ISSN 00978078, Water Resources, 2011, Vol. 38, No. 6, pp. 827–836. © Pleiades Publishing, Ltd., 2011.

INTERACTION BETWEEN CONTINENTAL WATERS

AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Impact of Climate Change on Stream Discharge and Sediment Yield

in Northern Viet Nam1
D. B. Phana, C. C. Wub, and S. C. Hsiehb
a
Institute of Tropical Agriculture and International Cooperation, National Pingtung University of Science and Technology,
Pingtung 912, Taiwan
bDepartment of Soil and Water Conservation, National Pingtung University of Science and Technology, Pingtung 912, Taiwan

Received June 15, 2011

Abstract—The purpose of this paper is to apply “Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT)” model to assess
the impacts of climate change on stream discharge and sediment yield from Song Cau watershed in Northern
Viet Nam. Three climate change scenarios B1, B2, and A2; representing low, medium, and high levels of
greenhouse gas emission, respectively, were considered in this study. The highest changes in stream discharge
(up to 11.4%) and sediment load (15.3%) can be expected in wet season in 2050s according to the high emis
sion scenario (A2), while for the low emission scenario the corresponding changes equal to 8.8% and 12.6%.
The results show that the stream discharge is likely to increase in the future during the wet season with
increasing threats of sedimentation.

Keywords: SWAT, climate change, sediment yield, stream discharge.

DOI: 10.1134/S0097807811060133

1
INTRODUCTION
Climate change is one of the most significant chal
lenges that all living matters on the Earth needs to
face. It will affect living habitats, productions, and
environment worldwide. Temperature and sea level
rises may cause floods and salt water intrusion, thus
may damage agriculture as well as pose risks to indus
tries and socialeconomic system. Over the past 50
years average temperature in Viet Nam has increased
about 0.5–0.7°C, and the consequences of climate
change are considered to be serious and present signif
icant threats to the achievement of Millennium Devel
opment Goals and nation’s sustainable development
[13]. Changes in water availability due to global warm
ing add further pressure on the adaptability of the
water systems. However, assessing the impacts of cli
mate change on water resource management is com
plicated by the spatial resolution of climate change
predictions. Limited efforts have been carried out in
Viet Nam regarding the potential impacts of climate
change on water resource management systems [17,
21].
Soil and Water Assessment Tools [19] known as
SWAT has been used since 1993 mainly by hydrolo
gists for watershed hydrology related issues [12, 24].
Muttiah and Wurbs [15] used SWAT to simulate the
impacts of historical climate trends versus a 2040–
2059 climate change projection for the 7300 km2 San
Jacinto River basin in Texas. They reported that the
1 The article is published in the original.
climate change scenario resulted in a higher mean
stream discharge might induce greater flooding, but
the frequency of the normal and low stream discharges
decreased. Gosain et al. (2006) [5] simulated the
impacts of a 2041–2060 climate change scenario on
stream discharges from 12 major river basins in India,
ranging in size from 1668 to 87180 km2. Stream dis
charge was found to generally decrease, and the sever
ity of both floods and droughts increased in response
to the climate change projection. Rosenberg et al.
(2003) [22] simulated the effect of downscaled Hadley
Centre Coupled Model version 2 (HadCM2) [10] cli
mate projections on the hydrology of 18 major water
resource regions (MWRRs) with SWAT within the
hydrologic unit model of the United State (HUMUS)
framework. Water yields were predicted to change
from –11 to 153% and from 28 to 342% with respect to
baseline conditions across the MWRRs in 2030 and
2095, respectively.
Rosenberg et al. (1999) [23] found that driving
SWAT with a different set of 12 climate projections
resulted in Ogallala Aquifer recharge decreases up to
77% within the Missouri and ArkansasWhiteRed
water resource regions. Nearing et al. (2005) [18]
compared runoff and erosion estimates from SWAT
versus six other models in response to six climate
change scenarios for the 150 km2 Lucky Hills water
shed in southeastern Arizona. The responses of all
seven models were similar across six scenarios. They
concluded that climate change could potentially result

