricultural water supply. The two
T85S100 scenarios were 0.00, 0.73, 1.44, 2.15, and 2.85 million m3, irrigation capacities had a complementary relationship that ensured an

Fig. 9. Possibility spaces of the annual demand for Stage-II irrigation according to the level of agricultural wastewater reuse for the simulation period (2011–2060).
Graphs filled with dark and light grey represent 68 % and 100 % of the entire Monte Carlo simulation results from each scenario. Red and black lines indicate the
simulation results of the baseline and each scenario with initial conditions without considering parameter uncertainties (For interpretation of the references to colour
in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.).

13
H. Jeong, et al. Agricultural Water Management 231 (2020) 105983

Fig. 10. Possibility spaces of the monthly capacity of groundwater irrigation (GI) and Stage-II irrigation (SI) facilities, and the total net present irrigation cost
according to the level of agricultural wastewater reuse for the simulation period (2011–2060). Graphs filled with dark and light grey represent 68 % and 100 % of the
entire Monte Carlo simulation results from each scenario. Red and black lines indicate the simulation result of the baseline and each scenario with initial conditions
without considering parameter uncertainties (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this
article.).

adequate supply of the required additional irrigation water. Estimated
required monthly facility capacities for groundwater irrigation were
0.55, 0.42, 0.29, 0.16, and 0.11 million m3 for T85S00, T85S25, T85S50
(baseline), T85S75, and T85S100, respectively (Fig. 10). For Stage-II
irrigation, the estimated required monthly facility capacities were 0.00,
0.20, 0.39, 0.59, and 0.78 million m3 for the same scenarios, respec-
tively (Fig. 10). Considering the simulation results for groundwater
volume, the facility capacities of T85S50, T85S75 and T85S100 for
Stage-II irrigation indicated an appropriate development capacity for
the wastewater reuse scheme in this watershed to sustain and increase
groundwater volume and enable downstream groundwater irrigation of
greenhouse cultivation. Furthermore, in the long run, simulation results
of total net present irrigation cost showed that increasing the Stage-II
irrigation facility capacity would not always result in an increase in
irrigation costs, even though it could increase the uncertainty in the
economics of Stage-II irrigation (Fig. 10). The estimated net present
irrigation costs to supply the target irrigation rate of T85S00, T85S25,
T85S50, T85S75, and T85S100 scenarios were 5.79, 5.87, 5.94, 5.99,
and 5.69 million US dollars in 2060, respectively. Even for scenarios
targeting 100 % of Stage-II irrigation water for the required additional
irrigation water (T85S100, T90S100), the estimated net present irri-
gation costs were found to be less expensive than not implementing an
agricultural wastewater reuse practice (i.e., T85S00 and T90S00) in the
watershed. Therefore, implementing 100 % of Stage-II irrigation for the
additional irrigation would be the most economically favorable option
for this watershed.
4.3.4. Irrigation amount
Estimates for the annual average amount of groundwater irrigation
for the simulation period were 1.80, 1.42, 1.03, 0.64, and 0.20 million
m3 for the T85S00, T85S25, T85S50 (baseline), T85S75 and T85S100
scenarios, respectively (Fig. 11). The amounts drastically decreased as
Stage-II irrigation increased, and for the T85S100 scenario, existing
groundwater irrigation facilities in the watershed were sufficient. Es-
timated average annual amounts of Stage-II irrigation were 0.00, 0.65,
1.29, 1.92, and 2.55 million m3 for T85S00, T85S25, T85S50, T85S75,
and T85S100, respectively (Fig. 11). As Stage-II irrigation increased,
the agricultural water deficit, which refers to the shortage of agri-
cultural water compared to the target irrigation rate, was reduced. The
estimated average annual agricultural water deficits of the T85S00,
T85S25, T85S50, T85S75, and T85S100 scenarios were 1.22, 0.95,
0.68, 0.43, and 0.25 million m3, respectively, for the simulation period.
