Resources, Conservation and Recycling 83 (2014) 176–189

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Resources, Conservation and Recycling

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

Integrated urban water management modelling under

climate change scenarios
Santosh M. Pingale a,∗,1 , Mahesh K. Jat b , Deepak Khare a
a
Department of Water Resource Development and Management, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee 247 667 (UK), India
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Malaviya National Institute of Technology, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The concept of integrated water management is uncommon in urban areas, unless there is a shortage
Received 30 June 2013 of supply and severe conflicts among the users competing for limited water resources. Further, prob-
Received in revised form lem of water management in urban areas will aggravate due to uncertain climatic events. Therefore, an
18 September 2013
Integrated Urban Water Management Model considering Climate Change (IUWMCC) has been presented
Accepted 14 October 2013
which is suitable for optimum allocation of water from multiple sources to satisfy the demands of dif-
ferent users under different climate change scenarios. Effect of climate change has been incorporated in
Keywords:
non-linear mathematical model of resource allocation in term of climate change factors. These factors
Climate change
Weather generator
have been developed using runoff responses corresponding to base and future scenario of climate. Future
Urban water management scenarios have been simulated using stochastic weather generator (LARS-WG) for different IPCC climate
Optimization change scenarios i.e. A1B, A2 and B1. Further, application of model has been demonstrated for a realistic
water supply system of Ajmer urban fringe (India). Developed model is capable in developing adaptation
strategies for optimum water resources planning and utilization in urban areas under different climate
change scenarios.
© 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction sector policy makers and professionals to understand the dynamic

Various forms of single or multipurpose water management are
in practice. However a comprehensive approach to water manage-
ment, referred as integrated water management, is still relatively
uncommon, particularly in urban areas of developing countries
like India (Jat, 2007). It can be defined as a process that promotes
the coordinated development and management of water, land and
related resources, in order to maximize the resulting economic and
social welfare in an equitable manner without compromising the
sustainability of vital ecosystems (Wolf and Hötzl, 2006). The water
demand and climate change always have the risk of uncertainty
involved in the future projections cautioning water managers to
prepare supply-demand strategies to face future crisis of water
(WaterSmart, 2006). The emphasis should be given to identify and
develop the water management strategies, which lead to sustain-
able water resources and foolproof measures to thwart adverse
effects of climate change. Such management practices are further
necessary in a scenario of climate change due to uncertain precip-
itation and water availability. Therefore, there is a need for water
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 7409627187.
E-mail address: pingalesm@gmail.com (S.M. Pingale).
1
Currently at Department of Water Resources and Irrigation Engineering, Arba
Minch University, Ethiopia.
urban environment for solving water resources related problems
in urban areas, which will further aggravate in scenarios of climate
change.
The concept of integrated water management considering cli-
mate change has not been well discussed and reported in literature
(Asano, 1994; Kulga and Cakmak, 1997; Yang et al., 1999; Bouwer,
2002; Haddad, 2002; Liu et al., 2007; Lin et al., 2010). Further,
due attention has not been given to such practices in developing
countries like India (Zuidema, 1982; Tjallingii, 1988; Witter and
Bogardi, 1993; Lund and Cabrera, 2002; White and Fane, 2005;
Jat, 2007; Qin and Xu, 2011). Few attempts have been made to
model the climate change for urbanized areas (Wigmosta and
Burges, 1990; Solecki and Oliveri, 2004; Wurbs et al., 2005; Strack
et al., 2008) without considering climate change impacts on water
management practices. A few attempts have also been made to
address the water resources management issues considering one
or another issue of climate change (Taleb and Maher, 2000; Ragab
and Prudhomme, 2002; Mitchell et al., 2007; Qin et al., 2008; Shao
et al., 2011). However, integrated water management considering
integration of various possible water sources to satisfy the demands
of different users, environment protection, land and urban planning
have not been considered.
The integrated approach to the water resources planning and
management requires a comprehensive consideration of water
requirements and characteristics (hydrological and hydraulic) of

0921-3449/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.10.006
 S.M. Pingale et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 83 (2014) 176–189
different available sources (such as availability, cost and reliabil-
ity). There are a number of management models which have been
reported in literature for rural areas and canal commands (e.g.,
Belaineh et al., 1999; Barlow et al., 2003; Karamouz et al., 2004;
Tripathi et al., 2004; Pulido-Velazquez et al., 2006; Khare et al.,
2006; Jha et al., 2008; Nikam, 2012), but a very few models are
suitable for the urban areas (Dracup, 1966; Onta et al., 1993; Syaukt
and Fox, 2004; Jat, 2007; Qin and Xu, 2011). The management mod-
els and strategies developed for rural and canal commands cannot
be applied directly to the urban areas. The water resources sys-
tem of urban areas is quite different and complex as compared to
rural areas because of the dynamic nature of various hydrological
processes, different type of conflicting water demands and their
dynamic nature, different environmental aspects, like water pol-
lution and wastewater generation and its consequences, and more
human interference. The dynamic complexity in space and/or time
found in urban water systems presents great difficulties for urban
water management (Senge, 1994). It becomes a complex system
than on the management of a few isolated issues. We are generally
unable to relate causes with effects that are removed by time or
distance (Zarghami and Akbariyeh, 2012).
The optimum allocation of water from surface sources and
groundwater has been attempted using different types of the
optimization techniques, like dynamic programming (e.g., Buras,
1963; Aron and Scott, 1971), linear programming (e.g., Nieswand
and Grandstrom, 1971; Lakshminarayana and Rajagopalan, 1977;
Vedula, 1985), simulation based models (e.g., Young and
Bredehoeft, 1972; Bredehoeft, 1983; O’mara, 1984), multilevel
optimization technique (e.g., Maddock and Haimes, 1975; Yu and
Haimes, 1974; Morel-Seytoux and Daly, 1975; Sharma, 1987) and
Non-linear programming (e.g., Kashyap and Chandra, 1982; Lefkoff
and Gorelick, 1990; Mishra et al., 2005). Nishikawa (1998) pre-
sented an optimization model for the optimal management of
City of Santa Barbra’s water resources during the drought. Prob-
lem is formulated as a linear programming problem. Optimization
model is linked to MODFLOW programme to couple the ground-
water system with the management model. The objective function
is formulated to minimize the cost of water supply, subjected to
water demand and hydraulic head constraint to control seawater
intrusion and depletion of ground water. Jenkins et al. (2004) pre-
sented the results of an economic-engineering optimization model
(CALVIN) of California’s water supply system. This model explic-
itly integrates the operation of various water facilities, sources
and demands of different users. Model allocates water to maxi-
mize the economic value of statewide agricultural and urban uses.
Shao et al. (2011) have developed a conditional value-at-risk (CVaR)
based inexact two-stage stochastic programming (CITSP) model
to a water resources allocation problem involving a reservoir and
three competing water users under uncertainty.
Wang and Huang (2011) formulated an interactive two stage
stochastic fuzzy programming approach for the water resources
management. The developed approach was applied for the case
study to demonstrate the water resources allocation problem.
A set of solutions under different feasibility degrees were esti-
mated to plan the water resources allocation based on economic
efficiency, degree of satisfaction and risk of constraint violation.
Wang and Huang (2012) also developed an interactive multi-stage
stochastic fuzzy programming approach for identifying optimal
water resources allocation strategies. Zarghami and Akbariyeh
(2012) developed a model for the Tabriz’s urban water sys-
tem using a system dynamic approach. This model considered
the water supply resources (groundwater, imported fresh water
and treated wastewater), sources of demand for water resources
(domestic, irrigation and industry uses) and management tools
(wastewater reuse and recycling, inter-basin water transfer, water
price and conservation tools). Zarghami and Hajykazemian (2013)
177
developed a new optimization algorithm for urban water resources
planning called as particle swarm optimization with mutation
similarity (PSOMS). The application of PSOMS was successfully
demonstrated to an urban water problem for Tabriz city of Iran. The
problem was formulated with an objective function to minimize
the cost, maximize water supply and minimize the environmen-
tal hazards. The pipelines capacity, ground water, the demand and
the impact of conservation tools were considered as constraints.
Wang and Huang (2013) applied an interval-parameter two stage
stochastic fuzzy programming with type-2 membership functions
(ITSFP–T2MF) approach for the water resources allocation prob-
lem under uncertainty. However, in these studies, climate change
and resulting impact on water resources allocation have not been
considered. In these studies individual aspects of integrated water
management, within an optimization framework have been consid-
ered. Therefore, an attempt has been made to develop an integrated
urban water management model suitable in developing adaptation
measures in optimum integration of various sources of water for
urban water supply systems in climate change scenarios.
2. Study area and data used
Ajmer urban fringe is located between 26◦ 20 to 26◦ 35 N lati-
tude and 74◦ 33 to 74◦ 45 E longitudes (Fig. 1). It spreads over an
area of about 85 km2 and has population of 542,580 (Census 2011).
In the North-East side, water flow towards Samber lake. Ajmer
valley drains eastward and Pushkar valley drains westward by trib-
utaries of Luni river. There is a large lake i.e., Anasagar in the north
of city.
For demonstration of model, data related to water supply system
of the Ajmer fringe like land use/cover, population, water demands
and existing water supply from various sources and other relevant
data have been collected from various departments and used in the
present study (RUIDP, 1998; CPHEEO, 1999; Ajmera, 2000; Census
of India, 2001; PHED, 2004; Jat, 2007). The gridded rainfall datasets
were used in many hydrological and climatological studies world-
wide, including Australia for hydroclimatic forecasting, climate
attribution studies and climate model performance assessments
(Tozer et al., 2012). The 0.5◦ × 0.5◦ gridded data set of daily rainfall
for Ajmer fringe from year 1971 to 2005 has been used which is
procured from India Meteorological Department, Pune. The Cana-
dian Global Climate Model (CGCM3.1/T47) daily output data were
obtained from Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Anal-
ysis (CCCma) for the grids covering Ajmer fringe of base period
(1971–1990) and 20s (2011–2030) for A1B, A2 and B1 emission sce-
narios. It uses a 360 days per year and has a spatial grid resolution
2.8◦ × 2.8◦ latitude and longitude (McFarlane et al., 1992).
3. Methodology
The Integrated Urban Water Management Model considering
Climate Change (IUWMCC) is a mathematical programming model,
which is formulated for the optimum allocation of water from
the various water supply sources to satisfy the water require-
ments of different users along with considering various system and
geometric constraints. The integrated water management model
developed by Jat (2007), has been modified and improved in the
present study to include climate change effects. The model appli-
cation has been demonstrated further for the actual water supply
system of Ajmer urban fringe.
In the present study, climate change impacts on surface and
groundwater sources have been incorporated in the model in term
of variation in water availability from these sources as a result of
change in rainfall and temperature due to climate change (climate
change factors). The stochastic weather generator (i.e. LARS-WG)
178 S.M. Pingale et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 83 (2014) 176–189