827
828
in significant soil erosion increases if necessary con
servation efforts are not implemented.
Hence, the objective of this study is to apply SWAT
model in Song Cau watershed to assess the impact of
climate change on stream discharge and sediment
yield in northern Viet Nam.
METHODOLOGY
Brief Descriptions of SWAT Model
SWAT is a physically based, continuoustime
hydrologic model with an ArcViewGIS interface
developed by the Blackland Research and Extension
Center and the United States Department of Agricul
ture—Agricultural Research Service (USDAARS)
[2] to predict the impact of land management prac
tices on water, sediment and agricultural chemical
yields in large, complex basins with varying soil type,
land use and management conditions over long peri
ods of time [20].
SWAT delineates watersheds into subbasins inter
connected by a stream network. Each subbasin is fur
ther divided into hydrologic response units (HRUs)
based upon unique soil and land class characteristics.
SWAT sums the flow, sediment and nutrient loading
from each subbasin HRU and the resulting loads are
then routed through channels, ponds, and reservoirs
to the watershed outlet [1]. A single growth model in
SWAT, based on a simplification of Erosion Produc
tivity Impact Calculator (EPIC) crop model, is used
for simulating all crops development [26]. Phenologi
cal development of a crop is based on daily heat unit
accumulation. SWAT also uses WXGEN weather gen
erator model [21] to generate climate data or to fill
gaps in the measured records.
The hydrological processes of SWAT are divided
into two phases [8]: 1) the land phase, which controls
the amount of water, sediment and nutrients received
by a water body and 2) the water routing phase, which
simulates water movement through the channel net
work.
The hydrologic cycle of SWAT is based on the water
balance equation
t November–March, is mostly dry with the average
SW t = SW 0 + ∑ (R day – Q surf – E a – W seep – Q gw ), (1)
i=1
where SWt is the final soil water content (mm H2O),
SW0 is the initial soil water content on day i (mm
H2O), t is the time (days), Rday is the amount of precip
itation on day i (mm), Qsurf is the amount of surface
runoff on day i (mm), Ea is the amount of evapotrans
piration on day i (mm), Wseep is the amount of water
entering the vadoes zone from the soil profile on day i
(mm), and Qgw is the amount of return flow on day i
(mm) [19].
PHAN et al.
Erosion and sediment yield are estimated for each
subbasin with the Modified Universal Soil Loss
Equation (MUSLE) [29]. Sediment yield estimation
in MUSLE is written as
Sed = 11.8 ( Q surf q peak area hru )
0.56
K USLE C USLE P USLE
(2)
× LS USLE CFRG,
where Sed is the sediment yield on a given day (metric
tons), Qsurf is the surface runoff volume (mm/ha), qpeak
is the peak runoff rate (m3/s), areahru is the area of the
hydrologic response unit (HRU) (ha), KUSLE is the
Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) soil erodibility
factor (0.013 metric tonm2 hr/m3metric toncm),
CUSLE is the USLE cover and management factor,
PUSLE is the USLE support practice factor, LSUSLE is
the USLE topographic factor [30], and CFRG is the
coarse fragment factor.
The channel sediment routing equation uses a
modification of Bagnold’s sediment transport equa
tion [3] that estimates the transport capacity of the
streamflow as a function of flow velocity. The model
either deposits excess sediment or reentrains sedi
ment through channel erosion depending on the sedi
ment load entering the channel [25].
Study Area and Its Schematization
The Song Cau watershed is located in northern Viet
Nam, between 21°07′–22°18′ N and 105°28′–
106°08′ E (Fig. 1a). The watershed has an area of
2941 km2 and agriculture, mainly arable and pasture
lands, dominants the land use. The elevation ranges
from 24 to 1498 m above sea level with the mean eleva
tion of 285 m (Fig. 1b). The length of the main stream
is 125 km. High rainfall events in combination with
less permeable soil formations caused significant run
off and subsequently high soil losses and sediment
yield.
Data from Thai Nguyen Meteorological and
Gauging station show that the study area is influenced
by tropical monsoon climate. The average annual
rainfall and temperature is 2000–2500 mm and 22°C,
respectively, and the highest precipitation usually
occurs from June to August which constitutes more
than 70% total annual rainfall. The winter season,
temperature under 15°C and the lowest temperature
recorded in recent years is 3°C. The summer, April–
October, is the hot rainy season with the average tem
perature of 26°C, the highest temperature recorded so
far is 39°C [6].
The entire Song Cau watershed was divided into
27 subwatersheds (Fig. 1c) based on the similarity of
land use to allow consideration of significant spatial
detail for climatic, soil, topographic, and land cover
variations within Song Cau watershed. Table 1 pre
sents a listing of the respective land cover types, sub
watershed areas, and USLE C factors [11] for each
WATER RESOURCES Vol. 38 No. 6 2011
 IMPACT OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON STREAM DISCHARGE 829

DEM OF SONG CAU WATERSHED

CHINA
Lao Cai

NANOI
N
Haiphong Song Cau
watershed
LAOS Gulf of
Vinh Hainan
Me Tonkin (CHINA)
ko
ng

Hue
THAILAND Da Nang

Qui Nhon
CAMBODIA
Nha Trang
Cam Ranh 24–169
170–336
M Ho Chi Minh City 3337–503
Dao Phu Long ekong 504–670
South 671–837
Quoc Xuyen Can Tho
China 838–1004
Gulf Con Dao Sea 1005–1171
of 0 100 200 km 1172–1338
Thailand 1339–1498

0 100 200 m

WATERSHED DELINEATION OF SONG CAU

N OuBets
1 Linking stream added Outlet
2 6 Manually added Outlet
4 3 Streams

Subbasins
23
7
8
11 9
13
12 16 14
10 15 18

17
25
20
22
19 Weagages

Raingages
26
27

Fig. 1. a—Location, b—Digital Elevation Model (DEM), and c—Watershed delineated of Song Cau watershed.

land cover type delineated. The land use type and GIS system were obtained from the Soils database
topography of each subwatershed were both extracted contained in SWAT. The sources and types of data col
from the GIS database. lected are shown in Table 2.

