Bestone I Need

Effects of Land Use Change on Groundwater Recharge
A Case Study in the Day River Basin, Vietnam
Master’s Thesis
M. van der Wolf – 3960668

Water Science and Management, Faculty of Geosciences, Utrecht University
05-12-2015
Graduate student: M. van der Wolf – [email protected]

Supervision: Dr. Ir. M. Rutten - TU Delft – [email protected]
Coordinator: Dr. P. Schot - Utrecht University – [email protected]
2
Master’s Thesis – Water Science and Management – M. van der Wolf 3960668
Effects of Land Use Change on Groundwater Recharge
A Case Study in the Day River Basin, Vietnam
Master’s Thesis
In fulfilment of the requirements for the Master’s degree in Environmental Sciences, programme Water
Science and Management, at Utrecht University.
M. van der Wolf – 3960668

Water Science and Management, Faculty of Geosciences, University of Utrecht
3
Summary
The Day River Basin In South East Asia, is characterized by rapid land use change processes reducing
groundwater recharge rates and threatening groundwater resources. The main objective of this study
was to “analyze the potential effects of different land use change scenarios on groundwater recharge in
the Day River Basin in Vietnam”. The Soil Water and Assessment Tool (SWAT), a spatially distributed
model able to predict the environmental impact of land use changes, was applied to the Day River Basin.
Before the model was run, a land use classification and a land use map for the Day River Basin were
made. The model is calibrated against measured daily discharge at 3 locations in the study area, Ba
Tha, Phu Ly and Ninh Binh. For all 3 locations, daily R2 values are above 0.5 indicating an acceptable
model performance. The daily NSE values range between 0.2 and 0.7, which also indicate an acceptable
model performance. Three land use change maps where created, representing three scenarios for the
Day River Basin in 2035. Scenario I ’business as usual’ (BAU), scenario II ‘rapid economic growth’
(REG), and scenario III ‘sustainable policies’ (SUS).
The results show that each land use change scenario has different effects on groundwater recharge in
the Day River Basin. The BAU scenario, which assumes no implementation of new policies and
represents a continuation of current trends, shows decreasing groundwater recharge rates in almost all
sub-basins. The same goes for REG scenario where even more rapid urbanization and deforestation
processes are at hand, which drastically reduce the rainfall partitioning to groundwater recharge. The
SUS scenario shows that sustainable policies, such as, reforestation practices can potentially influence
the rainfall partitioning to groundwater recharge in a positive way.
Land use changes seem to have limited effects on the groundwater recharge rates when monthly values
are evaluated. Cumulative trends over a longer periods of time, show a different pattern, which indicates
that land use changes do in fact drastically effect groundwater recharge rates. Land use change can
positively or negatively influence groundwater recharge rates, depending on the kind of land use
changes. SWAT was used to rank the land use types from the ones generating the most to the least
groundwater recharge. Results show that from the 13 land use types in the Day River Basin land use
map, forest and grass generate the most groundwater recharge and residential areas (high density)
generate the least. Paddy field also generates relatively small amounts of groundwater recharge.
Looking at a sub-basin scale, changes in groundwater recharge occur in areas where most land use
changes are at hand. Similar land use changes do not have the same effects on groundwater recharge
in all sub-basins. In lower areas with little slopes, land use changes reduce the rainfall partitioning to
groundwater recharge more than in mountainous areas. It can be concluded that the sensitivity of
groundwater recharge to land use changes is spatially distributed within the Day River Basin. As
groundwater resources in the Day River Basin are depleting rapidly, policy effective measurement are
needed to address the issue of reducing groundwater recharge as a result of land use changes. Since
the effects of land use change on groundwater recharge are significant, land use planners should take
into account the effects of their decisions on groundwater recharge, as it is one of the most valuable
ecosystem services in the Day River Basin.
4
Preface
This thesis is written by Maik van der Wolf in fulfilment of the requirements for the Master’s degree in
Environmental Sciences, programme Water Science and Management, at Utrecht University. I am
fortunate to have been given the opportunity to study the effects of land use change on groundwater
recharge using the Day River Basin in Vietnam as a case study site. The idea for the study was initiated
within the context of the MK27 project ‘Inclusive development paths for healthy Red River landscapes
based on ecosystem services’. The MK27 project is a collaboration of 9, Dutch and Vietnamese
consortium partners, with TU Delft as the leading institute and was initiated in January 2015, running for
a period of 2 years, ending in December 2016. Fortunately my personal interests in land use change
processes, hydrology and hydrological modelling were in line with the contents of the MK27 project.
Based on these common interests, I wrote a research proposal in accordance with Ir. M. Rutten from
TU Delft, consistent with the challenges for the Mk27 project. After the proposal has been approved, I
studied in Vietnam for a period of about 3 months starting June 1, 2015. I have experienced my stay in
Vietnam as a once in a lifetime opportunity as I got the chance to work with both Dutch- and local
experts, which are actively involved in topics related to ecosystem service assessment, hydrologic
modelling and/or other water and sustainability related studies. Mostly I have been situated at the Water
Resource University (WRU), the Hanoi University of Water Resources and Environment (HUNRE) and
the Institute of Water Resources and Planning (IWRP). Rapid land use change processes and their
effects on ecosystem services are a major challenge in the Day River basin for the coming years. In my
opinion, analyzing the effects of land use change on groundwater recharge is one of the most urgent
and important challenges for the Day River Basin, because groundwater is one of the most valuable
resources in this region. Improved knowledge of these system dynamics could assist and/or guide land
use planners and other decision makers as they manage future developments within the Day River
Basin.
Acknowledgements
My deepest gratitude goes to the following persons who helped and supported me with this opportunity
to study a topic of my personal interest abroad in Vietnam;
Ir. Martine Rutten from TU Delft for providing me the opportunity to do this research and supervising and
guiding me along the way, Paul Schot from Utrecht University for his supervision, feedback, and advice,
Ha Thanh Lan from IWRP for providing data and sharing his knowledge and experience on hydrological
modelling, Thi von le Khoa from HUNRE for sharing his knowledge on SWAT and the Day River Basin
water system, Son Tung Nguyen from HUNRE, for sharing his knowledge about ArcGIS and remote
sensing and his efforts to produce a land use map. Trung Dũng Vũ, student at WRU and Thibaut Visser,
graduate student from TU-delft, for their contribution on the production of a land use classification and
land use map, Le Tranthah HUNRE sharing his knowledge on geohydrology in the Day River Basin,
Duc Anh Nguyen WRU for sharing data and articles, G. Simons of Futurewater for sharing data and dr.
Cong from Vinwater for providing me a working space at WRU.
5
Contents
Summary ................................................................................................................................................. 4
Preface .................................................................................................................................................... 5
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................. 5
List of abbreviations ................................................................................................................................. 8
1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 9
1.1 Land use and land cover change .................................................................................................. 9
1.2 Problem description ..................................................................................................................... 10
1.3 Research objective ...................................................................................................................... 11
1.4 Research questions ..................................................................................................................... 11
1.5 Research boundaries .................................................................................................................. 11
2 Site description Day River Basin ........................................................................................................ 12
2.1 Climate......................................................................................................................................... 12
2.2 Surface water .............................................................................................................................. 12
2.3 Groundwater ................................................................................................................................ 13
3 Method ................................................................................................................................................ 14
3.1 General approach ........................................................................................................................ 14
3.2 Research steps ............................................................................................................................ 15
3.2.1 Choose hydrological model .................................................................................................. 15
3.2.2 Gather SWAT input data ...................................................................................................... 16
3.2.3 Set up model for Day River Basin ........................................................................................ 16
3.2.4 Calibration............................................................................................................................. 17
3.2.5 Validation .............................................................................................................................. 17
3.2.6 Create land use change scenarios (sub-question A) ........................................................... 17
3.2.7 Model land use change scenarios (sub-question B) ............................................................ 18
3.2.8 Determine rainfall partitioning on groundwater recharge for each land use (sub-question C) 18
3.2.9 Assess the spatial distribution of sensitivity (sub-question D) .............................................. 18
4 Results ................................................................................................................................................ 19
4.1 Model performance...................................................................................................................... 19
4.2 Land use change scenario’s ........................................................................................................ 20
4.2.1 Scenario I.............................................................................................................................. 20
4.2.2 Scenario II............................................................................................................................. 20
4.2.3 Scenario III............................................................................................................................ 20
4.3 Groundwater recharge rates per scenario ................................................................................... 21
4.3.1 Current situation ................................................................................................................... 21
4.3.2 Scenario I ’business as usual’ .............................................................................................. 22
4.3.3 Scenario II ‘rapid economic growth’ ..................................................................................... 23
4.3.4 Scenario III ‘sustainable policies’ ......................................................................................... 24
6
4.3.5 Comparing scenarios ............................................................................................................ 25
4.4 Rainfall partitioning per land use type ......................................................................................... 26
4.5 Spatial distribution of sensitivity .................................................................................................. 28
5 Discussion .......................................................................................................................................... 29
5.1 Reliability of results ...................................................................................................................... 29
5.2 Possible improvements ............................................................................................................... 29
5.3 Further research .......................................................................................................................... 30
6 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................... 31
7 Bibliography ........................................................................................................................................ 32
Appendix I Input data ............................................................................................................................. 37
Appendix II Land use classification Day River Basin ............................................................................ 40
Appendix III SWAT parameters description .......................................................................................... 46
Appendix IV Calibration and validation .................................................................................................. 48
Appendix V Land use map, current situation ......................................................................................... 54
Appendix VI Land use map scenario I ................................................................................................... 55
Appendix VII Land use map scenario II ................................................................................................. 56
Appendix VIII Land use map scenario III ............................................................................................... 57
7
List of abbreviations
ET = Evapotranspiration
CMS = Cubic meters per second
GWR = Groundwater recharge
HUNRE = Hanoi University for Natural Resources and Environment
IWRM = Integrated Water Resources Management
IWRP = Institute Of Water Resource Planning
LUC = Land use change
MARD = Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development
NSE = Nash Sutcliffe Efficiency
MONRE = Ministry Of Natural Resources and Environment
NAWAPI = National Center of Water Resource Planning and Investigation
RH = Relative Humidity
WRU = Water Resource University
8
1 Introduction
1.1 Land use and land cover change
All over the world, especially in the developing world, rapid population growth is at hand (United Nations,
2004). The world population of 7.2 billion in mid-2013 is projected to increase by almost one billion
people within the next twelve years, reaching 8.1 billion in 2025, and to further increase to 9.6 billion in
2050 and 10.9 billion by 2100 (United Nations, 2013). At the same time, urban migration causes cities
to grow and expand at fast rates. The World Bank recognizes the shift from rural to urban societies and
predicts a massive impact on the economic, social, political, and environmental landscape of countries
across the globe (World Bank Group, 2015). Population growth and the shift from rural to urban societies
are both processes which drive changes in land use and land cover. Land cover is "the observed
physical and biological cover of the earth's land, as vegetation or man-made features." In contrast, land
use is "the total of arrangements, activities, and inputs that people undertake in a certain land cover
type" (Choudhury et al., 1998). Land use- and hence land cover change, from here on addressed as
‘land use change’, is a general term for the human modification of Earth's terrestrial surface (Ellis, 2013).
Current rates, extents and intensities of land use change are far greater than ever in history, driving
changes in ecosystems and environmental processes at local, regional and global scales (Ellis, 2013).
In South East Asia, the Red River Basin is characterized by such rapid land use change processes
(CGIAR, 2014). About 32.7 million people inhabit the Basin which covers an area of 169.000 km²
covering parts of China, Vietnam and a small part of Laos (NAWAPI, 2015). In the Red River Basin the
urban proportion of the population increased from 19.9% in 1999, to 29.2% in 2009 (Vietnam General
Statistics Office, 2011). Urban growth In the Red River Basin has been most apparent in the capital
Hanoi, which is located in the Day/Nhue River sub-basin, also known as the ‘Day River Basin’. The Day
River Basin (figure 1), located in the south-east of the Red River Basin, stretches from mountainous
area to the coast and includes 5 provinces: Hanoi, Ha Nam, Ninh Binh, Nam Dinh and Hoa Binh, with a
total area of 7665 km². Currently Hanoi accounts for 8.2 million inhabitants. From 1999 to 2009, the
population of the capital increased by about 1.5 times. This rapid growth will continue if there are no
changes in current trends (Vietnam General Statistics Office, 2011)
.
Figure 1. Day River Basin, provinces and major cities.
9
1.2 Problem description
For many people in the Day River Basin groundwater is a valuable resource as most surface waters are
either absent or polluted (ICEM, 2007). Groundwater it is being used to provide fresh water to citizens
and industry. Hanoi, is a good example of a quickly urbanized city in a developing country, where
groundwater is the only resource of drinking water (Jusseret et al., 2010). In rural areas people also
strongly rely on groundwater resources, as they use groundwater for many purposes like; drinking water
for both themselves and their cattle, small scale irrigation and daily shores, such as washing clothes.
Currently, within the Day River Basin groundwater resources are being threatened by rapid land use
changes such as urbanization, deforestation, and intensive agriculture, as they reduce the amount of
groundwater recharge from rainfall (Nhan, 2015). Groundwater recharge is defined as the ‘vertical
downward water movement across the phreatic groundwater table’ (red arrows in figure 2) (Scanlon et
al., 2002). Water movement differs per land use type, especially flow in the vertical direction
(Bastiaanssen, 2015). When land use changes occur, hydrological processes (infiltration, evaporation,
groundwater recharge) are also affected. Figure 2. shows some example land use types, forest(1),
urban(2), agriculture(3) and bare land(4) and how they are interconnected with hydrological processes.
Figure 2. Hydrological processes and the interconnection with land use
The reduction of groundwater recharge as a result of rapid land use changes is a big challenge for the
Day River basin as it involves many consequences. Reduced groundwater recharge leads to depleting
groundwater resources and lowering of groundwater levels. The result is land subsidence, with a
maximum observed yearly rate of 46 mm per year at Thanh Cong (Fischer et al., 2011), increasing flood
risks within the Day River basin. At the same time, due to the lowering of groundwater levels, arsene-
and salt intrusion from deep aquifers threaten groundwater quality (Postma et al., 2012). Furthermore,
less groundwater recharge, leads to a less stable river discharge in terms of baseflow, which is
considered to be a measure for the region’s water resource availability over time (Lawrence Dingman,
2002). Altogether, groundwater recharge is a valuable resource and for this reason it is recognized as
one of the ecosystem services related to water within the Ecosystem Services and Resilience framework
of the CGIAR (CGIAR, 2014). Understanding the dynamics between land use changes and hydrological
processes, is a topic scientists have studied for several years. Yet, the challenge to quantify the effects
of land use change on groundwater recharge remains, especially within the Day River Basin in Vietnam,
where there is little knowledge on the effects of land use change on groundwater recharge (CGIAR,
2014).
10
1.3 Research objective
The main objective is to “analyze the potential effects of different land use change scenarios on
groundwater recharge in the Day River Basin in Vietnam”. In regard to this objective, ‘analyzing’, does
not only imply quantifying the potential effects of land use change scenarios on groundwater recharge
in the Day River Basin, but also explaining the effects.
The objective fits within the context of the MK27 project. “Inclusive development paths for Healthy Red
River Landscapes” funded under the CGIAR program WLE Greater Mekong (CGIAR, 2015). One of the
objectives of this project is to support the Vietnamese Government in their decision making by providing
access to improved (processed) data and to provide (land use) planners with tools to assess the impact
of land use changes on ecosystem services (MK27, 2015). One of the challenges for the MK27
consortium partners, is to feed their knowledge into regional and national planning systems in order to
manage the Day River Basin now and in the future. The outcome of this study may serve as a
contribution to their objectives, by providing improved understanding of the effects of land use change
on groundwater recharge within the Day River Basin.
1.4 Research questions