In the T85S00 scenario, the estimated deficit was about five times
larger than the deficit of the T85S100 scenario. For scenarios targeting

14
H. Jeong, et al. Agricultural Water Management 231 (2020) 105983

Fig. 11. Possibility spaces of the annual groundwater irrigation, the annual Stage-II irrigation, and the annual agricultural water deficits according to the level of
agricultural wastewater reuse for the simulation period (2011–2060). Graphs filled with dark and light grey represent 68 % and 100 % of the entire Monte Carlo
simulation results from each scenario. Red and black lines indicate the simulation results of the baseline and each scenario with initial conditions without considering
parameter uncertainties (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.).

100 % of Stage-II irrigation water for the required additional irrigation
water (T85S100, T90S100), the deficit lasted only until the 2010s and
occurred only under severe drought conditions after that (Fig. 11). This
indicated that the target irrigation rate could be achieved faster and be
more stable by increasing the amount of Stage-II irrigation. The results
also show that a stable supply of agricultural water could be achieved
through the diversification of irrigation water sources.
5. Discussion and conclusions
Wastewater reuse in agriculture is becoming inevitable worldwide
due to increasing levels of urbanization on the supply or opportunity
side, and the worsening of freshwater shortages. Facing these chal-
lenges, South Korea and its government have adopted the policy of
encouraging the use of advanced (Stage-II) water treatment systems for
safe wastewater reuse in agriculture. This initiative is driven by coupled
human and water systems dynamics. Dynamic elements of the systems,
such as demand for irrigation water, agricultural practices, and surface
and groundwater hydrology, are complex, and their coupling makes
decision-making difficult. Our study is based on an extension of the
place-based socio-hydrological model of Jeong and Adamowski (2016)
to investigate the possibility space for future trajectories of system
dynamics. We use the model to develop knowledge that can help
decision-makers to make informed choices on the design of sustainable
wastewater reuse strategies in South Korea and beyond.
Based on our model analysis, we identified a set of key parameters
that cause significant uncertainties in the model system dynamics. We
explored the influences of these key parameters on the agricultural
wastewater reuse system. The identified key parameters concern the
characteristics of urbanization, domestic water use, and changes in
agricultural practices. The model simulation provided key insights;
first, our results show that urbanization can reduce the demand for
Stage-II irrigation within an urbanizing watershed. Accelerated urba-
nization has been known to increase informal indirect reuse (Trinh
et al., 2013), and wastewater reuse due to intensified water competition
(United Nations World Water Assessment Programme (UNWWAP,
2017). Our results, however, show that urbanization with land use
change and population growth can reduce the area under agricultural
cultivation, as well as increase water availability from increased ef-
fluent discharge within an urbanizing watershed. Thus, these two fac-
tors may contribute to an overall decrease in the demand for Stage-II
irrigation. This result suggests that careful consideration of future land
use changes is required when considering the development of Stage-II
irrigation facilities within an urbanized area.
Second, our model results show that domestic water use in urban
areas can have a significant effect on the economics of wastewater reuse

15
H. Jeong, et al.
in agriculture. An increase in domestic water use led to an increase in
the actual reuse amount of wastewater through indirect reuse by in-
creasing the proportion of treated wastewater in irrigation water. This
enhanced the economics of Stage-II irrigation. Compared with urbani-
zation and associated population growth, changes in the pattern of
domestic water use (i.e., per capita domestic water use) may have a
greater effect on the economics of Stage-II irrigation. This is because the
amount of treated wastewater consumed by Stage-II irrigation can de-
crease if the per capita domestic water use decreases even though the
population is increasing. This result suggests that Stage-II irrigation in
countries or regions with higher domestic water consumption per capita
can be more economically viable for indirect wastewater reuse. It also
indicates that changes in per capita domestic water use may be more
important in planning Stage-II irrigation than the increase or decrease
in population.