Data Climate Change Scenarios

Data collected for this study included Soil, DEM, The climate change is believed to be primarily
and Land use map, forest area, land cover, precipita dependent upon greenhouse gas emission level.
tion, temperature, solar radiation, relative humidity, Greenhouse gas emission has found to be correlated
and wind speed, stream discharge, and sediment yield. with human activities such as industry, agriculture,
Measured daily maximum and minimum tempera transportation, deforestation etc. Hence, grounds for
tures were obtained from Bac Kan, Dinh Hoa and determining greenhouse gas emission scenarios are:
Thai Nguyen stations. Monthly stream discharge (1) economic growth at a global scale, (2) global pop
measured at the watershed outlet (Gia Bay station) for ulation and consumption, (3) living standards and
44 years (1964–2008) was designated for model cali behavior, (4) energy sources and consumption,
bration and validation, while for sediment, 37 year (5) technology transfer, and (6) land use change, etc.
observations (1972–2008) were used. Soil parameters In the Special report on emission scenarios in
for the corresponding soil series extracted from the 2000, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

WATER RESOURCES Vol. 38 No. 6 2011

830 PHAN et al.

Table 1. Areas, Land cover types, and USLE C factor delineated in the Song Cau watershed

SWAT Area USLEC

Land Use Type
Code km 2 % Factor

WATR Water 399.48 13.58 0.00

URMD Urban 163.84 5.57 0.008
FRSD ForestDeci duous 152.14 5.17 0.001
FRSE ForestEvergreen 383.91 13.05 0.001
FRST ForestMixed 173.32 5.89 0.001
RICE Rice 266.90 9.08 0.030
PAST Pasture 1350.69 45.93 0.003
AGRL Agricultural LandGeneric 1.26 0.04 0.200
AGRR Agricultural LandRow Crops 49.28 1.68 0.200
Total 2940.86 100

Table 2. Sources and types of data collected for SWAT simulation

Types of data Sources of data
Precipitation (rainfall) Thai Nguyen, Bac Can, and Dinh Hoa weather station
Temperature solar radiation, relative humidity,
and wind speed.
Runoff discharge, Sediment yield (observed data Gia Bay, Thac Buoi, and Thac Gieng gauging stations
Topography (DEM) and Land use map Department of Information and Communication technology for Natural
Resources and Environment, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environ
ment plus field survey data
Soil map Viet Nam Soil and Fertilizers Research Institute
Forest, Agricultural land (as shown in Table 1) Department of Natural Resources and Environment of Thai Nguyen and
Bac Can provinces, and field survey data

(IPCC) introduced 40 scenarios that reflect relatively
diversified possibilities of greenhouse gas emission in
the 21st century. These emission scenarios are classi
fied into four families with the main characteristics as
follows [9]:
A1 family: Rapid economic growth; global popula
tion peaks at 9 billion in 2050 and declines thereafter;
the rapid introduction of new and more efficient tech
nologies; a convergence of world income and way of
life; a convergence among regions and increasing cul
tural and social interaction. The A1 family further
develops into 3 groups based on the technological
emphasis: (1) A1FI: an emphasis on fossilintensive
(high emission scenario); (2) A1B: an emphasis on a
balance across all energy sources (medium emission
scenario); (3) A1T: an emphasis on nonfossil energy
sources (low emission scenario).
A2 family: A very heterogeneous world; selfreli
ance and preservation of nations; continuously
increasing population in the 21st century; regionally
oriented economic development; technological
change and per capita economic growth are more frag
mented and slow (high emission scenario, similar to
A1FI).
B1 family; Rapid economic growth as in A1 family
but with rapid changes toward a service and informa
tion economy; global population reaches the peak in
2050 and declines thereafter; reduction in material
intensity and introduction of clean and resourceeffi
cient technologies; emphasis on global solutions to
economic, social and environmental sustainability
(low emission scenario, similar to A1T).
B2 family: Continuously increasing population but
at a rate lower than A2 family; the emphasis is on local
rather than on global solutions to economic, social
and environmental sustainability; intermediate levels
of economic development; less rapid and more diverse
technological change than B1 and A1 families
(medium emission scenario, in the same group of
A1B).
Criteria of method selection for climate change
scenario development in Viet Nam [13] include:
(1) plausibility of global climate change, (2) level of
climate change, (3) inheritability, (4) updating,
(5) local appropriateness, (6) completeness of scenar