To meet the research objective one main research questions is proposed. Additionally, four sub-
questions are formulated in order to answer the main question. How the sub-question contribute to
answering to the two main research questions is explained in more detail under ‘Methods’.
“What are the potential effects of different land use change scenarios on groundwater recharge
in the Day River Basin and how can these effects be explained?”
A. What are possible land use change scenarios for the Day River Basin?
B. How much groundwater recharge is generated for each land use change scenario?
C. What is the rainfall partitioning to groundwater recharge for each land use type in the Day River
Basin land use map and how can this be explained?
D. How is the sensitivity of groundwater recharge to land use changes spatially distributed within the
Day River Basin and how can this be explained?
1.5 Research boundaries

To clarify the research objective some research boundaries are given. At first, groundwater resources
can be refilled in a couple of ways such as; infiltration due to rainfall, lateral inflow from surface water
bodies like lakes, rivers and streams, leakage from pipes in urban areas and artificial groundwater
recharge (Yang et al., 1999). This research solely focusses on the groundwater recharge induced by
rainfall, because land use change plays an important role in this process. Lateral inflow from surface
water to groundwater resources and human induced groundwater recharge are not directly related to
land use change processes and are therefore not within the scope of this study. Secondly, the aim is to
quantify the effects of land use change on groundwater recharge, what happens after this process, for
example, groundwater abstractions or other human interventions, are not within the scope of this study.
Thirdly, even though, reduced amounts of groundwater resources have negative consequences for
groundwater quality, this study solely focusses on water quantity and not the water qualitative
consequences of reduced groundwater recharge. Fourthly, on purpose, the effects of climate change
are not taken into account. This way it is clear what driving force induces the changes in the groundwater
recharge and confusion is avoided about whether the changes in groundwater recharge are induced by
land use- or climate change. Fifthly, within each hydrological year, many rainfall events occur with
different characteristics in terms of duration, intensity and spatial distribution. The effects of a single
rainfall event are not within the scope of this study, instead long term effects, yearly averages and
seasonal variations of groundwater recharge are taken into account. Finally, the purpose of this study
is to analyze and explain the effects of land use changes in the Day River Basin, in order to contribute
to the objectives of the MK27 project. The aim is not to produce action plans or measurements
strategies, but to provide land use planners with a tool to better understand the effects of land use
change on groundwater recharge in the Day River Basin.
11
2 Site description Day River Basin
2.1 Climate
The Day River basin is situated in wet-hot tropical monsoonal climate with a pronounced maritime
influence. Pfeiffer (1984) has classed its climate as seasonal, moist subtropical (Zhen et al., 2006).
Annual average temperatures range from 24-27oC. Summers are warm and very humid, with average
temperatures ranging from 27oC to 29oC, with mean maxima of 31–33oC. Winters are cool and dry, with
mean monthly temperatures varying from 16.3oC to 20.9oC, and mean minimum temperatures from
14.4oC to 19oC (Zhen et al., 2006). Annual average rainfall is 1500-2200 mm, with peak rainfall occurring
at Ba Vi Mountain in the upper catchment of the Tich River. Most of the annual rainfall falls during the
summer rainy season (April-October), with the heaviest rainfall occurring in August and September
(Zhen et al., 2006). The flood season (June-October) contributes 80% of the total annual flow, while the
dry season contributes only 20% of the annual water volume (ICEM, 2007). A couple of meteorological
stations (green dots in fig 2.), measure climatic related features such as rainfall and temperature.
2.2 Surface water

The Day River basin has a rather complicated hydrology due to the many diversions and flow alterations.
The natural systems have been fundamentally altered and controlled by engineering interventions and
management regimes (ICEM, 2007). It is a system with an annual flow of approximately 28.8 billion m³.
The mainstream of the Day River basin, is the Day River (figure 3. red line) with a total length of 240
km, from the river mouth at the Red River, all the way to the sea. The Day River used to be a regular
distributary of the Red River, diverting water of the Red River at Hat Mon, about 25 km upstream of
Hanoi. Nowadays the Day river does not receive any water from the Red River anymore and partly
turned into a ‘dead river’ from the river mouth to approximately 71 km downstream near Ba Tha (ICEM,
2007). From here on the Day River receives surface water from a couple tributaries starting with the
Tich river, followed by the Nhue, Hoang Long, Chau, and Dao rivers. In the upstream area, the lack of
surface water increases the value and importance of groundwater resources (Le Tranthanh, personal
communication, July 12, 2015). Hydrological stations (figure 3. red dots) measure either water level or
discharge. Three hydrologic stations, Ba Tha, Phu Ly and Ninh Binh, are situated along the Day River.
Figure 3. Day River (dark red) and tributaries (dark blue)
12
2.3 Groundwater
There are 6 soil layers in the Day River Basin (figure 4). Groundwater resources are stored in 2 layers.
Groundwater extractions in both layers, are expected to grow in the coming years, increasing the value
of groundwater resources and thereby the importance of groundwater recharge even more (Le
Tranthanh, personal communication, July 12, 2015).
Firstly, groundwater is stored in the relatively undeep Holocene layer, an unconfined/semi-unconfined

aquifer. Households in suburban districts extract drinkable water from this layer using shallow drilling
wells. The number and extraction amounts are impossible to estimate (Tong et al., 2001). Water entering
this layer is known as ‘recharge to the shallow aquifer’ (figure 2). Land use changes have a direct
influence on this process. A fraction of the water in the Holocene layer can seep deeper into the ground
to the Pleistocene layer, which is a confined aquifer.
From this Pleistocene layer, centralized extractions are managed by governmental organizations, such
as the Hanoi Water Supply Company (Hawaco) in the Hanoi area with 11 well fields and 7 small stations
accounting for a total of 200 wells. The average withdrawal from these well fields has been monitored,
showing continuous rising of groundwater extraction over the last decades for domestic and industrial
demand and for public services in urban districts (Dang et al., 2014). Decentralized extraction are being
done by factories and companies, which drill from their own wells. They also directly extract groundwater
from the confined Pleistocene aquifer. Land use change processes have an indirect effect on ‘recharge
to the deep aquifer’ (figure 2. p10) (Le Tranthanh, personal communication, July 12, 2015).
Figure 4. Geohydrological setting: Day River Basin cross section (Source: HUNRE, 2015)
13
3 Method
3.1 General approach
The general approach to answer the main research question, is presented in a flow diagram. The
letters A, B, C and D indicate which steps relate to the sub-questions.
1. Choose hydrological model 1a. Define criteria for model choice
2. Gather SWAT input data 2a. Visit local experts (MK27) to collect data
2b. Create a land use classification
2c. Create a land use map
2d. Edit input data to required format for the model
3. Set up model for Day River Basin 3a. Watershed delineation
3b. Define sub-basins and HRU’s
3c. Run initial model
4. Calibrate and validate 4a. Find most sensitive parameters
ind
4b. Adjust parameters
4c. Compare model output with observed values
4d. Choose final parameter set
4e. Validate model for different years
5. Create land use change scenarios (A) 5a. Literature review (Day River Basin Vision)
5b. Edit current land use map to create scenario

maps
6. Model land use change scenarios (B) 6a. Run model for each scenario
6b. Analyze the effects of luc on gwr per scenario
6c. Edit output: graphs gwr over time/cumulative
7. Determine rainfall partitioning (C) 7a. Model each land use type (full cover)
7b. Determine the rainfall partitioning on

groundwater recharge for each land use type
8. Determine spatial distribution (D) 8. Calculate the percentual change of similar land
use changes for different sub-basins
9. Discussion 9. Discuss the results for each sub-question
10. Answer the main research question using the

