Water Science and Engineering 2018, 11(2): 157e166

H O S T E D BY Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Water Science and Engineering

journal homepage: http://www.waterjournal.cn

Impact of climate change on hydropower generation in

Rio Jubones Basin, Ecuador
Mohammad Mehedi Hasan a,*, Guido Wyseure b
a
Hydraulic Research Directorate, River Research Institute, Faridpur 7800, Bangladesh
b
Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven 3001, Belgium
Received 30 May 2017; accepted 19 February 2018
Available online 5 July 2018

Abstract

This study attempted to use the soil and water assessment tool (SWAT), integrated with geographic information systems (GIS), for assessment
of climate change impacts on hydropower generation. This methodology of climate change impact modeling was developed and demonstrated
through application to a hydropower plant in the Rio Jubones Basin in Ecuador. ArcSWAT 2012 was used to develop a model for simulating the
river flow. The model parameters were calibrated and validated on a monthly scale with respect to the hydro-meteorological inputs observed
from 1985 to 1991 and from 1992 to 1998, respectively. Statistical analyses produced Nash-Sutcliffe efficiencies (NSEs) of 0.66 and 0.61 for
model calibration and validation, respectively, which were considered acceptable. Numerical simulation with the model indicated that climate
change could alter the seasonal flow regime of the basin, and the hydropower potential could change due to the changing climate in the future.
Scenario analysis indicates that, though the hydropower generation will increase in the wet season, the plant will face a significant power
shortage during the dry season, up to 13.14% from the reference scenario, as a consequence of a 17% reduction of streamflow under an
assumption of a 2.9
C increase in temperature and a 15% decrease in rainfall. Overall, this study showed that hydrological processes are
realistically modeled with SWAT and the model can be a useful tool for predicting the impact of climate change.
© 2018 Hohai University. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Keywords: SWAT; Hydropower generation; Climate change; Sensitivity analysis; Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE)

1. Introduction hydropower is the most lucrative due to renewability, lower

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC) defines climate change as an alteration of
climate, accountable definitely or indefinitely to anthropogenic
activities, that changes the structure of the global atmosphere
and is discerned over a time period, distinguishing it from the
natural climate instability (Houghton et al., 2001). To mitigate
climate change impacts, several solutions have been proposed
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including modern efficient
energy alternatives and enhancing the use of sustainable energy
sources. Among alternative options for power generation,
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: mmhasan@rri.gov.bd (Mohammad Mehedi Hasan).
Peer review under responsibility of Hohai University.
emissions, and longevity of infrastructure. Though the hydro-
power sector makes a significant effort to cope with today's
rising world energy demands, this is difficult due to climate
change effects. Madani (2011) stated that climate change will
have a variety of effects on streamflow, involving quantity and
timing, temperature, sediment load, and ecosystem changes.
Temperature fluctuations, rainfall patterns, floods, and droughts
are all major signs of climate change that have strong effects on
river systems, which will consequently affect hydropower
generation. The possible recession of river flow may lead to
decreased hydropower generation, which in turn will have
certain influences on the economic viability of the hydropower
plant schemes. Hydropower plants with low storage capacities
are more susceptible to climate change, as a high storage
capacity requires more workability to operate.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wse.2018.07.002
1674-2370/© 2018 Hohai University. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
158 Mohammad Mehedi Hasan, Guido Wyseure / Water Science and Engineering 2018, 11(2): 157e166
Watershed models and general circulation models (GCMs)
are often used to simulate the impact of climate change on
watershed hydrology (Park et al., 2011). They are usually used
to obtain the climatic data with the help of some downscaling
techniques in a particular study area. Because of the quite
coarse resolution, they are incapable of predicting regional
climate scenarios. Furthermore, they are not designed to assess
climate change impacts and are not used to provide a direct
assessment of hydrological response to climate change (Dibike
and Coulibaly, 2005), because of a high amount of uncertainty.
As for a regional climate model (RCM), the potential of
simulating wide-scale data with significant, physically reliable
climate variations and its advanced representation of extreme
climate events have been the major advantages (Huntingford
et al., 2003). However, computations of RCMs are detailed,
and a small number of scenario ensembles are available, which
limits the model quantification to 30 years under the existing
climatic conditions from 1961 to 1990 as well as from 2071 to
2100 (Fowler et al., 2007). This makes it difficult to evaluate the
climate change impacts for other phases. Moreover, Buytaert
et al. (2010) have shown that, for some tropical regions,
RCMs might yield unreliable or poor results in comparison with
GCMs on certain scales, particularly for precipitation.
Andean landscapes provide a good opportunity for hydro-
power generation (Buytaert et al., 2006). However, energy
generation is vulnerable to climate change effects (Koch et al.,
2011; Tamm et al., 2016). The Andes region, including the
South Ecuadorian Andes, shows a high degree of weather and
climate variability (Espinoza Villar et al., 2009). Considering
the consequences of climate anomalies, a number of studies
have been conducted to investigate various aspects of climate
change impacts on water resources of the Andes region.
Urrutia and Vuille (2009) quantified future climate change
in the tropical Andes of Ecuador by means of an RCM.
The uncertainties in projections of climate change impacts on
regional water resources in the tropical Andes were evaluated
by Buytaert et al. (2010). Vuille et al. (2003) conducted
another study to compare observed and modeled results
associated with the climate change effects in the 20th century
in the tropical Andes. More recently, Mora et al. (2014)
studied the climate change trends for hydro-meteorological
extremes across the Paute River Basin, in the Ecuadorian
Andes. However, much less attention has been paid to climate
change impacts with regard to water availability or hydro-
power potential, which is important because hydropower has
become the principal source of energy in most of the Andean
countries (Bradley et al., 2006).
In Ecuador, greater hydropower generation is needed to
compensate for ongoing population growth. To meet the
country’s rising demand for electric energy, a new hydropower
plant is being constructed in the Rio Jubones Basin, in
Ecuador. This study aimed to investigate the climate change
impact on hydropower generation in the Rio Jubones Basin. To
this end, the Minas-San Francisco Hydroelectric Project, being
constructed on the right bank of the Jubones River between
the provinces of Azuay and El Oro, with an installed capacity
of 275 MW, was studied. To assess the possible impact of
climate change on hydropower generation, analysis of the river
flow related to climate variability is required, as it will help
planners and managers design and operate the hydropower
plant efficiently.
In this study, the soil and water assessment tool (SWAT)
model, which is basically a river basin model, was used to
simulate river flow. SWAT is a process-based and spatially semi-
distributed hydrological model developed by the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) (Arnold et al., 1998). The
tool anticipates the effects of management practices on water,
sediment, and agrochemicals in large, complex basins with
changeable soils, land use types, and management conditions,
over extended periods of time (Ficklin et al., 2009; Githui et al.,
2009; Fontaine et al., 2001; Li et al., 2011; Neitsch et al., 2013).
To simulate the physical process, a river basin may be split into a
number of sub-basins. For each sub-basin, input data are orga-
nized into the following categories: climate, hydrological
response units (HRUs), ponds/wetlands, groundwater, and the
main channel or reach discharging to the sub-basin.
The water balance is the key element in SWAT no matter
what case is studied in a catchment. Hydrological simulation
for a catchment may be divided into two main phases: a land
phase and a water or routing phase of the hydrologic cycle. In
the land phase, the amounts of water, sediment, nutrients, and
pesticides discharging into the main channel in each sub-basin
are simulated. The routing phase can be outlined as the
movement of water, sediment, nutrients, etc. to the outlet of
the catchment through the channel network.
The hydrologic cycle in SWAT is based on the water bal-
ance equation:
X
t
 