WATER RESOURCES Vol. 38 No. 6 2011

 IMPACT OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON STREAM DISCHARGE 831

Table 3. Changes in Annual mean temperature, °C, and Annual rainfall, %, relative to those from 1980–1999 for northern
Viet Nam
Scenario B1 Scenario B2 Scenario A2
Items
2020s 2030s 2050s 2020s 2030s 2050s 2020s 2030s 2050s
Rainfall
Mean annual 1.4 2.1 3.6 1.4 2.1 3.8 1.6 2.1 4.0
Mean wet season 3.3 4.8 8.4 3.3 4.8 8.9 3.8 4.9 9.2
Mean dry season –0.5 –0.6 –1.2 –0.5 –0.6 –1.3 –0.6 –0.7 –1.2
Mean temperature
Mean annual 0.5 0.7 1.2 0.5 0.7 1.3 0.5 0.8 1.3
Mean wet season 0.5 0.7 1.2 0.5 0.7 1.2 0.5 0.7 1.2
Mean dry season 0.6 0.8 1.3 0.6 0.8 1.4 0.6 0.9 1.5

ios, and (7) possibility of self updating. Based on the
analysis of the above mentioned criteria, the results
from Stochastic Weather Generator (LARSWG)
software [27] and statistical downscaling method are
selected for the development of climate change sce
narios. Hence, climate change scenarios for tempera
ture and rainfall were developed for seven climate
zones in Viet Nam, and the northern zone was selected
for this study.
The resultant scenarios B1, B2, and A2 represent
low, medium, and high level of greenhouse gas emis
sion, respectively. The changes of rainfall and temper
ature are given in Table 3. Rainfall changes are highly
variable with the highest changes in wet season show
ing increases for all scenarios in the 2020s, 2030s, and
2050s. Increases in rainfall in wet season could result
in high surface runoff and that could aggravate the
existing problem of flooding in lower Song Cau. Mean
annual temperatures increase about 0.5°C for all sce
narios in the 2020s while 1.2°C for B1 and 1.3°C for
B2 and A2 scenario in the 2050s.
The daily data was obtained and used together with
observed data in LARSWG to generate monthly rain
fall and temperature changes. Three stations: Thai
Nguyen, Bac Kan, and Dinh Hoa were chosen for cli
mate change scenario generation.
Model Calibration and Validation
using daily historical weather information. The simu
lated stream discharge (1964–2008) and sediment
yield (1972–2008) were compared to the stream dis
charge and sediment yield measured in the same
period at the same gaging stations (Gia Bay station).
Considering that SWAT is not a ‘parametric model’
with a formal optimization procedure to fit any data
and that it uses physicallybased inputs, original
parameters were adjusted to provide a better fit. The
curve number (CN2) were adjusted within 4 percent
from the tabulated curve numbers to reflect conserva
tion tillage practices and soil residue cover conditions
of the watershed and others parameters as ESCO,
EPCO, GW_REVAP were adjusted too (Table 4).
Also, the Cover or management factor (C FACTOR),
linear factor (SPCON) and exponential factor
(SPEXP) for channel sediment routing and Residue
decomposition coefficient (RSDCO) were yield in the
area. The sequence of adjusting the model parameters
were based on the procedures outlined by Santhi et al.
(2006) [25]. Table 4 shows a summary of the optimized
model parameters.
This study uses NashSutcliffe efficiency (NSE)
[16], and percent bias (PBIAS) to evaluate model per
formance.
The NSE value is calculated using the following
Eq. (3)
n

∑ (Q
i i 2
obs – Q sim )
To account for spatial variability in topographic,
soil types, and land use factors in Song Cau watershed, i=1
NSE = 1 – 
 , (3)
n
parameters governing stream discharge response in
∑
i i 2
SWAT were calibrated in a distributed fashion. Stream ( Q obs – Q obsmean )
discharge records from 1964 to 1984 were used for i=1
model calibration and records from 1985 to 2008 were i
designated for validation. For sediments, 19 year data where n is the number of registered data points, Q obs ,
recorded from 1972 to 1990 and 18 year data from i
and Q sim are the observed and simulated data, respec
1991 to 2008 were used for calibration and validation, tively on the th time step, and Qobsmean is the mean of
respectively. i
Using the SWAT default parameters, the watershed observed data ( Q obs ) across the n evaluation time
conditions were simulated from 1964 through 2008 steps.