Third, the influences of changes in agricultural practices on waste-
water reuse can vary depending on the sensitivity of the community to
water availability and the regional hydrological conditions. Greenhouse
cultivation, an emerging agricultural practice in the study area and
which mostly consumes groundwater, influenced the demand for Stage-
II irrigation mainly by reducing water availability from streams and
groundwater. The expansion of the greenhouse area and the choice of
cultivated crops could pose a major threat to the groundwater resources
of the watershed. Since groundwater volume is much smaller than
stream water volume in this case, the impact of greenhouse cultivation
on overall water availability was small and consequently had little ef-
fect on wastewater reuse in agriculture. However, the influence of
greenhouse cultivation on wastewater reuse in agriculture could be
greater if the community in the watershed evolves to have a greater
concern for water availability. This result suggests that in areas where
there is a lack of water or a high level of awareness of water avail-
ability, changes in agricultural practices that consume a lot of water
could be an important factor in wastewater reuse.
We also explored the possibility space of future trajectories of
system dynamics that result from different investment choices. The
scenario where 100 % of the required additional irrigation water was
supplied through Stage-II irrigation (T85S100) appeared to be the best
option to meet the target irrigation rate set by the government for this
particular watershed. The T85S100 scenario preserved 270,000 m3
more groundwater per month on average (which is about 20 % of the
monthly average groundwater volume that the study watershed can
produce) than the scenario not using Stage-II irrigation (T85S00).
Moreover, the T85S100 scenario achieved the target irrigation rate in a
shorter period of time and was more stable than other scenarios because
it was consistently able to meet the target irrigation rate except during
severe drought conditions. Ultimately, the estimated facility capacity of
Stage-II irrigation for scenario T85S100 was about 780,000 m3 per
month, about 29 % of the annual average demand for Stage-II irrigation
in this scenario. It may not be economical, however, to develop Stage-II
irrigation facilities to the full estimated capacity in the scenarios, due to
implicit uncertainties involved in urbanization. The estimated net
present irrigation cost for the T85S100 scenario was also found to be
less expensive than that of T85S00.
The findings regarding the possibility spaces have a few implica-
tions for wastewater reuse in agriculture. First, Stage-II irrigation can
diversify irrigation water sources and relieve agricultural water deficits.
This reduces the chance of depleting water resources. Projected possi-
bility spaces show that Stage-II irrigation can preserve groundwater
volume in the study watershed. This result is in line with the study
conducted by Murray and Ray (2010), which showed that wastewater
reuse could conserve millions of tons of water in local rivers each year.
The diversification of irrigation water sources can also enhance the
resilience of agricultural systems to reliably produce agricultural pro-
ducts under global change. Despite the large inter-annual variations in
the possibility space of hydrology, demand, and irrigation components,
mostly due to future climate change, agricultural water deficit occurs
16
Agricultural Water Management 231 (2020) 105983
very rarely when sufficient Stage-II irrigation is available. Second,
Stage-II irrigation could be an economically viable option for indirect
wastewater reuse when targeting paddy rice cultivation. The possibility
spaces show that Stage-II irrigation that uses a decentralized advanced
treatment system can guide informal indirect reuse as an economically
sound agricultural practice. This suggests that there is room for im-
provement in wastewater reuse in agriculture, even in countries with
well-maintained wastewater treatment facilities and relatively rich
surface water resources. Overall, our observations show that Stage-II
irrigation may help achieve the Sustainable Development Goal of better
managing water to sustain people and the environment through im-
provements in the sustainable use and development of water resources
and wastewater management (Malik et al., 2015) under changing
agricultural environments related to urbanization and climate varia-
bility.