Fig. 1. The location of Ajmer urban fringe in the Rajasthan State.

has been used to generate future climate change scenario and cal-
ibrated rainfall runoff model (SWMM) and groundwater model Water demand of
CCFi
(MODFLOW) has been used to generate future scenarios of surface different user with
monthly demand,
and groundwater. Sources of imported water Associated cost dn,t,
SSi with annual capacity Qi, CSi t n = 1………N
i = 1……..I
3.1. Model formulation
CCFj

The formulation of the IUWM model includes definition of Groundwater source GSj Associated cost Mathematical
objective function and constraints of different components. The with annual capacity Qr CGj t Programming
j=1 J
model was formulated to incorporate the climate change effects Formulation
on water availability from different sources in the form of climate CCFk
change factors. Formulated model is a non-linear mathematical
Local surface sources LSk
programming problem, which has been solved using successive with annual capacity Qk, k
Associated cost
CLSk t
linearization technique. Non-linearity of the groundwater pumping = 1……..K
cost has been linearized through successive linearization tech-
Re-use of wastewater from Decision Variables
nique. The framework of the model has been presented in Fig. 2. source WSl with annual Associated cost Quantity of water to be
capacity Ql, CWl t used from different
l=1 L sources
3.2. Objective function
i, j, k, l, are type of sources, t = 1…T, number of planning periods,
n = 1…N, are number of users CCF…climate change factor
The objective function has been formulated to determine the
quantity of water supplied from various sources during different Fig. 2. General conceptual framework of IUWMCC model.
 S.M. Pingale et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 83 (2014) 176–189 179

planning periods such that overall cost of the system is minimized

in different climate change scenarios.
⎛ ⎞

I 
T

J

T

K 
T

⎜ qi,t CSi,t + qj,t CGj,t + qk,t CLSk,t ⎟

⎜ ⎟
Minimise, Z = ⎜
⎜
i=1 t=1 j=1 t=1 k=1 t=1 ⎟
⎟ (1)
⎝  L T
⎠
+ ql,t CWl,t
l=1 t=1

where qi,t is quantity of water transferred from imported source i

in time period t (m3 /day); qi,t is quantity of water pumped from
groundwater potential zone j in time period t (m3 /day); qk,t is Treated wastewater
quantity of water supplied from local surface source k in time
period t (m3 /day); and ql,t is quantity of treated wastewater sup- 
T

plied from wastewater source/treatment facility l in time period ql,t ≤ Ql ∀l (5)

t (m3 /day). The CSi,t ,CGj,t , CLSk,t and CWl,t represents the unit cost t=1
coefficients of imported water from source (i), groundwater with-
drawal from zone (j), water supply from local surface water sources where Ql = annual capacity of reusable treated wastewater available
(k) and reuse of treated wastewater from source/treatment facil- source/facility, l (Mm3 )
ity for time period (t) in ( /m3 ), respectively. The total number
of imported sources, groundwater potential zones, local surface
3.5. System capacity constraints
sources and reuse of treated wastewater sources in time period
(T) are represented by I, J, K and L, respectively. The solution of
System capacity constraint (Eqs. (6)–(9)) for each source is
the water management/optimum allocation problem requires that
the limiting capacity of any system component, like capacity of
the decision variables qi,t , qj,t , qk,t and ql,t be determined such that
transmission system, treatment facility or storage facility. This con-
the following constraints are satisfied and the objective function is
straint is used to ensure that quantity of water allocated from any
minimized.
source during any time period should not be more than the mini-
mum of capacity of any system component.
3.3. Constraints
Imported source

Constraints are physical, geometrical and operational limita- qi,t ≤ Qi,t ∀i, t (6)
tions imposed on the model to represent the actual operational
characteristics of a water resources system. where Qi,t = maximum quantity of water available from imported
source i, in time period t (Mm3 /year).
3.4. Water availability constraints Groundwater pumping

Eqs. (2)–(5) are the water availability constraints for each poten- qj,t ≤ Qj,t ∀j, t (7)
tial water source in each time period under different climate change
scenario. These constraints represent the upper bound on the quan- where Qj,t = monthly pumping capacity of zone j, in time period t
tity of water, which may be tapped from each source. (Mm3 /year).
Imported source Local surface source


T
qk,t ≤ Qk,t ∀k, t (8)
qi,t ≤ CCFi ∗ Qi ∀i (2)
t=1
where Qk,t = maximum quantity of water available from the local
where CCFi = climate change factor for imported water supply surface source k, in time period t (Mm3 /year).
source, i
Qi = annual capacity of imported source, i (Mm3 )
Groundwater 3.5.1. Treated wastewater
Minimum of monthly capacity of any component of sewer-

J

12
age system, like capacity of wastewater treatment plant can be
qj,t ≤ CCFj ∗ (1 − ) ∗ Qr (3) considered as the system capacity constraint for the re-usable
j=1 t=1 wastewater.
where CCFj = climate change factor for ground water supply source,
ql,t ≤ Ql,t ∀l, t (9)
j
Qr = annual quantity of groundwater available from all zones, r
where Ql,t = maximum quantity of treated wastewater available
(Mm3 )
from waste water source/facility l, in time period t (Mm3 /year).
 = mining allowance for groundwater pumping.
Local surface source
3.6. Water balance constraints

T
qk,t ≤ CCFk ∗ Qk ∀k (4)
Water balance should be maintained within the water supply
t=1
and sewerage system. Quantity of treated wastewater available
where CCFk = climate change factor for local surface sources, k during a particular time period t should be equal to sum of quantity
Qk = annual capacity of local surface source, k (Mm3 ). of water supplied from various sources minus consumptive use and
180 S.M. Pingale et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 83 (2014) 176–189

losses at different stages. This constraint represents the continuity

of flow within the system.
⎛ ⎞

I 
J

K

⎜ qi,t ci ti d + qj,t cj tj d + qk,t ck tk d ⎟

⎜ i=1 ⎟ L
⎜ j=1 k=1 ⎟ ∗ (1 − ˛)wc tw≥ ql,t ∀t (10)
⎜  L ⎟
⎝ ⎠ l=1
+ ql,t cl tl d
l=1

where ␩ci is efficiency of the water transmission system for
imported source i, ␩cj is efficiency of the water transmission sys-
tem for groundwater pumped from zone j (if applicable), ␩ck is
efficiency of the water transmission system for local surface source
k, ␩cl is efficiency of the water transmission system for treated
wastewater sources (if applicable). ␩ti , ␩tj , ␩tk , ␩tl are repre-
sents the efficiency of water treatment plant for imported source
i, groundwater pumped from zone j (if applicable), local surface
source k and additional treatment to the recyclable wastewater
from source/facility l, respectively. ␩d , ␩wc and ␩tw are efficiency of
the water distribution system, sewerage system for treated waste-
water and wastewater treatment plants, respectively. ˛ is a fraction
represents the consumptive use of water by the users.
3.7. Water requirement constraints
Water requirement constraint ensures that the quantity of
water supplied from all the sources in any time period must be
equal to the total quantity of water required by all the users for same
time period. In case of single water supply system, total demands
have been assumed as potable.
⎛ ⎞

I 
J

K
31.025 Mm3 /year of water from 1st phase of the Bisalpur project
(RUIDP, 1998; PHED, 2004).
Quantity of water available from local surface sources in future
without considering the climate change scenario has been esti-
mated for Ajmer urban fringe corresponding to normal seasonal
rainfall (monsoon) of 451.9 mm. The normal climate needs to
be defined because climate correction involves in estimating the
amount of water use, if weather conditions are normal. Nor-
mal climate is usually defined as the 30 year average of climatic
parameters (Maheepala and Roberts, 2006). However, the concept
of normal climate will be uncertain in climate change scenario
because the average of climate over a period differs from decade to
decade (Perera et al., 2009). Therefore, the future quantity of water
available from these sources in climate change scenario has been
estimated based on climatic parameters simulated using CGCM
outputs. For each local surface source, average quantity of surface
runoff available at the end of September and December months
has been considered as the quantity of water available for use and
considered as the source capacity constraint in the optimization
model.