WATER RESOURCES Vol. 38 No. 6 2011

832 PHAN et al.

Table 4. The most sensitive parameters in SWAT and values used in this study
Variable name Model processes Description Normal range Value used
CN2 Flow Curve number ±5 ±4
ESCO Flow Soil evaporation compensation factor 0.00–1.00 0.70
EPCO Flow Plant uptake compensation factor 0.00–1.00 0.02
GW_REVAP Flow Groundwater “revap” coefficient 0.02–0.40 0.2
CFACTOR Sediment Cover or management factor 0.001–0.20 0.001–0.20
SPCON Sediment Linear factor for channel sediment routing 0.0001–0.01 0.002
SPEXP Sediment Exponential factor for channel sediment routing 1.0–1.5 1.0
BIOMIX Sediment, organic Biological mixing efficiency 0.2–0.5 0.3
RSDCO Sediment, organic Residue decomposition coefficient 0.01–0.05 0.05

PBIAS is used to determine if the average tendency Δc = 

 c ( k + Δk ) 
– c ( k – Δk) . (7)
of the simulated data is either larger or smaller than its Δk 2Δk
observed counterparts [7]. PBIAS is calculated using
the following equation: The condition number provides a transfer function
n
to propagate the relative error of the parameter into
the relative error of the prediction. The bigger the con
∑ (Q
i i
obs – Q sim ) dition number, the more sensitive the parameter is for
=1  × 100%.
PBIAS = i (4) the specific model prediction. A negative condition
n
number indicates that the parameter has an opposite
∑
i
Q obs effect on prediction. The most sensitive parameters are
i=1 summarized in Table 4.
All parameters in Eq. (4) shares the same defini
tions as that shown in Eq. (3). RESULTS
Simulation of Stream Discharge and Sediment Load
Sensitivity Analysis Comparison of measured versus simulated monthly
Sensitivity analysis is a technique for assessing the hydrographs from Gia Bay gauge station at the main
comparative change in model response resulting from stream of Song Cau showed very good agreement as
a change in model inputs. It helps identify the param that shown in Fig. 2. For the calibration period from
eters that affect the model’s output significantly. Iden 1964 to 1984, monthly NSE was 0.82, while PBIAS
tification of sensitive input parameters may help the was—1.6%, For the validation period (1985–2008)
modeler adjust those parameters during model cali NSE and PBIAS were lower than those for the calibra
bration. tion period with respective values of 0.77 and 5.9%
Spruill et al. (2000) [28] indicated that the most (Table 5).
sensitive parameters of SWAT model for application in In general, SWAT performance in simulating sedi
a central Kentucky watershed were saturated hydraulic ment response was considered good based on monthly
conductivity, alpha base flow factor, drainage area, NSE values for the calibration and validation periods,
channel length, and channel width. which were 0.66 and 0.69 respectively, Moriasi et al.
An expression of sensitivity called “condition (2007) [14] concluded that a model performance of
number” [4] is used in this study. sediment load is very good if PBIAS < ±15%; good if
Consider c as a function of each of the model ±15% ≤ PBIAS < ±30%; satisfactory if ±30% ≤
parameters and forcing functions: that is, c = f(k1, k2, PBIAS < ±55% and unsatisfactory if PBIAS ≥ ±55%.
k3, …). The condition number can be expressed as In this study the PBIAS value was satisfactory
(⎯36.1%) for calibration and good (–26.4%) for vali
∂c ( k,
CN k = k) dation period (Table 5). The negative value of PBIAS
(5)
x ∂k indicated that the sediment load was overestimated.
where CNk is defined as the condition number for the SWAT tends to overestimate sediment loads for all
parameter k. If the derivative form is difficult to months of year, except August of the validation period
obtain, a discrete form is used for the derivative (Fig. 3).
The conceivable reason contributing to this result is
kΔc
CN k =  , (6) the land use map generated based on year 2008 survey
cΔk data which may cause differences in land use installed
where in the previous period. Another reason causing dis

WATER RESOURCES Vol. 38 No. 6 2011

 IMPACT OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON STREAM DISCHARGE 833

Monthly Mean Strem Discharge (cms) Monthly Mean Strem Discharge (cms) Calibration Calibration

Avarage Monthy Sediment (tons)

180 200000
160 180000 Observed
Observed 160000
140 Simulated Simulated
140000
120
120000
100
100000
80 80000
60 60000
40 40000
20 20000
0 0
JanFebMarAprMay Jun Jul AugSepOctNov Dec Jan FebMarAprMayJun Jul Aug Sep OctNovDec

Avarage Monthy Sediment (tons)

Validation
200000
Validation 180000
180
Observed 160000 Observed
160 Simulated Simulated
140000
140
120000
120 100000
100 80000
80 60000
60 40000
20000
40
20 0 Jan FebMarAprMayJun Jul Aug Sep OctNovDec

0
JanFebMarAprMay Jun Jul AugSepOctNov Dec Fig. 3. Observed versus Simulated Average monthly Sedi
ment load during the Calibration and Validation periods of
Song Cau watershed.