SWt ¼ SW0 þ Ri  Qsi  Ei  Wi  Qgi ð1Þ
i¼1
where SWt is the final soil water content on day t (mm), SW0 is
the initial soil water content (mm), Ri is the amount of pre-
cipitation on day i (mm), Qsi is the amount of surface runoff
on day i (mm), Ei is the amount of evapotranspiration on day i
(mm), Wi is the amount of water entering the vadose zone
from the soil profile on day i (mm), and Qgi is the amount of
return flow on day i (mm).
The sub-division of the catchment allows the model to
reflect the disparity of evapotranspiration (ET) from different
crops and soils. Runoff of each HRU is anticipated exclusively
and routed to obtain the total runoff for the catchment.
This enhances the precision and provides a better physical
description of the water balance. The model takes the values of
daily atmospheric conditions as inputs from observation and
simulation. From average monthly weather data, daily values
are generated. The model produces a number of weather data
for each sub-basin.
SWAT also runs with minimal data inputs, and is compu-
tationally proficient and hence capable of running simulations
of large basins or management practices without wasting
computational resources. The SWAT model has been linked
with many systems, one of the flexible examples being its
linkage with ArcView GIS software (ArcView GIS 10.1 with
 Mohammad Mehedi Hasan, Guido Wyseure / Water Science and Engineering 2018, 11(2): 157e166
the ArcSWAT, 2012 extension), which was used in this study.
An inclusive interpretation of SWAT can be obtained from
Neitsch et al. (2013).
In this study, possible effects of climate change on hydro-
power generation in the Rio Jubones Basin, in Ecuador,
were investigated by analyzing outputs of the SWAT model.
Information regarding climate change at different hydro-
meteorological stations was analyzed. The SWAT database
was configured with a customized local dataset as it was
initially designed for regions of the U.S. Afterwards, a SWAT
model was developed and numerical simulation was performed
based on the available hydro-meteorological inputs. The SWAT
model was calibrated and validated using the sequential un-
certainty fitting (SUFI-2) algorithm, with the uncertainty and
sensitivity analysis conducted. Finally, a summary was made of
the weather conditions and hydropower potentials of the study
area.
2. Study area
The Rio Jubones Basin, in Ecuador, ranges from the lati-
tudes of 3
40 S to 3
440 S and the longitudes of 78
570 W to
80
10 W, with an area of 4362 km2 (Fig. 1). It lies on the
western slope in the Andes region, with an approximate
channel length of 180 km. Rivers in the basin discharge into
the Pacific Ocean. Most of the sub-basins in this drainage
basin ultimately stream towards the Jubones River, which has
a mean annual discharge of 48.3 m3/s at the planned location
of the dam (Enerjubones, 2014). Due to the presence of the
Andean mountain range, trade winds and ocean currents move
inward from the Pacific Ocean, and the climatic conditions
are extremely variable. Weather situations also change rapidly.
They are generally rough with chilly wind, snow, hail, rain,
and fog. The climate of the Rio Jubones Basin ranges from
humid to arid. From January to May, rain falls more often, and
intensely, throughout the region. However, there is a marked
decrease in rainfall during the period from June to December,
resulting in a desert-type climate. Annual rainfall varies from
Fig. 1. Landscape of Rio Jubones Basin.
159
about 925 mm to about 290 mm. Dense cloud banks are almost
a daily occurrence at different elevations across the catchment.
Depending on the locality and elevation, the mean annual
temperature varies slightly from around 15
Ce28
C. Annual
average relative humidity fluctuates with elevation, from 70%
to 88%, depending on the temperature. Monthly average po-
tential evapotranspiration (PET) was found to be roughly
95 mm, and the annual PET fluctuates from about 900 mm to
less than 500 mm. In this study, the upper part of the Rio
Jubones Basin, shown in Fig. 1, was taken as the study area. It
should be mentioned that an outlet of the basin is in a close
proximity to the dam under construction, through which
streamflow from the entire basin passes. As the outlet was
selected as the point of interest for numerical simulation
during watershed delineation, the lower part of the basin
would have no meaning in modeling, and hence, it was
excluded in this study.
Agriculture is the prevailing activity in the Rio Jubones
Basin. The diversified patterns of rainfall and temperature
bring about a variety of tropical crops and fruits, such as corn,
barley, beans, sugarcane, wheat, potato, banana, and cacao.
Discrete land use patterns (Fig. 2) exist in this basin, covered
with shrubs, meadow, pasture, crops, grass, paramo vegetation,
forests and woodlands, barren land, and built-up areas. Par-
amo, an alpine ecosystem found in Ecuador and other places,
is the major water source in this region and covers around 24%
of the total area. Heterogeneous soil classes are observed here;
among them, inceptisol and entisol are the most dominant soil
types (Fig. 3).
3. Materials and methods
3.1. Materials and modeling software
In this study, spatial, meteorological, and daily river flow
data were prerequisites for developing a SWAT model for
the Rio Jubones Basin. The daily time series of hydro-
meteorological data for the period of 17 years from 1982 to
160 Mohammad Mehedi Hasan, Guido Wyseure / Water Science and Engineering 2018, 11(2): 157e166

