sustainability-15-05276

sustainability
Article
Assessing the Implication of Climate Change to Forecast Future
Flood Using SWAT and HEC-RAS Model under CMIP5 Climate
Projection in Upper Nan Watershed, Thailand
Muhammad Chrisna Satriagasa , Piyapong Tongdeenok * and Naruemol Kaewjampa
Watershed Management and Environment Program, Faculty of Forestry, Kasetsart University,

Bangkok 10900, Thailand
* Correspondence: fforppt@ku.ac.th
Abstract: Climate change will affect Southeast Asian countries, particularly Thailand. There are still
insufficient studies on rainfall, streamflow, and future floods in the Upper Nan Watershed, northern
Thailand. This study examined how future climate change will affect the rainfall, streamflow, and
flooding in the Upper Nan Watershed. SWAT and HEC-RAS models were utilized to assess the future
streamflow and flooding in this area. The models used data from 1980–2020, which were taken from
seven Upper Nan meteorological stations and two discharge stations. In this study, the impact of
future climate change was predicted using three GCMs, under RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 scenarios. The
historical data analyzed in this study indicated that rainfall in the study area has a positive trend.
Climate change will increase further, from 18% to 19%, which will cause more fluctuations and lead
to wetter conditions, both in the wet and dry seasons. Climate change delayed the hydrograph
peak and the SWAT-modelled streamflow in the N1 and N64 stations by between 0.3% and 5.1%.
RCP8.5 inundated all of the stations more than RCP4.5. Our models showed that in the medium
future (2041–2060), the inundated area will be similar to that during the 100-year flood probability.
Thus, monitoring and preparation are necessary to avoid repeating the considerable 2011 flood losses
in Thailand.
Citation: Satriagasa, M.C.;
Tongdeenok, P.; Kaewjampa, N.
Keywords: climate change; flood assessment; HEC-RAS model; rainfall assessment; SWAT model;
Assessing the Implication of Climate
Upper Nan Watershed
Change to Forecast Future Flood
Using SWAT and HEC-RAS Model
under CMIP5 Climate Projection in
Upper Nan Watershed, Thailand.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 5276. https:// 1. Introduction
doi.org/10.3390/su15065276 In the future, it has been predicted that the hydrologic cycle will be disturbed by
climate change [1–3]. In some areas, the water levels are predicted to increase [4–6], while
Academic Editors: Adam Choryński
and Dariusz Graczyk
in others they are predicted to decrease [7,8]. Furthermore, due to the disturbances, the
water balance will also be altered and will fluctuate more, which will drive more frequent
Received: 14 February 2023 and intense extreme weather events [1]. Such events could lead to hydro-meteorological
Revised: 9 March 2023 disasters, including floods.
Accepted: 11 March 2023 Flooding is the most common natural disaster, globally. As reported by Shen [9],
Published: 16 March 2023
globally, between 1900 and 2015, hydrological disasters, including floods, occurred more
than other natural disasters. Floods not only occur in developing countries, such as
Indonesia [10] and Thailand [11] but also occur in developed countries, for example, in
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Germany [12] and Japan [13]. Financial losses, injuries, and death tolls driven by flood
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. events are rapidly increasing and are projected to continue to increase in the future [9].
This article is an open access article According to Dottori et al. [14], a 1.5 ◦ C air temperature rise could increase human deaths
distributed under the terms and by 76%, flood destruction by 200%, and welfare by 0.6%. Moreover, a 2 ◦ C air temperature
conditions of the Creative Commons increase would double direct economic damage, deaths, and welfare losses caused by
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// flooding. Thus, flood assessment is crucial in mitigating their future impacts.
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ Recently, interest in studying the progression of climate change has been rising tremen-
4.0/). dously around the globe [15–18]. The future of climate change needs to be understood
Sustainability 2023, 15, 5276. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15065276 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2023, 15, 5276 2 of 21
immediately to mitigate the possible risks that it will pose [19]. In order to study this,
various climate models have already been developed. The global climate models (GCMs),
under CMIP6 (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6), are the most recent and
have updated the CMIP5 (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5). However,
several studies have mentioned that, until now, the CMIP5 model was still considered to
be reliable and was used to predict the future of climate change in various studies [20–25].
CMIP5 consisted of 59 GCMs (https://esgf-node.llnl.gov/ (accessed on 8 January 2023)),
which were developed by various agencies, worldwide. Out of all of these GCMs, the most
popular ones in Thailand have been the MPI-ESM-MR (Max Planck Institute Earth System
Model—Medium Resolution) [4,26,27], HadGEM2 (Hadley Centre Global Environment
Model version 2) [28,29], and the EC-Earth [26,30–32] models. Therefore, these three GCMs
were used in this study to predict the future rainfall, streamflow, and flood areas in the
Upper Nan Watershed.
Previous studies have revealed that the effects of climate change vary from place to
place. As mentioned in IPCC’s fifth AR [33], most locations—i.e., equatorial Pacific, mid-
latitude wet regions, and wet tropical regions—will have more rainfall than they normally
would. However, mid-latitude and dry subtropical regions will experience the opposite
of this [33–35].
In recent years, many studies have discussed flood assessment worldwide, using
various methods, including the SWAT (Soil and Water Assessment Tool) and HEC-RAS
models (RAS models). For example, studies have been conducted in America [36–38],
Europe [39–41], Africa [42–44], and Asia [45–47]. These include studies that were conducted
in Thailand [48–50]. The SWAT model is a robust model that can predict streamflow and
other parameters, such as sediment and nutrients, in a watershed system. However, in the
cases that have been used in previous flood assessment studies, this model has not been
able to directly inform researchers about the extent of a flooded area.
However, we believe that a coupled model, using SWAT and HEC-RAS, has the
potential to provide us with a holistic analysis, covering rainfall, discharge, and the extent
of future flooding in our study area. Such a study has been conducted by Roy et al. [51] in
the Arial Khan River of Bangladesh and by Loi et al. [52] in the Vu Gia-Thu Bon River Basin
of Vietnam. On the other hand, HEC-RAS is a good model for simulating the hydraulic
model, including the extent of the flooded area. However, this model does not fully
consider the water balance equation in a watershed, whereas the SWAT model could fully
consider this.
Regional studies about flood susceptibility are crucial. This is because the charac-
teristics of different regions and, thus, how they will interact with future climate change
differ [53,54]. However, despite this, there are few existing studies on flood assessment
in the Upper Nan Watershed—and studies that have used a coupled model of SWAT and
HEC-RAS are particularly lacking. Similar previous studies were conducted in Upper
Nan Watershed using another method, as conducted by Promping and Tingsanchali [55],
Gunathilake et al. [5], and Igarashi et al. [56]. These studies focus on understanding the
effect of climate change on future streamflow. Both Promping and Tingsanchali and Gu-
nathilake et al. use using HEC-HMS model instead of a coupled model of SWAT and
HEC-RAS and RCM (regional climate model) instead of GCM (global climate model). A
study by Igarashi et al. used the return period and the SWAT model to predict future
streamflow. However, this study only uses a single model of SWAT and is not targeted at
assessing the flood in Upper Nan Watershed.
The lack of research that has been conducted on the Upper Nan Watershed is due to
the characteristics of floods in this area being flash floods, which are harder to understand
using regular flood modelling. Therefore, this study has aimed to fill this research gap to
support our understanding of the future impact of climate change on flood hazards in the
This study aimed to assess the variation of future rainfall, streamflow, and flooding,
which will be driven by climate change. This assessment was conducted using three
GCMs, under RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 scenarios, in the Upper Nan Watershed. As a part of
the watershed management and mitigation efforts, the current study has enhanced our
understanding of the future flood hazards that we can expect, particularly in the Upper
Nan Watershed. This paper is organized as follows: The research background and the
purpose of this study are discussed in Section 1, and the data and methodology used in
this study, including the SWAT model, the HEC-RAS model, and future climate change
projection, are explained in Section 2. Results and discussions are provided in Sections 3 and 4,
respectively, and the summary of this study is provided in Section 5.
2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area
Upper Nan Watershed (18◦ 270 55.7200 N to 19◦ 380 26.9700 N, and 100◦ 210 39.1400 E to
101◦ 210 7.5200 E) is situated in northern Thailand and encompasses most of the Nan Province
Sustainability 2023, 15,(Figure
x FOR PEER Upper Nan Watershed covers 8734.7 km2 and has elevations ranging from
REVIEW
1). The 4 o
179 to 2072 msl. This watershed flows north to south, as far as 215.8 km, and combines
with Wang, Ping, and Yom Watersheds to form the larger Chao Phraya Watershed.
Figure 1. Location
Figuremap of Uppermap
1. Location NanofWatershed.
Upper NanA:Watershed.
Muang Nan A:and B: Wiangsa.
Muang Nan and B: Wiangsa.
Upper Nan Watershed