Fig. 2. Observed versus Simulated Average monthly stream

discharge during the Calibration and Validation periods of a management tool to predict the effects of land use
Song Cau watershed. changes in midsize watersheds.

crepancy between simulated and observed sediment Impact of Climate Change on Stream Discharge
yield may be attributed to channel erosion, especially and Sediment Yield
during high flows. Other factors include SWAT’s inad
From SWAT simulation output (Table 6 and
equate description of channel scouring process and Fig. 4a), climate change scenario B1 increases the
the presence of temporary channel embankment used mean wet season (May–October) runoff by an average
by farmers to retard channel flow velocity. Neverthe of 8.8% in 2050s, but decreases by 3.9% for mean dry
less, the overall adequacy of SWAT to simulate sedi season (November–April). In the 2050s, the percent
ment yields in the watershed indicates its usefulness as ages of stream discharge of mean wet season increase

Table 5. Monthly Stream discharge and Sediment load coefficient of NashSutcliffe efficiency (NSE), and Percent bias
(PBIAS) of Song Cau

Items Simulation period Period of Record Monthly NSE PBIAS, %

Stream Calibration 1964–1984 0.82 –1.6

Discharge Validation 1985–2008 0.77 5.9

Sediment Calibration 1972–1990 0.66 –36.1

Load Validation 1991–2008 0.69 –26.4

WATER RESOURCES Vol. 38 No. 6 2011

834 PHAN et al.

Table 6. Percentages of Stream discharge and Sediment load change with respect to Baseline period for Mean annual, Wet
season and Dry season
Scenario B1 Scenario B2 Scenario A2
Items
2020s 2030s 2050s 2020s 2030s 2050s 2020s 2030s 2050s
Stream discharge change
Mean annual 1.4 1.2 2.4 1.4 1.0 2.2 1.5 1.0 3.0
Mean wet season 3.9 5.3 8.8 4.1 5.3 9.0 4.5 5.7 11.4
Mean dry season –1.1 –2.8 –3.9 –1.3 –3.0 –4.7 –1.5 –3.8 –5.3
Sediment load change
Mean annual 1.2 1.8 4.0 1.7 1.9 4.7 2.0 1.5 3.8
Mean wet season 3.6 6.3 12.6 5.1 7.4 14.6 5.7 8.0 15.3
Mean dry season –1.3 –2.7 –4.6 –1.7 –3.6 –5.3 –1.7 –5.1 –7.7

by 8.8, 9.0 and 11.4% for Scenarios B1, B2 and A2 tion, which was impacted by the increased variability
respectively. For the B2 scenario, the mean annual of monthly precipitation as projected by LARSWG.
stream discharge increases by 2.2% while mean dry Greater variability in daily precipitation distribution
season decreases by 4.7% with respect to baseline led to increased occurrence of large storms and there
period (1980–1999). The increase in stream discharge fore greater stream discharge and soil loss.
was caused by increased variability of daily precipita In general, A2 climate change scenario produces
higher stream discharge as compared to that generated
from B1 and B2 for the 2020s. Table 6 shows that the
(a) percentages of flow discharge increases in the wet sea
14 son from 3.9% (B12020) to 11.4% (A22050) in par
Percentage of Flow change (%)

12 Mean annual
Mean wet season allel with mean wet season rainfall increase from 3.3 to
10 Mean dry 9.2%, respectively. In dry season, when rainfall
8 season decreases from 0.5 (B12020) to 1.2% (A22050) and
6 temperature increases from 0.6 to 1.5°C, streamflow
4 reduces from 1.1 to 5.3%. That means more floods in
2 wet and drought in dry season may occur in the future.
0 In general, change in stream discharge in this study
–2 was lower than in other previous research. For
A2 20

A2 30

0
B2 20

B2 30

A2 50
B1 30

B2 50
B1 20

05
0

0
0

0
0

instance, Nguyen et al. (2011) applied SWAT to model

_2

_2

_2
_2

_2

_2
_2

_2

_2

–4
B1

–6 the impact of climate change on stream discharge in

–8 central Viet Nam reported that when precipitation
Scenarion increased by 4.8 % in 2030 and by 9.2% in 2050,
stream discharge increased by approximately 4.8 and
Percentage of Sediment load change (%)

(b)
16.9%, respectively. Muttiah et al. (2002) summarized
20 his study that the stream discharge increased by 21.5%
Mean annual in 2040 when precipitation increased by 11.3% with
Mean wet season respect to baseline period (1990–2000), etc.
15 Mean dry
season Referring to sediment loads in Song Cau under dif
10 ferent climate change scenarios (Table 6 and Fig. 4b),
it can be seen that increasing in flow discharge will in
5
general increase mean annual sediment load, while
0 decrease in flow discharge will decrease mean sedi
ment loads for all scenarios. For instance, Scenario
A2 20