Fig. 2. Land use classes of study area.

Both meteorological and streamflow data were taken from the

Fig. 3. Major soil classes of study area.
1998 were taken into consideration for numerical simulation
based on their availability. River flow data at station H529
were used for model calibration and validation. SWAT ne-
cessitates meteorological data, consisting of daily rainfall, air
temperature (minimum and maximum), relative humidity, and
wind speed, as weather inputs. In this study, wind speed,
relative humidity, and solar radiation data were derived from
the monthly statistics of weather information, since these
variables were sporadic or not available. Seven rain gauge
stations and three temperature stations (Table 1) were utilized
to obtain the weather information. Spatial data involved a
digital elevation model (DEM), soil map, and land cover map.
National Institute for Meteorology and Hydrology, in Ecuador,
while spatial data came from Promas at the University of
Cuenca, in Ecuador. For the spatial data, the
WGS_1984_UTM_Zone_17S coordinate projection was used.
Information regarding the hydropower plant was obtained
from the Enerjubones, the state owned power generation
holding company of Ecuador. The ArcView GIS 10.1 interface
for ArcSWAT 2012 was chosen as a tool in this study.
Fig. 4 presents the rainfall pattern of the selected stations in
the study area for the observed baseline period (1982e1998),
showing the same trend throughout the period. The rainfall
distributions at stations M419, M142, and M032 show higher
values of rainfall than other stations. These stations are posi-
tioned at higher elevations, and high mountains radically
change the rainfall patterns naturally, due to the forcing of
upright atmospheric motions.
It is observed that the maximum and minimum daily tem-
peratures at the selected stations in the study area are higher at
M032 and M196, as compared to M142 (Table 2), since the
two stations are located at relatively lower elevations and fall
in the dry climatic zone. As a rule of thumb, temperature drops
about 1
C for every 180 m of ascent.
Fig. 5 presents the mean annual streamflow for the period
from 1982 to 1998 at station H529. Streamflow shows an
upward trend from 1982 to 1983, followed by a downward
trend, and then remains almost constant during the rest of
the measured period. The observed annual streamflow at

Table 1
Observed hydro-meteorological stations in study area.
Station Site name Climatic zone Elevation (m) Latitude (
S) Longitude (
W)
H529 Jubones DJ. S. Francisco 712 3.307 79.500
M032* Santa Isabel Inamhi Dry 1450 3.247 79.277
M142* Saraguro Semi-humid 2525 3.612 79.234
M196* Minas de Huascachaca Dry 1040 3.332 79.329
M419 Giron Semi-humid 2130 3.154 79.149
M420 Nabon Inamhi Semi-humid 2750 3.334 79.066
M421 O~na Dry 2320 3.464 79.154
M423 Susudel-Caserio (L. P. CA) Dry 2600 3.399 79.185
M425 Tendales-Jubones DJ. S. Francisco Semi-humid 750 3.314 79.480
Note: H means the hydrological station, M means the meteorological station, * means the temperature station, and elevations are values in meters above sea level.
 Mohammad Mehedi Hasan, Guido Wyseure / Water Science and Engineering 2018, 11(2): 157e166 161

Fig. 4. Mean monthly distribution of measured rainfall at different Fig. 5. Mean annual streamflow trend at station H529 for period from
rain gauge stations for period from 1982 to 1998. 1982 to 1998.

this station showed an average of 32.36 m3/s, with the mini-
mum and maximum streamflow being 19 m3/s and 74 m3/s,
respectively.
3.2. Design specifications of hydropower plant
The hydropower generation is a function of the flow
discharge, head, and density of water. The gross hydropower
generation in watts can be calculated as follows:
E ¼ rgQDhh
where r is the density of water, with r ¼ 103 kg/m3; g is the
gravitational acceleration, with g ¼ 9.81 m/s2; Q is the flow
discharge (m3/s); Dh is the difference in elevations between
the water level at the intake of the dam and the outlet of the
turbine (m); and h is the efficiency of turbines. The design
specifications for the hydropower plant are listed in Table 3
(Enerjubones, 2014).
on temperature and rainfall from the investigation by
Mora et al. (2014) on the impact of climate change on the
Paute River Basin in the southern Ecuadorian Andes, since the
study area is close to the Paute River Basin. The temperature
change was predicted to vary between 1.1
C and 2.9
C for
the future period from 2045 to 2065, and the rainfall was
predicted to vary from 5% to 15% for the same period as well.
The assumed climate change scenarios are listed in Table 4.
The basic assumption applied to rainfall was that the wet
periods become wetter and the dry periods become drier.
ð2Þ
The wet season of this study area ranges from January to
May, and the dry season ranges from June to December. The
three scenarios were assumed for a future period without
specifying an exact period. Subsequently, the scenarios were
used as SWAT inputs for assessing the climate change impact
on the hydrological extremes of the catchment.
3.4. Model configuration