⎜ qi,t ct ti d + qj,t cj tj d + qk,t ck tk d ⎟

⎜ i=1 ⎟ N
⎜ j=1 k=1 ⎟ ≥ dn,t n,t ∀t (11)
⎜  L ⎟
⎝ ⎠ n=1
+ ql,t cl tl d
l=1

where n,t is rationing factor for potable water demand of user n in

time period t, and dn,t is demand of potable water by the user n in
time period t (Mm3 /year).
Non-negativity constraints
qi,t ≥0 ∀i&t; qj,t ≥0 ∀j&t; qk,t ≥0 ∀k&t; ql,t ≥0 ∀l&t
3.8. Application of model
Application of developed mathematical model has been demon-
strated for the water supply system of Ajmer urban fringe. The
basic characteristics of the water supply system of the study area
and models used for parametrisation of different process have been
discussed below.
3.9. Sources of water
Presently, water is supplied to Ajmer urban fringe through an
integrated distribution system which is imported from Bisalpur
Reservoir (Tonk, Rajasthan). Local groundwater and surface sources
(i.e. Anasagar lake, Foysagar lake and Khanpura pond) have been
identified as the other potential sources of water supply. Annual
quantity of water available from these sources is required to be
estimated for future water resources planning. In the present
study, quantity of water available from local surface sources
and groundwater have been estimated using calibrated empir-
ical rainfall-runoff and groundwater models of the Ajmer area,
respectively (Jat, 2007). Ajmer urban fringe has water rights for
Quantity of water available from groundwater has been esti-
mated using calibrated groundwater model, where recharge is
estimated corresponding to the normal rainfall in monsoon
(12) (June–November) and non-monsoon (November–May) season.
Annual capacity of groundwater has been adopted equal to the
annual recharge, which is estimated as 3.956 Mm3 for year 2005
and 3.957 Mm3 for other years (corresponding to normal rain-
fall). Total groundwater recharge comprises of rainfall recharge and
recharge from the lakes. Groundwater recharges from lakes and
ponds have been considered equal to recharge in year 2005, having
rainfall equal to the normal rainfall. Quantity of available treated
wastewater has been estimated from the data obtained from RUIDP,
Ajmer (RUIDP, 1998; PHED, 2004). Quantity of treated wastewater
has been estimated assuming 20% consumptive use of water out
of total water supplied. Annual capacities of different sources have
been used as the water availability constraints in the optimization
model.
3.10. Development of climate change factors
Climate change factors (CCF) have been incorporated in the
source constraint of all potential sources except treated waste-
water. The results of resources allocation under climate change
scenario have been compared with the results of resources alloca-
tion without considering climate change. The CCF for the imported
and groundwater source have been adopted similar to local surface
 S.M. Pingale et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 83 (2014) 176–189 181

Table 1
Runoff scenarios generated for Anasagar using CGCM output.

Year Population of Impervious Runoff generated (mm)

Ajmer (million) area (%)

Baseline A1B A2 B1

2006 0.531 11.723 97.65 63.31 56.24 56.92

2007 0.539 12.269 99.22 64.88 57.81 58.49
2008 0.548 12.826 100.82 66.47 59.41 60.09
2009 0.556 13.393 102.44 68.10 61.03 61.72
2010 0.564 13.97 104.10 69.76 62.69 63.37
2011 0.572 14.558 105.79 71.45 64.38 65.06
2012 0.583 15.300 107.92 73.58 66.51 67.19
2013 0.593 16.058 110.09 75.75 68.68 69.36
2014 0.603 16.831 112.31 77.97 70.90 71.58
2015 0.613 17.621 114.58 80.24 73.17 73.85
2016 0.623 18.426 116.89 82.55 75.48 76.16
2017 0.634 19.247 119.24 84.90 77.84 78.52
2018 0.644 20.085 121.65 87.31 80.24 80.92
2019 0.654 20.938 124.10 89.76 82.69 83.37
2020 0.664 21.808 126.59 92.25 85.19 85.87
2021 0.674 22.693 129.13 94.79 87.73 88.41

source i.e. Anasagar assuming that they will be affected by the lakes or ponds has been generated using the baseline and future
climate change similarly. The CCF has been estimated based on runoff scenarios upto year 2020–2021 (e.g. Table 2).
baseline and future runoff scenarios generated corresponding to
base line and future climate scenarios. The future climate scenar- 4. System capacities
ios have been developed using LARS-WG based on CGCM outputs
for the Ajmer urban fringe. In LARS-WG, the calibration and vali- For water supply system of Ajmer, system capacities include
dation for the observed climate has been performed in three geometric limitation of the different components. These capacities
steps: (1) calibration, (2) QTest (Validation) and (3) Generation. have been taken from previous studies (Jat, 2007) (Table 3).
The model is calibrated (1971–1990 for the base line) and val- Imported source: For imported supplies from Bisalpur, monthly
idated for the observed climate to obtain future projections for capacity of transmission system has been adopted as system capac-
Ajmer urban fringe. The model performance is validated based ity constraint (Eq. (6)) and considered as constant for all months
on statistical characteristics (mean and standard deviation) and of a year. Capacity of transmission system of Ajmer has been
tests (Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, F-test and T-test). The empirical adopted equal to the average of water supplied (69,460 m3 /day) in
equations were used, which was verified by hydrological model last five years, which is found to be between 65,430 m3 /day and
(SWMM) and observed data to estimate the surface water avail- 74,780 m3 /day. This is less than the designed capacity of trans-
ability. Runoff from the urbanized and non-urbanized catchments mission system (85,000 m3 /day), which has been reduced due to
were estimated from the equations as given below (Jat, 2007): wear and tear. Thus, the average quantity of water supplied in year
RO = 0.367S + 2.87Ai + 10269I − 31.078 (13) 2005–2006 has been assumed as the system capacity constraint for
the imported source.
Groundwater: For groundwater, monthly pumping capacity of
RO = 0.197S + 3.065I − 28.53 (14) each groundwater potential zones (GPZ) has been adopted as the
system capacity constraint (Eq. (7)), which remains same for all
where Ai and S are the impervious area and topographic slope in
the months in a year. In the present study, four GPZ have been
%, respectively, I is the rainfall intensity factor and RO is the runoff
considered suitable for use i.e. Anasagar, Khanpura, Durai and
generated in mm. The rainfall intensity factor is derived using the
monsoon rainfall depth (R) in mm and number of rainy days (NR)
using the following equation (Jat, 2007): Table 2
R
The climate change factor for local surface sources, imported water supply and
I= (15) ground source in A1B scenario (Case 2 and 3).
NR˛
Year CCFi CCFj CCFk (A) CCFk (KH) CCFk (F)
where constant ˛ depends upon the geographical region for which 2006 0.62 0.62 0.65 0.70 0.52
relationship is sought. For Ajmer area, this factor has been found 2007 0.63 0.63 0.65 0.70 0.52
to be 0.5 (Jat, 2007). The percentage impervious area (Ai ) has been 2008 0.63 0.63 0.66 0.71 0.52
estimated for Anasagar and Khanpura sub-watershed using the fol- 2009 0.63 0.63 0.66 0.71 0.52
2010 0.63 0.63 0.67 0.71 0.52
lowing developed equations (Jat, 2007), respectively:
2011 0.64 0.64 0.68 0.71 0.52
2012 0.64 0.64 0.68 0.72 0.52
Ai = 63.94P 2.2 − 4.18 (16) 2013 0.64 0.64 0.69 0.72 0.52
2014 0.65 0.65 0.69 0.72 0.52
2015 0.65 0.65 0.70 0.73 0.52
Ai = 48.08P 1.1 − 6.26 (17)
2016 0.65 0.65 0.71 0.73 0.52
2017 0.66 0.66 0.71 0.73 0.52
where P is population in Million. 2018 0.66 0.66 0.72 0.74 0.52
The rainfall and number of rainy days during the monsoon have 2019 0.66 0.66 0.72 0.74 0.52
been simulated for A1B, A2 and B1 scenarios of 20th century from 2020 0.66 0.66 0.73 0.74 0.52
CGCM output. Using the above Eqs. (13)–(17), the runoff scenarios 2021 0.67 0.67 0.73 0.75 0.52
have been generated for the base and future scenarios at Anasagar, Note: A, F and KH represents Anasagar, Foysagar and Khanpura lakes/pond, respec-
Khanpura and Foysagar lakes/pond (e.g. Table 1). The CCF for these tively
182 S.M. Pingale et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 83 (2014) 176–189

Capacity of treatment plant proposed corresponding to the water available, considering the effect of urbanization, from Khanpura pond. Water availability from import is the average capacity of transmission system. WW is
Parvatpura, as other two zones are found unsuitable because of

2153.3
231.9
463.8
111.6
463.8
463.8
533.2
1550.0
2170.0
2480.0
their low potential.