2.2. Data Collectionis a fifth-order watershed, with an elongated shape, and is
considered a rough watershed, with a drainage density of less than 2 km/km2 , according
to Smith [57].2.2.1.
TheTopographic,
slope of this Soil, and LandisUse
watershed Data
dominated by hilly (17–24%) and steep
(25–35%) areas, whichThe USGScoverDEMmoreSRTM was of
than half used
thein this study Based
watershed. to represent
on FAO the[58],
topographic
Upper condi
of the study area. This digital elevation model has a resolution
Nan Watershed has four soil types: Orthic Acrisols (Ao90-2/3c), Ferric Acrisols (Af60- of 30 m. These data w
1/2ab), Orthicretrieved
Acrisolsfrom Google Earth
(Ao108-2ab), Engine Nitosols
and Dystric (https://earthengine.google.com (accessed on 25
(Nd65-3ab). The Orthic Acrisols
(Ao90-2/3c) cember 2021)). soil type, which covers more than half of the total area.
is the dominant
The climate In this study,
is tropical, wetwo
with relied on theseasons:
distinct FAO digital soilseason
the dry map of the world
(from October fortoour soil d
March) and (DSMW).
the wet seasonThe DSMW was obtained
(from April from the
to September). United
It has Nationsannual
an average Food and Agriculture
rainfall
of as much as 1385 mm.(https://www.fao.org
ganization The average annual air temperature
(accessed on 11 ranges
Januarybetween 4.5 ◦ C soil
2022)). These and data hav
43.3 ◦ C. The 1:5,000,000
annual flowscale at theand
watershed
cover the outlet
entire(N13A
world,station at Wiangsa)
including ranges
the Upper Nanbetween
Watershed.
29,765 and 158,033 3
m study
/s. used a land use map of Upper Nan Watershed, created by Thailand’s L
This
According to the Land
Development Development
Department. ThisDepartment
study used aof Thailand,
land use mapthe majority
from 2018, atof the of 1:50
a scale
land in the Upper Nan Watershed
to emphasize the impact is forested, with
of climate an area of 5215.8 km2 , followed by 25%
change.
2.2.2. Hydro-Meteorological Data

Daily precipitation data from 1980 to 2020 were obtained from the Thai Meteoro
ical Department (https://www4.tmd.go.th/ (accessed on 20 December 2021)). There
seven meteorological stations within Upper Nan Watershed: Nan, Nan Agromet,
dryland farming. Several previous studies have reported that deforestation and agricultural
and built-up land encroachment is the main issue related to land use in this study area [59–62].
Moreover, these previous studies also report that the land use change in the study area led
to several problems, such as increased streamflow fluctuation and sediment.
In this research, the study area inside Upper Nan Watershed was separated into
two smaller areas, periodically inundated by flooding events: Muang Nan (A) and Wiangsa
(B), as presented in Figure 1. Muang Nan, which covers 82 km2 , is a study area located in
the heart of economic activity in Nan Province. This area, located in the low-lying middle
stream of Upper Nan, is supplied by discharge from the N64 station. Wiangsa is located
downstream of Upper Nan Watershed. The N1 station supplies this area with a total area
of 287 km2 .
2.2. Data Collection

2.2.1. Topographic, Soil, and Land Use Data
The USGS DEM SRTM was used in this study to represent the topographic condition
of the study area. This digital elevation model has a resolution of 30 m. These data
were retrieved from Google Earth Engine (https://earthengine.google.com (accessed on
25 December 2021)).
In this study, we relied on the FAO digital soil map of the world for our soil data
(DSMW). The DSMW was obtained from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Or-
ganization (https://www.fao.org (accessed on 11 January 2022)). These soil data have a
1:5,000,000 scale and cover the entire world, including the Upper Nan Watershed.
This study used a land use map of Upper Nan Watershed, created by Thailand’s Land
Development Department. This study used a land use map from 2018, at a scale of 1:50,000
to emphasize the impact of climate change.
2.2.2. Hydro-Meteorological Data

Daily precipitation data from 1980 to 2020 were obtained from the Thai Meteorologi-
cal Department (https://www4.tmd.go.th/ (accessed on 20 December 2021)). There are
seven meteorological stations within Upper Nan Watershed: Nan, Nan Agromet, Tha Wang
Pha, Thung Chang, Song Khwae, Chiang Klang, and Pua.
2.2.3. Discharge Data

Daily discharge data in this study were obtained from two different stations, managed
by the Upper Northern Region Irrigation Hydrology Center, Royal Irrigation Department
Thailand (www.hydro-1.net (accessed on 11 January 2022)). These stations are N64 (Baan
Pakhwang) and N1 (Muang Nan). The data from each of these stations span a different
number of years. Baan Pakhwang Station’s (N64) data cover April 1994–March 2022 and
Muang Nan Station’s (N1) data cover April 1923–March 2021.
2.2.4. Observed Flood Map

The observed flood map was obtained from Thailand Flood Monitoring System, under
Geo-Informatics and Space Technology Development (GISTDA), Thailand (https://flood.
gistda.or.th (accessed on 3 March 2022)). The flood map provided by GISTDA has a scale
of 1:5,000,000, which covers the entire country of Thailand. The observed flood map is
available from 2005 to 2020 each month. However, the biggest flood in the study area
occurred in 2008. Thus, this study used observed floods from this year only.
2.3. Model Description

2.3.1. SWAT Model
The SWAT model was created by The Agricultural Research Service of the USDA. It is
a process-based, semi-distributed, continuous-time watershed hydrological model [63–65].
The SWAT model was developed to determine how management decisions affect water
resources and pollution from non-point sources in large river basins [64]. Several data are
required in the SWAT model: terrain, land use, soil, and meteorological data. Furthermore,
multi-temporal observed discharge is also needed for calibration and validation require-
ments. Meteorological data include rainfall amount, air temperature, wind speed, solar
radiation, and air humidity.
In this study, the SWAT model started by creating a delineated watershed and then
separated it into multiple sub-watersheds, based on terrain data. The second step was
to make the hydrologic response unit (HRU), which used land use, soil type, and slope
data. Land use types from the Land Development Department, Thailand, were reclassified
into nine major land use types: rice fields, built-up areas, dryland farming, forests, shrub
grasses, water bodies, and miscellaneous. According to the DSMW map from FAO, there
are four soil types in the study area. The slope in the study area is separated into five
slope classifications: flat (0–8%), sloping (9–16%), hilly (17–24%), steep (25–35%), and very
steep (>35%).
A water balance equation was the basis for the SWAT model [46,49]. The equation
used in the SWAT model can be seen in Equation (1), as follows:
t
SWt = SW0 + ∑ Rday − Qsur f − Ea − Wseep − Q gw (1)
i =1
where SWt is the final soil water content (mm); SW 0 is the initial soil water content (mm);
t is the time (days); Rday is the rainfall amount on the day (mm); Wseep is the seepage water
amount on the day (mm); and Qgw is the return flow on the day.
In the SWAT model, the Soil Conservation Service Curve Number (SCS-CN) method
was applied to calculate the surface runoff in the study area. The SCS-CN equation is
shown by Equation (2), as follows:
2
Rday − Ia
Qsur f = (2)
Rday − Ia + S
where Qsurf is daily surface runoff (mm); Rday is daily rainfall depth (mm); Ia is the initial
abstraction (mm); and S is the retention parameter (mm). The value of S, or the retention
parameter, is not fixed. It can be varied by several parameters such as slope, soil, and land
use management. Mathematically, the value of the retention parameter can be expressed as
Equation (3), as follows:
100
S = 254 × ( −1) (3)
CN
where S is the retention parameter (mm), and CN is the curve number. The curve number
value is between 0 and 100, with 100 representing no potential retention, and 0 representing
an infinite potential retention [66].
2.3.2. HEC-RAS Model