3.3. Generation of climate change scenarios SWAT database files were adjusted for the case of the Rio
Jubones Basin, as application of SWAT to other areas demands
According to Houghton et al. (2001), it is recommended to customization with regard to the local conditions. To this end,
use the GCM output data for at least a 30-year averaging a new database of soil type, crop, land use, and weather was
period. However, this study had a record of only 17 years of created. The development of the model initially required
climatic data, which limited the use of GCMs in the study automatic watershed delineation, HRUs, and weather inputs.
area. Therefore, to determine the actual impact of climate The study area was divided into sub-basins linked with
change on the water resources of the study area, it is crucial the stream network, and smaller units were named as HRUs,
to use a downscaling technique. To study the climate change signifying an arrangement of land use, soil, and slope. This
impact on the hydropower generation in the Rio Jubones enabled the SWAT model to reflect differences in hydrological
Basin, three climate change scenarios were determined based
Table 3
Basic design specifications of hydropower plant.
Table 2
Statistics of daily temperature at selected stations in study area for period from Design feature Specification
1982 to 1998. Installed capacity 275 MW
Statistics Maximum daily Minimum daily Type of turbine Pelton
temperature (
C) temperature (
C) Energy production 1290.8 GW∙h/year
Design flow discharge 65 m3/s
M142 M032 M196 M142 M032 M196 Maximum reservoir volume 14351337 m3
Mean 17.96 26.11 26.29 7.67 15.14 22.23 Minimum reservoir volume 8351337 m3
Standard deviation 2.02 1.68 1.15 2.00 1.01 3.34 Maximum sediment volume 2356267 m3
Minimum 14.00 18.50 20.20 2.40 8.50 10.34 Dead storage 1852501 m3
Median 18.00 26.40 26.30 8.00 15.20 23.80 Normal operating level 792.86 m
Maximum 24.80 36.50 34.80 12.00 20.20 26.00 Minimum operating level 783.33 m
162 Mohammad Mehedi Hasan, Guido Wyseure / Water Science and Engineering 2018, 11(2): 157e166
Table 4
Assumed climate change scenarios for future period (2045e2065).
Scenario Temperature variation (
C) Rainfall variation (%)
1 þ1.1 ±5
2 þ2.0 ±10
3 þ2.9 ±15
Note: þ indicates an increment of temperature, and ± indicates an increment
of rainfall in the wet season and a reduction of rainfall in the dry season.
conditions along with land use and soil type, and in turn,
enhanced the precision of load predictions and gave a better
physical description of the water balance (Neitsch et al.,
2014). Considering the watershed area and the number of
sub-basins generated in this study, a threshold value of 20%
was determined for land use, which means that a certain land
use occupying less than 20% of a particular sub-basin was
excluded from modeling, and the areas of other land uses were
proportionately increased to make up 100% of the sub-basin.
Meanwhile, a threshold value of 10% was determined for
both soil and slope, which means that soil types or slope
categories occupying less than 10% of the area of a particular
sub-basin were excluded from modeling, and the areas asso-
ciated with the other soil types or other slope categories were
proportionately increased so that they made up 100% of the
land uses or soil types within the sub-basin area. For the given
threshold values, a total of 132 HRUs were generated in 19
sub-basins. It is essential to keep in mind that the HRUs were
not spatially adjacent and they had clustered response units.
The pixels generating an HRU may be stretched throughout
the sub-basin. Basic prerequisites for building the model were
achieved by defining weather input data. Files including daily
weather information at three stations (M196, M142, and
M032) were specified in this model study.
The numerical simulation was performed for a period of 17
years from 1982 to 1998 with the SWAT model. The cali-
bration and validation periods were determined to be 1985 to
1991 and 1992 to 1998, respectively, considering the avail-
ability of river flow data at the control point of the study area.
The first three years (1982e1984) were considered a warm-up
period, allowing the model to make the hydrologic cycle fully
functional and stabilize some initial model parameters. Since
the model did not perform well in daily simulations, monthly
data were used in this study. Model performance was assessed
with statistical indices and hydrograph shape during the
calibration and validation periods.
3.5. Sensitivity analysis, calibration, and validation of
SWAT model using SUFI-2 algorithm
Prior to the calibration, sensitivity analysis was executed
for the control point to identify the most influential parame-
ters. This also assists in saving time throughout calibration
since it minimizes the number of parameters to be optimized
in an over-parameterized SWAT model. It helps in recognizing
the relative significance of different parameters. The SUFI-2
algorithm was used for parameter optimization, which was
linked to the SWAT model by means of SWAT-CUP software
(Abbaspour et al., 2007; Abbaspour, 2007).
The efficacy of a hydrological model mainly depends on
how well the model is calibrated (Gupta et al., 1999). The
SWAT model can be calibrated manually and automatically
or through a combination of the two methods (Boyle et al.,
2000; Bardossy, 2007). In this study, automatic calibration
was performed with SWAT-CUP software for the period
from 1985 to 1991 at the outlet of the study area to avoid
more time consumption in manual calibration (Eckhardt
et al., 2005).
Determination of the most sensitive parameters for a
watershed or sub-basin is the primary step in the calibration
and validation processes of the SWAT model (Arnold et al.,
2012). Over-parameterization of a complex model often
leads to complications of parametric nonuniqueness and
equifinality in hydrological models, particularly for distributed
models, which may negatively impact prediction uncertainties
(Schoups et al., 2008). Therefore, sensitivity analysis was
conducted to lessen the number of parameters for efficient use
of the model (van Griensven et al., 2006).
Model validation was accomplished with SWAT-CUP soft-
ware for the period from 1992 to 1998 at the outlet of the study
area. Throughout the validation, the model was run with the
same model parameters that were obtained from the calibration
period, to observe how well the calibrated parameters func-
tioned in the validation period (Shrestha et al., 2010).
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Model calibration and validation
Parameter sensitivity analysis indicated that a channel
is highly responsive to groundwater movement as well as
surface and subsurface releases. The baseflow recession factor
(ALPHA_BF) and the delay time for aquifer recharge
(GW_DELAY), which control the groundwater behavior, were
found to be the most influential parameters for the sub-basin.
This can be attributed to the fact that the hydrological regime
of this region is highly influenced by a slow flow response
(Buytaert et al., 2007). Since the area is dominated by low-
permeability layers, the influence of ALPHA_BF was antici-
pated. The slope of the sub-basin (SLSUBBSN) was found to
be one of the geomorphological factors relating to the basin
response behavior. The initial soil conservation service (SCS)
curve number for moisture condition II (CN2), the soil evap-
oration compensation factor (ESCO), and the effective hy-
draulic conductivity of the channel (CH_K2) were found to
affect the surface runoff and other characteristics of the basin.
Not all of the parameters recognized by sensitivity analysis
were customized during the calibration process. In this study,
only 14 parameters from the sensitivity list were used during
the calibration process to fit the model as closely as possible to
natural processes (Table 5). The ranges of parameter values in
the calibration process were physically realistic (Eckhardt
et al., 2005). Therefore, the model can be applied
 Mohammad Mehedi Hasan, Guido Wyseure / Water Science and Engineering 2018, 11(2): 157e166 163