Few socio-hydrological models have been used to design an actual
water policy; rather the models have so far mainly focused on the un-
derstanding of human behaviors to flood dynamics and tradeoffs in
water use (Chen et al., 2016; Di Baldassarre et al., 2013; Kandasamy
et al., 2014; Liu et al., 2015; Yu et al., 2017). On the other hand, this
study demonstrates how socio-hydrological models can be useful in
designing a wastewater reuse scheme, an important component in
water cycle dynamics that can significantly alter the hydrological re-
gime (Srinivasan et al., 2017; Jeong et al., 2016b). Nevertheless,
models are opinions embedded in mathematics (O’Neil, 2016), and our
model is based on experiences with our study site in South Korea. For
these reasons, this study has several limitations. For example, the re-
presentation of the investment dimension was simplified, and as a re-
sult, a scenario-based approach was needed to explore the possible ef-
fects of different investment decisions. As such, we could not explore
the dynamics of social awareness and acceptance of wastewater reuse.
Our model also relies on overly detailed relationships between human
and water systems with respect to wastewater reuse. This resulted in
relatively restricted dynamics in the interactions between system
components. In a future study, a more stylized model building on our
work could be developed to gain more general insights regarding social
response to changing agricultural environments. This additional step
would build off the understanding of wastewater reuse issues presented
in this study and would also prove worthwhile for guiding future water
reuse schemes.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
We appreciate Professor Murugesu Sivapalan’s very useful com-
ments and guidance in this work. This work was supported by the Korea
Institute of Planning and Evaluation for Technology in Food,
Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (IPET) through the Agri-Bio industry
Technology Development Program, funded by the Ministry of
Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (MAFRA) (grant number 111061-
3). This work was also partially supported by the USDA National
Institute of Food and Agriculture, Hatch project ILLU-741-379. All as-
sociated data used in the model simulation, such as bias-corrected
precipitation, estimated unit agricultural water demand, population
growth rate, are included in Supplementary Material.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary material related to this article can be found, in the
online version, at doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2019.105983.
H. Jeong, et al.
References
Alcamo, J., Döll, P., Kaspar, F., Siebert, S., 1997. Global Change and Global Scenarios of
Water Use and Availability: An Application of WaterGAP 1.0. Center for
Environmental Systems Research, University of Kassel, Kassel, Germany.
Alexandratos, N., Bruinsma, J., 2012. World Agriculture Towards 2030/2050: the 2012
Revision (ESA Working Paper No. 12-03). Retrieved from. Food and Agriculture
Organisation of the United Nations, Rome. http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/
ap106e/ap106e.pdf.
Chen, X., Wang, D., Tian, F., Sivapalan, M., 2016. From channelization to restoration:
Sociohydrologic modeling with changing community preferences in the Kissimmee
River Basin, Florida. Water Resour. Res. 52, 1227–1244. https://doi.org/10.1002/
2015WR018194.
Chen, Z., Chen, Y., Li, B., 2013. Quantifying the effects of climate variability and human
activities on runoff for Kaidu River Basin in arid region of northwest China. Theor.
Appl. Climatol. 111 (3), 537–545. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00704-012-0680-4.
Chiou, R., 2008. Risk assessment and loading capacity of reclaimed wastewater to be
reused for agricultural irrigation. Environ. Monit. Assess. 142 (1–3), 255–262.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-007-9922-9.
Cho, J., Mostaghimi, S., 2009. Dynamic agricultural non-point source assessment tool
(DANSAT): model application. Biosyst. Eng. 102 (4), 500–515. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.biosystemseng.2009.01.012.
Cirelli, G.L., Consoli, S., Licciardello, F., Aiello, R., Giuffrida, F., Leonardi, C., 2012.
Treated municipal wastewater reuse in vegetable production. Agric. Water Manage.
104, 163–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2011.12.011.
Contreras, J.D., Meza, R., Siebe, C., Rodríguez-Dozal, S., Silva-Magaña, M.A., Vázquez-
Salvador, N., López-Vidal, Y.A., Mazari-Hiriart, M., Pérez, I.R., Riojas-Rodríguez, H.,
Eisenberg, J.N.S., 2017. Health risks from exposure to untreated wastewater used for
irrigation in the Mezquital Valley, Mexico: a 25-year update. Water Res. 123,
834–850. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2017.06.058.