10. Conclusion results of the sub-question
14
3.2 Research steps
3.2.1 Choose hydrological model
The effects of land use change on groundwater recharge are analyzed using the Soil Water and
Assessment Tool (SWAT) (Arnold et al., 1998) (Arnold & Fohrer., 2005). The selection for the SWAT
model is based on the following criteria;
 Able to estimate groundwater recharge rates over a large range of scales. SWAT is able to
model from small watershed to river basin-scale up to 500,000 km² (Arnold et al., 2000).
 A spatially distributed model. SWAT enables spatially distributed simulations to predict the
environmental impact of land use changes (Neitsch et al., 2011).
 Able to do long−term continuous simulations with daily- monthly- and yearly output. SWAT
output includes evapotranspiration, surface runoff, lateral- or baseflow and groundwater
recharge over time.
 A physically based model. SWAT simulates the physical characteristics and processes related
to land use and groundwater recharge (Neitsch et al., 2011).
 Ability to use different kind of data (measured data, point source data, remote sensing data)
 Possibility to model scenarios by using land use maps with spatially displayed input/output.
 Earlier studies have been done with fair results, such as: Sun et al. (2005) who simulated 30
years of bore data in SWAT for a 437 km² watershed, in order to estimate recharge in the
headwaters of the Liverpool Plains in New South Wales, Australia.
SWAT operates together with the Geographical Information System (GIS). Figure 5 gives an overview
of all SWAT model components (Neitsch et al., 2011). The green arrows show which model components
are related to the generation of groundwater recharge. The red arrow indicates the ‘groundwater
recharge to the shallow aquifer’, which specifically is the focus of this study. Model components such as
‘snowmelt’, ‘irrigation’, and the ‘pond and reservoir water balance’ are not being used.
Figure 5. Schematic overview of processes (rectangles) and storages (circles) in SWAT, adopted from (Neitsch et al., 2011)
15
3.2.2 Gather SWAT input data
Input data for the SWAT model was gathered by visiting local experts in Vietnam working for the MK27
project and additionally on-line databases were used. An overview of the input data and sources is given
in Appendix I. Not all data was readily available. In order to set up a SWAT model for the Day River
Basin, a ‘land use map’ for the Day River Basin current situation was required. A ‘land use map
classification’ was made in cooperation with Sơn Tùng Nguyễn (HUNRE) and Thi Văn Lê Khoa
(HUNRE), who have in-depth knowledge of the study area. The Day River Basin ‘land use map’ was
created in cooperation with Sơn Tùng Nguyễn (HUNRE), Trung Dũng Vũ (WRU) and Thibaut Visser
(TU Delft).
3.2.2.1 Create a land use classification for the Day River Basin.
A selection was made from the total list of 100+ land use types in the SWAT database, to exclude land
use types irrelevant for the Day River Basin such as snow, ice cover, tundra, etc. After this step, 53 land
use types were left. A second selection was made by removing land use types from the list which are
very small in size and cannot be recognize using remote sensing, for example, a single eggplant or
tomato plant in a back yard. Due to their limited effect on hydrology, these land use types were removed
from the list, resulting in 39 land use types for the Day River Basin land use classification (Appendix II).
3.2.2.2 Create a land use map for the Day River Basin.
A ‘level 1 classification’ was made based on a classification from Tsinghua University (2014). It contains
8 classes: Crop, forest, grass, shrub, impervious, soil, water and wetland. These 8 classes for the Day
River Basin land use map were identified using Landsat images in ArcGIS. The 39 SWAT land use types
were divided over these 8 classes. All crops were placed under ‘crop’, al urban and industrial areas
under ‘impervious’ etc. In the end, T. Visser and Sơn Tùng Nguyễn used satellite images and field trips
to further improve and finalize the land use map, resulting in a land use map with 13 land use types
(Appendix V).
3.2.3 Set up model for Day River Basin

SWAT incorporates a number of methods to simulate the hydrological processes. The surface
runoff/infiltration process can be modelled using the empirically derived SCS curve number method
(USDA Soil Conservation Service, 1972) or the Green and Ampt method (Green and Ampt, 1911). The
latter requires sub-daily rainfall data, which was not available, and canopy storage must be modelled
separately which requires additional data sets. Therefore, the SCS curve number method is used to
model the surface runoff/infiltration process, with the amount of infiltration determined implicitly as the
difference between the amount of rainfall and surface runoff. For the potential evapotranspiration, the
calculation methods in SWAT include the Penman-Monteith (Monteith, 1965), the Priestley Taylor
method (Priestley and Taylor, 1972) or the more simple Hargreaves method (Hargreaves et al., 1985).
The Penman-Monteith method, which is the default method in SWAT, is used because it is the most
physically based method and is therefore universally accurate (Wang et al., 2009). Furthermore it is the
most commonly used method when a full complement of weather data is available (Allen et al., 1987)
which yields good results under different climatic conditions (Droogers & Allen, 2002). In SWAT a
kinematic storage model is used to predict lateral subsurface flow (Sloan et al., 1984). The method
SWAT uses to calculate actual groundwater discharge is derived from the steady-state response of
groundwater flow to recharge as described by Hooghoudt (Hooghoudt, 1940). Manning’s equation is
used by SWAT to define the rate and velocity of flow. Water is routed through the channel using the
variable storage routing method (Williams, 1969).
During the watershed delineation process the Day River Basin was divided into 75 sub-basins with on
average 11 Hydrological Response Units (HRU’s) per sub-basin, 817 HRU’s in total. SWAT
automatically creates HRU’s based on, geological conditions (soil map), land use characteristics (land
use map) and elevation/slope (digital elevation map). When modelling land use scenarios, land use
changes need to be recognized by the model. Therefore the threshold for land use is set to 2%, meaning
that each land use type covering an area of more than 2% of a sub basin is recognized by the model.
Therefore 99/100% of the land use change will be noticed by the model while running land use change
scenarios. The thresholds for soil and slope are higher, 17%. These thresholds require less detail
because soil and slope maps have less detail and do not change when the scenarios are run.
16
3.2.4 Calibration
Calibration of the SWAT model is done using the ‘manual calibration tool’ from SWAT (Inchell et al.,
2013). This tool provides the most dominant parameters in SWAT (appendix III) and enables
modifications. These parameters are also referred to in many other SWAT studies such as (Miller et al.,
2002), (Sawyer, 2010) and also in the SWAT theoretical documentation (S.L Neitsch et al., 2011) and
the SWAT Input/Output Documentation (Arnold et al., 2012).
The aim was not to get a fully calibrated model, but to improve model performance to an acceptable
level. Two statistical methods are used to assess model performance during the calibration. The
coefficient of determination (R2) and the Nash Sutcliffe mode efficiency coefficient (Nash & Sutcliffe,
1970) are used to assess the model performance. The ‘coefficient of determination’ or R2, describes the
proportion of the variance in measured data vs modelled output. R2 ranges from 0 to 1, where values
closer to 1 indicate less error variance (Moriasi et al., 2007). Values greater than 0.5 are considered to
indicate ‘acceptable model performance’ (Moriasi et al., 2007). The NSE describe the degree of
collinearity between simulated and measured discharge data (Moriasi et al., 2007). NSE values range
from - ∞ to 1 where values between 0 and 1 indicate an acceptable model performance.
The model is calibrated by iteratively changing parameters in SWAT while comparing the modelled- and
measured daily discharge in 2006 at 3 locations Ba Tha, Phu Ly and Ninh Binh. Discharge
measurements at these 3 locations were not readily available, because only waterlevel measurements
are being done at these stations. Therefore, Q-h relations for the Day River Basin from a study by Luu
et al. (2010) are used to convert water level measurements to discharge rates. These derived daily
discharge rates are compared with the daily discharge rates in SWAT for calibration. Table 1 presents
in column 1; the parameters used for calibration, column 2; the range for the parameter values, 3. the
final parameter values after calibration.
PARAMETER DESCRIPTION RANGE CALIBRATED VALUE

CH_N2 0.01-0.3 0.3
ESCO 0.01 to 1.0 1
CNCOEFF 0.5 to 2.0 1
ALPHA_BF 0.01 to 1.0 0.1
Table 1 (adjusted) parameter values for calibration of SWAT.
3.2.5 Validation
The model is validated by comparing the modelled- and measured daily discharge for 2008 at 3 locations
Ba Tha, Phu Ly and Ninh Binh, without further adjustments to the SWAT model. A second validation for
the water balance was done by comparing the monthly evapotranspiration rates for 2006 presented in
Luu et al., (2010), a study on water circulation patterns for the Red River system, with the SWAT model
output.
3.2.6 Create land use change scenarios (sub-question A)

Future land use changes cannot be predicted, as it is a process driven by social- economic
developments and changes in society. In developing countries like Vietnam, due to a lack of policies,
land use change is a relatively uncontrolled process compared to developed countries such as the
Netherlands (Nguyen, personal communication, June 2015). To take into account the uncertainty of land
use changes, three land use change scenarios are made for the Day River Basin. The scenarios are
based on a study from Niapp et al. (2012), ‘Land use, food security, and climate change’, which aimed
to provide better insights about future land use change in Vietnam and the relation towards food security
and climate change. The land use types in Niapp et al., (2012) are not completely similar to the land use
types in the Day River Basin land use map. Therefore a personal interpretation was given to the Day
River Basin scenario maps. The scenarios were continuously discussed with two Vietnamese experts,
Sơn Tùng Nguyễn (HUNRE) and Thi Văn Lê Khoa (HUNRE), who have indebt knowledge of the study
area. The scenarios are created by editing the Day River Basin land use map of the current situation
into new hypothetical land use maps using ArcGIS.
17
3.2.7 Model land use change scenarios (sub-question B)
The scenarios are applied to the model to analyze the potential effects on groundwater recharge. The
analysis focusses on, 1; the effects on groundwater recharge over time and 2; the annual ‘cumulative
effects’ of land use change scenarios on groundwater recharge. The analysis is done by comparing the
output per sub-basin and not the HRU’s. The HRU definition is different for each scenario and therefore
the boundaries of the HRU’s also change. For this reason the HRU’s cannot give a fair comparison. The
sub-basin boundaries remain the same when running the scenarios. The following 2 steps are done to
gain a better understanding on the effects of the scenarios on groundwater recharge.
3.2.8 Determine rainfall partitioning on groundwater recharge for each land use (sub-question C)
To better understand the effects of the different land use changes scenarios on the groundwater
recharge in the Day River Basin the rainfall partitioning to groundwater recharge is analyzed. To
estimate the rainfall partitioning to groundwater recharge for the land use types present in the Day River
Basin land use map, a full cover for each land use type was given to the model. SWAT does not allow
a full cover of the land use type ‘water’, so this land use type is not taken into account. For the other 12
land use types, the range for average minimum- and maximum rainfall partitioning to groundwater
recharge is determined. This range is determined for both the dry- (November-March) and wet (April-
October) season, using rainfall data from 2014. First, a full cover is given to the Day River Basin land
use map for land use X. Secondly. For each month the rainfall [mm] and the amount of groundwater
recharge [mm] are averaged over the sub-basins. Finally, the percentage of rainfall becoming
groundwater recharge is calculated for the driest- (January) and wettest month (November), giving the
range for land use type X in the dry season. For the wet season the range is determined similarly using
the driest month (May) for the lower- and the wettest month (August) for the upper limit.
3.2.9 Assess the spatial distribution of sensitivity (sub-question D)