Table 5
Initial and calibrated parameter values of SWAT model for study area.
Parameter Modeling process Variation range Initial value Calibrated value
v__ALPHA_BF Groundwater 0e1 0.0480 0.0252
v__GW_DELAY Groundwater 0e500 31.000 98.665
v__SLSUBBSN Geomorphology 10e150 18.293 12.546
v__RCHRG_DP Groundwater 0e1 0.0500 0.1492
v__CH_K2 Channel flow 0.01e500 0 60.918
v__HRU_SLP Geomorphology 0e1 0.1871 0.8203
r__SOL_K Soil water 0e3500 17.100 0.6625
r__CN2 Runoff 35e98 37e87 39.25e92.21
v__ESCO Evaporation 0e1 0.9500 0.3750
v__REVAPMN Groundwater 0e500 1.0000 45.719
v__GWQMN Groundwater 0e5000 0 16.221
v__PLAPS Precipitation 1000e1000 0 0.8115
r__SOL_AWC Soil water 0e1 0.2500 0.2310
v__GW_REVAP Groundwater 0.02e0.20 0.0200 0.0689
Note: v means that the existing parameter value is to be replaced by a given value, and r means that the existing parameter value is multiplied by the sum of one and
a given value.

subsequently for appraising the impacts of climate change
scenarios and/or management options.
ALPHA_BF was changed to fine-tune the baseflow
recession curve. A higher ALPHA_BF value corresponds to a
less steep baseflow recession curve, demonstrating quick
drainage and low storage. GW_DELAY was modified to
regulate the flow timing in the subsurface. SLSUBBSN was
considered a parameter, representing the consequences of a
parallel terrace in an HRU. Lessening CN2 values resulted in
declining runoff and increasing infiltration, baseflow, and
recharge. The depth distribution of ESCO was adjusted to
facilitate the evaporation from the soil profile. An enhanced
SOL_AWC value led to the reduction in streamflow, because
the ability of soil to hold water was improved. The saturated
hydraulic conductivity (SOL_K), a measure of ease of water
movement through the vadose zone, was adjusted to improve
the subsurface flow response and to facilitate the groundwater
storage capacity (GWQMN), which was also tuned. CH_K2,
showing the flow movement from groundwater to rivers, was
found to be a quite influential parameter. The precipitation
laps rate (PLAPS) was used, because the study area was
assumed to be affected by the extreme orographic effect
(Emck, 2007; Mu~ noz et al., 2016). The effects of the other
parameters on model outputs can be found in Neitsch et al.
(2014). Model performance was evaluated based on some
statistical indices (Table 6).
NSE is a reliable statistical index used widely for appraising
the goodness of fit of hydrological models (McCuen et al.,
2006). It signifies deviations between observed and simulated
values. NSE varies between ∞ and 1.0, and the value of 1.0 is
considered the optimal value. The simulated results are
considered to be satisfactory if NSE is greater than 0.5 and
good if NSE ranges from 0.65 to 0.75 (Moriasi et al., 2007). R2
expresses the strength of the linear relationship between
simulated and measured values, with the value ranging from
0 to 1. A greater R2 value signifies a better agreement between
simulated and measured values, and usually values greater than
0.5 are considered to be satisfactory (Santhi et al., 2001; van
Liew et al., 2003). The optimal value of PBIAS is 0.0%.
A positive or negative PBIAS value indicates a model bias of
underestimation or overestimation, respectively (Gupta et al.,
1999). An absolute value of PBIAS of lower than 20% is
considered to be good (van Liew et al., 2005). RSR values
range from 0 to þ∞. The lower the RSR is, the better the
simulation performance is. NSE and R2 values in Table 6
indicate that there was strong agreement between the
measured and simulated results for the calibration period,
whereas relatively smaller values were obtained throughout the
validation period. RSR and PBIAS values also demonstrated
the strong performance of the model. However, the model
showed poor performance in daily simulation.
The time sequences of the measured and simulated
streamflow for the calibration and validation periods (Fig. 6)
were compared graphically. It can be concluded from Fig. 6
that, generally, there is rational agreement between the
measured and simulated hydrographs. The probable reason of
model overestimation and underestimation of the streamflow
might be ascribed to the fact that there are considerable un-
certainties regarding the estimation of some SWAT parameters
that control the flow through the deep and shallow aquifers
simulated by the model. Another reason for this model
behavior might be an inexact estimation of hydrological con-
ditions in the soil profiles.
The underestimation of the streamflow during the wet
period could be ascribed to the fact that macropore flow
(through worm holes, root holes, etc.) was not simulated,
though it might be a major part of the measured peaks. The
overestimation of flow peaks during the wet period might be
Table 6
Statistical indices for model performance evaluation of calibration and vali-
dation processes for monthly discharge simulation.
Process NSE R2 PBIAS (%) RSR (%)
Calibration 0.66 0.68 3.7 52
Validation 0.61 0.62 5.9 6
Note: NSE is the Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency, R2 is the coefficient of determi-
nation, PBIAS is the percentage of bias, and RSR is the RMSE-observations
standard deviation ratio.
164 Mohammad Mehedi Hasan, Guido Wyseure / Water Science and Engineering 2018, 11(2): 157e166