For 1D and 2D unsteady river hydraulic calculations, sediment transport predictions,
and assessments of water quality, many researchers have turned to the United States Army
Corps of Engineers’ HEC-RAS model [66]. In this study, we focused solely on 2D flood
inundation, even though this model can perform various tasks.
The HEC-RAS model requires several datasets, including terrain, land use, and un-
steady discharge. This model uses the same terrain as the SWAT model, a DEM SRTM with
a 30 m resolution. In this model, land use defines the land surface’s manning value or the
coarse level. The result of the SWAT model is an unsteady discharge.
A mesh or grid represents the terrain as a continuous surface in a 2D flood model. The
water in this model can move through the mesh in longitudinal and lateral directions. In
this study, a 50 × 50 m grid was used for the perimeter area, while the refinement area in
steady discharge. This model uses the same terrain as the SWAT model, a DEM SRTM
with a 30 m resolution. In this model, land use defines the land surface’s manning value
or the coarse level. The result of the SWAT model is an unsteady discharge.
A mesh or grid represents the terrain as a continuous surface in a 2D flood model.
The water in this model can move through the mesh in longitudinal and lateral directions.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 5276 In this study, a 50 × 50 m grid was used for the perimeter area, while the refinement6area of 21
in the river valley and the area next to it used a 10 × 10-meter grid. These grids are gener-
ated in the RAS Mapper of HEC-RAS.
the river valley and the area next to it used a 10 × 10-meter grid. These grids are generated
2.3.3.
in theCoupled SWAT
RAS Mapper ofModel and HEC-RAS Model
HEC-RAS.
SWAT model has been widely used in predicting the streamflow under various cli-
2.3.3.
matic Coupled
and HRUSWAT Model whereas
conditions, and HEC-RAS
HEC-RASModel2D model has been widely used in river
floodSWAT model
analyses. In has
thisbeen widely
study, used in
we used thepredicting
versatilitythe
ofstreamflow
these two under
modelsvarious climatic
to predict the
and HRU conditions, whereas HEC-RAS 2D model has been widely used in river
flood hazards that will occur in the study area as a result of climate change. The coupled flood
analyses.
SWAT andInHEC-RAS
this study, we used
model the used
scheme versatility
in thisofresearch
these two models to
is indicated inpredict the flood
Figure 2.
hazards that will occur in the study area as a result of climate change. The coupled SWAT
and HEC-RAS model scheme used in this research is indicated in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Procedure for flood analysis using a coupled model,

model, under
under climate
climate change
change conditions.
conditions.
2.4. Model Setup

2.4. Model Setup
2.4.1. SWAT Model
2.4.1. SWAT Model
This study used two small areas within Upper Nan Watershed: Muang Nan and
This study used two small areas within Upper Nan Watershed: Muang Nan and
Wiangsa. The SWAT model setup in each of these study areas is described as follows:
Wiangsa. The SWAT model setup in each of these study areas is described as follows:
(1) Muang Nan (N64): This study area was divided into 29 sub-watersheds and 1414 HRUs.
(1) Muang Nan (N64): This study area was divided into 29 sub-watersheds and 1414
Data available for Muang Nan are from 1990 to 2020. Using the available data, the
HRUs. Data available for Muang Nan are from 1990 to 2020. Using the available data,
SWAT model was set up with a warm-up period of 5 years, calibration for 15 years,
the SWAT model was set up with a warm-up period of 5 years, calibration for 15
and validation for 11 years.
years, and validation for 11 years.
(2) Wiangsa (N1): This study area was divided into 25 sub-watersheds and 1437 HRUs.
(2) Wiangsa (N1): This study area was divided into 25 sub-watersheds and 1437 HRUs.
Data available for Wiangsa were from 1980 to 2020. Using the available data, the
Data available for Wiangsa were from 1980 to 2020. Using the available data, the
SWAT model was set up with a warm-up period of 5 years, calibration for 20 years,
SWAT model was
and validation for set up with a warm-up period of 5 years, calibration for 20 years,
14 years.
and validation for 14 years.
SWAT model for all study areas was run by monthly time step for calibration and
SWATthen
validation, model
by for alltime
daily study areas
step wasinput
for the run of
bythe
monthly timemodel.
HEC-RAS step for calibration
SWAT and
model was
validation, then by daily time step for the input of the HEC-RAS model. SWAT
run for the input of the HEC-RAS model using the maximum hydro-meteorological data model was
run for the
available forinput of thearea
the study HEC-RAS model
(from 1980 using the
to 2020), withmaximum hydro-meteorological
a warm-up period of five years. data
available for the study area (from 1980 to 2020), with a warm-up period of five years.
The flood map in this study is generated by using HEC-RAS 2D model based on
the SWAT-modelled streamflow. DEM SRTM, with a resolution of 30 m, was the input
for terrain data. For the HEC-RAS model, the size of the area used was not the same as
the size of the SWAT model’s area. This study emphasized the historically flooded area,
based on the flood observation map from GISTDA. This was much smaller than the SWAT
model area. The HEC-RAS study areas for Muang Nan and Wiangsa were 82.1 km2 and
286.98 km2 , respectively.
All two study areas were covered by a 50 × 50 m grid perimeter area and a 10 × 10 m
grid refinement area for the river valley and the area next to it. Manning information
for this HEC-RAS model was based on the 2018 land use map, obtained from the Land
Development Department of Thailand. This land use map was updated using 2021 Google
Earth satellite imagery to improve the data updates and geometry. This study used a
manning value based on Chow [67], Jung et al. [68], and Jansen [69]. This manning value
was divided into normal, minimum, and maximum. This group was selected for calibrating
the flood inundation model.
Each study area had different inputs. Muang Nan obtained input from Baan Pakhwang
Station (N64), and Wiangsa obtained input from Muang Nan Station (N1). The input
discharge in this study consisted of the following five groups:
(1) August 2018, daily discharge.
(2) Historical (1980–2020), daily discharge by using the return period.
(3) Future (2021–2080), daily discharge by using the return period.
(4) Future (2021–2080), daily discharge by using maximum flood in the near future
(2025–2040), medium future (2041–2060), and far future (2061–2080).
The return period analysis in this study was based on the Log Pearson Type-III flood
frequency method [70,71]. The return periods used in this study were 1, 2, 5, 10, 20, 50, and
100 years.
2.5. Model Evaluation

2.5.1. SWAT Model
A SWAT model should go through three processes before it is fit to use. These three pro-
cesses are sensitivity analysis, calibration, and validation. Measures of sensitivity and
significance, such as the t-value and the p-value, are applied to each parameter. The null
hypothesis is rejected if the p-value is less than 0.05. In this study, a parameter with a high
t-value and a low p-value was considered highly sensitive to streamflow changes [72,73].
The Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE) index, the RMSE-observations standard deviation
ratio (RSR), and Kling–Gupta Efficiency (KGE) were selected in our study to evaluate the
model’s monthly discharge performance at the calibration and validation phases. The
RSR is the ratio of the measured data’s RMSE and standard deviation (Equation (4)). RSR
ranges from 0 (optimal) to a large positive value. A lower RSR and RMSE improves
model simulation performance [74]. NSE compares simulated and measured values to
assess model efficiency, expressed in Equation (5) [75]. Model validity increases when NSE
approaches 1 [76]. Calibration issues can develop when utilizing the commonly used NSE
or the un-normalized mean square error criterion. Gupta et al. [77] introduced the KGE to
lessen these issues. KGE values vary from −∞ to 1, with values closer to 1 suggesting a
more effective model [78].
" #
2
RMSE ∑in=1 (Oi − Pi )
RSR = = 2 (4)
STDEVobs ∑n O − O
i =1 i
2
∑in=1 (Oi − Si )
NSE = 1 − 2 (5)
∑in=1 Oi − O
q
KGE = 1 − (r − 1)2 + ( α − 1)2 + ( β − 1)2 (6)
With α = σs /σo and β = µs /µo
Oi and Si are the observed and simulated values, n is the number of pairs, Ō is the
mean observed value, and S is the mean simulated value. In this study, monthly NSE
and RSR were deemed satisfactory based on performance rating statistics suggested by
Moriasi et al. [79]. The NSE value of the model should be more than 0.50, while the RSR
should not be more than 0.7. KGE can be categorized as good (KGE ≥ 0.75), intermediate
(0.75 > KGE ≥ 0.5), poor (0.5 > KGE > 0), and very poor (KGE ≤ 0) [78].

An HEC-RAS-modelled flood needs to be evaluated to choose the best combination
and understand the per cent error of the model. In this study, the HEC-RAS model was
evaluated using a per cent accuracy assessment, by comparing the observed floods from
the GISTDA- and HEC-RAS-modelled flood. According to the GISTDA flood database, the
floods in the study area mostly occurred in August 2018. Thus, it was selected to examine
the accuracy of the modelled flood.
This study’s parameters were chosen to vary the flood date and manning value. The
flood date was chosen by the peak of the hydrograph, found during August 2018. The
manning value had three categories: low, normal, and high. The combination of the
flood on the selected date and the selected manning value categories was then used to
generate the flood, using the HEC-RAS model. After that, the flood area was extracted
using 50 × 50 m fishnet grids. The per cent accuracy assessment (A) was calculated using
Equation (7), as follows:
M
A= × 100% (7)
FP
where M is match which is the condition if the fishnet point (FP) from the observed
flood and the modelled flood show the same condition, which can be all flooded or not
flooded. The total numbers of fishnet points in Muang Nan and Wiangsa were 32,178 and
114,113 grid cells, respectively.
2.6. Future Climate Change Projection

This study used climate projection based on three GCMs in CMIP5, under the RCP4.5
and RCP8.5 scenarios: EC-Earth, HadGEM2, and MPI-ESM-MR, from 2006 to 2080. Climate
data from 2006 to 2020 was used to select the most fitting GCM, which was able to predict
future rainfall, streamflow, and flooded areas in our study area. Under Representative
Concentration Pathway (RCP) 4.5, radiation forcing was seen to stabilize at 4.5 W m−2 ,
(650 ppm CO2 -equivalent) in 2100 [80]; therefore, we considered this RCP to be a future
climate projection with a moderate impact. However, we consider Representative Concen-
tration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 to be a high-emission scenario, with a high impact on the future
environment. This RCP was seen to have a radiative forcing of 8.5 W m−2 in 2100, which is
the highest scenario projected to date [1,81].
2.7. Statistical Test