De Fraiture, C., Wichelns, D., 2010. Satisfying future water demands for agriculture.
Agric. Water Manage. 97 (4), 502–511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2009.08.
015.
Di Baldassarre, G., Viglione, A., Vstt, H., Kuil, L., Salinas, J.L., Blöschl, G., 2013. Socio-
hydrology: conceptualising human-flood interactions. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.
Discuss. 17, 3295–3303. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-3295-2013.
Drechsel, P., Danso, G., Qadir, M., 2015. Wastewater use in agriculture: challenges in
assessing costs and benefits. In: Drechsel, P., Qadir, M., Wichelns, D. (Eds.),
Wastewater: Economic Asset in an Urbanizing World. Springer, Dordrecht,
Netherlands, pp. 139–152.
Elshafei, Y., Sivapalan, M., Tonts, M., Hipsey, M.R., 2014. A prototype framework for
models of socio-hydrology: identification of key feedback loops and parameterisation
approach. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss. 18, 2141–2166. https://doi.org/10.5194/
hess-18-2141-2014.
Fatta-Kassinos, D., Kalavrouziotis, I.K., Koukoulakis, P.H., Vasquez, M.I., 2011. The risks
associated with wastewater reuse and xenobiotics in the agroecological environment.
Sci. Total Environ. 409 (19), 3555–3563. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.
03.036.
Forslund, A., Ensink, J.H.J., Battilani, A., Kljujev, I., Gola, S., Raicevic, V., Jovanovic, Z.,
Stikic, R., Sandei, L., Fletcher, T., Dalsgaard, A., 2010. Faecal contamination and
hygiene aspect associated with the use of treated wastewater and canal water for
irrigation of potatoes (Solanum tuberosum). Agric. Water Manage. 98 (3), 440–450.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2010.10.007.
Gober, P., Wheater, H.S., 2015. Debates—perspectives on socio-hydrology: modeling
flood risk as a public policy problem. Water Resour. Res. 51 (6), 4782–4788. https://
doi.org/10.1002/2015WR016945.
Grant, S.B., Saphores, J.D., Feldman, D.L., Hamilton, A.J., Fletcher, T.D., Cook, P.L.M.,
Stewardson, M., Sanders, B.F., Levin, L.A., Ambrose, R.F., Deletic, A., Brown, R.,
Jiang, S.C., Rosso, D., Cooper, W.J., Marusic, I., 2012. Taking the “waste” out of
“wastewater” for human water security and ecosystem sustainability. Science 337
(6095), 681–686. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1216852.
Hamby, D.M., 1994. A review of techniques for parameter sensitivity analysis of en-
vironmental models. Environ. Monit. Assess. 32 (2), 135–154. https://doi.org/10.
1007/BF00547132.
Hanjra, M.A., Blackwell, J., Carr, G., Zhang, F., Jackson, T.M., 2012. Wastewater irri-
gation and environmental health: implications for water governance and public
policy. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 215, 255–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheh.
2011.10.003.
Hanjra, M.A., Drechsel, P., Masundire, H.M., 2017. Urbanisation, water quality and water
reuse. In: Lautze, J., Phiri, Z., Smakhtin, V., Saruchera, D. (Eds.), Zambezi River
Basin: Water and Sustainable Development. Earthscan from Routledge, London, UK/
New York, USA, pp. 158–174.
Hanjra, M.A., Drechsel, P., Mateo-Sagasta, J., Otoo, M., Hernandez-Sancho, F., 2015.
Assessing the finance and economics of resource recovery and reuse solutions across
scales. In: Drechsel, P., Qadir, M., Wichelns, D. (Eds.), Wastewater: Economic Asset in
an Urbanizing World. Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands, pp. 113–138.
Jang, T.I., Kim, H.K., Seong, C.H., Lee, E.J., Park, S.W., 2012. Assessing nutrient losses of
reclaimed wastewater irrigation in paddy fields for sustainable agriculture. Agric.