Fig. 6. Measured and simulated monthly average streamflow of study area.

attributed to the facts that the curve number (CN) technique
was not sufficient to produce a precise runoff prediction for
a day experiencing several rainstorms, and the level of soil
moisture and the resultant runoff curve differed from storm to
storm. Lastly, the availability of weather inputs played a major
role in model performance and accuracy.
4.2. Analysis of climate change scenarios
The model was run with each climate change scenario and the
outputs of these three scenarios were analyzed to quantify the
possible climate change impact on the hydropower generation.
In the future period, runoff will increase with precipitation
in the wet season and the warming temperature. The rate of
evaporation will also increase, which will consequently affect
river flow. The increased flow will contribute to hydropower
generation. During the dry season, the hydropower plant will
experience a power shortage due to lack of streamflow. It is
observed from Fig. 7 that there is an evident increase in hy-
dropower generation in the wet season for different scenarios,
as compared with the reference period, and the hydropower
generation steadily decreases in the dry period, due to the
scarcity of rainfall.
It is evident from Table 7 that the average annual hydro-
power generation will increase in the future. The plant will
also face a significant shortage of power in the dry season due
to lack of rainfall. In the case of scenario 3, the overall annual
hydropower generation is likely to increase by 7.88% from
the reference scenario due to a 13% projected augmented
streamflow in the wet season, and an estimated drop of about
17% in the streamflow during the dry season will lessen the
hydropower generation up to 13.14% from the reference sce-
nario. More repeated droughts might make the hydropower
schemes unprofitable and more extreme rainfall events will

Fig. 7. Comparison of predicted average monthly hydropower generation in assumed climate change scenarios with that in reference scenario.