The statistical test in this research was used to analyze the differences among the
groups. In this study, a t-test was used with the equation shown below (Equation (8)). t-tests
compare two groups’ means. The t-test assumes the datasets are independent, normally
distributed, and have similar variance within each group [82]. Since the population variance
was not similar, this study used a t-test for two samples, assuming unequal variances. We
used a two-tailed t-test to compare populations, as follows:
x1 − x2
t = r (8)
S2 n1 + 1
n2
1
Here, t is the t-value; x1 and x2 are the means of the two groups being compared; s2 is
the pooled standard error of the two groups; and n1 and n2 are the numbers of observations
in each group. This study employed a confidence interval of 95% or an alpha of 0.05.
Two groups were considered significantly different if P(T ≤ t) was less than alpha.
3. Results
3.1. Future Precipitation
Precipitation is the input of a watershed. Understanding how the rainfall characteris-
tics in our study area will change in the future as a result of climate change is crucial.
3.1.1. Selecting the Fittest GCM

In this study, we used three GCMs of CMIP5: EC-Earth, HadGEM2, and MPI-ESM-MR,
under RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 scenarios. However, this study did not use all the GCMs to
predict future streamflow and flooding. Instead, we only used the projection models that
were suitable for the study area. The most suitable GCMs were chosen by comparing
the minimum deviation from the observed rainfall with the projected rainfall between
2006 and 2020 (Table 1). As shown in Table 1, the minimum deviation was found in the
MPI-ESM-MR’s dataset. Thus, this study only used a single GCM—MPI-ESM-MR—for the
rest of the study.
Table 1. Total deviation of GCMs value, compared to historical data.
GCM Scenario Deviation

RCP4.5 6281.9
EC-Earth
RCP8.5 5505.4
RCP4.5 6890.2
HadGEM2
RCP8.5 6080.0
RCP4.5 4191.5
MPI-ESM-MR
RCP8.5 2914.7
3.1.2. Change in Rainfall Characteristics

The historical rainfall in the study area, between 1980 and 2020, showed particular
features. The monthly rainfall showed that the wet season occurred in the middle of the
year (between April and September), while the rest of the year was the dry season. The
peak rainfall was seen to be in August, with a depth of as much as 309.4 mm. The annual
rainfall was seen to fluctuate year-on-year; however, a rising tendency was observed. The
average annual rainfall in the study area was seen to be 1385 mm, with a maximum rainfall
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 22
of as much as 1957 recorded in 1995.
According to our projections, in the future, our study area will be wetter in both the
dry and wet seasons. As shown in Figure 3a, our rainfall projections under RCP4.5 and
RCP8.5 tended
Similar tomonthly
to the predict more rainfall.
rainfall, In the that
we predict dry the
season, weannual
future predictrainfall
that the rainfall
will will
increase
byincrease
as much byasas19%
much as 84%
under underand
RCP4.5, RCP4.5
by 18%andunder
by 83% under(Figure
RCP8.5 RCP8.5. Meanwhile,
3b). We predictinthethe
wet season we predict that under RCP4.5 and RCP8.5, the future rainfall
average annual rainfall under RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 to be 1650 mm and 1639 mm, respec- will increase by
as much as 11% and 10%, respectively. However, we do not predict any pattern
tively. Unlike the annual historical rainfall, we predict that future rainfall will fluctuate changes
in future
more. The rainfall: the dry season
rainfall projections underwill still occur
RCP4.5 at the beginning
and RCP8.5 anddeviation
had standard the end ofvalues
the year,
of
asand the as
much peak rainfall
281.9 will still
and 261.2, occur in August.
respectively, while theNevertheless, we predict
historical rainfall only the
hadrainfall peak
a standard
value under
deviation valueRCP4.5 to increase by as much as 4%; whereas, under RCP8.5, we predict it to
of 210.8.
decrease by 2%.
(a) (b)
Figure
Figure3.3.Comparison
Comparisonofofhistorical
historicaland
andfuture
futureprojections
projectionsininUpper
UpperNan
NanWatershed:
Watershed:(a)
(a)monthly
monthly
rainfall and (b) annual rainfall.
rainfall and (b) annual rainfall.
InSimilar
order to
to the
clarify the difference
monthly between
rainfall, we predict the
thathistorical
the futurerainfall
annual levels and
rainfall willour pre-
increase
dicted future as
by as much rainfall levels,RCP4.5,
19% under we usedandt-test
by statistics
18% under in this study.
RCP8.5 As seen
(Figure 3b).in
We Table 2, our
predict the
future
averagerainfall
annualpredictions were
rainfall under proven
RCP4.5 andtoRCP8.5
have significant
to be 1650 mmstatistical
and 1639differences under
mm, respectively.
Unlike and
RCP4.5 the annual
RCP8.5.historical rainfall, we predict that future rainfall will fluctuate more. The
rainfall projections under RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 had standard deviation values of as much
Table 2. Statistical difference test among different rainfall conditions at Upper Nan Watershed.
Group Obs. Mean Variance P(T ≤ t) Two-Tail Significance

Historical 41 1385 45,535 - -
RCP 4.5 61 1649 80,816 5.47 × 10−7 * Significantly different
as 281.9 and 261.2, respectively, while the historical rainfall only had a standard deviation
value of 210.8.
In order to clarify the difference between the historical rainfall levels and our predicted
future rainfall levels, we used t-test statistics in this study. As seen in Table 2, our future
rainfall predictions were proven to have significant statistical differences under RCP4.5
and RCP8.5.
Table 2. Statistical difference test among different rainfall conditions at Upper Nan Watershed.
Group Obs. Mean Variance P(T ≤ t) Two-Tail Significance

Historical 41 1385 45,535 - -
RCP 4.5 61 1649 80,816 5.47 × 10−7 * Significantly different
RCP 8.5 61 1639 69,372 5.68 × 10−7 * Significantly different
* alpha: 0.05.
3.2. Future Streamflow

The results of our study proved that climate change will significantly affect future
rainfall in the Upper Nan Watershed. The next point that needed to be assessed was
whether the streamflow would also be affected significantly. Thus, this part of the paper
will highlight the effects of climate change on the streamflow within our research area and
the future rainfall–runoff ratio.
3.2.1. Parameter Sensitivity, Calibration, and Validation

In order to model the future streamflow, the SWAT model needed to pass the sensitivity
analysis, calibration, and validation. For the SWAT model at the N1 and N64 stations, we
settled on eighteen parameters for calibration. Both the t-stat and the p-value were used to
establish the sensitivity of the parameters [63,83]. The most sensitive parameters in each
station were varied, as presented in Table 3.
Table 3. Sensitive parameters for N1 and N64 stations.
Station Parameter Definition Min. Max.

ALPHA_BF Baseflow alpha factor 0 0.5
N1
CANMX Maximum canopy storage 0 100
Effective hydraulic
N64 CH_K2 conductivity in the −0.01 500
main channel
The calibration and validation phase in SWAT model development relies on the
observed streamflow [64,72]. The two stations, N1 and N64, had different periods of
observation data available. The observation data from the N1 station were from between
1980 and 2020, while the data from the N65 station were from between 1990 and 2020.
Therefore, the model configuration for the N1 station and N64 station was different. As
shown in Figure 4a,b, the calibrated SWAT model at the N1 station and N64 station followed
the pattern of the observed data well. This study used the NSE, RSR, and KGE values
for the statistical evaluation. During the calibration and validation periods, both runoff
stations had a good or very good NSE value—above 0.75. The RSR values, the calibration,
and validation periods for stations N1 and N64 indicate satisfactory to very good values.
Validation of N1 and calibration of N64 reveal intermediate KGE values, while calibration
of N1 and validation of N64 show poor category.
shown in Figure 4a,b, the calibrated SWAT model at the N1 station and N64 statio
followed the pattern of the observed data well. This study used the NSE, RSR, and KG
values for the statistical evaluation. During the calibration and validation periods, bot
runoff stations had a good or very good NSE value—above 0.75. The RSR values, th
Sustainability 2023, 15, 5276 calibration, and validation periods for stations N1 and N64 indicate satisfactory
11 of 21 to ver
good values. Validation of N1 and calibration of N64 reveal intermediate KGE value
while calibration of N1 and validation of N64 show poor category.
Figure 4. Monthly time4.step:

Figure simulated
Monthly and observed
time step: simulatedhydrograph at (a)
and observed N1 (Muang
hydrograph at Nan Station)
(a) N1 (Muang and
Nan Station
(b) N64 (Ban Pakwang Station),
and (b) N64 (Banwith calculated
Pakwang statistics
Station), on calibration
with calculated and
statistics onvalidation
calibrationperiods.
and validation period
3.2.2. Effect of 3.2.2.