When land use changes occur at location A, they effect the amount of groundwater recharge which is
generated at ‘location A’. Due to differences in soil type, elevation and slope steepness, the same land
use change at ‘location B’ might have a different effect on groundwater recharge as in ‘location A’. From
here on this is referred to as the ‘spatial distribution of the sensitivity of groundwater recharge to land
use changes’.
To find the spatial distribution of the sensitivity of groundwater recharge to land use change within the
Day River Basin’ the result of sub-question C is used. First, the SWAT model was given a full cover of
a land use type generating little groundwater recharge. For this land use type, the amount of
groundwater recharge per sub-basin is calculated using rainfall input from 2014. Secondly, a full cover
of the land use type generating the most groundwater recharge is given to the model. Also, for this land
use type the amount of groundwater recharge per sub-basin is calculated using the same rainfall input.
Finally, for each sub-basin the percentual change in the amount of groundwater recharge between both
situations is calculated. The percentual change shows for each sub-basins, the sensitivity of
groundwater recharge to land use changes.
18
4 Results
4.1 Model performance
The model performance is assessed after calibration using coefficient of determination (R2) and Nash-
Sutcliffe methods. The results for the model performance after calibration are presented in Table 2.
Table 3. shows the validation results. Appendix IV contains the calibration and validation curves for the
3 stations. The high peaks in the modelled discharge are caused by extreme rainfall events. SWAT is
not a hydraulic- or flood model and higher discharge peaks can occur during intense rainfall events. The
R2 values are sensitive to these high values which have a negative effect on the R 2 values (Legates,
1999). Nevertheless, for all 3 locations, the daily R2 values are above 0.5 and indicate an acceptable
model performance. The daily NSE values are between 0 and 1, which also indicate an acceptable
model performance.
Both the R2 and the NSE indicate that model performance increases further downstream, from Ba Tha
to Ninh Binh. This improved model performance downstream can be explained by surface water flow,
exfiltration from the Red River, adding to the total Day River Basin discharge. The SWAT model only
takes into account rainfall input and does not take into account surface and groundwater inflow from
surrounding upstream areas. For this reason the discharge in the SWAT model might be underestimated
in the upstream areas, where Ba Tha station is situated.
Calibration (2006) Mean (cms) Std. deviation R2 Ens

Ba Tha Measured 53 42 0.6 0.3
SWAT 25 42
Phu Ly Measured 121 93 0.7 0.2
SWAT 61 90
Ninh Binh Measured 146 115 0.7 0.7
SWAT 117 153
Table 2. Calibration statistics for discharge at 3 locations Ba Tha, Phu Ly and Ninh Binh
Validation (2008) Mean (cms) Std. deviation R2 Ens

Ba Tha Measured 70 60 0.2 0.2
SWAT 54 124
Phu Ly Measured 158 128 0.4 0.4
SWAT 136 283
Ninh Binh Measured 194 173 0.5 0.5
SWAT 213 406
Table 3. Validation statistics for discharge at 3 locations Ba Tha, Phu Ly and Ninh Binh
The SWAT model output is compared with monthly evapotranspiration from Luu et al., (2010) to validate
the water balance. Figure 6 shows the results from Luu et al., (2010) (left) and the SWAT model output
(right). The SWAT water balance seems to produce similar evapotranspiration patterns over the year
with similar rainfall input.
Day River Basin (2006)

Rainfall Eta
400
350
300
mm [H2o]
250
200
150
100
50
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Time T [Months]
Figure 6. Rainfall and evaporation for the Day River Basin adopted from Luu et al., (2010) vs. SWAT model.
19
4.2 Land use change scenario’s
Three land use change scenarios are created for the Day River Basin. Including the land use in the
‘current situation’ 2015, there is a total of 4 land use maps. The three scenarios are described below.
Table 4 shows for each scenario the percentual land use changes compared to the current situation.
4.2.1 Scenario I
The first scenario is the most realistic scenario for 2035. It is the baseline scenario reflecting the
‘Business As Usual’ (BAU) and simulates an economic growth path for the Day River Basin assuming
no implementation of new policies. Urban growth, industrial growth and production forest land replace
paddy fields, non-production (evergreen) forest and other crops. The land use changes are not
distributed evenly over the Day River Basin. Urban- and industrial growth is concentrated in the sub-
urban areas resulting a decrease in paddy rice area and other crops. In non-urbanized areas, paddy
fields and non-production forest are replaced by production forest. The land use map for scenario I is
given in appendix VI.
4.2.2 Scenario II
The second scenario involves ‘Rapid Economic Growth’ (REG) without implementation of new policies.
To some extend similar patterns as in scenario I occur, but in scenario II some land use changes are
more extreme and additional land use changes occur. Economic development and structural change
will lead to considerable land use changes. Production forest land and built up land will expand at the
expense of paddy rice area, non-production forest, and shrub land (Niapp et al., 2012). Structural
change and economic growth is accompanied by an increase in the demand for wood resources at the
expense of forest. Rising demands can lead to opening of National parks, nature reserves and World
Heritage sites for commercial logging and agriculture (Niapp et al., 2012). This means that forests in
these areas will be negatively affected. Additionally, the economy becomes increasingly oriented
towards services and manufacturing while the agricultural sector becomes less important. At the same
time, changing diets and an increase in yields leads a decrease of paddy rice land and other agricultural
land, which are replaced by urban and industrial areas (Niapp et al., 2012). The land use map for
scenario II is given in appendix VII.
4.2.3 Scenario III

Scenario III involves a policy effective or so called ‘Sustainable Scenario’ (SUS). Investments are made
to increase agro forestry and reforestation activities combined with natural forest protection. Land use
policy trade-offs are implemented to mitigate conflicts, for instance reducing land use for rice and
increasing forest areas so as to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (Niapp et al., 2012). This will affect
food security negatively unless rice yields or rice imports increase. Increasing demands for food is
adapted to by investments in other agricultural activities besides paddy, causing increasing land use
practices for fruit trees and other crops. The land use map for scenario III is given in appendix VIII.
land use type current % scenario I % scenario II % scenario III
situation change BAU change REG change SUS
1. Water 3.97 0 3.97 0 3.97 0 3.97
2. Wetland 0.01 0 0.01 0 0.01 0 0.01
3. Mangrove 0.08 0 0.08 0 0.08 0 0.08
4. Barren land 1.37 0 1.37 0 1.37 0 1.37
5. Industrial 3.86 +0.28 4.14 +2.53 6.39 +0.13 3.99
6. Res-High 1.87 +0.3 2.17 +1.11 2.98 +0.31 2.18
7. Res-Med/Low 15.92 +1.3 17.22 +4.94 20.86 +0.76 16.68
8. Grass 6.32 -0.19 6.13 0 6.32 -0.19 6.13
9. Shrub 1.04 0 1.04 0 1.04 0 1.04
10. Evergreen forest 20.36 -1.19 19.17 -9.28 11.08 +3.23 23.59
11. Paddy field (rice) 26 -2.19 23.18 -6.85 19.15 -9.32 16.68
12. Fruit trees 4.93 +1.18 6.11 +3.89 8.82 +2.22 7.15
13. Other crops 14.28 +0.5 14.78 +3.66 17.94 +2.85 17.13
Total 100 100 100 100
Table 4. Current land use, land use change per scenario, new land use per scenario (all in % of total)
20
4.3 Groundwater recharge rates per scenario
4.3.1 Current situation

For the current situation (2014) the rainfall partitioning to groundwater recharge in percentages of the
total rainfall, is presented in figure 7. The average annual rainfall in 2014 is 1621 mm, ranging from a
local minimum of 1377.9 mm per year in sub-basin 7 and a maximum of 1944 mm per year in sub-basin
65. The average annual groundwater recharge over the sub-basins is 248 mm, ranging from minimal
rates of 37 mm per year with lowest values in sub-basins 9, 2, 6 and 15 up to a maximum of 601 mm
per year with highest values in sub-basins 41, 53 and 55.
Low groundwater recharge values occur in sub-basins with impervious areas such as Hanoi in sub-
basin 9, which accounts for 35% high- and 16% med/low residential areas in the land use map. Also
sub-basins with abundant paddy fields seem to generate relatively little groundwater recharge compared
to the average, for example sub-basin 6, with 26% paddy field area and only a rainfall partitioning of 5%
to groundwater recharge.
High groundwater recharge rates occur in sub-basins in the south west, such as sub-basin 55, where
evergreen forest is with 54% the most common land use. High groundwater recharge rates can also be
linked to the elevation levels which show that the sub-basins with high groundwater recharge rates lie
in a valley. Water can travel from surrounding mountainous areas with steep slopes to this area as
surface runoff. When slope steepness and flow velocity reduces it gets a chance to infiltrate.
Figure 7. Rainfall partitioning to groundwater recharge in % of total rainfall per sub-basin
21
4.3.2 Scenario I ’business as usual’
The effects of the land use changes in scenario I compared to the current situation are presented in
Figure 8. The map shows the percentual change of the rainfall partitioning to the groundwater recharge,
after the land use changes have occurred. The climatic conditions and the rainfall input is the same as
in the current situation. The average annual groundwater recharge over the sub-basins is 242 mm,
ranging from minimal rates of 19 mm per year with lowest values in sub-basins 9, up to a maximum of
595 mm per year with highest values in sub-basins 41, 53.
The darker red colors in the sub-basins show where the land use changes have affected the rainfall
partitioning to the groundwater recharge the most. These are the sub-basins 49 and 68, where the
rainfall partitioning to groundwater recharge is reduced by more than 2.5%. Also in sub-basins where
urbanization is at hand, such as sub-basin 8 and 9 in the surrounding area of Hanoi city, relatively less
rainfall partitions to groundwater recharge. Overall, the rainfall partitioning seems to have reduced over
the whole Day River Basin due to the land use changes.
Figure 8. The change in groundwater rainfall partitioning in scenario BAU vs current situation
22
4.3.3 Scenario II ‘rapid economic growth’
The effects of the land use changes on the rainfall partitioning to groundwater recharge in scenario II,
compared to the current situation are shown in figure 9. The climatic conditions and the rainfall input are
the same as in the current situation. The average annual groundwater recharge over the sub-basins is
205 mm, ranging from minimal rates of 17 mm per year with lowest values in sub-basins 9, up to a
maximum of 581 mm per year with highest values in sub-basins 75.
Looking at the effects of the land use changes on groundwater recharge, sub-basins 41, 53 and 55 show
the biggest changes. Rainfall partitioning significantly dropped by more than 10% in these sub-basins.
Looking at the scenario II land use map, these changes are induced as a result of the development of
med-low density residential areas at the expense of forest. Also sub-basins 20, 26, 28 and 31 show
significant reductions. These reductions can be linked to deforestation. These sub-basins are located at
the border between agricultural lands and natural forest. In this scenario, deforestation processes are
at hand reducing the rainfall partitioning to groundwater recharge drastically in those specific areas.
Figure 9. The change in groundwater rainfall partitioning in scenario REG vs current situation
23
4.3.4 Scenario III ‘sustainable policies’
The effects of the land use changes on the rainfall partitioning to groundwater recharge for scenario III
compared to the current situation are shown in figure 10. Again the climatic conditions and the rainfall
input are the same as in the current situation. The average annual groundwater recharge over the sub-
basins is 249 mm, ranging from minimal rates of 19 mm per year with lowest values in sub-basins 9, up
to a maximum of 629 mm per year with highest values in sub-basins 58.
In contrast with the other two scenarios, this map contains green colors which represent an increase of
the rainfall partitioning to the groundwater recharge for those specific sub-basins. At the same time, the
red colors indicate, that other sub-basins are still characterized by decreasing groundwater recharge
rates as a result of land use changes. It can be concluded that based on the specific land use changes
in each sub-basin the rainfall partitioning to groundwater recharge is affected. The result of scenario III
shows that reforestation processes locally, have a positive effect on groundwater recharge processes.
Figure 10. The change in groundwater rainfall partitioning in scenario SUS vs current situation
24
4.3.5 Comparing scenarios
The groundwater recharge and rainfall for a 5 year period using rainfall input data from 2005-2009 are
presented in figure 11. Both the rainfall and the groundwater recharge are averaged over the sub-basins.
The result indicates that the averages show little difference between the groundwater recharge rates for
the different scenarios over time. For the current situation 24 mm groundwater recharge is generated
each month, averaged over the 5 year period. For the BAU scenario, the averaged groundwater
recharge equals 23 mm per month, for the REG scenario 20 mm and the SUS scenario 24 mm.
Groundwater Recharge rates per scenario

