Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Brian H. Hurd, PhD, Professor Dept. of Agricultural Economics & Agricultural Business New Mexico State University bhurd @ nmsu.edu http://agecon.nmsu.edu/bhurd “Assessing Costs and Benefits of Adaptation: Methods and Data” First Regional Training Workshop – Capacity Building Programme on the Economics of Adaptation Bangkok, Thailand 11 Mar - 14 Mar 2013 Lec 2. Hydro-Economic Models in Practice: Two Case Studies of Model Design, Data and Implementation • • Case #1: Colorado River Case #2: Rio Grande Methods and Conceptual Approach Model Basics Develop a schematic diagram of the watershed system Describes physical structure (tributaries, inflows, and reservoirs Identifies and locates watershed services Show diversion points and instream uses Derive estimates for the model’s objective function Develop demand and supply curves for each service based on water diversion or instream flow Describe model constraints Mass balance (upstream to downstream flow) Intertemporal storage in reservoirs Institutional flow restrictions Colorado River Model (Upper Basin) Colorado River Model (Lower Basin) Outcomes: Colorado River Watershed Projected hydrologic and runoff changes Estimated changes in runoff and allocation in the Lower Colorado watershed Economic impacts across the watershed How Climate Change Could Alter Colorado Watershed Runoff: the driving data Colorado Basin Runoff by Year by Scenario 1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 ba sin inflow (KAF) baseline 2.5c +7p 5.0c +7p 5.0c +15p 1.5c +15p 1.5c -10p 1.5c +7p 2.5c -10p 2.5c +15p 5.0c -10p Modeled Runoff and Allocation Changes in the Lower Colorado Basin Percentage Change from Baseline Climate 40% 20% 0% [+1.5C +15%P] [+2.5C +7%P] [+5.0C] -20% -40% -60% Runoff Agriculture M&I Colorado Basin Sectoral Impacts Percentage Change from Baseline Climate 100% 50% 0% [+1.5C +15%P] [+2.5C +7%P] [+5.0C] -50% -100% -150% Runoff Agriculture Salinity Damage Total Hydropower Basin Results: Agriculture Effect of Climate Change on Agricultural Welfare Percentage Change from Baseline Climate 20% 10% 0% -10% [+1.5C +15%P] [+2.5C +7%P] -20% [+5.0C] -30% -40% -50% Colorado Missouri Delaware Modeled Basins A-F-C Basin Results: Hydropower Effect of Climate Change on Value of Hydropower Production Percentage Change from Baseline Climate 40% 20% 0% [+1.5C +15%P] -20% [+2.5C +7%P] [+5.0C] -40% -60% -80% Colorado Missouri Delaware Modeled Basins A-F-C Basin Results: Total Welfare Effect of Climate Change on Total Welfare Percentage Change from Baseline Climate 5% 0% -5% [+1.5C +15%P] -10% [+2.5C +7%P] [+5.0C] -15% -20% -25% Colorado Missouri Delaware Modeled Basins A-F-C Objectives: (1) Estimate the impacts of climate change on agricultural diversity of the Upper Rio Grande basin and (2) Estimate the system’s adaptability to climatic changes through a hydro-economic framework. Spatial Heterogeneity: Climate, Vegetation, Environment Source: Enrigue Vivoni, AZ State Univ. Rio Grande HydroEconomic Model Schematic Diagram Rio Grande – Hydrology Model Validation Agricultural Irrigation Benefits Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District Agriculture Value Per Acre 500 400 300 Total Benefit 200 $ Marginal Benefit (Demand) 100 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 -100 -200 Water Use (af/yr) Consumptive irrigation requirements rise with increased temperatures Agricultural water demands are increased Urban Water Benefits City of Albuquerque M&I Value Per Household 12000 10000 8000 6000 Total Benefit 4000 $ Marginal Benefit (Demand) 2000 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 -2000 -4000 -6000 Water Use (af/yr) Urban water demands are most directly affected by population changes Income increases are assumed to have little direct effect on water demand because increased demand for water services is offset by increased water-use efficiency Reservoir Recreation Benefits Climate Scenarios Selected General Circulation Models (GCMs): HadCM3 from Hadley Center for Climate Prediction and Research in UK Met Office CSIRO MK3.0 from Common Wealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization of Australia GFDL0 from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory All under A1B emissions storyline Population Growth Scenarios Population growth increases water demand Isolate climate change Hydrologic Modeling Status and Results Distribution of Annual Streamflow Rio Grande Streamflow Cumulative Probability 1 0.9 0.8 Probability 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 30 80 130 180 230 280 330 380 Total Annual Basin Inflow (kaf) Base 2030-Dry 2030-Mid 2030-Wet 2080-Dry 2080-Mid 2080-Wet Streamflow Changes Streamflows were produced using WATBAL hydrologic model Conceptual rainfall-runoff model that works with the changes of temperature and precipitation and easy to use model to assess climate change impacts on river basins (Yates, 1996). Climate Change and Crop Irrigation Productivity Shifted production function to the right due to higher Consumptive Irrigation Requirement (CIR) Results Changes in water allocation: Crop Mix For San Luis Valley Crop Mix For MRGCD Crop Mix for EBID and EPAG Crop Water Consumption Level Crop Water Consumption Level Crop Water Consumption Level Economic Impacts Marginal Value of Water Conclusions Agriculture can lose big share of its water consumption losing almost a third under 2080 GFDL0 (driest scenario). At the same time the economic impacts of climate change on the whole economy can sum up to $175 million (12.6% of the total net benefits). Recreational sector loses 67% (highest percentage-wise) and agricultural sector loses $160 million (highest dollar-wise) under 2080 GFDL0. In 2030’s small grain hay and corn silage are loser crops losing more than 60% and 50% of their production under 2030 GFDL0, while pecans are the winners. In 2080’s potato joins the group of loser crops losing 50% of their total production while crops like pecans, green chile and onions are the winner crops losing less than 15% of their production. Merci’ Beaucoup! Grazie Gracias Thank You Brian H. Hurd, PhD Department of Agricultural Economics & Agricultural Business Gerald Thomas Hall Rm. 350 New Mexico State University Tel : Email: Web: (575) 646-2674 [email protected] http://agecon.nmsu.edu/bhurd