Climate Change
Effect on Streamflow
of Climate Change on Streamflow
The SWAT-modelled streamflow in this study used input from two sources: (1) the
historical-modelled streamflow, which used the observed rainfall; and (2) the future-
modelled streamflow, which used the MPI-ESM-MR, under RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 scenarios.
The monthly historical streamflow was similar to the historical rainfall (Figure 5a). A low
discharge was found at the beginning and the end of the year, while the peak discharge
was found in August, with the values at the N1 and N64 stations as much as 12,260 m3 /s
and 9664 m3 /s, respectively. The average annual streamflow of the historical period at
the N1 and N64 stations was found to be as much as 51,538 m3 /s and 40,869 m3 /s, re-
spectively. Meanwhile, the maximum discharge at N1 and N64 was 79,148 m3 /s and
61,948 m3 /s, respectively.
Figure 5. Variation of streamflow, both historical and forecast, in Upper Nan Watershed at (a) monthly
discharge and (b) annual discharge.
The predicted future monthly discharges showed a similar pattern as the historical
streamflow. However, the future discharge had a one-month lag in the peak discharge
compared to the historical streamflow. In the N1 station, the peak future discharge under
RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 was lower by 7.7% and 11.9%, respectively, compared to the historical
streamflow. In the N64 station, the peak future discharge under RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 was
lower by 4.1% and 11.2%, respectively, compared to the historical streamflow. Furthermore,
our predictions of the monthly future streamflow indicated that the dry season would
be 43% wetter under RCP4.5 and 36% wetter under RCP8.5 at the N1 station, and 35.9%
wetter under RCP4.5 and 29.3% wetter under RCP8.5 at the N64 station. Conversely, our
predictions also showed that the wet season would be dryer by as much as 4.8% under
RCP4.5 and by 2.4% under RCP8.5 in the N1 station, and by 8.4% under RCP4.5 and by
6% under RCP8.5 in the N64 station. This result corresponds with the study conducted
by Tabucanon et al. [30]. Tabucanon et al. find that in the dry season under RCP4.5
and RCP8.5, streamflow in Chao Phraya’s tributary was predicted to increase, while the
opposite occurred in the wet season.
Furthermore, according to our predictions, the future annual discharges also had a
higher average, compared to the historical period. In the N1 station, we predicted the
average annual discharge to be as much as 53,829 m3 /s under RCP4.5, and 54,148 m3 /s
under RCP8.5. Meanwhile, in the N64 station, the average annual discharge was predicted
to be as much as 41,001 m3 /s under RCP4.5, and 41,244 m3 /s under RCP8.5.
In order to clarify the difference between the historical and future streamflows, this
study used t-test statistics. Using the value of the streamflow, the future streamflow was
predicted to increase by between 0.3% and 5.1%, annually. However, the t-test analysis
(shown in Table 4) found no significant difference between the future discharge and the
historical discharge, even though the future rainfall was seen to be statistically different
from the historic rainfall. This result is in line with a study conducted by Promping
and Tingsanchali [55] which found that under RCP4.5, annual streamflow in Upper Nan
Watershed was not significantly changed.
Table 4. Statistical difference test among different streamflow conditions in N1 and N64 stations at
Station Group Obs. Mean P(T ≤ t) Two-Tail Significance

Historical 35 51,538 -
N1 MPI-ESM-MR RCP4.5 56 53,829 0.3968 Not sig. different
MPI-ESM-MR RCP8.5 56 54,148 0.3269 Not sig. different
Historical 35 40,868 - -
N64 MPI-ESM-MR RCP4.5 56 41,001 0.9495 Not sig. different
MPI-ESM-MR RCP8.5 56 41,244 0.8560 Not sig. different
3.3. Effect of Climate Change on Flood Events

In this study, we proved that climate change will affect the input of the Upper Nan
Watershed. In order to further understand the effects of climate change on flood events, this
section of the paper will explain the flood probability in the near future to the far future,
changes in the flooded area, and the floods’ impact on the land use in our study area.
3.3.1. Model Evaluation

In order to choose the best model setup and understand the flood model’s accuracy,
this study incorporated model evaluation, using accuracy assessment. Our accuracy
assessment was based on the per cent matching of the observed flood and the modelled
flood, according to a 50 × 50 m fishnet in the study area (shown in Table 5).
Table 5. HEC-RAS model evaluation.
Area Date Manning Total Match Accuracy (%)

Muang Nan 26 Aug 2018 Normal 29,540 91.8
Wiangsa 17 Aug 2018 Minimum 99,472 87.2
The results of the model evaluation in all of our study areas within the Upper Nan
Watershed showed that the accuracy of the flood model was more than 80%. The highest
accuracy was shown in Muang Nan—at 91.8%—while Wiangsa showed the lowest— 87.2%.
Furthermore, the results showed that each study area’s manning range was best when
used differently. This manning range was used in each study area, separately, to model the
historical and future flood areas.
3.3.2. Flood Probability

In this particular study area, a flood is a recurrent event. According to probability,
bigger floods occur less often than smaller ones. As shown in Figure 6, we found that the
highest probability of a flood occurring was under the return period (RP) of 1 year, while
the lowest probability was under the return period of 100 years.
The spatial extent of the flooded areas under the highest and lowest probability of a
flood in both of the study areas (shown in Figure 6) had an obvious difference. In Muang
Nan (N64), the area impacted by flooding under scenario RCP4.5, at a 1-year return period,
was as large as 13.3 km2 . As the size of the impacted area decreased, the probability of
flooding in the area increased. Under the lowest probability under the RCP4.5 scenario that
we calculated in this study—100 years—we predicted that the flood would impact an area
as large as 26.5 km2 . The same pattern was found in scenario RCP8.5, with the highest flood
probability (RP1) affecting 14.3 km2 , whereas the lowest flood probability (RP100) would
potentially affect 27.6 km2 . Similarly, in Wiangsa (N1), the same pattern was also observed.
Under RCP4.5 and RCP8.5, from the highest probability (RP1) to the lowest probability
(RP100), the flooding was predicted to affect as much as 32.1 km2 , 64 km2 , 33.9 km2 , and
66.7 km2 , respectively.
Sustainability 2023, 15, x2023,
Sustainability FOR 15,
PEER REVIEW
5276 14 of 22 14 of 21
(a) (b)
Figure 6. Figure
Future 6.
flood extent
Future of 1–100
flood extentyears flood
of 1–100 probability,
years under RCP4.5
flood probability, underand RCP8.5:
RCP4.5 and(a) Muang
RCP8.5: (a) Muang
Nan/N64Nan/N64
and (b) Wiangsa/N1.
and (b) Wiangsa/N1.
The3.3.3. Flooding
spatial extent of in the
Near Future,areas
flooded Mediumunder Future, and Far
the highest andFuture
lowest probability of a
flood in both Theof the study areas (shown
MPI-ESM-MR projectionin Figure
projects 6) had an obvious
the climate untildifference.
the end ofInthe
Muang
21st century.
Nan (N64),Duethe area itimpacted
to this, is possible bytoflooding
predict under
the futurescenario
climateRCP4.5,
and itsatimpact,
a 1-year return pe-
including floods. As
riod, wasmentioned
as large asby 13.3 km2. As theetsize
Punyawasiri of thethe
al. [26], impacted area decreased,
future climate conditions thecan
probability
be broken down
as follows:
of flooding in the area theincreased.
near future (NF),the
Under from 2025 probability
lowest to 2040; the under
medium thefuture
RCP4.5 (MF), from 2041 to
scenario
2060; and the far future (FF), from 2061 to 2080.
that we calculated in this study—100 years—we predicted that the flood would impact an
area as large asOur26.5predictions of thepattern
km2. The same flooding wasin found
the near future (NF),
in scenario medium
RCP8.5, withfuture (MF), and far
the highest
future (FF)
flood probability in Muang
(RP1) affecting Nan and
14.3 kmWiangsa
2, whereas arethe
presented in Figure
lowest flood 7. As seen
probability in Figure 7,
(RP100)
in all scenarios
would potentially affect and
27.6 in
kmboth locations,
2. Similarly, the flooding
in Wiangsa (N1),inthe
thesame
area pattern
will be was
the worst
also in the
observed. medium
Under future
RCP4.5 period (2041–2060).
and RCP8.5, fromInthe thehighest
Muangprobability
Nan (N64) location,
(RP1) to the areas
lowest predicted
to be submerged by flooding events in the medium future,
probability (RP100), the flooding was predicted to affect as much as 32.1 km , 64 km , 33.9under RCP4.5
2 and
2 RCP8.5, are
26.3 km 2 2and 28.9 km2 , respectively. While in the Wiangsa (N1), the flooded area in the
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER
2 REVIEW
km , and 66.7 km , respectively. 15 of 22
medium future, under RCP4.5 and RCP8.5, was predicted to be as large as 61.6 km2 and
69.6 kmin 2 , respectively.
3.3.3. Flooding Near Future, Medium Future, and Far Future
The MPI-ESM-MR projection projects the climate until the end of the 21st century.
Due to this, it is possible to predict the future climate and its impact, including floods. As
mentioned by Punyawasiri et al. [26], the future climate conditions can be broken down
as follows: the near future (NF), from 2025 to 2040; the medium future (MF), from 2041 to
2060; and the far future (FF), from 2061 to 2080.
Our predictions of the flooding in the near future (NF), medium future (MF), and far
future (FF) in Muang Nan and Wiangsa are presented in Figure 7. As seen in Figure 7, in
all scenarios and in both locations, the flooding in the area will be the worst in the medium
future period (2041–2060). In the Muang Nan (N64) location, the areas predicted to be
submerged by flooding events in the medium future, under RCP4.5 and RCP8.5, are 26.3
km2 and 28.9 km2, respectively. While in the Wiangsa (N1), the flooded area in the me-
dium future, under RCP4.5 and RCP8.5, was predicted to be as large as 61.6 km2 and 69.6
km2, respectively.
(a) (b) (c) (d)
Figure 7.
Figure 7. Future
Futureextent
extentof
offlooding
floodingininthe
themedium
mediumfuture (2041–2060),
future under
(2041–2060), RCP4.5
under andand
RCP4.5 RCP8.5: (a)
RCP8.5:
Muang Nan, RCP4.5; (b) Muang Nan, RCP8.5; (c) Wiangsa, RCP4.5; and (d) Wiangsa, RCP8.5.
(a) Muang Nan, RCP4.5; (b) Muang Nan, RCP8.5; (c) Wiangsa, RCP4.5; and (d) Wiangsa, RCP8.5.
3.3.4. Change in Flooded Area