Current situation Scenario I Bau Scenario II REG
Scenario III SUS Rainfall
600
Groundwater recharge & rainfall [mm]
500
400
300
200
100
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Time [T] years
Figure 11. Groundwater recharge vs rainfall over time for all scenarios
Figure 12 presents the groundwater recharge over the same 5 year period, but in this case the
groundwater recharge rates are cumulated. The results show that on the long term differences become
visible between the scenarios. After a 5 year period, for the current situation 1407 mm groundwater
recharge has been generated. The BAU scenario has generated 1374 mm groundwater recharge for
the same period. The REG scenario only generated 1175 mm and the SUS scenario 1417 mm.
Cumulative groundwater recharge [mm]

Current situation Scenario I Bau Scenario II REG Scenario III SUS
1600
1400
Groundwater recharge [mm]
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Time [T] years
Figure 12. Cumulative groundwater recharge per scenario
25
4.4 Rainfall partitioning per land use type
The rainfall partitioning to groundwater recharge for each land use type in the Day River Basin land use
map is given in table 5. The range for the rainfall partitioning to groundwater recharge is given in
percentages of the total rainfall for the dry season (November - April). The standard deviation indicates
the variation of the rainfall partitioning to groundwater recharge among the different sub-basins.
DRY SEASON Minimum average of Standard Maximum average Standard

Land use Type all sub-basins deviation of sub-basins deviation
1. Water x x x x
2. Wetland 2.5 19.8 9.4 6.9
3. Mangrove 3.0 21.4 10.6 8.1
4. Barren land 1.1 9.8 8.0 6.8
5. Industrial 0.0 0 0.2 0.1
6. Res – high density 0.0 0 0.1 0.1
7. Res – med/low 1.2 10.7 4.6 4.6
8. Pasture (grass) 4.3 27.5 23.1 13.8
9. Shrub-land 2.5 19.5 11.0 8.1
10. Evergreen forest 4.0 26.5 19.4 11.6
11. Paddy field 1.5 12.8 5.3 4.4
12. Fruit trees 0.9 8.4 2.2 2.9
13. Other crops 0.8 7.7 2.0 2.8
Table 5. Rainfall partitioning to groundwater recharge per land use type [all in % of the annual rainfall]
The land use types are ranked in chronological order, from the land use type with highest- to lowest
rainfall partitioning, in figure 13.
Figure 13. Range for rainfall partitioning per land use type
For the land use types grassland, forest and shrub the rainfall partitioning is the highest in the dry
season. High density residential areas and industries have the lowest range for rainfall partitioning. The
diagram presents the rainfall partitioning to groundwater recharge ‘averaged over the sub-basins’,
therefore local extremes of rainfall partitioning, both high and low, might not be within this range. Also
the range is based on rainfall measurements from 1 year (2014). In other years the absolute amount of
rainfall might vary, but the rainfall partitioning will be within the same range because it is a percentage
of the total rainfall.
26
Table 6, gives for the wet season (May – October) the range for the rainfall partitioning to groundwater
recharge for each land use type in the Day River Basin land use map.
DRY SEASON Minimum average of Standard Maximum average Standard

Land use Type all sub-basins deviation of sub-basins deviation
1. Water x x x x
2. Wetland 7.1 6.9 27.9 10.5
3. Mangrove 9.3 8.4 30.0 10.5
4. Barren land 13 9.7 30.8 9.9
5. Industrial 0.2 0 0.7 0.1
6. Res – high density 0.6 0 1.8 0.1
7. Res – med/low 4.7 4.6 19.2 12.6
8. Pasture (grass) 20.3 11.1 42.6 9.2
9. Shrub-land 11.3 10.3 34.8 10.9
10. Evergreen forest 13.4 11.6 42.1 10.6
11. Paddy field 7.9 7.3 25.5 9.4
12. Fruit trees 3.6 3.5 17.2 10.7
13. Other crops 2.7 2.8 16.4 10.3
Table 6. Rainfall partitioning to groundwater recharge per land use type [all in % of the annual rainfall]
Also for the wet season, the land use types are ranked in chronological order, from the land use type
with highest- to lowest rainfall partitioning, in figure 14.
Figure 14. Range for rainfall partitioning per land use type
In the wet season the rainfall partitioning is higher than in the dry season. This difference can be
explained by the duration, frequency and intensity of the rainfall events. During a rainfall event the top
soil layers become more saturated over time. When a soil layer is fully saturated, the excessive water
will percolate to lower soil layers eventually becoming groundwater recharge. In the wet season, longer
rainfall events will more often lead to full saturation of the soil, and therefore generate more groundwater
recharge. When two or more rainfall events occur in a short amount of time, the soil can have a high soil
moisture content from the first rainfall event. When, in a short amount of time a second rainfall event
occurs, the soil can still be saturated and the soil will lose excessive water to lower layers faster.
27
4.5 Spatial distribution of sensitivity
Similar land use changes were made in all sub-basins, from fruit trees to grass. The percentual change
of the rainfall partitioning to groundwater recharge for each sub-basin is presented in figure 15. The
results show that the sensitivity of groundwater recharge to land use changes is spatially distributed
within the Day River Basin. In the sub-basins with dark red, groundwater recharge rates are highly
sensitive to land use changes. One of the most extreme sub-basins is sub-basin 14 where land use
changes caused a reduction of the rainfall partitioning to groundwater recharge of 37%. Similar land use
changes have relatively lower effects on the rainfall partitioning to groundwater recharge in other sub-
basins. These are the sub-basins with lighter colors such as, sub-basin 70 and 71.
The sensitivity of groundwater recharge seems to have a similar structure as the elevation map
(appendix I). Sensitivity is highest in areas with lower elevation levels, which are also more flat. In these
flat areas, land use changes are more dominant to groundwater recharge than in hilly and mountainous
areas. This result shows that the slope in the mountainous areas is also a dominant factor effecting the
groundwater recharge rates. Additionally, the lower areas are characterized by loam and clay loam soil
structures which have a relatively low hydraulic conductivity compared to sandy loam soils. Groundwater
recharge rates are initially lower in areas with loam and clay loam soils. When land use changes occur
both soil structure and land use limit the infiltration capacity, resulting in local reductions of the rainfall
partitioning up to 30%.
Figure 15. Change of the rainfall partitioning to groundwater recharge after land use change from grass to fruit trees.
28
5 Discussion
5.1 Reliability of results
Watershed-modeling approaches may be more accurate in humid regions, where perennial surface-
water flow can be used for model calibration, than in arid- semi-arid regions (Scanlon et al., 2002). The
Day River basin is situated in wet-hot tropical monsoonal climate and is therefore watershed modelling
tools such as SWAT tend to generate accurate results. Also for this study surface water flow is used to
calibrate the model. A drawback of the SWAT model is the fact that it considers the Day River Basin
watershed boundaries as real boundaries. Within the SWAT model there is no interaction between the
watershed under consideration and the surrounding area while in reality, many flow alterations and
exfiltration causes water to flow into the Day River Basin in the upstream areas. This drawback of the
model specifically showed during model calibration where the modelled discharge values in the
upstream area of the Day River Basin where significantly underestimated compared to the observed
discharge values. At downstream locations (Ninh Binh station) SWAT simulated discharge improved
compared to the observed discharge because the upstream area receiving rainfall had increased.
Calibration for the SWAT model is done using q-h relationships from a study by Luu et al., (2010). Luu
et al., (2010) describes the role of tidal influence on the measured waterlevels in the Day River. The
tidal influence on daily variations on waterlevel where not taken into account for the q-h relationships.
The SWAT model does not take tidal influence into account either.
Demessie (2015) concluded that land use change, in time will also change soil properties. The long term
effects of land use changes on soil properties is not taken into account in this study. It would require a
much more detailed soil map, soil data, and a lot of field measurements, to take this long term effect
into account. The effects of land use changes on groundwater recharge would be more significant if soil
properties also change.
Besides land use, other factors might also influence the amount of groundwater recharge such as lateral
inflow from streams, lakes and rivers, pipe leakage in urban areas and non-diffused groundwater
recharge by artificial recharge wells. These factors are not incorporated in the SWAT model, so in urban
areas SWAT might underestimate the amount of groundwater recharge to some extend as other sources
for groundwater recharge might be present in real urban areas.
5.2 Possible improvements

The runoff-infiltration process in SWAT is simulated using the SCS curve number method which is a
function of as function of hydrologic group, hydrologic condition, cover type, and antecedent moisture
condition (Miller et al. 2002). The other method to simulate the runoff-infiltration process in SWAT is the
Green and Ampt method which models the infiltration process and considers excessive water as runoff.
The Green and Ampt method requires a lot more input data such as sub-daily rainfall measurements,
improved soil data and additionally data on the maximum canopy storage. It is arguable that the Green
and Ampt method provides a better physically representation of the runoff-infiltration process, but for
large scale watersheds such as the Day River Basin the curve number method provides acceptable
results. For studies on a smaller scale with abundant data available, the Green and Ampt method might
improve model performance to some extent.
The performance of the SWAT model is dependent and limited by the level of detail in the land use map.
Some classes in the current land use map, such as ‘forest’ or ‘other crops’ can further be reclassified to
obtain more detailed model input. An improved land use map would also result in more detailed output
for the SWAT model. Improving the detail level of the land use map would probably not significantly
change the overall model output or water balance. The boundaries of the 13 classes currently present
in the land use map will not change, only within each class a more detailed division of land uses can be
made. ‘Forest’ can be reclassified to different types of forest, but the level 1 classification will remain
and the land use type will always be forest. For this reason an improved land use map can be made but
would only be advisable in case there is a specific interest in the hydrological effects on groundwater
recharge for specific land use types. An improved land use map would also improve the model
29
performance in terms of estimating evapotranspiration. Improved data and knowledge on plant growth
and harvest cycles in the Day River Basin would also improve the evaporation component in the model.
For the Day River Basin daily rainfall measurements were available from 11 metrological stations.
Occasionally extreme local rainfall events occur in the Day River Basin. When having a limited amount
of rainfall measurement point, SWAT risks overestimation of extreme rainfall events. If only one
measurement station is in the center of an extreme rainfall event, the model cannot estimate the spatial
distribution and areal coverage of the extreme event. This might lead to temporal high run off rates in
the model. These peaks are also observed in the daily discharge values in SWAT. SWAT is not able to
simulate extreme run off events and floods, and therefore occasionally high discharge peaks might be
observed, especially in humid areas with extreme rainfall events.
5.3 Further research