May
Anasagar: Monthly capacity of water treatment plant has been
adopted as the system capacity constraint for Anasagar (Eq. (8)),
and considered as constant for all the planning periods of a year.
2083.8
224.4
448.8

448.8
448.8
108.0

516.0
1500.0
2100.0
2400.0
April
The capacity of transmission line for the Anasagar have been cal-
culated based on 15 h of pumping and safe capacity of lake in year
2005. Two pipe lines of 7.48 MLD (million litres per day) capacities
(each) have been proposed with all necessary pumping capabilities.
2153.3
231.9
463.8
111.6
463.8
463.8
533.2
1550.0
2170.0
2480.0
March

So, total capacity of transmission system is 5.46 Mm3 /year. Further,

its capacity can be enhanced by increasing the pumping hours. To
accommodate the effect of urbanization, capacity of water treat-
February

ment plant for Anasagar has been assumed equal to the 14.96 MLD,
1944.9
209.4
418.9
100.8
418.9
418.9
481.6
1400.0
1960.0
2240.0 as compared to 7.48 MLD considered suitable for the year 2005
(without considering the effect of urbanization). Unit cost of water
supply with this capacity would have been 2.81 /m3 (at prices
of year 2005) as compared to 3.13 /m3 for 7.48 MLD capacity of
January

2153.3
231.9
463.8
111.6
463.8
463.8
533.2
1550.0
2170.0
2480.0

treatment plant.
Foysagar: For Foysagar, monthly capacity of water treatment
plant (3.6 MLD) (already available) has been adopted as the sys-
December

tem capacity constraint, which remains same for all the planning
2153.3
231.9
463.8
111.6
463.8
463.8
533.2
1550.0
2170.0
2480.0

periods (month) of a year.

Khanpura: Monthly capacity of water treatment plant has been
Capacity of treatment plant proposed, if effect of urbanization is considered while estimating the quantity of water available from Anasagar lake.

adopted as the system capacity constraint for Khanpura, which

remains constant for all the months of a year. Presently, water
November

supply infrastructure is not available at Khanpura pond. Suitable

2083.8
224.4
448.8

448.8
448.8
108.0

516.0
1500.0
2100.0
2400.0

water supply infrastructure has been proposed similar to Anasagar.

Water supply infrastructure has been proposed for two capacities;
(i) 5.46 Mm3 annually up to service level of year 2011, and (ii)
6.278 Mm3 up to service level of year 2021. It has been assumed
October

2153.3
231.9
463.8
111.6
463.8
463.8
533.2
1550.0
2170.0
2480.0

that water will be directly fed to the distribution system from the
treatment plant.
Treated wastewater: RUIDP, Ajmer has designed and executed
the sewerage system for Ajmer urban fringe. A wastewater
September

treatment plant (both primary and secondary) of 50,000 m3 /day

2083.8
224.4
448.8

448.8
448.8
108.0

516.0
1500.0
2100.0
2400.0

capacity was designed for the service level up to year 2011. RUIDP,
in principal, has decided to further augment the sewerage sys-
tem of Ajmer by 30 MLD in two phases for a service level up
to year 2021. Capacity of sewerage system increased by 20 MLD
August

2153.3
231.9
463.8
111.6
463.8
463.8
533.2
1550.0
2170.0
2480.0

by the year 2011, and further it would be increased by 10 MLD

by the year 2015. Hence, quantity of sewage available after year
Capacity of treatment plant, if water availability assumed at the level of year 2005.

2011 was 70 MLD and by the end of 2015, would be 80 MLD.

Monthly capacity constraints of different sources for different years (in 1000 m3 ).

Monthly capacity has been assumed to be constant. These capac-

2153.3
231.9
463.8
111.6
463.8
463.8
533.2
1550.0
2170.0
2480.0
July

ities have been adopted as the system capacity constraints in the

model.
2083.8
224.4
448.8

448.8
448.8
108.0

516.0
1500.0
2100.0
2400.0
June

4.1. Efficiency of different system components

Khanpura for 2005–21 (without urbanization effect)a

Water losses in water supply system were considered and

Khanpura from 2012–21 (with urbanization effect)c
Anasagar for 2005–21 (with urbanization effect)b

adopted as the hydraulic efficiency of different system compo-

Khanpura up to 2011 (with urbanization effect)c

nents in the model. The information of losses was obtained from

wastewater and TWW is treated wastewater.

literature (RUIDP, 1998; Ajmera, 2000; PHED, 2004; Jat, 2007).

Transmission losses for different sources were reported between
0.5% and 2% (Ajmera, 2000). For model demonstration, these losses
were considered as 0.5% (local surface sources), 1% (groundwater)
Anasagar for capacity in 2005a
Import for 2005–21 (Bisalpur)

and 2% (imported water). Losses of water in treatment plants were

Treated WW for 2012–2015
Treated WW for 2016–2021
Treated WW (up to 2011)

reported between 0.5% and 1% (PHED, 2004). These were adopted

Foysagar for 2005–21

as 1% in this study. Losses of wastewater in sewerage system were

adopted as 10% (RUIDP, 1998). Presently, losses of water in dis-
tribution system have been found about 30% to 40% of the water
supply (Ajmera, 2000; PHED, 2004). In this study, efficiency of the
distribution system was assumed as 70%. Total demand of water
Month
Table 3

from all sectors has been considered at the entrance of distribution

a

system.
 S.M. Pingale et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 83 (2014) 176–189
4.2. Cost of water
In the present study, unit cost of water supply from any source
has been expressed in term of /1000 m3 . These costs represent
the unit cost of delivery of water from each source to starting point
of distribution system. Unit cost of water supply for the imported
source, Anasagar, Foysagar, Khanpura and treated wastewater has
been adopted as Rs. 1150, 3130, 2860, 2810 and 15,920 m–3 , respec-
tively for the base year (2005) as obtained from RUIDP. For other
years, cost has been estimated considering 8% rate of inflation. Unit
cost of water supply includes cost incurred on source, transmission
and treatment from different sources has been adopted (Jat, 2007).
These have been adopted as the cost coefficients in the objective
function (Eq. (1)).
4.3. Water demands
For the present study, annual water demand of various users i.e.
municipal, industrial, fire, railways and floating water demands of
Ursh has been obtained from RUIDP and PHED, Ajmer (RUIDP 1998;
Ajmera, 2000; PHED, 2004; Jat, 2007). Average monthly water
demands have been considered, as the monthly water demand
constraints (Eq. (13)).
4.4. Re-use of treated wastewater
Re-use of treated wastewater has been considered as a potential
water demand management option. It has been divided in two cat-
egories: (i) potable and (ii) non-potable. In the present study only
the first case have been explored that all the water demands have
been considered as potable, and treated wastewater is used as a
potable water source after proper treatment.
4.5. Model assumptions
For demonstrating the application of model the following
assumptions have been made:
(a) The time horizon has been adopted as 15 years (2005–2006 to
2020–2021). Each planning year has been assumed to start from
1st June,
(b) The inflation rate has been adopted as 8% to estimate the future
cost of water supply from different sources,
(c) Whole Ajmer urban fringe has been considered as the single
water supply zone and water available from different sources
is integrated with the same distribution system,
(d) Quality of groundwater has been assumed as potable, and about
100% of groundwater recharge is available for the use,
(e) Model has been formulated to account for the monthly and
yearly variation of water available in different year.
4.6. Solution of the model
In the present study, LINGO (version 10), a comprehensive tool
designed for building and solving linear, nonlinear and integer opti-
mization models, has been used for the solving the formulated
water management models under climate change scenario. This
software is developed by the LINDO Systems Inc. (Chicago, USA).
Formulated model is a non-linear mathematical programming
problem, which has been solved using successive linearization
technique using Successive Linear Programming (SLP) algorithm.
Non-linearity of the groundwater pumping cost has been linearized
through successive linearization technique. The LINGO (version
10) also has Global and Multi-start solvers, which are capable of
achieving global solution of non-convex and non-linear problem.
The Global solver converts the original non-convex and nonlinear
183
problem into several convex and linear sub-problems. It then uses
the branch-and-bound technique to exhaustively search over these
sub-problems for the global solution.
5. Results and discussion
The application of IUWMCC has been demonstrated for finding
optimum allocation of water from multiple water supply sources to
satisfy the water requirements of various users in uncertain future
climate scenarios. Impact of climate change has been incorporated
in terms of change in water availability from various sources due to
change in precipitation and runoff under different climate change
scenarios. Results of different management strategies in differ-
ent scenarios have been discussed below. Optimal management
strategies in changing climate are suggested through comparative
analysis of all the strategies for Ajmer urban fringe.
5.1. Management scenarios investigated
The following management strategies have been investigated:
(1) Present water supply condition (Case 1), Integration of
groundwater, local surface sources with present water supply
condition (Case 2), and
(2) Integration of groundwater, local surface sources with urban-
ization effect and treated wastewater for potable uses (Case
3).
5.2. Model solution
The required data and various model assumptions have been
used while solving the model for water resources allocations in
different management strategies under climate change scenarios.
For each scenario, model solution has been obtained using LINGO
computer package (version 10). Summary of the various scenarios
investigated and size of problem have been presented in Table 4.
The present water supply system and its sustainability with dif-
ferent management strategies have been evaluated for the existing
and future climate change scenarios i.e. A1B, A2 and B1. Ground-
water is available in small quantity but its use is unaccounted
(Jat, 2007) and not considered in Case 1 i.e. present condition.
Model constraints have been modified to represent the present
water supply system of Ajmer. For different years, water availabil-
ity constraint (annual capacity) has been adopted as 31.025 Mm3 .
Monthly capacity constraint has been adopted as per the present
capacity of water transmission system (25.352 Mm3 annually) from
Bisalpur to Ajmer. For other sources i.e. groundwater, local surface
sources and treated wastewater capacity constraints have been
modified accordingly. Losses have been represented in the form
of efficiency of different system components, and adopted in the
model. Monthly water demands of various users in different years
have been considered as the demand constraint. For different years,
cost coefficients have been adopted.
In Case 2 and Case 3, the dynamic interaction of groundwater
system and management model has been considered as incorpo-
rated by Jat, 2007 through external coupling of groundwater model
(MODFLOW) and optimization model. For the first run of the model
(year 2005–2006), water table elevations of pre-monsoon period
(i.e. at the end of May) of year 2005 have been considered as the
initial water table elevations. Groundwater mining coefficient has
been kept as zero, as no mining is allowed. The model has been run
for three strategies (Case 1–Case 3) of water supply for the entire
analysis period in A1B, A2 and B1 scenario, separately. Initially,
rationing factor has been kept as zero in all three cases. However,
model solution has not been found feasible at 0% rationing in Case
184 S.M. Pingale et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 83 (2014) 176–189