Table 7
Predicted average annual hydropower generation for different scenarios and their deviations from reference scenario.
Scenario Average annual hydropower Increment of annual Average hydropower Drop in hydropower
generation (GW∙h) hydropower generation in dry generation in dry
generation (%) season (GW∙h) season (%)
Reference 894.56 404.78
1 914.02 2.12 375.55 7.22
2 929.78 3.78 358.62 11.40
3 970.54 7.88 351.58 13.14
 Mohammad Mehedi Hasan, Guido Wyseure / Water Science and Engineering 2018, 11(2): 157e166
cause siltation to develop, which will consequently increase
the risk of dam failures and catastrophic flood releases. Plants
can generally be operated below their design limit. It is
observed that the projected average annual hydropower gen-
eration is lower than the value presented in Table 3. This is
ascribed to the turbine efficiency, generator efficiency, and
other physical factors, which have not been incorporated in
this study.
5. Conclusions
Application of the SWAT model in exploring the impact of
climate change on future hydropower generation has been
addressed and analyzed in this study. This paper gives an
overview of a plausible scenario of future development of the
hydroelectric output in the Rio Jubones Basin with consider-
ation of hydro-climatic variabilities and different parameters.
The results show that climate change can significantly alter the
flow regime of the Jubones River, which can consequently
affect the hydropower potential in the long run. The scenario
study shows that the annual hydropower generation will likely
be improved by around 8% as a result of streamflow augmented
by 13% in the wet season due to a 15% increased rainfall.
However, the plant will experience a considerable power drop,
by up to 13.14% from the reference scenario during the dry
season, owing to a 17% reduced streamflow with an increased
temperature of 2.9
C under the impact of climate change.
A substantial reduction of rainfall and increased temperature in
the dry season can be the largest contributor to the decrease in
annual precipitation as well as reduced streamflow in this area,
which can be attributable to power shortage.
In this study, the SWAT model provided satisfactory results
in simulating the hydrological processes according to the
reference scenario, signifying that it can be applied to fore-
casting discharge in climate change scenarios. While SWAT
has been applied effectively with the intention of attaining the
goals of this study, some boundary conditions and theories of
the model should be addressed to enhance the assessed results.
On the whole, the study reveals that SWAT is competent in
analyzing hydrological processes reasonably, and that the
model can be utilized as a useful tool for predicting the impact
of climate change scenarios.
This study provides insight into the hydrological response
of the Jubones River Basin to various climate change sce-
narios, which is crucial for effective and sustainable water
resources management. The predicted increase in river flow
will offer an opportunity to conserve water in the wet season,
which will be one of the most essential adaptations to the
climate change. Watershed decision makers must have other
operational policies that are adapted to new climatic and
hydrological realities. The projected water resources could be
considered in planning local water management in different
sectors in the study region, especially irrigation, agriculture,
and hydropower generation. This study shows that there is a
need to improve the collection of hydro-climatic data, and also
that the use of other watershed hydrological models, together
with dynamically downscaled climatic inputs for hydropower
165
generation in this region, needs to be addressed in separate
studies.
Acknowledgements
The first author is grateful to the authority of Vlaamse
Interuniversitaire Raad, Belgium, for providing him with the
Flemish Interuniversity Council Scholarship to carry out this
research. The authors would like to acknowledge the National
Institute for Meteorology and Hydrology and Promas at the
University of Cuenca, in Ecuador, for providing necessary data
and information.
References
Abbaspour, K.C., 2007. SWAT-cup: SWAT Calibration and Uncertainty
Analysis Programs, a User Manual. Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic
Science and Technology, Duebendorf.
Abbaspour, K.C., Yang, J., Maximov, I., Siber, R., Bogner, K., Mieleitner, J.,
Zobrist, J., Srinivasan, R., 2007. Modelling hydrology and water quality in
the pre-alpine/alpine Thur watershed using SWAT. J. Hydrol. 333(2e4),
413e430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2006.09.014.
Arnold, J.G., Srinivasan, R., Muttiah, R.S., Williams, J.R., 1998. Large
area hydrologic modeling and assessment, Part I: Model development. J.
Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 34(1), 73e89. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-
1688.1998.tb05961.x.
Arnold, J.G., Moriasi, D.N., Gassman, P.W., Abbaspour, K.C., White, M.J.,
Srinivasan, R., Santhi, C., Harmel, R.D., van Griensven, A., van
Liew, M.W., et al., 2012. SWAT: Model use, calibration, and validation.
Trans. ASABE 55(4), 1345e1352. https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.42256.
Bardossy, A., 2007. Calibration of hydrological model parameters for unga-
uged catchments. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 11(2), 703e710.
Boyle, D.P., Gupta, H.V., Sorooshian, S., 2000. Toward improved calibration
of hydrologic models: Combining the strengths of manual and automatic
methods. Water Resour. Res. 36(12), 3663e3674. https://doi.org/10.1029/
2000WR900207.
Bradley, R.S., Vuille, M., Diaz, H.F., Vergara, W., 2006. Threats to water
supplies in the tropical Andes. Science 312(5781), 1755e1756. https://
doi.org/10.1126/science.1128087.
Buytaert, W., Celleri, R., de Bievre, B., Cisneros, F., Wyseure, G., Deckers, J.,
Hofstede, R., 2006. Human impact on the hydrology of the Andean
paramos. Earth Sci. Rev. 79(1e2), 53e72. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.earscirev.2006.06.002.
Buytaert, W., I~niguez, V., de Bievre, B., 2007. The effects of afforestation and
cultivation on water yield in the Andean paramo. For. Ecol. Manag.
251(1e2), 22e30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2007.06.035.
Buytaert, W., Vuille, M., Dewulf, A., Urrutia, R., Karmalkar, A., Celleri, R.,
2010. Uncertainties in climate change projections and regional down-
scaling in the tropical Andes: Implications for water resources manage-
ment. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 14(7), 1247e1258. https://doi.org/10.5194/
hess-14-1247-2010.
Dibike, Y.B., Coulibaly, P., 2005. Hydrologic impact of climate change in
the Saguenay watershed: Comparison of downscaling methods and hy-
drologic models. J. Hydrol. 307(1e4), 145e163. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jhydrol.2004.10.012.
Eckhardt, K., Fohrer, N., Frede, H.G., 2005. Automatic model calibration.
Hydrol. Process. 19(3), 651e658. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.5613.