This study estimated the effects of land use change on groundwater recharge on a watershed scale. It
would be interesting to estimate groundwater recharge rates at a smaller spatial scale, to obtain
comparative data for the SWAT model. When the swat model (watershed scale) results are compared
to a smaller scale model/simulations on groundwater recharge in a sub-catchment in the upper day river
basin (local scale), new conclusions can be drawn on the SWAT model performance. Besides expert
knowledge on groundwater recharge processes in the Day River Basin there are no comparative study
results available for the Day River Basin which specifically focus on groundwater recharge.
30
6 Conclusion
The main research question is “what are the potential effects of different land use change
scenarios on groundwater recharge in the Day River Basin and how can these effects be
explained?”
Three land use change scenarios show different effects on groundwater recharge in the Day River
Basin. The BAU scenario, which assumes no implementation of new policies and represents a
continuation of current trends, shows decreasing groundwater recharge rates in almost all sub-basins.
The same goes for REG scenario where even more rapid land use changes such as urbanization and
deforestation are at hand, drastically reducing the rainfall partitioning to groundwater recharge. The SUS
scenario shows that sustainable policies, such as, reforestation practices can potentially influence the
rainfall partitioning to groundwater recharge in a positive way.
The land use changes seem to have limited effects on the groundwater recharge rates when monthly
values are evaluated. Cumulative trends over a longer time period, show a different pattern which
indicates that land use changes do in fact drastically effect groundwater recharge rates. Land use
change can positively or negatively influence groundwater recharge, depending on the kind of land use
changes. Forest and grass generate the most groundwater recharge, impervious areas the least. Also
paddy field has a small groundwater recharge rate.
Looking at a sub-basin scale, changes in groundwater recharge occur in areas where most land use
changes are at hand. But similar land use changes do not have the same effects in all sub-basins. In
lower areas with little slopes, land use changes reduce the rainfall partitioning to groundwater recharge
more than in mountainous areas. The sensitivity of groundwater recharge to land use changes is
spatially distributed. It can be concluded that land use changes have a strong correlation to the
groundwater recharge the Day River Basin. As groundwater resources in the Day River Basin are
depleting rapidly, policy effective measurement are needed to address the issue of reducing
groundwater recharge as a result of land use changes. Since the effects of land use change on
groundwater recharge are significant, land use planners should take into account the effects of their
decisions on groundwater recharge, as it is one of the most valuable ecosystem services in the Day
River Basin.
31
7 Bibliography
Anderson, J. R., Hardy, E. E., Roach, J. T., Witmer, R. E., & Peck, D. L. (2001). A Land Use And Land
Cover Classification System For Use With Remote Sensor Data. A Revision of the Land Use
Classification System as Presented in U.S. Geological Survey Circular 671, 964, 41.
Arnold, J. G., & Fohrer, N. (2005). SWAT2000: current capabilities and research opportunities in
applied watershed modelling. Hydrological Processes, 19(3), 563–572.
http://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.5611
Arnold, J. G., Kiniry, J. R., Srinivasan, R., Williams, J. R., Haney, E. B., & Neitsch, S. L. (2012). Soil &
Water Assessment Tool (Input/Output Documentation).
Arnold, J. G., Srinivasan, R., Muttiah, R. S., & Williams, J. R. (1998). LARGE AREA HYDROLOGIC
MODELING AND ASSESSMENT PART I: 'MODEL DEVELOPMENT’ basin scale model called SWAT
(Soil and Water speed and storage, advanced software debugging policy to meet the needs, and
the management to the tank model) Sugawara et al., 1. The American water resources
Association American Water Resources Association, 34(1), 73–89.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.1998.tb05961.x
Beven, K. (1997). TOPMODEL : A CRITIQUE, 11(December 1996).
Breuer, L., Huisman, J. A., Willems, P., Bormann, H., Bronstert, A., Croke, B. F. W., … Viney, N. R.
(2009). Assessing the impact of land use change on hydrology by ensemble modeling (LUCHEM)
I : Model intercomparison with current land use. Advances in Water Resources, 32(2), 129–146.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2008.10.003
Carlson, T. N., & Arthur, S. T. (2000). The impact of land use - land cover changes due to urbanization
on surface microclimate and hydrology : a satellite perspective, 49–65.
CGIAR. (2014). Proposal MK27: Inclusive development paths for healthy Red River landscapes based
on ecosystem services [WLE Greater Mekong], (November, 2014).
CGIAR. (2015). MK27 - Inclusive development paths for healthy Red River landscapes based on
ecosystem services. Retrieved from http://wlemekong.wikispaces.com/MK27
CGIAR Research Program on Water, L. and E. (WLE). (2014). Ecosystem Services and Resilience
Framework.
Choudhury, K., & Jansen, J. (1998). Terminology for Intergrated Resources Planning and
Management, (February), 69. Retrieved from http://agris.fao.org/agris-
search/search/display.do?f=2010/SO/SO1002.xml;SO2007100071
Costa, M. H., Botta, A., & Cardille, J. a. (2003). Effects of large-scale changes in land cover on the
discharge of the Tocantins River, Southeastern Amazonia. Journal of Hydrology, 283(1-4), 206–
217. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(03)00267-1
Dang, V. K., Doubre, C., Weber, C., Gourmelen, N., & Masson, F. (2014). Recent land subsidence
caused by the rapid urban development in the Hanoi region (Vietnam) using ALOS InSAR data.
32
Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 14(3), 657–674. http://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-14-
657-2014
DeFries, R., & Eshleman, K. N. (2004). Land-use change and hydrologic processes: a major focus for
the future. Hydrological Processes, 18(11), 2183–2186. http://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.5584
Demessie, E. T. (2015). Soil hydrological impacts and climatic controls of land use and land cover
changes in the Upper Blue Nile basin.
Dezso, Z., Bartholy, J., Pongracz, R., & Barcza, Z. (2005). Analysis of land-use / land-cover change in
the Carpathian region based on remote sensing techniques, 30, 109–115.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2004.08.017
Di Gregorio, a, & Jansen, L. J. M. (2000). Land Cover Classification System (LCCS): Classification
Concepts and User Manual. FAO, 157.
Droogers, P., & Allen, R. G. (2002). Estimating reference evapotranspiration under inaccurate data
conditions. Irrigation and Drainage Systems, 16(1), 33–45.
http://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015508322413
Ellis, E. (2013). Land-use and land-cover change. Retrieved May 10, 2015, from
http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/154143
Ewen, J., & Parkin, G. (1996). Validation of catchment models for predicting land-use and climate
change impacts . 1. Method, 175, 583–594.
Fischer, A. R., Stefan, C., Silabetzschky, K., Werner, P., & Hoc, B. (2011). Soil Aquifer Treatment as a
Tool for Sustainable Groundwater Use in Hanoi/Vietnam. Journal of Environmental Protection,
02(07), 882–887. http://doi.org/10.4236/jep.2011.27100
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (2015). Soil map North Vietnam.
Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/data/en/
Hargreaves, G. H., & Samani, Z. a. (1985). Reference crop evapotranspiration from temperature.
Applied Engineering in Agriculture, 1(2), 96–99. http://doi.org/10.13031/2013.26773
Hendriks, M. R. (2010). Introduction to Physical Hydrology. Oxford University Press.
Hydrosheds. (2015). Hydrosheds. Retrieved from http://hydrosheds.cr.usgs.gov/dataavail.php
ICEM - The International Centre for Environmental Management. (2007). Day/Nhue River Basin
pollution sources study, (December).
Inchell, M. W., Rinivasan, R. S., & Uzio, M. D. I. L. (2013). ARCSWAT INTERFACE FOR SWAT2012 USER’
S GUIDE.
Japan Space Systems 2014 (J-spacesystems). (2015). Digital Elevation Map (Aster GDEM). Retrieved
from http://gdem.ersdac.jspacesystems.or.jp/feature.jsp
Lawrence Dingman, S. (2002). Physical Hydrology (second edition). Waveland Press Inc.
33
Legates, D. R. and G. J. M. (1999). Evaluating the use of “goodness-of-fit” measures in hydrologic and
hydroclimatic model validation. Water Resources Res., 35(1), 233–241. Retrieved from
http://www.sro.giub.unibe.ch/pdf/1999-Legates.pdf
Lerner, D. N. (2002). Identifying and quantifying urban recharge: A review. Hydrogeology Journal,
10(1), 143–152. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-001-0177-1
Li, Z., Liu, W., Zhang, X., & Zheng, F. (2009). Impacts of land use change and climate variability on
hydrology in an agricultural catchment on the Loess Plateau of China. Journal of Hydrology,
377(1-2), 35–42. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.08.007
Li, Z., Saito, Y., Matsumoto, E., Wang, Y., Tanabe, S., & Vu, Q. L. (2006). Climate change and human
impact on the Song Hong (Red River) Delta, Vietnam, during the Holocene. Quaternary
International, 144(1), 4–28. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2005.05.008
Liang, X., Lettenmaier, D. P., Wood, E. F., & Burges, J. (1994). A simple hydrologically based model of
land surface water and energy fluxes for general circulation models, 99.
Luu, T. N. M., Garnier, J., Billen, G., Orange, D., Némery, J., Le, T. P. Q., … Le, L. A. (2010). Hydrological
regime and water budget of the Red River Delta (Northern Vietnam). Journal of Asian Earth
Sciences, 37(3), 219–228. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jseaes.2009.08.004
Mekong River Commision. (2004). Soil Water & Assessment Tool (SWAT).
Miller, S., & Semmens, D. (2002). GIS-based hydrologic modeling: the automated geospatial
watershed assessment tool. Proceeding of the Second Federal Interagency Hydrologic Modeling
Conference, 1–12. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/nerlesd1/land-
sci/agwa/pdf/pubs/agwa-conference.pdf
Mishra, N., Khare, D., Gupta, K. K., & Shukla, R. (2014). Impact of Land Use Change on Groundwater ‐
A Review, 2, 28–41.
MK27. (2015). Inclusive development paths for healthy Red River landscapes based on ecosystem
services. Retrieved from http://wle-mekong.cgiar.org/wle-gm-projects/mk27/
Monteith, J. L. (1965). Evaporation and environment. Symposia of the Society for Experimental
Biology.
Moriasi, D. N., Arnold, J. G., Van Liew, M. W., Binger, R. L., Harmel, R. D., & Veith, T. L. (2007). Model
evaluation guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations.
Transactions of the ASABE, 50(3), 885–900. http://doi.org/10.13031/2013.23153
Nash, J. E., & Sutcliffe, J. V. (1970). River flow forecasting through conceptual models part I: A
discussion of principles. Journal of Hydrology, 10, 282–290. http://doi.org/10.1016/0022-
1694(70)90255-6
NAWAPI. (2015). Challanges for water and land uses management in the Red River and the Day Sub-
Basin.
Neitsch, S., Arnold, J., Kiniry, J., & Williams, J. (2011). Soil & Water Assessment Tool Theoretical
Documentation Version 2009, 1-647.
34
Neitsch, S. L., Arnold, J. G., Kiniry, J. R., Srinivasan, R., & Williams, J. R. (2002). Soil and Water
Assessment Tool User’s Manual. Temple, TX, 412.
Niapp, Wageningen University, & Cdkn. (2012). Land Use , Food Security , and Climate Change in
Vietnam, 10. Retrieved from http://cdkn.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Land-Use-Food-
Security-Climate-in-Vietnam-Policy-Brief.pdf
Postma, D., Larsen, F., Thai, N. T., Trang, P. T. K., Jakobsen, R., Nhan, P. Q., … Murray, A. S. (2012).
(Supplement) Groundwater arsenic concentrations in Vietnam controlled by sediment age.
Nature Geoscience, 5(9), 656–661. http://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1540
Priestley, C. H. B., & Taylor, R. J. (1972). On the Assessment of Surface Heat Flux and Evaporation
Using Large-Scale Parameters. Monthly Weather Review, 100(2), 81–92.
http://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1972)100<0081:OTAOSH>2.3.CO;2
Richard G. Allen , Marvin E. Jensen, J. L. W. and R. D. B. (1987). Operational Estimates of Reference