Water Manage. 104, 235–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2011.12.022.
Jang, T., Lee, S.-B., Sung, C.H., Lee, H.-P., Park, S.W., 2010. Safe application of reclaimed
water reuse for agriculture in Korea. Paddy Water Environ. 8 (3), 227–233. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10333-010-0203-9.
Jeong, H., Adamowski, J., 2016. A system dynamics based socio-hydrological model for
agricultural wastewater reuse at the watershed scale. Agric. Water Manage. 171,
89–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2016.03.019.
17
Agricultural Water Management 231 (2020) 105983
Jeong, H., Jang, T., Seong, C., Park, S., 2014. Assessing nitrogen fertilizer rates and split
applications using the DSSAT model for rice irrigated with urban wastewater. Agric.
Water Manage. 141, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2014.04.009.
Jeong, H., Kim, H., Jang, T., 2016a. Irrigation water quality standards for indirect was-
tewater reuse in agriculture: a contribution toward sustainable wastewater reuse in
South Korea. Water 8 (4), 169. https://doi.org/10.3390/w8040169.
Jeong, H., Kim, H., Jang, T., Park, S., 2016b. Assessing the effects of indirect wastewater
reuse on paddy irrigation in the Osan River watershed in Korea using the SWAT
model. Agric. Water Manage. 163, 393–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2015.
08.018.
Jeong, H., Seong, C., Jang, T., Park, S., 2016c. Classification of wastewater reuse for
agriculture: a case study in South Korea. Irrig. Drain. 65 (S2), 76–85. https://doi.org/
10.1002/ird.2053.
Jesiek, J.B., Wolfe, M.L., 2005. Sensitivity analysis of the Virginia phosphorus index
management tool. Trans. ASAE 48 (5), 1773–1781. https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.
20011.
Kandasamy, J., Sounthararajah, D., Sivabalan, P., Chanan, A., Vigneswaran, S., Sivapalan,
M., 2014. Socio-hydrologic drivers of the pendulum swing between agricultural de-
velopment and environmental health: a case study from Murrumbidgee River basin,
Australia. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss. 18, 1027–1041. https://doi.org/10.5194/
hess-18-1027-2014.
Kim, M., Lee, H., Kim, M., Kang, D., Kim, D., Kim, Y., Lee, S., 2014. Wastewater re-
treatment and reuse system for agricultural irrigation in rural villages. Water Sci.
Technol. 70 (12), 1961–1968. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2014.430.
Kim, S.M., Im, S.J., Park, S.W., Lee, J.J., Benham, B.L., Jang, T.I., 2008. Assessment of
wastewater reuse effects on nutrient loads from paddy field using field-scale water
quality model. Environ. Model. Assess. 13 (2), 305–313. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10666-007-9093-7.
Liu, D., Tian, F., Lin, M., Sivapalan, M., 2015. A conceptual socio-hydrological model of
the co-evolution of humans and water: case study of the Tarim River basin, western
China. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss. 19, 1035–1054. https://doi.org/10.5194/
hess-19-1035-2015.
Malik, O.A., Hsu, A., Johnson, L.A., de Sherbinin, A., 2015. A global indicator of was-
tewater treatment to inform the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Environ. Sci.
Policy 48, 172–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.01.005.
Mapanda, F., Mangwayana, E.N., Nyamangara, J., Giller, K.E., 2005. The effect of long-
term irrigation using wastewater on heavy metal contents of soils under vegetables in
Harare, Zimbabwe. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 107, 151–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.agee.2004.11.005.
Ministry of Environment (ME), 2012. Statistics of Sewerage Long-Term Plans for Water
Resources (2011-2020) (Publication No. 11-1480000-000159-10). Retrieved from.
http://library.me.go.kr/viewer/MediaViewer.ax?cid=5516261&rid=32.
Ministry of Environment, ME, 2016. Statistics of Waterworks (Publication No. 11-
1480000-000181-10). Retrieved from. http://library.me.go.kr/search/DetailView.
ax?sid=1&cid=5631516.
Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs (MLTM), 2011. Long-term Plans for
Water Resources (2011-2020) (Publication No. 11-1611000-002114-13). Retrieved
from. http://www.kwater.or.kr/gov3/sub03/annoView.do?seq=1889&s_mid=54.
Muñoz, I., Gómez-Ramos, M.J., Agüera, A., García-Reyes, J.F., Molina-Díaz, A.,
Fernández-Alba, A.R., 2009. Chemical valuation of contaminants in wastewater ef-
fluents and the environmental risk of reusing effluents in agriculture. Trends Analyt.
Chem. 28, 676–694. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trac.2009.03.007.
Murray, A., Ray, I., 2010. Wastewater for agriculture: a reuse-oriented planning model
and its application in peri-urban China. Water Res. 44, 1667–1679. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.watres.2009.11.028.
Nasiri, F., Savage, T., Wang, R., Barawid, N., Zimmerman, J.B., 2013. A systemdynamics
approach for urban water reuse planning: a case study from the Great Lakes region.
Stoch. Environ. Res. Risk Assess. 27 (3), 675–691. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-
012-0631-8.
O’Neil, C., 2016. Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and
Threatens Democracy. Crown Publishers, New York.
Paranychianakis, N.V., Salgot, M., Snyder, S.A., Angelakis, A.N., 2015. Water reuse in EU
states: necessity for uniform criteria to mitigate human and environmental risks. Crit.
Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45 (13), 1409–1468. https://doi.org/10.1080/10643389.
2014.955629.
Pedrero, F., Kalavrouziotis, I., Alarcon, J.J., Koukoulakis, P., Asano, T., 2010. Use of
treated municipal wastewater in irrigated agriculture-review of some practices in
Spain and Greece. Agric. Water Manage. 97 (9), 1233–1241. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.agwat.2010.03.003.
Qadir, M., Mateo-Sagasta, J., Jiménez, B., Siebe, C., Siemens, J., Hanjra, M.A., 2015.
Environmental risks and cost-effective risk management of wastewater. In: Drechsel,
P., Qadir, M., Wichelns, D. (Eds.), Wastewater: Economic Asset in an Urbanizing
World. Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands, pp. 55–74.
Reznik, A., Feinerman, E., Finkelshtain, I., Fisher, F., Huber-Lee, A., Joyce, B., Kan, I.,
2017. Economic implications of agricultural reuse of treated wastewater in Israel: a
statewide long-term perspective. Ecol. Econ. 135, 222–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ecolecon.2017.01.013.
Rock, M.T., 2000. The dewatering of economic growth: What Accounts for the Declining
Water-Use Intensity of Income? J. Ind. Ecol. 4 (1), 57–73. https://doi.org/10.1162/
108819800569294.
Rutkowski, T., Raschid-Sally, L., Buechler, S., 2007. Wastewater irrigation in the devel-
oping world—two case studies from the Kathmandu Valley in Nepal. Agric. Water
Manage. 88 (1), 83–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2006.08.012.
Sato, T., Qadir, M., Yamamoto, S., Endo, T., Zahoor, A., 2013. Global, regional, and
country level need for data on wastewater generation, treatment, and use. Agric.
Water Manage. 130, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2013.08.007.
H. Jeong, et al.
Scott, C.A., Faruqui, N.I., Raschid, L., 2004. Wastewater Use in Irrigated Agriculture:
Confronting the Livelihood and Environmental Realities. Commonwealth
Agricultural Bureau International Publishing, Oxfordshire, UK.
Singh, P.K., Deshbhratar, P.B., Ramteke, D.S., 2012. Effects of sewage wastewater irri-
gation on soil properties, crop yield and environment. Agric. Water Manage. 103,
100–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2011.10.022.
Sivapalan, M., Blöschl, G., 2015. Time scale interactions and the coevolution of humans
and water. Water Resour. Res. 51 (9), 6988–7022. https://doi.org/10.1002/
2015wr017896.