Table 4
Size of problem for different management strategies investigated.

S. no. Scenario Number of sources No. of decision No. of Type of problem

variables constraints

1. Present water supply condition One (Import) 12 775 Linear

2. Integration of groundwater and Six (Import, GW, Three 96 775 Linear, non-linearity of GW
local surface sources with present local sources and TWW)
condition
3. Integration of import source, Six (Import, GW, Three 108 895 Linear, non-linearity of GW
groundwater and local surface local sources and TWW)
sources with urbanization effect
and treated wastewater

1 and Case 2, as water demands are more than supplies, which vio-
lates the demand constraint. Further, different values of rationing
factor are tried to make the solution feasible. Value of rationing
factor, at which solution becomes feasible, represents the percent-
age of overall shortage or demands unmet. In a similar way, model
has been run for different years and results are obtained, which
include monthly allocation of water, minimized cost, percentage
losses and percentage of demand satisfied under different climate
change scenarios. The results of the model for various years under
changing climate scenarios have been determined. Results revealed
that throughout the analysis period, water demand of the urban
fringe has not been met fully in all the three scenarios of climate
change in Case 1 and 2.
In Case 2, water supply system of Ajmer fringe is assumed to be
augmented with local surface sources. Effect of urbanization has
not been considered in Case 2. The climate change effects on urban
water demand have not been considered, only effects have been
considered on water availability from different sources in changing
climate. Monthly variation of demands has not been considered in
the present study due to non availability of data.
In Case 3, integration of treated wastewater, groundwater and
local surface sources has been considered into present water sup-
ply system. In this case, effect of urbanization (i.e. increase in water
availability from local surface sources with increase in impervious
surface) and treated wastewater as supply augmentation measures
for potable uses with proper additional treatment has been con-
sidered. It is assumed that the availability of quantity of treated
wastewater will not be affected due to change in climate as treated
wastewater is a function of water supplied from other sources.
Treated wastewater has been considered as a demand manage-
ment measures, however it has been considered as a separate
variable in the model, being a major source of water with proper
additional treatment. Unit cost of water supply for Khanpura and
Anasagar has been found to be same for both the capacities up to
year 2011–2012.
In this Case 3, rationing factor has been found to be zero if cli-
mate change effects have not been considered. Model solution has
been found to be feasible in this strategy as full water demands
are satisfied. However, model solution for A1B scenario has not
been found to be feasible in the beginning of years 2005–2011,
as full water demands are not satisfied, which is more than sup-
5.3. Comparison of management strategies
5.3.1. Total quantity of water supplied
Total quantity of water supplied from different sources
depends upon number of sources considered in that particu-
lar management strategy. Total quantity of water supplied in
different years in different management strategies has been
investigated with and without considering climate change
effect.
Total quantity of water supplied in the Case 1 is limited up to
maximum quantity of water available from the imported sources,
which is equal to 20.78 Mm3 , 18.61 Mm3 and 18.92 Mm3 , respec-
tively for A1B, A2 and B1 scenarios in the year 2020–2021. This
quantity is less than the water rights (31.025 Mm3 ) of Ajmer due to
limited capacity of transmission system. In Case 2, total quantity of
water supplied from various sources has increased to 30.63 Mm3 ,
27.34 Mm3 and 27.83 Mm3 , respectively due to integration of
groundwater and local surface sources into the present water sup-
ply system in the year 2020–2021. Total quantity of water supplied
in Case 3 varies from 39.76 Mm3 , 36.76 Mm3 and 37.18 Mm3 for
year 2005–2006 to 59.34 Mm3 , 54.03 Mm3 and 54.98 Mm3 for year
2020–2021 in A1B, A2 and B1 scenarios, respectively (e.g. Fig. 3
for A1B scenario). Groundwater and local surface sources have also
been utilized fully in Case 2 and Case 3 in all three scenarios. These
sources are utilized first as compared to imported supplies and
treated wastewater, being the cheapest sources. In Case 3, quantity
of total water supplied in different years has increased as com-
pared to Case 2 on account of effect of urbanization and integration
of treated wastewater for potable use. With an increase in popula-
tion, quantity of water available from local surface sources would
increase due to increase in impervious areas (Jat, 2007) as result
of increase in built-up activities. However, total quantity of water
available from different sources would significantly reduce due to
change in climate as found from the simulated climate using CGCM
output.
57000
52000
Quantity (1000 m3)

plies in changing scenarios of climate change, violating the demand 47000

constraint. Value of rationing factor has been found to be zero 42000
in this case after the year 2011. Model solution has been found 37000
to be feasible in A1B scenario after year 2010–2011 as full water 32000
demands are satisfied because of proposed increased capacity of 27000
treated wastewater. Similarly, model has been run for the A2 and 22000
17000
B1 scenarios, separately. In both these scenario, solution has not
12000
been found feasible at 0% rationing, as it does not satisfies the full
Year
water demand in changing climate. For sample, the model results Case 1 without CC Case 1 with CC
for A1B scenario of climate change are presented in Table 5. Water Case 2 without CC Case 2 with CC
allocations from different sources for different years in changing Case 3 without CC Case 3 with CC
climate scenario have been shown for A1B scenario as a sample
Fig. 3. Total quantity of water supplied from different sources in various cases
(Fig. 3). considering without and with climate change in A1B scenario.
Table 5
Integration of imported, groundwater and local surface sources with urbanization effect and reuse of treated wastewater in A1B scenario (Case 3).