Evapotranspiration. AJ, No. 4, p. http://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1989.00021962008100040019x
Sawyer, L. M. (2010). Comparison of a watershed model (SWAT) and a groundwater flow model
(GFLOW) to simulate the hydrology of two agricultural watersheds in Iowa, 1–252.
Scanlon, B. R., Healy, R. W., & Cook, P. G. (2002). Choosing appropriate techniques for quantifying
groundwater recharge. Hydrogeology Journal, 10(1), 18–39. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-
001-0176-2
Sharma, T., Kiran, P. V. S., Singh, T. P., Trivedi, a. V., & Navalgund, R. R. (2001). Hydrologic response of
a watershed to land use changes: A remote sensing and GIS approach. International Journal of
Remote Sensing, 22(11), 2095–2108. http://doi.org/10.1080/01431160117359
Sloan, G. (1984). Modelling subsurface stormflow on steeply sloping forested watersheds. Journal of
Chemical Information and Modeling, 20(12), 160.
http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
Srinivasan, R., Agricultural, T., & Station, E. (n.d.). ArcSWAT ArcGIS Interface for Soil and Water
Assessment Tool (SWAT). Soil and Water.
The National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP). (2015). Global Weather Data For SWAT.
Retrieved from http://globalweather.tamu.edu/ & http://rda.ucar.edu/pub/cfsr.html
Tsinghua University. (2014). Finer resolution observation and monitoring global landcover. Retrieved
from http://data.ess.tsinghua.edu.cn/
United Nations. (2004). World Population To 2300. New York, 18(3), 553–561.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.asieco.2007.02.015
United Nations. (2013). World Population Prospects. The 2012 Revision. Volume II: Demograhic
profiles, I, pp.54. Retrieved from
http://esa.un.org/wpp/Documentation/pdf/WPP2012_Volume-II-Demographic-Profiles.pdf
USDA Agricultural Research Service (USDA-ARS) and Texas A&M AgriLife Research. (n.d.). Soil &
Water Assesment Tool.
35
USGS, U. S. G. S. (1976). Land use and land cover classification system for use with remote sensor
data.
Vietnam General Statistics Office. (2011). Migration and Urbanization in Vietnam : Patterns , Trends
and Differentials.
Wang, Y. M., Traore, S., & Kerh, T. (2009). Computational performance of reference
evapotranspiration in semiarid zone of Africa. Scientific Research and Essays, 4(6), 577–583.
Retrieved from <Go to ISI>://000267559200006
Williams, J. (1969). Flood routing with variable travel time and variable storage coefficients.
Transactions of the ASAE, 12(1), 100–103.
Wood, F. (1992). A Land-Surface Hydrology Parameterization With Subgrid Variability for General
Circulation Models, 97, 2717–2728.
World Bank Group. (2015). East asia’s Changing Urban LandsCape, Measuring a decade of spatial
growth.
Yang, Y., Lerner, D. N., Barrett, M. H., & Tellam, J. H. (1999). Quantification of groundwater recharge
in the city of Nottingham, UK. Environmental Geology, 38(3), 183–198.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s002540050414
36
Appendix I Input data
Input data for SWAT was gathered by visiting local experts in Vietnam working for the MK27 project.
Additionally on-line databases were used to gather input data. SWAT requires a variety of input data
such as, a digital elevation map, soil map, land use map and weather data input. Data on water system
regulations, and meteorological- and hydrologic measurements were also gathered for model
calibration. Table 7. Gives an overview of the local experts which were visited and which data was
gathered during the visits. Figure 16-17 on the following pages show the FAO soil- and digital elevation
map used as input for SWAT.
Institute contact data

IWRP Thanhlan Ha Digital Elevation Map (Japan Space Systems
2014 (J-spacesystems), 2015)
Evapotranspiration estimates based on Landsat
images (SEBS, 2015)
HUNRE Le Tranthanh Groundwater recharge observations in the
upper Day River Basin
HUNRE Thi von le Khoa Soil database
HUNRE Sơn Tùng Nguyễn Land use classification/Land use map
Vinwater Nguyễn Quang Đức Anh Locations and details of head regulators
Vinwater Le Duc Dung Meteorological stations:
rainfall/temperature measurements
Hydrologic stations:
waterlevel measurement
Futurewater Gijs Simons Topographic maps
Shapefiles for Day and Red River Basin
On-line database Rivernetwork Basin (Hydrosheds, 2015)
FAO soil map (FAO, 2015)
Weather data (The National Centers for
Environmental Prediction (NCEP), 2015)
Mekong data SWAT (Mekong River Commision,
2004)
Table 7 Overview of local experts and the obtained data during visits
37
Figure 16. FAO soil map (FAO, 2015)
38
Figure 17. Digital Elevation Map (DEM) in meters above sea-level (Japan Space Systems, 2015)
39
Appendix II Land use classification Day River Basin
1. Crops
Cantaloupe melon (Dưa vàng) 1.1 Carrot (Cà Rốt) 1.2
Corn (Ngô) 1.3 Cowpeas (Đậu đũa, Đậu dải) 1.4
Field peas (Đậu hà lan) 1.5 Garden (Vườn rau) 1.6
Green beans (Đậu co ve) 1.7 Honeydew Melon (Dưa bở) 1.8
40
Mulberry tree (Dâu tằm) 1.9 LMB Tea (Chè) 1.10
Mung Beans (Đậu xanh) 1.11 Orange (Cam) 1.12
Orchard (Vườn cây ăn quả) 1.13 Paddy field (Ruộng lúa) 1.14
Peach tree (đâo) 1.15 Pineapple (Dứa) 1.16
41
Plaintains (Asian bananas) (Chuối mễ) 1.17 Potato (Khoai tây) 1.18
Soybean (Đậu tương) 1.19 Sugarcane (Mía) 1.20
Sweetclover (Nhãn hương) 1.21 Sweetpotato (Khoai lang) 1.22
Watermelon (Dưa hấu) 1.23
42
2. Forest
Disturbed forest (Rừng bị phá) 2.1 Evergreen forest (Rừng thường xanh) 2.2
Mixed Forest (Rừng hỗn hợp) 2.3
3. Grass
Pasture (Đồng cỏ) 3.1
4. Shrub
Wood- and shrubland, evergreen 4.1
(Cây gỗ nhỏ & cây bụi thường xanh)
43
5. Impervious
Residential-High Density Residential-Medium Density
(Khu dân cư mật độ cao) 5.1 (Khu dân cư mật độ trung bình) 5.2
Residential-Low Density Industrial

(Khu dân cư mật độ thưa) 5.3 (Khu công nghiệp) 5.4
6. Soil
Barren land (Đất trống) 6.1 Miscellaneous land (Đất trống nhiều đích) 6.2
Rocks (Đất đá) 6.3
44
7. Water
Aqua-culture (Vùng nuôi trồng thủy sản) 7.1 Water (Mặt nước) 7.2
8. Wetland
Mangrove (Rừng ngập mặn) 8.1 Wetland (Đất trũng, đầm lầy) 8.2
45
Appendix III SWAT parameters description
The ‘Manual calibration tool’ from SWAT allows the user to change parameters settings to improve
model performance. Table 8 gives an overview and description of the available parameters and the
ranges for the parameter values.
Parameter Description Ranges/Values