Sivapalan, M., Savenije, H.H.G., Blöschl, G., 2012. Socio-hydrology: a new science of
people and water. Hydrol. Process. 26 (8), 1270–1276. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.
8426.
Song, J.-H., Kang, M.S., Song, I., Jun, S.M., 2016. Water balance in irrigation reservoirs
considering flood control and irrigation efficiency variation. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 142
(4), 04016003. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943-4774.0000989.
Srinivasan, V., Sanderson, M., Garcia, M., Konar, M., Blöschl, G., Sivapalan, M., 2017.
Prediction in a socio-hydrological world. Hydrol. Sci. 62 (3), 338–345. https://doi.
org/10.1080/02626667.2016.1253844.
Statistics Korea (SK), 2011. Future Population Projection: 2010∼2060. Retrieved from.
http://kostat.go.kr/portal/korea/kor_nw/2/1/index.board?bmode=read&aSeq=
252623.
Storm, D.E., Dillaha III, T.A., Mostaghimi, S., Shanholtz, V.O., 1988. Modeling phos-
phorus transport in surface runoff. Trans. ASAE 31 (1), 117–0127. https://doi.org/
10.13031/2013.30676.
Tal, A., 2016. Rethinking the sustainability of Israel’s irrigation practices in the Drylands.
Water Res. 90, 387–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2015.12.016.
Trinh, L.T., Duong, C.C., Van Der Steen, P., Lens, P.N., 2013. Exploring the potential for
wastewater reuse in agriculture as a climate change adaptation measure for Can Tho
City, Vietnam. Agric. Water Manage. 128, 43–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.
2013.06.003.
18
Agricultural Water Management 231 (2020) 105983
Troy, T.J., Pavao-Zuckerman, M., Evans, T.P., 2015. Debates—perspectives on socio-hy-
drology: socio-hydrologic modeling: tradeoffs, hypothesis testing, and validation.
Water Resour. Res. 51 (6), 4806–4814. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015WR017046.
United Nations World Water Assessment Programme (UNWWAP), 2017. Wastewater: The
Untapped Resource (The United Nations World Water Development Report 2017).
Retrieved from. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO), Paris. http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/
water/wwap/wwdr/2017-wastewater-the-untapped-resource/.
Vörösmarty, C.J., Green, P., Salisbury, J., Lammers, R.B., 2000. Global water resources:
vulnerability from climate change and population growth. Science 289 (5477),
284–288. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.289.5477.284.
Wei, S., Yang, H., Song, J., Abbaspour, K.C., Xu, Z., 2012. System dynamics simulation
model for assessing socio-economic impacts of different levels of environmental flow
allocation in the Weihe River Basin, China. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 221 (1), 248–262.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2012.03.014.
World Health Organization (WHO), 2006. Guidelines for the Safe Use of Wastewater,
Excreta and Greywater. Retrieved from. World Health Organization, Geneva,
Switzerland. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/78265/
9241546824_eng.pdf?sequence=1.
Xu, J., Wu, L., Chang, A., Zhang, Y., 2010. Impact of long-term reclaimed wastewater
irrigation on agricultural soils: a preliminary assessment. J. Hazard. Mater. 183,
780–786. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2010.07.094.
Yang, H., Abbaspour, K.C., 2007. Analysis of wastewater reuse potential in Beijing.
Desalination 212 (1), 238–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2006.10.012.
Yoo, S.-H., Choi, J.-Y., Nam, W.-H., Hong, E., 2012. Analysis of design water requirement
of paddy rice using frequency analysis affected by climate change in South Korea.
Agric. Water Manage. 112, 33–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2012.06.002.
Yu, D.J., Sangwan, N., Sung, K., Chen, X., Merwade, V., 2017. Incorporating institutions
and collective action into a sociohydrological model of flood resilience. Water
Resour. Res. 53, 1336–1353. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016WR019746.