Year 2010–2011 2011–2012 2012–2013 2013–2014 2014–2015 2015–2016 2016–2017 2017–2018 2018–2019 2020–2021
3
Water demands of different users (1000 m )
Domestic 30,890 31,340 31,897.3 32,460 33,013.6 33,570 34,130 34,688 35,246 36,360
Industrial 406.9 419.7 433.1 446.5 459.9 468.6 480 486.18 494.9 534.7

S.M. Pingale et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 83 (2014) 176–189

Railways 2299.5 2299.5 2299.5 2299.5 2299.5 2299.5 2299.5 2299.5 2299.5 2299.5
Fire 881.8 890.6 900 910.06 919.8 923.4 930 930.7 934.4 978.91
Ursh 446 456.2 466 475.9 485.8 489.1 490 495.6 498.9 538.3

Total 34924.2 35406.0 35995.9 36592.0 37178.6 37750.6 38329.5 38900.0 39473.7 40711.4
Utilization of water from different sources (1000 m3 )
Import 19856 19856 19856 20166 20166 20166 20476 20477 20476 20787
GW 2532.5 2532.5 2532.5 2572.1 2572.1 2572.1 2611.6 2611.6 2611.6 2651.2
Anasagar 2308 2355 2450 2511 2611 2713 2780 2889 2959 3148
Foysagar 799 811 811 811 822 822 822 833 833 845
Khanpura 2765 2801 2845 2890 2934 2979 3023 3068 3113 3203
TWW 18,245 19,037 24,009 24,416 25,112 25,547 26,180 26,834 27,549 28,707

Total 46505.5 47392.5 52503.5 53366.1 54217.1 54799.1 55892.6 56712.6 57541.6 59341.2
Losses (%) 31.51 31.49 31.44 31.43 31.43 31.46 31.42 31.41 31.4 30.89
Percentage of demand satisfied
Demand 91.2 91.7 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.5 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Unit cost of water supply ( /1000 m3 )
Import 16897.3 18249.1 19,709 21285.7 22988.6 24827.6 26813.8 28,959 31275.7 36479.9
Anasagar 4128.8 4459.1 4815.8 5201.1 5617.2 6066.6 6551.9 7076.1 7642.1 8913.8
Foysagar 4202.3 4538.5 4901.5 5293.7 5717.2 6174.5 6668.5 7202 7778.1 9072.4
Khanpura 4128.8 4459.1 4815.8 5201.1 5617.2 6066.6 6551.9 7076.1 7642.1 8913.8
Weighted annual average depth of water table below ground surface in different zones (m)
Anasagar 38.98 38.91 38.85 38.77 38.69 38.60 38.53 38.44 38.37 38.14
Khanpura 27.29 27.57 27.72 27.92 28.10 28.26 28.41 28.55 28.68 28.90
Parvatpura 37.17 37.30 37.41 37.51 37.66 37.77 37.91 38.01 38.13 38.34
Durai 25.57 25.76 25.86 25.97 26.08 26.17 26.26 26.33 26.39 26.50
Groundwater recharge, GWR (1000 m3 )
GWR 699.53 760.62 924.43 1012.29 1113.58 1214.85 1339.06 1467.13 1608.77 1933.36
Minimum cost of water supply for Case 2 (M. )
Cost 699.53 760.62 924.43 1012.29 1113.58 1214.85 1339.06 1467.13 1608.77 1933.36

Results of some years have been presented in Table due to space restriction, however in figures results of all the years have been presented.

185
186 S.M. Pingale et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 83 (2014) 176–189

33000 105
30000 95
27000
Quantity (1000 m3)

85
24000

Demand met (%)

21000 75
18000 65
15000 55
12000 45
9000
35
6000
3000 25
0 2005-06 2009-10 2013-14 2017-18
2005-06 2009-10 2013-14 2017-18 Year
Case 1 without CC Case 1 with CC
Year Case 2 without CC Case 2 with CC
Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 3 without CC Case 3 with CC

Fig. 4. Utilization of treated wastewater in various scenarios for different years Fig. 6. Water demands satisfied in various scenarios for different years considering
considering without considering climate change. without and with climate change in A1B scenario.

5.3.2. Total quantity of imported water and treated wastewater
utilized
Total quantity of imported water utilized in different manage-
ment strategies (i.e. Case 1–3) has been compared for different
climate change scenarios to highlight the dependence of Ajmer on
an imported and uncertain source. Quantity of imported water uti-
lized for different year remains same for Case 1–Case 3 in all three
scenarios (e.g. Fig. 5), as water demand are more than available
supplies in Case 1 and Case 2.
Quantities of treated wastewater utilized in different manage-
ment strategies have also been compared. It is assumed that in
changing scenario of climate, the quantities of treated wastewa-
ter must be available as proposed. In first two cases, quantity of
treated wastewater utilized has been zero, as it has not been inte-
grated with the water supply system of Ajmer urban fringe (Fig. 4).
In third case, total quantity of treated wastewater utilized would
have been 13.88 Mm3 for the year 2005–2006 to 26.68 Mm3 for the
year 2020–2021.
5.3.3. Sustainability of water resources system
In present study, sustainability of water resources system of
the study area has been evaluated in terms of percentage of water
demand satisfied for different years in changing climate scenarios.
Simultaneously, it has been compared in terms of percentage of
water demand satisfied without considering the climate change for
different years. Percentage of water demands satisfied in different
years under different management strategies in different climate
change scenarios have been compared (e.g. Fig. 6). When the cli-
mate change scenario is not considered then results revealed that
water supply system satisfies the full demand in Case 3 and do
not satisfies the full demand in Case 1 and 2. Results revealed that
under A2 and B1 scenario of climate change, water supply system is
deficient in all the three strategies. However, water supply system
is deficient in first two cases for A1B scenario of climate change.
Initially in A1B scenario upto year 2010–2011, water supply sys-
tem is found deficient and do not satisfies full demand in Case 3,
because lower capacity of treated waste water available in these
years (Fig. 6). In deficient water supply system, water demands cor-
responding to recommended rate of supply will not been satisfied
in changing scenarios of climate change (see Fig. 7).
In Case 1, percentage of demand satisfied has been found to
vary from 42.06%, 37.31% and 37.99% for year 2005–2006 to 34.68%,
31.06% and 31.57% for year 2020–2021 in A1B, A2 and B1 scenar-
ios, respectively. In Case 2, supply scenario has been improved
slightly on account of integration of supplies from groundwater
and local surface sources. However, water supply system is still
deficient in changing climate scenario. Percentage of demands sat-
isfied in Case 2 has been found to vary from 56.82%, 50.24% and
51.15% for year 2005–2006 to 51.36%, 45.85% and 46.66% for year
2020–2021 in A1B, A2 and B1 scenario, respectively. Average per-
centage unmet demand has increased to 24.34% due to climate
change. The demand satisfaction has decreased in changing sce-
nario of climate as compared to previous (Case 1). The Case 2
revealed that water supply system of Ajmer urban fringe is not sus-
tainable even with the integration of local sources with imported
source of water. Therefore, need of integration of other possible
sources or demand management is felt so that demand of water
can be met in changing climate. The model results revealed that

27500 20500
Quantity (1000 m3)

25000
Quantity (1000 m3)

15500
22500

20000
10500
17500

15000
5500
12500 2005-06 2008-09 2011-12 2014-15 2017-18 2020-21
2005-06 2009-10 2013-14 2017-18 Year
Case 1 without cc Case 1 with cc
Year Case 2 without cc Case 2 with cc
Case 1,2,3 without CC Case 1,2,3 with CC Case 3 without cc Case 3 with cc