A2 30

0
B2 20

B2 30

A2 50
B1 20

B1 30

B2 50

05

B1, B2, and A2 produces significant decrease in sedi

0

0
0

0
0

–5
_2

_2

_2
_2

_2

_2
_2

_2

_2

ment loads during mean dry season by 4.6, 5.3, and

B1

–10 7.7%, respectively in the 2050s; whereas, significant

Scenarion
Fig. 4. Percentage of Stream discharge (a) and Sediment
yield change in Mean annual (b), Wet season and Dry sea
son with respect to Baseline scenario.
increase of sediment loads by 3.6% (B12020) to
15.3% (A22050) was predicted with respect to base
line period for mean wet season. Figures from Table 3
and Table 6 show a close correlation between changes
in precipitation variability and changes in monthly soil

WATER RESOURCES Vol. 38 No. 6 2011

 IMPACT OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON STREAM DISCHARGE
loss. An increase in precipitation variability was often
accompanied by an increase in soil loss, and vice versa
[21]. These results indicate that soil loss prediction is
sensitive to changes in precipitation variability.
CONCLUSIONS
The SWAT model was parameterized and cali
brated in selected Song Cau watershed in the northern
Viet Nam with an aggregate area of 2941 km2 to simu
late the effects of climate change on stream discharge
and sediment yield. Results indicated that SWAT ade
quately predicted the stream discharge of the water
shed with NashSutcliffe Efficiency ranging from 0.77
to 0.82. Likewise, the model adequately predicted the
sediment yield with NSE ranging from 0.66 to 0.69. In
the 2050s, for scenario A2, the percentage of stream
discharge increases by 11.4% in mean wet season and
decreases by 5.3% in mean dry season with respect to
baseline scenario. That means more floods in wet sea
son and draught in dry season may occur in the future.
Consequently, this will increase sediment yield by
15.3% in wet season with respect to baseline scenario.
This study showed that SWAT model can be used as a
management tool for modeling the impact of climate
change in Viet Nam watersheds.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors’ sincere thanks go to Viet Nam Gov
ernment Agencies for providing data on Song Cau
watershed and for preparing the detailed land use map.
In particular, the corresponding author is especially
grateful to Taiwan Scholarship Office for funding his
Ph.D. programme.
REFERENCES
1. Arnold, J.G., Allen, P.M., and Morgan, D.S., Hydro
logic Model for Design and Constructed Wetlands,
Wetlands, 2001, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 167–178.
2. Arnold, J.G., Srinivasan, R., Muttiah, R.S., and Will
iams, J.R., Large Area Hydrologic Modeling and
Assessment. Part 1: Model Development, J. of Amer.
Resource Assoc., 1998, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 73–89.
3. Bagnold, R.A., Bedload Transport in Natural Rivers,
Water Resour. Res., 1977, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 303–312.
4. Chapra, S.C., Surface Water–Quality Modeling, New
York: McGraw–Hill, 1997.
5. Gosain, A.K., Rao, S., and Basuray, D., Climate
Change Impact Assessment on Hydrology of Indian
River Basins, Current Sci., 2006, vol. 90, no. 3, pp. 346–
353.
6. GSOV (General Statistics Office of Viet Nam). Statistical
Year Book 2008, Ha Noi: National Political Publishing
House, 2008.
7. Gupta, H.V., Sorooshian, S., and Yapo, P.O., Status of
Automatic Calibration for Hydrologic Models: Com
parison with Multilevel Expert Calibration, Journal of
WATER RESOURCES Vol. 38 No. 6 2011
835
Hydrologic Engineering, 1999, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 135–
143.
8. Hiroaki, S., and Ikuo, T., Numerical Analyses on Sea
sonal Variations of Nutrient Salts and Load Discharges
in Abashiri River Basin, 2009 International SWAT Conf.
Proc., 2009, pp. 241–248.
9. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
Working Group I. Climate Change 2001: the Scientific
Basis. Contribution of Working Group I To the Third
Assessment Report of the IPCC, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2001.
10. Johns, T.C., Carnell, R.E., Crossley, J.F., et al., The
second Hadley Centre coupled oceanatmosphere
GCM: Mode description, spinup, and validation, Clim.
Dynam., 1997, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 103–134.
11. Karaburun, A., Estimation of C Factor for Soil Erosion