We predict that the future floods in the Upper Nan Watershed will have more inun-
dated areas, compared to the historical period studied. As presented in Table 6, we predict
that future floods will inundate between 12.5% and 37.3% more of the area in Muang Nan.
In Wiangsa, we predict that flooding will affect between 2.7% and 10% more of the area.
We predict that the highest flood probability (RP1) in Muang Nan, under RCP4.5 and
3.3.4. Change in Flooded Area

We predict that the future floods in the Upper Nan Watershed will have more inun-
dated areas, compared to the historical period studied. As presented in Table 6, we predict
that future floods will inundate between 12.5% and 37.3% more of the area in Muang Nan.
In Wiangsa, we predict that flooding will affect between 2.7% and 10% more of the area. We
predict that the highest flood probability (RP1) in Muang Nan, under RCP4.5 and RCP8.5,
will cover 12.5% and 20.6% more of the area, respectively. Meanwhile, in Wiangsa, we
predict that the flooded area under RCP4.5 will decrease by 2.8%; whereas, under RCP8.5,
we predict that the flooded area will increase by 2.7%.
Table 6. Per cent difference between the flooded areas in historical floods and future flood predictions,
under RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5.
Percent Difference (%)

Study Area Scenario
RP1 RP2 RP5 RP10 RP20 RP50 RP100
RCP 4.5 12.5 18.5 33.5 31.6 28.7 21.7 18.6
Muang Nan
RCP 8.5 20.6 21.9 35.4 37.3 33.3 25.4 23.7
RCP 4.5 −2.8 5.9 3.8 5.0 4.5 3.4 5.3
Wiangsa
RCP 8.5 2.7 7.0 3.8 8.9 10.0 8.8 9.8
3.3.5. Impact on Land Use

Flood events, both directly and indirectly, impact the use of the land that is inundated
by excess water. The future flood events that we have predicted in this study would
inundate various land use types in our specific study areas. By overlaying the spatial flood
extent with the land use map provided by Land Development of Thailand, 2018, with the
adjustments made by using 2021 Google Earth imagery, we revealed the land uses that
would be impacted by the flood events in both study areas.
In Muang Nan (N64), the three most impacted land use types would be tree plantations
(TPs), between 3.9 and 6.8 km2 of this land would be affected; built-up areas (BAs), between
2.6 and 8.9 km2 of this land would be affected; and rice fields (RFs) between 1.8 and
3.1 km2 of this land would be affected. In Wiangsa (N1), the three most impacted land use
types would be rice fields (RFs), between 9.4 and 25.5 km2 of this land would be affected;
intercrop trees (ITs), between 8.4 and 15.3 km2 of this land would be affected; and built-up
areas (BAs), between 3.1 and 11.1 km2 of this land would be affected. The total area that
would be impacted by flooding among these three land use types, both in Muang Nan and
Wiangsa, would be more than half of the total flooded area. The rest of the land use types
impacted by the flood—such as dryland farming, forests, shrub grasses, water bodies, and
miscellaneous—would account for a total of approximately 20% of the total flooded area.
4. Discussion
4.1. Change in Rainfall Characteristics
This study showed that the future rainfall will be significantly different from the
historic rainfall. In the future, we predict that the Upper Nan Watershed will be wetter
and have a high rainfall fluctuation. An increase in the amount of rainfall has already
occurred in Thailand, as we can see by comparing the rainfall in the historical period with
the rainfall today. A study conducted by Thailand’s Meteorological Department mentioned
that between 1980 and 2021, the rainfall nationwide in Thailand has shown an increasing
trend in the northern part of Thailand, including in the study area.
The future rainfall in the Upper Nan Watershed, as predicted by the MPI-ESM-MR,
under the scenarios RCP4.5 and RCP8.5, will continue to increase until the end of the
21st century. The results of this study were in line with previous studies, conducted by
Komori et al. [6] and Nontikansak et al. [84]. Both of these previous studies revealed that,
according to future climate predictions, extreme rainfall will occur more frequently and
with more intensity in most areas of Thailand.
The increase in the amount and intensity of rainfall and extreme events (as defined by
IPCC [85]) will be a result of the increase in the global temperature, which is intensifying
the global water cycle. Hotter air temperatures are accelerating evaporation in the water
bodies, such as oceans and seas. However, the increase in surface temperature does not
occur evenly in all locations, globally. Instead, surface temperatures are becoming hotter
in some places and less hot in others. Under these conditions, the wind will become even
stronger than it is at present, which will bring the water vapor from high-pressure areas to
lower-pressure areas such as Southeast Asia. As predicted by IPCC [85], Southeast Asia
will be one of the regions in the world that experiences more precipitation in the future.
Furthermore, the region of Southeast Asia, including Thailand, is frequently affected
by tropical cyclones in the South China Sea and the Andaman Sea. According to Vongvises-
somjai [86], Thailand is mostly affected by moderate north-westerly cyclone tracks in the
rainy season. This phenomenon brings abundant water to Thailand and pours down in the
Upper Nan Watershed, the first watershed in Thailand that faces the storm. Moreover, the
orientation of this watershed is perpendicular to the tropical cyclone path, which leads to
the occurrence of orographic rainfall by the watershed ridge. It is predicted that these tropi-
cal cyclones will intensify due to the increased temperature and air pressure differences
worldwide, which will bring more rainfall to the Upper Nan Watershed.
4.2. Effect on Future Streamflow

This study discovered that the streamflow at both stations (N1 and N64) is not currently
significantly different. However, the annual streamflow is predicted to increase in the future.
Furthermore, the monthly streamflow peak is predicted to have a one-month lag, even if
the future peak rainfall does not come one month later. Even if the rainfall, as the input of
the study area, is significantly increased, it will not automatically lead to a significant rise
in streamflow in the future.
Based on the principle of the hydrologic cycle in the watershed, some of the rainfall will
be stored first in several places—such as the leaves of the plants; in the unsaturated zone,
as soil moisture; and even stored further in the saturated zone, as groundwater. However,
much of the excess rainfall water will flow from the watershed system as surface runoff.
The lag time between the occurrence of the rainfall and the streamflow reaching the outlet
of the watershed could explain the one-month lag in the predicted future streamflow peak.
The future rise in the streamflow that was predicted in this study was also con-
firmed by previous studies conducted in the same region. These were studies by Kure
and Tebakari [87], Tabucanon et al. [30], and Hunukumbara and Tachikawa [88]. Kure
and Tebakari explained that, under scenario A1B of SRES, using MRI atmospheric general
circulation models 3.1 and 3.2, the mean annual river discharge is expected to increase
in the Chao Phraya River Basin. Furthermore, a study by Tabucanon et al. in Bhumibol
Dam, Ping River, Northern Thailand, found that under EC-EARTH, the discharge inflow
to the dam will experience enormous fluctuation, especially in the wet season. In another
study by Hunukumbara and Tachikawa, it was discovered that the predicted discharge
will increase both in the near future (2015–2039) and in the far future (2075–2099) in the
north-central and the south-western parts of the Chao Phraya Watershed.
4.3. Effect on Future Flood Events