Fig. 5. Utilization of imported water in various scenarios in different years consid- Fig. 7. Total losses of water in various scenarios for different years considering
ering without and with climate change in A1B scenario. without and with climate change in A1B scenario.
 S.M. Pingale et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 83 (2014) 176–189
1800
1600
1400
Cost (M. )
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
2005-06 2008-09 2011-12 2014-15 2017-18 2020-21
Year
Case 1 without CC Case 1 with CC
Case 2 without CC Case 2 with CC
Case 3 without CC Case 3 with CC
Fig. 8. Minimum cost of water supply system in various scenarios for different years
considering without and with climate change in A1B scenario.
average shortage of water supply increases to 10.14%, 14.32% and
13.74% due to change in climate in different climate change sce-
narios i.e. A1B, A2 and B1, respectively as compared to present
condition (without considering climate change). After considering
climate change scenario, the average percentage unmet demand
has been found to be increased 12.73% as compared to percentage
unmet demand in present condition if climate change effects were
not considered. Present system is supplying water at the rate of
around 83 l per capita per day (lpcd), as compared to 150 lpcd rec-
ommended by the CPHEEO (CPHEEO, 1999). In Case 2, The model
results revealed that average shortage of water supply increases to
20.51%, 26.72% and 25.80% in different climate change scenarios of
A1B, A2 and B1, respectively. Therefore, Case 1 and Case 2 result
revealed that water demand have not been met (100%) fully for all
years due to possible changing climate.
In Case 3, treated wastewater has been integrated as a source of
potable water into present water supply system in addition to local
water and groundwater sources. However, only in A1B scenario
100% water demands have been met after year 2010–2011 due to
the proposed increased capacity of treated wastewater (Fig. 3). Full
water demand has not been satisfied in other two scenarios (i.e. A2
and B1). Therefore, water supply system of Ajmer urban fringe is
sustainable only with the integration of treated wastewater includ-
ing local water and groundwater sources in a changing climate
scenario. Hence, integration of treated wastewater is inevitable
for the water deficient system of Ajmer urban fringe in a chang-
ing climate. Similarly, demand management strategies have to be
adopted to manage the increased demand for changing scenarios
of climate change (like A2 and B1 scenario).
5.3.4. Overall cost of water supply
Generally, overall cost of any project is considered as one of the
most important decision criterions for selection of alternative with
optimal performance in view of changing climate. Overall cost of
water supply for different years in different management strategies
with and without considering climate change has been presented
in Fig. 8.
Overall unit cost of water supply (cost of water supply per cubic
metres of water) in Case 1, is more than Case 2 and Case 3. Over-
all cost of water supply has been found to 221.16 Million Rupees
(M. ) for year 2005–2006 to 758.19 M. for year 2020–21 in A1B
scenario (Fig. 8) however demands are not satisfied fully. Similarly,
overall cost of water supply in A2 and B1 has been found as lowest.
However, full demands have not been met. In Case 2, results found
that average minimum cost of water supply reduced to 141.96 M.
, 194.90 M. and 187.22 M. in A1B, A2 and B1 scenarios, respec-
tively. In these cases, the overall cost is low due to unmet demand
of water in all three scenarios of climate change. If penalty cost
187
is imposed due to unmet demands cost of water supply would be
more in Case 1 and Case 2, as demands have not been met in these
scenarios.
In Case 3, overall cost of water supply in different years have
been found to vary from 459.4 M. , 432.23 M. and 436.06 M. for
year 2005–2006 to 1933.36 M. , 1767.74 M. and 1798.45 M. for
year 2020–2021 in A1B, A2 and B1 scenario, respectively. Cost of
water supply has been increased in this case as compared to Case
2 i.e. from 840.4 M. to 1933.36 M. for year 2020–2021 in A1B
scenario, because of increase in supplies from treated wastewater.
Similarly, cost of water supply has increased in case 3 as compared
to Case 2 for A2 and B1 scenario from 751.88 M. to 1767.74 M. and
764.62 M. to 1798.45 M. for year 2020–2021. The comparative
results of with and without considering climate change indicates
that average minimum cost of water supply increases to 75.15 M.
, 10.44 M. and 25.17 M. in A1B, A2 and B1 scenarios, respectively
due to adverse impact of climate change. The increase in cost is
attributed to the increased use of treated wastewater due to decline
in water availability from surface sources due to change in climate
(e.g. Fig. 8). Overall cost of water supply has increased in this case
as compared to previous cases on account of supplemental sup-
ply from local surface sources after considering the urbanization
effect and treated wastewater for potable use with proper addi-
tional treatment. However, if penalty cost for unmet demands in
Case 1 and Case 2 is considered, overall cost of water supply for
Ajmer fringe will be lowest. Also water supply system is found to
be sustainable in Case 3 event after year 2020–2021. Therefore, case
3 is the optimum water management strategy for the Ajmer fringe
in a climate change scenario.
5.3.5. Social acceptability
Results revealed that present water supply system is sustain-
able only with the re-use of treated wastewater along with use of
groundwater and local surface sources after year 2011–2012 in A1B
scenario of climate change. The average percentage unmet demand
has been increased to 7.94% due to the climate change in these
management strategies. Therefore, re-use of treated water have a
significant importance in managing the growing demands of water
from different users in changing climate and can be a major source
of augmentation of water supply for potable and non-potable uses
with proper additional treatment. In present scenario, re-use of
treated wastewater has been proposed for the potable uses with
proper additional treatment, which is technically and economically
feasible. However, social acceptability of such a management pol-
icy is difficult as people’s perception about the re-use of treated
wastewater for potable uses in India is still not favourable. For water
deficient urban centres, where conventional sources are available in
limited quantity, re-use of treated wastewater is inevitable to sat-
isfy the growing demand of water and for the sustainability of water
resources system. There is a need in current scenario of climate
change for creating awareness to increase the social acceptability
of re-use of treated wastewater, and similarly other possible alter-
native ways can be explored like re-use of treated wastewater for
non-potable domestic uses, agriculture, landscape gardening and
groundwater recharge etc.
5.3.6. Environmental benefits
Various management strategies in different scenarios of climate
change have been compared in terms of environmental bene-
fits, like demand satisfied, pollution of water sources and water
transfers from other regions. Water transfer from other regions
would bring imbalance in regional water systems which may lead
to unwanted environmental and other socio-economic conflicts.
Therefore, a water management strategy which uses less quantity
of water from imported source is better. Thus, it can be concluded
that Case 3 (A1B scenario), in which treated wastewater has been
188 S.M. Pingale et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 83 (2014) 176–189
proposed to be integrated is most suitable in changing climate. In
this case, water supply system is sustainable and social acceptabil-
ity is also better as compared to other two cases. Therefore, Case 3
has been proposed as the best management solution for the water
supply of Ajmer urban fringe in a scenario of changing climate. It
can be concluded that with the suitable integration of supply aug-
mentation and demand management measures, present deficient
water supply system of Ajmer urban fringe can be converted into a
sustainable system in a changing climate.
6. Conclusions
An Integrated Urban Water Management Model considering
Climate Change has been developed and its application has been
demonstrated successfully for realistic water supply system of
Ajmer fringe. Model has been run for different management strate-
gies under different climate change scenarios, and finally, optimum
strategy has been found for different years. Present water supply
system (imported source) has been examined and integration of
some of other potential sources has been investigated in scenar-
ios of climate change. Effect of urban dynamic land use/land cover
has been incorporated into water resources planning of the area in
changing climate scenario. Urbanization effect has been integrated
in terms of increase in quantity of water available from local sur-
face sources. Rationing and re-use of treated wastewater have been
incorporated within the optimization model as demand manage-
ment options. From the comparative study, Case 3 (A1B scenario), in
which treated wastewater has been integrated for the potable uses
with prior additional treatment, has been found to be the best and
recommended for the implementation in the Ajmer urban fringe.
The application of model has successfully demonstrated for the
water supply system of Ajmer urban fringe under climate change
scenarios. The model has been found capable in finding out the opti-
mum integration of various sources into the water supply system
in changing climate scenario. Presented model would be useful for
decision makers/authorities of urban areas in optimum planning
and utilization of water resources in changing climate.
Acknowledgements
The authors are thankfully acknowledged to M.A. Semenov and
E.M. Barrow for proving the LARS-WG 5.11 and India Meteorologi-
cal department (IMD), Pune for providing meteorological data sets.
The financial assistance provided by Ministry of Human Resource
Development, Government of India in the form of a scholarship is
duly acknowledged.
References
Ajmera AK. Institutional analysis in water and sanitation sector: a case study of
Ajmer water supply system. MREC, Jaipur (India): Department of Civil Engi-
neering; 2000 (Unpublished M.E. Dissertation).
Aron G, Scott VH. Dynamic programming for conjunctive use. Journal of Hydraulic
Division 1971;97(5):705–21.
Asano T. Reusing urban waste water—an alternative and a reliable water resource.
Water International 1994;19(1):1–6.
Barlow David PM, Ahlfeld P, Dickerman DC. Conjunctive-management model for
sustained yield of stream-aquifer systems. Journal of Water Resource Planning
and Management 2003;129(1):35–48.
Belaineh G, Peralta RC, Hughes TC. Simulation/optimisation modelling for water
resources management. Journal of Water Resource Planning and Management
1999;125(3):154–60.
Bouwer H. Integrated water management for the 21st century: problems and solu-
tions. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering 2002;128(4):193–202.
Bredehoeft JD. Conjunctive use of groundwater and surface water for agriculture