Modeling Using NDVI in Buyukcekmece Watershed,
Ozean Journal of Applied Science, 2010, vol. 3, no. 1,
pp. 77–85.
12. Keshta, N., Elshorbagy, A., and Carey, S., A Generic
System Dynamics Model for Simulating and Evaluat
ing The Hydrological Performance of Reconstructed
Watersheds, J. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 2009, vol. 13,
pp. 865–881.
13. MORE (Ministry of Natural Resources and Environ
ment). Climate change, Sea Level Rise Scenarios for Viet
Nam, Ha noi, 2009.
14. Moriasi, D.N., Arnold, J.G., Van Liew, M.W., et al.,
Model Evaluation Guidelines for Systematic Quantifi
cation of Accuracy in Watershed Simulations, Trans.
ASABE, 2007, vol. 50, pp. 885–900.
15. Muttiah, R.S. and Wurbs, R.A., Modeling the Impacts
of Climate Change on Water Supply Reliabilities, Intl.
Water Resources, 2002, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 407–419.
16. Nash, J.E.. and Sutcliffe, J.V., River Flow Forecasting
through Conceptual Models. Part IA Discussion of
Principles, J. Hydrology, 1970, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 282–
290.
17. Nguyen, K.L., and Nguyen, V.T., Assessing Climate
Change Impacts and Adaptation in Central Viet Nam
Using Watershed and Community Based Approach:
Case Study in Quang Nam Province, 2011 Interna
tional SWATSEA Conference Proceedings, 2011,
pp. 125–137.
18. Nearing, M.A., Jetten, V., Baffaut, C., et al., Modeling
Response of Soil Erosion and Runoff to Changes in
Precipitation and Cover, Catena, 2005, vol. 61, nos. 2–
3, pp. 131–154.
19. Neitsch, S.L., Arnold, J.G., Kiniry, J.R., and Williams, J.R.,
Soil and Water Assessment Tool Theoretical Documenta
tion, Version, 2005a, Temple, Tex.: USDAARS Grass
land, Texas: Soil and Water Research Laboratory, 2005.
20. Panagopoulos, I., Mimikou, M., and Kapetanaki, M.,
Estimation of Nitrogen and Phosphorus Losses to Sur
face Water and Groundwater through the Implementa
tion of the SWAT Model for Norwegian Soils, J. of Soils
& Sediments, 2007, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 95–105.
21. Phan, D.B., Wu, C.C., and Hsieh, S.C., Impact of Cli
mate Change and Deforestation on Stream Discharge
and Sediment Yield in Phu Luong Watershed, Viet
Nam, J. Envir. Science and Engineering, 2011, vol. 5,
no. 1, pp. 92–101.
836 PHAN et al.
22. Rosenberg, N.J., Brown, R.A., Izaurralde, R.C., and
Thomson, A.M., Integrated Assessment of Hadley
Centre (HadCM 2) Climate Change Projections in
Agricultural Productivity and Irrigation Water Supply
in the Conteminous United States: I Climate Change
Scenarios and Impacts on Irrigation Water Supply Sim
ulated with the HUMUS Model, Agric. For. Meteor.,
2003, vol. 117, no. 1–2, pp. 73–96.
23. Rosenberg, N.J., Epstein, D.L., Wang, D., Vail, L.,
et al., Possible Impacts of Global Warming on the
Hydrology of the Ogallala Aquifer Region, Clim.
Change, 1999, vol. 42, no. 4, 677–692.
24. Santhi, C., Arnold, J.G., Williams, J.R., et al., Valida
tion of the SWAT Model on A Large River Basin with
Point and Nonpoint Sources, J. Am. Water Resour.,
2001, vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 1169–1188.
25. Santhi, C., Srinivasan, R., Arnold, J.G., and
Williams, J.R., A Modeling Approach to Evaluate the
Impacts of Water Quality Management Plans Imple
mented in a Watershed in Texas, J. Envir Modelling &
Software, 2006, vol. 21, pp. 1141–1157.
26. Sharpley, N., and Williams, J.R., EPICErosion Pro
ductivity Impact Calculator Model Documentation, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Ser
vice, Tech. Bull., 1990.
27. Semenov, M.A., and Barrow, E.M., LARSWG: A Sto
chastic Weather Generator for Use in Climate Impact
Studies, User Manual, 2002.
28. Spruill, C.A., Workman, S.R., and Taraba, J.L., Simu
lation of Daily and Monthly Stream Discharge from
Small Watersheds Using the SWAT Model, Trans.
ASAE, 2000, vol. 43, no. 6, pp. 1431–1439.
29. Williams, J.R., Jones, C.A., and Dyke, P.T., A Model
ing Approach to Determining the Relationship between
Erosion and Soil Productivity, Trans. of the ASABE.,
1984, vol. 21, pp. 129–144.
30. Wischmeier, W.H., and Smith, D.D., Predicting Rain
fall Erosion Losses—A Guide to Conservation Plan
ning, US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Hand
book, 1978, no. 537.
WATER RESOURCES Vol. 38 No. 6 2011
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.