Both Muang Nan and Wiangsa are situated in the intermontane basin, a low-lying
floodplain valley, surrounded by a mountainous area. A steep slope with high drainage
density characteristics makes the study area prone to flash floods, since the streamflow
rapidly accumulates downstream, in the lowest part of the watershed. Thus, the spatial
flood pattern in this particular study area follows the low-lying, flat-sloped floodplain
around the river. Muang Nan has more flat areas, which is why the extent of the floods in
Muang Nan is larger than in Wiangsa.
It is still necessary to consider mitigation efforts before the actual floods occur in the
far future, as part of the disaster risk reduction; however, we also need to be cautious and
prepared in the medium future (2041–2060) for a flood in Muang Nan, under both RCP4.5
and RCP8.5. This flood is more likely to be of the same magnitude as that calculated for
the 100-year flooding probability. The medium future flood of Wiangsa, under RCP4.5, is
more likely to be of the same magnitude as that calculated for the 50-year flood probability,
whereas the flood under RCP8.5 is likely to be of a similar magnitude to that calculated
for the 100-year flood probability. Furthermore, the flooding of Muang Nan and Wiangsa,
under both RCP4.5 and RCP8.5, in the near future (2025–2040), is predicted to be of a similar
magnitude to the 50-year flood probability. Compared to the flood probabilities, the far
future flood (2061–2080) is one that we should worry less about since the magnitude is only
predicted to be similar to the 10–20-year flood probability.
Several of the areas that we predict will be inundated are considered vast, and possibly
produce a huge amount of rice, which is a staple food for the local community and for
neighboring countries. This study revealed that the three most impacted land uses in the
study area will be rice fields, built-up areas, and intercrop trees. Of these three types of
land use, the rice field will be the most largely impacted. In summation, in Muang Nan and
Wiangsa, the area of rice fields that will potentially be impacted by the least frequent flood
probability, at a return period of 100 years, could be as much as 28.5 km2 . This number is
138.2% higher than the most common of the predicted flood probabilities (1-year flood).
The inundation of rice fields after a flood event in Thailand has been reported several
times in previous studies. These reports are mostly from the 2011 flood since it was the
worst flood that has been experienced in the modern period. Son et al. [89] reported that,
due to the 2011 flood in Thailand, 16.8% of the rice cultivation area in the Chao Phraya
River Delta, which is dominated by land used for double-cropped rice, was inundated
by flood water, causing damage to the rice. Similarly, Kotera et al. [90], also reported on
the same flood event, stating that at least 52.3% of the inundated area was categorized
as damaged. Furthermore, Nara et al. [91] mentioned that, due to the 2011 flood event,
Thailand reported experiencing an economic slowdown because it had lost a considerable
amount of rice, which is its major export commodity.
The great flood of 2011, in Thailand, caused a considerable amount of disruption. As
it is, this flood will continue to be used as a reference point for the worst flood event in
Thailand. Although we predict that floods will occur in the near future (2025–2040), we
predict that the worst will occur in the middle future (2041–2060); therefore, we need to
monitor the situation closely and prepare for it very well to reduce our potential losses
in the future and avoid the considerable disruption that we experienced as a result of the
2011 flood.
5. Conclusions
The impacts of climate change in Thailand varied between the regions. The northern
part of Thailand, represented by the Upper Nan Watershed, is predicted to be significantly
impacted by climate change. Our study revealed that the rainfall in the Upper Nan Water-
shed, which has already shown an increasing trend, is predicted to increase further due
to climate change. This will lead to a wetter Upper Nan Watershed in the future, both in
the dry and wet seasons. Furthermore, increasing rainfall will change the characteristics
of future discharge in the area. The change in the characteristics of the future discharge,
such as the one-month delay in the timing of the discharge peak, the annual amount of the
discharge peak increasing from 0.3% to 5.1%, and the discharge fluctuation. Moreover, this
change in the discharge in the study area will increase the flooded area of land within the
Upper Nan Watershed by between 12.5% and 37.3% in Muang Nan and between 2.7 and
10% in Wiangsa.
This study found that in the medium future (2041–2060), both Muang Nan and
Wiangsa will potentially experience the magnitude of flooding associated with the 100-year
flood probability. At the same time, we predict that the magnitude of flooding associated
with the 50-year flood probability will also face these particular study areas in the near
future (2025–2040). The rice field is the most common land use type in the area and, thus,
will be the most impacted by these potential flood events. Therefore, it is essential that we
closely monitor the situation and prepare well to reduce our potential losses in the future
and avoid repeating the disruption that we experienced after the 2011 flood.
This study only focused on small and specific regions, so that the HEC-RAS model
could focus more on the riverine flood modelling. However, floods that are caused by
other phenomena, i.e., flash floods, were not covered. Furthermore, we did not discuss the
best management practices (BMPs) for the watershed’s land use utilization and we did not
consider the simulation of flood mitigation infrastructure (i.e., dikes, dams, gabions, and
riparian zones) to reduce the impact of future floods. Therefore, we suggest that the next
study should include a larger coverage area for the HEC-RAS model and that it should
explore several BMPs and flood mitigation scenarios.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, methodology, analysis, investigation, visualization, and