risk aversion. Water Resource Research 1983;19(5):1111–21.
Buras N. Conjunctive operation of dams and aquifers, Journal of the Hydraulic Divi-
sion. In: Proceedings of the ASCE, vol. 89, No. HY6; 1963. p. 111–31.
Census of India, 2001 and 2011.
CPHEEO. Manual on water supply and treatment. In: Central Public Health and
Environmental Engineering Organization, Govt. of India; 1999.
Dracup JA. The optimal use of ground and surface water system: a parametric linear
programming approach. Univ. of California: Water Resources Center, Contribu-
tion No. 107; 1966.
Haddad BM. Monterey county water recycling project: institutional study. Journal
of Water Resource Planning and Management 2002;128(4):280–7.
Jat MK. An integrated conjunctive use modelling of water in an urban area using
remote sensing and GIS. Roorkee 247 667, UK, India: IIT Roorkee; 2007 (Unpub-
lished Ph.D. thesis).
Jenkins MW, Lund JR, Howitt RE, Draper AJ, Msangi SM, Tanaka SK, et al. Optimisa-
tion of California’s water supply system: results and insights,. Journal of Water
Resource Planning and Management, ASCE 2004;130(4):271–80.
Jha R, Sharma KD, Singh VP. Critical appraisal of methods for the assessment of
environmental flows and their application in two river systems of India. KSCE
Journal of Civil Engineering 2008;12(3):213–9.
Karamouz M, Kerachian R, Zahraie B. Monthly water resources and irrigation plan-
ning: case study of conjunctive use of surface and groundwater resources.
Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering 2004;130(5):93–8.
Kashyap D, Chandra S. A distributed conjunctive use model for optimal cropping
pattern. IAHS Publication 1982;135:377–84.
Khare D, Jat MK, Ediwahyunan. . Assessment of conjunctive use planning options: a
case study of Sapon irrigation command area of Indonesia. Journal of Hydrology
2006;328:764–77.
Kulga D, Cakmak C. Towards sustainable water management in the southeast Ana-
tolia Project (GAP). Water Resource Development 1997;13(4):541–6.
Lakshminarayana V, Rajagopalan SM. Optimal cropping pattern for basin in India.
Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering 1977:53–70.
Lefkoff LJ, Gorelick SM. Simulating physical processes and economic behavior in
saline, irrigated agriculture: model development. Water Resource Research
1990;26(7):1359–69.
Lin QG, Huang GH, Brad B, Nie XH, Zhang XD, Qin XS. EMDSS: an optimization-based
decision support system for energy systems management under changing cli-
mate conditions—an application to the Toronto-Niagara Region, Canada. Expert
Systems with Applications 2010;37(7):5040–51.
Liu Y, Qin XS, Guo HC, Zhou F. ICCLP—an inexact chance-constrained linear pro-
gramming model for land-use management of lake areas in urban fringes.
Environmental Management 2007;40(6):966–80.
Lund JR, Cabrera E. Regional water system management: water conservation, water
supply and system irrigation. In: Regional Water System Management, Water
Conservation, Water Supply, System Integration, Cabrera E, Cobacho R, Lund JR,
editors. Swets and Zeitlinger; 2002. p. 3–22.
Maddock T III, Haimes YY. A tax system for groundwater management. Water
Resource Research 1975;11(1):7–14.
Maheepala S, Roberts P. Towards development of an improved method for esti-
mation of climate-corrected urban water use. In: 30th Hydrology and Water
Resources Symposium, Conference CD 4–7; December 2006.
McFarlane NA, Boer GJ, Blanchet JP, Lazare M. The Canadian Climate Centre second-
generation general circulation model and its equilibrium climate. Journal of
Climate 1992;5:1013–44.
Mitchell VG, Cleugh HA, Grimmond CSB, Xu J. Linking urban water balance and
energy models to analyze urban design options. Hydrological Processes 2007.,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hyp.
Mishra A, Singh R, Raghuwanshi NS. Development and application of an integrated
optimization simulation model for major irrigation project. Journal of Irrigation
and Drainage Engineering, ASCE 2005;131(6):504–13.
Morel-Seytoux HJ, Daly CJ. A discrete kernel generator for stream aquifer studies.
Water Resource Research 1975;11(2):253–60.
Nieswand GH, Grandstrom ML. A chance constrained approach to the conjunctive
use of surface and groundwater. Water Resources Research 1971;7(6):1425–36.
Nikam B. R. Distributed conjunctive use modelling using remote sensing and GIS.
Roorkee 247 667, UA, India: IIT Roorkee; 2012 (Unpublished Ph.D. thesis).
Nishikawa T. Water resources optimization model for Santa Barbara, California. Jour-
nal of Water Resource Planning and Management, ASCE 1998;124(5):252–63.
O’mara, Gerald T, Duloy JH. Modeling efficient water allocation in a conjunctive
use regime: the Indus Basin Pakistan. Water Resource Research, The American
Geophysical Union 1984;20(11):1489–98.
Onta PR, Shakya RM, Gupta AD. Integrated use of surface and groundwater for urban
water supply in greater Kathmandu. In: Proc. of International Conference on
Environmentally Sound water resources Utilization, held at Bangkok, Thailand,
from 8 to 11 November; 1993. p. 10–5.
Perera BJC, Muttil N, Hasofer M. Climate corrected urban water use and estima-
tion of water savings. In: 18th World IMACS/MODSIM Congress, Cairns; 2009.
p. 3633–9.
PHED. Ajmer water supply system: present status and future. A Technical Report.
Ajmer: Govt. of Rajasthan; 2004.
Pulido-Velazquez M, Andreu J, Sahuquillo A. Economic optimisation of conjunc-
tive use of surface water and groundwater at the basin scale. Journal of Water
Resources Planning and Management 2006;132(6):454–67.
Qin XS, Huang GH, Chakma A, Nie XH, Lin QG. A MCDM-based expert sys-
tem for climate-change impact assessment and adaptation planning—a case
study for the Georgia Basin, Canada. Expert Systems with Applications
2008;34(3):2164–79.
Qin XS, Xu Y. Analyzing urban water supply through an acceptability-index-based
interval approach. Advances in Water Resources 2011;34(7):873–86.
Ragab R, Prudhomme C. Climate change and water resources management in arid
and semi-arid regions: prospective and challenges for the 21st century. Biosys-
tems Engineering 2002;81(1):3–34.
 S.M. Pingale et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 83 (2014) 176–189
RUIDP. Ajmer City investment plan. Final Report to Asian Development Bank (ADB).
Prepared by Louis Berger International Inc., for Govt. of Rajasthan; 1998.
Senge PM. The fifth discipline: the art & practice of the learning organization. New
York: Dell Publishing Group Inc; 1994.
Shao LG, Qin XS, Xu Y. A conditional value-at-risk based inexact water allocation
model. Water Resources Management 2011;25(9):2125–45.
Sharma SP. Multistage modelling and conjunctive management of water resources
in a canal command. India: Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of
Technology Kanpur; 1987 (Unpublished Ph.D. thesis).
Solecki DW, Oliveri C. Downscaling climate change scenarios in an urban land use
change model. Journal of Environmental Management 2004;72:105–15.
Strack JE Sr, Steyaert RAP, Knox LTRG. Sensitivity of June near-surface temperatures
and precipitation in the eastern United States to historical land cover changes
since European settlement. Water Resources Research 2008;44(W11401).,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2007WR006546.
Syaukt S, Fox GC. Conjunctive surface and ground water management in the
Jakarta region of Indonesia. Journal of the American Water Resource Association
2004;40(1):241–50.
Taleb A, Maher F. Impacts of global climate change scenarios on water supply and
demand in Jordan. Water International 2000;25(3):457–63.
Tjallingii SP. Strategies in urban water design. In: Preprints of the international sym-
posium on hydrological processes and water management in urban areas; April
24–29, 1988. p. 791–802.
Tozer CR, Kiem AS, Verdon-Kidd DC. On the uncertainties associated with using grid-
ded rainfall data as a proxy for observed. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences
2012;16:1481–99.
Tripathi MP, Panda RK, Raghuwanshi NS, Singh R. Hydrological modelling of a small
watershed using generated rainfall in the soil and water assessment tool model.
Hydrological Processes 2004;18:1811–21.
Vedula S. Optimal irrigation planning in river basin development: the case study
of upper Cauvery Basin. In: Chaturvedi MC, Rogers P, editors. Water resources
system planning: some case studies for India. Bangalore, India: Indian Academy
of Sciences; 1985. p. 223–52.
Wang S, Huang GH. An interval-parameter two-stage stochastic fuzzy program with
type-2 membership functions: an application to water resources management.
Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment 2013;27:1493–506.
Wang S, Huang GH. Identifying optimal water resources allocation strategies
through an interactive multi-stage stochastic fuzzy programming approach.
Water Resource Management 2012;26:2015–38.
189
Wang S, Huang GH. Interactive two-stage stochastic fuzzy programming
for water resources management. Journal of Environmental Management
2011;92:1986–95.
WaterSmart 2006. Draft Supply Demand Strategy for Melbourne 2006–2055. Pub-
lished by WaterSmart; April 2006.
White SB, Fane SA. Designing cost effective water demand management programs
in Australia. Water Science and Technology 2005;76(6–7):225–32.
Wigmosta BMS, Burges SJ. Proposed model for evaluating urban hydrologic
change. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 1990;116(6):
742–63.
Witter VJ, Bogardi JJ. Optimal integrated water management: a quantitative
approach. In: International conference on environmentally sound water
resources utilization, held at Bangkok, Thailand, from 8 to 11 November; 1993.
p. 1–9.
Wolf L, Hötzl H. Different levels and examples of integrated concepts in water
resources management. In: Paper presented at international conference on
hydrology and watershed management (ICHWAM-2006). Centre for Water
Resources, Institute of Science & Technology; 2006.
Wurbs RA, Muttiah RS, Felden F. Incorporation of climate change in water availability
modeling. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering 2005:375–85.
Yang Y, Lin X, Zhou L, Kalin RM. Sustainable ground water management under
impacts of urban growth in a developing country—a case study in the
city of Shijadran, China. Environmental Management and Health 1999;10(1):
18–27.
Young RA, Bredehoeft JD. Digital computer simulation for solving management prob-
lem of conjunctive groundwater and surface water systems. Water Resource
Research, The American Geophysical Union 1972;8(3):533–56.
Yu W, Haimes YY. Multilevel optimisation for conjunctive use of groundwater and
surface water. Water Resources Research 1974;10(4):625–36.
Zarghami M, Akbariyeh S. System dynamics modeling for complex urban water
systems: application to the city of Tabriz, Iran. Resources, Conservation and
Recycling 2012;60:99–106.
Zarghami M, Hajykazemian H. Urban water resources planning by using a modified
particle swarm optimization algorithm. Resources, Conservation and Recycling
2013;70:1–8.
Zuidema FC. Aspects of water resources planning and management in the urban-
ization process. In: Laconte P, Haimes YY, editors. Water resources land-use
planning: a systems approach. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers; 1982. p.
297–340.