Alpha_bf Baseflow alpha factor (1/days). Values vary from 0.1-0.3 for land with slow
response to recharge to 0.9-1.0 for land with
rapid response.
Biomix The redistribution of soil constituents Swat allows bio mix to occur to a depth of 300
as a result of the activity of biota in mm. If no value is entered swat puts value on
the soil (earthworms etc.). 0.20.
Canmx Maximum canopy storage. Plant When calculating surface run-off, the SCS
canopy can significantly affect curve number method lumps canopy storage in
infiltration, surface run off and the term for initial abstractions. This ‘initial
evapotranspiration. As rain falls abstractions’ variable also includes surface
canopy interception reduces the storage and infiltration prior to run off and is
erosive energy of the droplets and estimated as 20% of the ‘retention parameter
traps a portion of the rainfall within value’ for a given day.
the canopy.
CH_cov The Channel erodibility factor, 0 = non erosive channel
channel coverage. 1 = no resistance to erosion
Ch_erod The Channel erodibility factor. A set value between 0 and 1 non erosive to no
resistance to erosion.
Ch_N2 Manning’s N-value for the main Typical values for Ch_N2 for channel flow are
channel. Manning’s roughness given in SWAT-IO-documentation-2012.pdf
coefficient. table 25-1 page 332.
Ch_K2 Effective hydraulic conductivity in Typical values for Ch_K2 for various alluvium
tributary channel alluvium (mm/h). materials are given in SWAT-IO-
This parameter controls documentation-2012.pdf table 25-2 page 334.
transmission losses from surface
run off as it flows to the main
channel in the sub-basin.
Cn2 Initial SCS curve number method for Typical curve numbers for moisture condition II
moisture condition II. are listed in (SCS Engineer Division, 1986) for
various land cover and soil types. These
values are appropriate for a 5% slope.
Epco Plant uptake compensation factor. Can range from 0.01 to 1.00. As epco
If upper layers in the soil profile do approaches 1 the model allows more of the
not contain enough water to meet water uptake demand to be met by lower
the potential water uptake, users layers in the soil, as it approaches 0.01 the
may allow lower layers to model allows less variation from the original
compensate. depth distribution to take place.
Esco Soil evaporation compensation Range 0.01 to 1.00
factor. This coefficient allows the As the value for esco is reduced, the model is
user to modify the depth distribution able to extract more of the evaporative demand
used to meet the soil evaporative from lower levels.
demand to account for the effect of
capillary action, crusting and cracks.
Gw_delay Groundwater delay time (days). The gw_delay time cannot be directly
Water that moves past the lowest measured. It can be estimated by simulating
depth of the soil profile by aquifer recharge using different values for
percolation or bypass enters and gw_delay and comparing the simulated
flows through the vadose zone variations with observed values. Sangrey et al.
before becoming shallow aquifer (1984) notes that monitoring wells in the same
recharge. The lag between the time area had similar values for gw_delay.
that water exits the soil profile and
enters the shallow aquifer will
46
depend on the depth to the water
table and the hydraulic properties of
the geologic formations in the
vadose and groundwater zones.
Gw_revap Groundwater revap coefficient. Revap = water in the shallow aquifer returning
Water in the capillary fringe will to the root zone.
evaporate and diffuse in periods As gw_revap approaches 0, movement of
when the material overlying the water from the shallow aquifer to the root-zone
aquifer is dry. Once removed it is is limited. If gw_revap approaches 1 the rate of
replaced by water from the transfer from the shallow aquifer to the root
underlying aquifer. Deep rooted zone approaches the rate of potential
plants can also uptake water directly evapotranspiration. The value should be
from the aquifer, thus gw_revap between 0.02 and 0.20.
varies per land use type.
Gwqmn Threshold depth of water in the Groundwater flow to the reach is allowed only if
shallow aquifer required for return the depth of water in the shallow aquifer is
flow to occur. (mm) equal to or greater than gwqmn.
Rchrg_Dp Deep aquifer percolation factor. The The value should be between 0.0 and 1.0.
fraction of percolation from the root
zone which recharges to the deep
aquifer.
Revapmn Threshold depth of water in the Movement of water in the shallow aquifer to the
shallow aquifer for ‘revap’ or unsaturated zone is allowed if the volume of
percolation to the deep aquifer to water in the shallow aquifer is equal or greater
occur. (mm) than revapmn.
Slsubbsn Slope length. Rule of thumb 90m is considered to be a very
long slope length. Default is 50m.
Sol_Awc Available water capacity of the soil AWC = FC – WP
layer. (mm/mm soil) AWC = plant available water content
FC = water content at field capacity
WP = water content at wilting point
Sol_K Saturated hydraulic conductivity A measure of the ease of water movement
(mm/h). Relates soil water flow rate through the soil.
to the hydraulic gradient.
Table 8. Description of SWAT parameters present in the 'SWAT Manual Calibration Tool' (Arnold et al., 2012)
47
Appendix IV Calibration and Validation
Figure 18, 19 and 20 present the measured- and modelled discharge after calibration (2006) at 3
locations along the Day River. From upstream to downstream, Ba Tha, Phu Ly and Ninh Binh.
Ba Tha
500
Measured Modelled
400
Discharge Q [CMS]
300
200
100
0
1
17
33
49
65
81
97
113
129
145
161
177
193
209
225
241
257
273
289
305
321
337
353
Time T [Days]
Figure 18. Measured vs. modelled discharge at Ba Tha (2006)
Phu Ly
1000
Measured Modelled
800
Discharge Q [CMS]
600
400
200
0
1
65
241
17
33
49
81
97
113
129
145
161
177
193
209
225
257
273
289
305
321
337
353
-200
Time T [Days]
Figure 19. Measured vs. modelled discharge at Phu Ly (2006)
Ninh Binh
1200
Measured Modelled
1000
Discharge Q [CMS]
800
600
400
200
0
65
177
1
17
33
49
81
97
113
129
145
161
193
209
225
241
257
273
289
305
321
337
353
-200
Time T [Days]
Figure 20. Measured vs. modelled discharge at Ninh Binh (2006)
48
Figure 21, 22 and 23 present the cumulative measured- and modelled discharge after calibration (2006)
at the same 3 locations. From upstream to downstream, Ba Tha, Phu Ly and Ninh Binh.
Ba Tha (cumulative)
25000
Measured Modelled
20000
Discharge Q [CMS]l
15000
10000
5000
225
273
1
17
33
49
65
81
97
113
129
145
161
177
193
209
241
257
289
305
321
337
353
Time T [Days]
Figure 21. Cumulative measured vs. modelled discharge at Ba Tha (2006)
Phu Ly (cumulative)
50000
Measured Modelled
40000
Discahrge Q [CMS]
30000
20000
10000
0
129
1
17
33
49
65
81
97
113
145
161
177
193
209
225
241
257
273
289
305
321
337
353
Time T [Days]
Figure 22. Cumulative measured vs. modelled discharge at Phu Ly (2006)
Ninh Binh (cumulative)

60000
Measured Modelled
50000
Discahrge Q [CMS]
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
257
273
1
17
33
49
65
81
97
113
129
145
161
177
193
209
225
241
289
305
321
337
353
Time T [Days]
Figure 23. Cumulative measured vs. modelled discharge at Ninh Binh (2006)
49
Figure 24, 25 and 26 present the coefficient of determination for the measured- and modelled discharge
after calibration (2006) at the same 3 locations.
y = 0.7487x - 14.297
Ba Tha R² = 0.5485
500
450
Modelled discharge Q [CMS]
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
-50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Measured discharge Q [CMS]
Figure 24. Coefficient of determination, Ba Tha (2006)
y = 0.8165x - 37.989
Phu Ly R² = 0.7086
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
-100 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Figure 25. Coefficient of determination, Phu Ly (2006)
y = 1.0941x - 41.873
Ninh Binh R² = 0.6785
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
-200
Figure 26. Coefficient of determination, Ninh Binh (2006)
50
Figure 27, 28 and 29 present the measured- and modelled discharge used for validation (2008) at 3
locations along the Day River. From upstream to downstream. Ba Tha, Phu Ly and Ninh Binh.
Ba Tha
1800
Measured Modelled
1600
1400
Discharge Q [CMS]
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
1
17
33
49
65
81
97
113
129
145
161
177
193
209
225
241
257
273
289
305
321
337
353
Time T [Days]
Figure 27. Measured vs. modelled discharge at Ba Tha (2008)
Phu Ly
3500
3000 Measured Modelled
2500
Discharge Q [CMS]
2000
1500
1000
500
0
289
1
17
33
49
65
81
97
113
129
145
161
177
193
209
225
241
257
273
305
321
337
353
-500
Time T [Days]
Figure 28. Measured vs. modelled discharge at Phu Ly (2008)
Ninh Binh
5000
Measured Modelled
4000
Discharge Q [CMS]
3000
2000
1000
0
1
17
33
49
65
81
97
113
129
145
161
177
193
209
225
241
257
273
289
305
321
337
353
-1000
Time T [Days]
Figure 29. Measured vs. modelled discharge at Ninh Binh (2008)
51
Figure 30, 31 and 32 present the cumulative measured- and modelled discharge for validation (2008)
at the same 3 locations. From upstream to downstream, Ba Tha, Phu Ly and Ninh Binh.
Ba Tha (cumulative)
30000

Discharge Q [CMS]l
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
65
1
17
33
49
81
97
113
129
145
161
177
193
209
225
241
257
273
289
305
321
337
353
Time T [Days]
Figure 30. Cumulative measured vs. modelled discharge at Ba Tha (2008)
Phu Ly (cumulative)
70000

Discahrge Q [CMS]
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
17
129
1
33
49
65
81
97
113
145
161
177
193
209
225
241
257
273
289
305
321
337
353
Time T [Days]
Figure 31. Cumulative measured vs. modelled discharge at Phu Ly (2008)
Ninh Binh (cumulative)

90000
70000
Discahrge Q [CMS]
60000
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
17
49
1
33
65
81
97
113
129
145
161
177
193
209
225
241
257
273
289
305
321
337
353
Time T [Days]
Figure 32. Cumulative measured vs. modelled discharge at Ninh Binh (2008)
52
Figure 33, 24 and 35 present the coefficient of determination for the measured- and modelled discharge
for validation (2008) at the same 3 locations.
Ba Tha y = 1.0025x - 16.734

R² = 0.2381
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
-200 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Figure 33. Coefficient of determination, Ba Tha (2008)
Phu Ly y = 1.4281x - 90.957

R² = 0.4142
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-500
Figure 34. Coefficient of determination, Phu Ly (2008)
Ninh Binh y = 1.7157x - 119.43

R² = 0.5335
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
-200 0 200 400 600 800 1000
-1000
Figure 35. Coefficient of determination, Ninh Binh (2008)
53
Appendix V Land use map, current situation
Figure 36. Land use map Day River Basin, current situation
54
Appendix VI Land use map scenario I
Figure 37. Land use map scenario I
55
Appendix VII Land use map scenario II
Figure 38. Land use map scenario II
56
Appendix VIII Land use map scenario III
Figure 39. Land use scenario III
57

Bestone I Need

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bestone I Need

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bestone I Need

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Effects of Land Use Change on Groundwater Recharge

A Case Study in the Day River Basin, Vietnam

M. van der Wolf – 3960668

Graduate student: M. van der Wolf – [email protected]

M. van der Wolf – 3960668

CMS = Cubic meters per second

GWR = Groundwater recharge

HUNRE = Hanoi University for Natural Resources and Environment

IWRM = Integrated Water Resources Management

IWRP = Institute Of Water Resource Planning

LUC = Land use change

MARD = Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development

NSE = Nash Sutcliffe Efficiency

MONRE = Ministry Of Natural Resources and Environment

NAWAPI = National Center of Water Resource Planning and Investigation

WRU = Water Resource University

Figure 2. Hydrological processes and the interconnection with land use

1.4 Research questions

1.5 Research boundaries

2.2 Surface water

Figure 3. Day River (dark red) and tributaries (dark blue)

Firstly, groundwater is stored in the relatively undeep Holocene layer, an unconfined/semi-unconfined

1. Choose hydrological model 1a. Define criteria for model choice

2b. Create a land use classification

2c. Create a land use map

2d. Edit input data to required format for the model

3. Set up model for Day River Basin 3a. Watershed delineation

3b. Define sub-basins and HRU’s

3c. Run initial model

4. Calibrate and validate 4a. Find most sensitive parameters

4c. Compare model output with observed values

4d. Choose final parameter set

4e. Validate model for different years

5b. Edit current land use map to create scenario

6b. Analyze the effects of luc on gwr per scenario

6c. Edit output: graphs gwr over time/cumulative

7b. Determine the rainfall partitioning on

9. Discussion 9. Discuss the results for each sub-question

10. Answer the main research question using the

3.2.3 Set up model for Day River Basin

PARAMETER DESCRIPTION RANGE CALIBRATED VALUE

3.2.6 Create land use change scenarios (sub-question A)

3.2.9 Assess the spatial distribution of sensitivity (sub-question D)

Calibration (2006) Mean (cms) Std. deviation R2 Ens

Validation (2008) Mean (cms) Std. deviation R2 Ens

Day River Basin (2006)

4.2.3 Scenario III

4.3.1 Current situation

Figure 7. Rainfall partitioning to groundwater recharge in % of total rainfall per sub-basin

Groundwater Recharge rates per scenario

Cumulative groundwater recharge [mm]

Figure 12. Cumulative groundwater recharge per scenario

DRY SEASON Minimum average of Standard Maximum average Standard

DRY SEASON Minimum average of Standard Maximum average Standard

5.2 Possible improvements

5.3 Further research

Beven, K. (1997). TOPMODEL : A CRITIQUE, 11(December 1996).

Hendriks, M. R. (2010). Introduction to Physical Hydrology. Oxford University Press.