Emck, P., 2007. A Climatology of South Ecuador: With Special Focus on the
Major Andean Ridgeas Atlantic-Pacific Climate Divide. Ph. D. Disserta-
tion. Friedrich-Alexander-Universit€at Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen.
Enerjubones, 2014. Enerjubones S.A. https://www.celec.gob.ec/enerjubones.
(Retrieved July 15, 2014).
Espinoza Villar, J.C., Ronchail, J., Guyot, J.L., Cochonneau, G., Naziano, F.,
Lavado, W., de Oliveira, E., Pombosa, R., Vauchel, P., 2009. Spatio-tem-
poral rainfall variability in the Amazon Basin countries (Brazil, Peru,
166 Mohammad Mehedi Hasan, Guido Wyseure / Water Science and Engineering 2018, 11(2): 157e166
Bolivia, Colombia, and Ecuador). Int. J. Climatol. 29(11), 1574e1594.
https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.1791.
Ficklin, D.L., Luo, Y.Z., Luedeling, E., Zhang, M.H., 2009. Climate change
sensitivity assessment of a highly agricultural watershed using SWAT. J.
Hydrol. 374(1e2), 16e29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.05.016.
Fontaine, T.A., Klassen, J.F., Cruickshank, T.S., Hotchkiss, R.H., 2001. Hydro-
logical response to climate change in the black hills of South Dakota, USA.
Hydro. Science J. 46(1), 27e40. https://doi.org/10.1080/02626660109492798.
Fowler, H.J., Ekstr€ om, M., Blenkinsop, S., Smith, A.P., 2007. Estimating
change in extreme European precipitation using a multimodel ensemble. J.
Geophys. Res.: Atmosphere 112(D18), D18104. https://doi.org/10.1029/
2007JD008619.
Githui, F., Gitau, W., Mutua, F., Bauwens, W., 2009. Climate change impact on
SWAT simulated streamflow in western Kenya. Int. J. Climatol. 29(12),
1823e1834. https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.1828.
Gupta, H.V., Sorooshian, S., Yapo, P.O., 1999. Status of automatic cali-
bration for hydrologic models: Comparison with multilevel expert cali-
bration. J. Hydrol. Eng. 4(2), 135e143. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
1084-0699.
Houghton, J.T., Ding, Y., Griggs, D.J., Noguer, M., van der Linden, P.J.,
Dai, X., Maskell, K., Johnson, C.A., 2001. Climate Change 2001: The
Scientific Basis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Huntingford, C., Jones, R.G., Prudhomme, C., Lamb, R., Gash, J.H.C.,
Jones, D.A., 2003. Regional climate-model predictions of extreme rainfall
for a changing climate. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 129(590), 1607e1621.
https://doi.org/10.1256/qj.02.97.
Koch, F., Prasch, M., Bach, H., Mauser, W., Appel, F., Weber, M., 2011. How will
hydroelectric power generation develop under climate change scenarios? A
case study in the Upper Danube Basin. Energies 4(10), 1508e1541. https://
doi.org/10.3390/en4101508.
Li, T.J., Wang, G.Q., Chen, J., Wang, H., 2011. Dynamic parallelization of
hydrological model simulations. Environ. Model. Software 26(12),
1736e1746. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2011.07.015.
Madani, K., 2011. Hydropower licensing and climate change: Insights from
cooperative game theory. Adv. Water Resour. 34(2), 174e183. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2010.10.003.
McCuen, R.H., Knight, Z., Cutter, A.G., 2006. Evaluation of the Nash-
Sutcliffe efficiency index. J. Hydrol. Eng. 11(6), 597e602. https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0699.
Mora, D.E., Campozano, L., Cisneros, F., Wyseure, G., Willems, P., 2014.
Climate changes of hydrometeorological and hydrological extremes in the
Paute basin, ecuadorean Andes. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 18(2), 631e648.
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-631-2014.
Moriasi, D.N., Arnold, J.G., van Liew, M.W., Bingner, R.L., Harmel, R.D.,
Veith, T.L., 2007. Model evaluation guidelines for systematic quantifica-
tion of accuracy in watershed simulations. Trans. ASABE 50(3), 885e900.
https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.23153.
Mu~noz, P., Celleri, R., Feyen, J., 2016. Effect of the resolution of tipping-
bucket rain gauge and calculation method on rainfall intensities in an
Andean Mountain gradient. Water 8(11), 534. https://doi.org/10.3390/
w8110534.
Neitsch, S.L., Arnold, J.G., Kiniry, J.R., Williams, J.R., King, K.W., 2002. Soil
and Water Assessment Tool, Theoretical Documentation, Version 2000.
Agricultural Research Service, Temple. http://swat.tamu.edu/media/1290/
swat2000theory.pdf (Retrieved December 21, 2013).
Neitsch, S.L., Arnold, J.G., Kiniry, J.R., Williams, J.R., King, K.W., 2005. Soil
and Water Assessment Tool, Theoretical Documentation, Version 2005.
Agricultural Research Service, Temple. http://swat.tamu.edu/media/1292/
swat2005theory.pdf (Retrieved January 5, 2014).
Park, J.Y., Park, M.J., Joh, H.K., Shin, H.J., Kwon, H.J., Srinivasan, R.,
Kim, S.J., 2011. Assessment of MIROC3.2 HiRes climate and CLUE-s
land use change impacts on watershed hydrology using SWAT. Trans.
ASABE 54(5), 1713e1724. https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.39842.
Santhi, C., Arnold, J.G., Williams, J.R., Hauck, L.M., Dugas, W.A., 2001.
Application of a watershed model to evaluate management effects on point
and nonpoint source pollution. Trans. ASABE 44(6), 1559e2129. https://
doi.org/10.13031/2013.7041.
Schoups, G., van de Giesen, N.C., Savenije, H.H.G., 2008. Model complexity
control for hydrologic prediction. Water Resour. Res. 44(12), W00B03.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2008WR006836.
Shrestha, N.K., Shakti, P.C., Gurung, P., 2010. Calibration and validation of
SWAT model for low-lying watersheds: A case study on the Kleine Nete
watershed, Belgium. Hydro Nepal J. Water, Energy Environ. 6, 47e51.
https://doi.org/10.3126/hn.v6i0.4194.
Tamm, O., Luhamaa, A., Tamm, T., 2016. Modeling future changes in the
North-Estonian hydropower production by using SWAT. Nord. Hydrol.
47(4), 835e846. https://doi.org/10.2166/nh.2015.018.
Urrutia, R., Vuille, M., 2009. Climate change projections for the tropical
Andes using a regional climate model: Temperature and precipitation
simulations for the end of the 21st Century. J. Geophys. Res.: Atmosphere
114(D2), D02108eD02122. https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JD011021.
van Griensven, A., Meixner, T., Grunwald, S., Bishop, T., Diluzio, M.,
Srinivasan, R., 2006. A global sensitivity analysis tool for the parameters
of multi-variable catchment models. J. Hydrol. 324(1e4), 10e23. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.09.008.
van Liew, M.W., Arnold, J.G., Garbrecht, J.D., 2003. Hydrologic simulation
on agricultural watersheds: Choosing between two models. Trans. ASAE
46(6), 1539e1551. https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.15643.
van Liew, M.W., Arnold, J.G., Bosch, D.D., 2005. Problems and potential of
auto calibrating a hydrologic model. Trans. ASAE 48(3), 1025e1040.
https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.18514.
Vuille, M., Bradley, R.S., Werner, M., Keimig, F., 2003. 20th Century climate
change in the tropical Andes: Observations and model results. Climatic
Change 59(1e2), 75e99. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024406427519.