writing—original draft, M.C.S.; supervision, review, and editing, P.T. and N.K. All authors have read
and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by DAAD and Southeast Asian Regional Center for Graduate
Study and Research in Agricultural (SEARCA).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: We thank the Thailand Meteorological Department for providing climatic data,
including the down-scaled CMIP5 GCMs.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Pörtner, H.-O.; Roberts, D.C.; Poloczanska, E.S.; Mintenbeck, K.; Tignor, M.; Alegría, A.; Craig, M.; Langsdorf, S.; Löschke, S.;
Möller, V.; et al. Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability Summary for Policymakers; Cambridge University Press:
Cambridge, UK, 2022. [CrossRef]
2. Held, I.M.; Soden, B.J. Robust Responses of the Hydrological Cycle to Global Warming. J. Clim. 2006, 19, 5686–5699. [CrossRef]
3. Trenberth, K.E. Changes in precipitation with climate change. Clim. Res. 2011, 47, 123–138. [CrossRef]
4. Petpongpan, C.; Ekkawatpanit, C.; Bailey, R.T.; Kositgittiwong, D.; Saraphirom, P. Evaluating Surface Water-groundwater
Interactions in Consequence of Changes in Climate and Groundwater Extraction. Water Resour. Manag. 2022, 36, 5767–5783.
[CrossRef]
5. Gunathilake, M.B.; Amaratunga, Y.V.; Perera, A.; Chathuranika, I.M.; Gunathilake, A.S.; Rathnayake, U. Evaluation of Future
Climate and Potential Impact on Streamflow in the Upper Nan River Basin of Northern Thailand. Adv. Meteorol. 2020, 2020, 1–15.
[CrossRef]
6. Komori, D.; Rangsiwanichpong, P.; Inoue, N.; Ono, K.; Watanabe, S.; Kazama, S. Distributed probability of slope failure in
Thailand under climate change. Clim. Risk Manag. 2018, 20, 126–137. [CrossRef]
7. Akpodiogaga-a, P.; Odjugo, O. General Overview of Climate Change Impacts in Nigeria. J. Hum. Ecol. 2010, 29, 47–55. [CrossRef]
8. Almazroui, M.; Islam, M.N.; Athar, H.; Jones, P.D.; Rahman, M.A. Recent climate change in the Arabian Peninsula: Annual
rainfall and temperature analysis of Saudi Arabia for 1978–2009. Int. J. Climatol. 2012, 32, 953–966. [CrossRef]
9. Shen, G.; Hwang, S.N. Spatial–Temporal snapshots of global natural disaster impacts Revealed from EM-DAT for 1900–2015.
Geomat. Nat. Hazards Risk 2019, 10, 912–934. [CrossRef]
10. Farid, M.; Gunawan, B.; Syahril, M.; Kusuma, B.; Habibi, S.A. Assessment of flood risk reduction in Bengawan Solo river: A case
study of Sragen Regency. Int. J. Geomate 2020, 18, 229–234. [CrossRef]
11. Thamtanajit, K. The Impacts Of Natural Disaster On Student Achievement: Evidence From Severe Floods in Thailand. J. Dev.
Areas 2020, 54. [CrossRef]
12. Ozturk, U.; Wendi, D.; Crisologo, I.; Riemer, A.; Agarwal, A.; Vogel, K.; López-Tarazón, J.A.; Korup, O. Science of the Total
Environment Rare flash floods and debris flows in southern Germany. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 626, 941–952. [CrossRef]
13. Tay, C.W.J.; Yun, S.-H.; Chin, S.T.; Bhardwaj, A.; Jong, J.; Hill, E.M. Rapid flood and damage mapping using synthetic aperture
radar in response to Typhoon Hagibis, Japan. Sci. Data 2020, 7, 1–9. [CrossRef]
14. Dottori, F.; Szewczyk, W.; Ciscar, J.-C.; Zhao, F.; Alfieri, L.; Hirabayashi, Y.; Bianchi, A.; Mongelli, I.; Frieler, K.; Betts, R.A.; et al.
Increased human and economic losses from river flooding with anthropogenic warming. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2018, 8, 781–786.
[CrossRef]
15. Chokkavarapu, N.; Mandla, V.R. Comparative study of GCMs, RCMs, downscaling and hydrological models: A review toward
future climate change impact estimation. SN Appl. Sci. 2019, 1, 1698. [CrossRef]
16. Collins, M.; Chandler, R.E.; Cox, P.M.; Huthnance, J.M.; Rougier, J.; Stephenson, D.B. Quantifying future climate change. Nat.
Clim. Chang. 2012, 2, 403–409. [CrossRef]
17. Vecchi, G.A.; Wittenberg, A.T. El Niño and our future climate: Where do we stand? Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang. 2010,
1, 260–270. [CrossRef]
18. Ulbrich, U.; Leckebusch, G.C.; Pinto, J.G. Extra-tropical cyclones in the present and future climate: A review. Theor. Appl. Climatol.
2009, 96, 117–131. [CrossRef]
19. Zscheischler, J.; Westra, S.; Van Den Hurk, B.J.J.M.; Seneviratne, S.I.; Ward, P.J.; Pitman, A.; AghaKouchak, A.; Bresch, D.N.;
Leonard, M.; Wahl, T.; et al. Future climate risk from compound events. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2018, 8, 469–477. [CrossRef]
20. Chen, C.A.; Hsu, H.H.; Liang, H.C. Evaluation and comparison of CMIP6 and CMIP5 model performance in simulating the
seasonal extreme precipitation in the Western North Pacific and East Asia. Weather Clim. Extrem. 2021, 31, 100303. [CrossRef]
21. Rojpratak, S.; Supharatid, S. Regional extreme precipitation index: Evaluations and projections from the multi-model ensemble
CMIP5 over Thailand. Weather Clim. Extrem. 2022, 37, 100475. [CrossRef]
22. Niu, Z.; Feng, L.; Chen, X.; Yi, X. Evaluation and future projection of extreme climate events in the yellow river basin and yangtze
river basin in china using ensembled cmip5 models data. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 6029. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
23. Wang, Z.; Han, L.; Zheng, J.; Ding, R.; Li, J.; Hou, Z.; Chao, J. Evaluation of the performance of CMIP5 and CMIP6 models in
simulating the victoria mode-el niño relationship. J. Clim. 2021, 34, 7625–7644. [CrossRef]
24. Deng, X.; Perkins-Kirkpatrick, S.E.; Lewis, S.C.; Ritchie, E.A. Evaluation of Extreme Temperatures Over Australia in the Historical
Simulations of CMIP5 and CMIP6 Models. Earth’s Futur. 2021, 9, e2020EF001902. [CrossRef]
25. Chen, H.; Sun, J.; Lin, W.; Xu, H. Comparison of CMIP6 and CMIP5 models in simulating climate extremes. Sci. Bull. 2020,
65, 1415–1418. [CrossRef]
26. Punyawansiri, S.; Kwanyuen, B. Forecasting the Future Temperature Using a Downscaling Method by LARS-WG Stochastic
Weather Generator at the Local Site of Phitsanulok Province, Thailand. Atmos. Clim. Sci. 2020, 10, 538–552. [CrossRef]
27. Babel, M.S.; Sirisena, T.A.J.G.; Singhrattna, N. Incorporating large-scale atmospheric variables in long-term seasonal rainfall
forecasting using artificial neural networks: An application to the Ping Basin in Thailand. Hydrol. Res. 2017, 48, 867–882.
[CrossRef]
28. Pattnayak, K.C.; Kar, S.C.; Dalal, M.; Pattnayak, R.K. Projections of annual rainfall and surface temperature from CMIP5 models
over the BIMSTEC countries. Glob. Planet. Chang. 2017, 152, 152–166. [CrossRef]
29. Pomoim, N.; Zomer, R.J.; Hughes, A.C.; Corlett, R.T. The sustainability of thailand’s protected-area system under climate change.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2868. [CrossRef]
30. Tabucanon, A.S.; Rittima, A.; Raveephinit, D.; Phankamolsil, Y.; Sawangphol, W.; Kraisangka, J.; Talaluxmana, Y.; Vudhivanich, V.;
Xue, W. Impact of climate change on reservoir reliability: A case of bhumibol dam in ping river basin, Thailand. Environ. Nat.
Resour. J. 2021, 19, 266–281. [CrossRef]
31. Ankit, P.C.; Sangam, S. Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation Strategies on Maize and Rice Yield in Nan River Basin, Thailand.
In Proceedings of the AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts, New Orleans, LA, USA, 13–17 December 2021.
32. Kyaw, K.M.; Rittima, A.; Phankamolsil, Y.; Tabucanon, A.S.; Sawangphol, W.; Kraisangka, J.; Vudhivanich, V. Assessing Reservoir
Reoperation Performances through Adapted Rule Curve and Hedging Policies under Climate Change Scenarios: In–depth
Investigation of Case Study of Bhumibol Dam in Thailand. Eng. Access 2022, 8, 179–185. [CrossRef]
33. IPCC. Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report Summary for Policymakers; IPCC: Cambridge, UK, 2014.
34. Dukat, P.; Bednorz, E.; Ziemblińska, K.; Urbaniak, M. Trends in drought occurrence and severity at mid-latitude European
stations (1951–2015) estimated using standardized precipitation (SPI) and precipitation and evapotranspiration (SPEI) indices.
Meteorol. Atmos. Phys. 2022, 134, 1–21. [CrossRef]
35. Daneshvar, M.R.M.; Ebrahimi, M.; Nejadsoleymani, H. An overview of climate change in Iran: Facts and statistics. Environ. Syst.
Res. 2019, 8, 7. [CrossRef]
36. Cheng, C.; Yang, Y.C.E.; Ryan, R.; Yu, Q.; Brabec, E. Assessing climate change-induced flooding mitigation for adaptation in
Boston’s Charles River watershed, USA. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2017, 167, 25–36. [CrossRef]
37. Kharel, G.; Zheng, H.; Kirilenko, A. Can land-use change mitigate long-term flood risks in the Prairie Pothole Region? The case of
Devils Lake, North Dakota, USA. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2016, 16, 2443–2456. [CrossRef]
38. Novelo-Casanova, D.A.; Rodríguez-Vangort, F. Flood risk assessment. Case of study: Motozintla de Mendoza, Chiapas, Mexico.
Geomat. Nat. Hazards Risk 2016, 7, 1538–1556. [CrossRef]
39. Boithias, L.; Sauvage, S.; Lenica, A.; Roux, H.; Abbaspour, K.C.; Larnier, K.; Dartus, D.; Sánchez-Pérez, J.M. Simulating flash
floods at hourly time-step using the SWAT model. Water 2017, 9, 929. [CrossRef]
40. Eingrüber, N.; Korres, W. Climate change simulation and trend analysis of extreme precipitation and floods in the mesoscale Rur
catchment in western Germany until 2099 using Statistical Downscaling Model (SDSM) and the Soil & Water Assessment Tool
(SWAT model). Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 838, 155775. [CrossRef]
41. Urzică, A.; Mihu-Pintilie, A.; Stoleriu, C.C.; Cîmpianu, C.I.; Huţanu, E.; Pricop, C.I.; Grozavu, A. Using 2D HEC-RAS modeling
and embankment dam break scenario for assessing the flood control capacity of a multireservoir system (Ne Romania). Water
2021, 13, 57. [CrossRef]
42. Birhanu, D.; Kim, H.; Jang, C.; Park, S. Flood Risk and Vulnerability of Addis Ababa City Due to Climate Change and Urbanization.
Procedia Eng. 2016, 154, 696–702. [CrossRef]
43. Hounkpè, J.; Diekkrüger, B.; Afouda, A.A.; Sintondji, L.O.C. Land use change increases flood hazard: A multi-modelling approach
to assess change in flood characteristics driven by socio-economic land use change scenarios. Nat. Hazards 2019, 98, 1021–1050.
[CrossRef]
44. Desalegn, H.; Mulu, A. Mapping flood inundation areas using GIS and HEC-RAS model at Fetam River, Upper Abbay Basin,
Ethiopia. Sci. Afr. 2021, 12, e00834. [CrossRef]
45. Liu, Y.; Xu, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Long, Y. Using SWAT Model to Assess the Impacts of Land Use and Climate Changes on Flood in the
Upper Weihe River, China. Water 2022, 14, 2098. [CrossRef]
46. Kartikasari, A.N.I.; Halik, G.; Wiyono, R.U.A. Land Use Scenario Modelling for Floods Mitigation in Bedadung Watershed, East
Java Indonesia. J. Eng. Sci. Technol. 2022, 17, 2020–2034.
47. Rohmat, F.I.W.; Sa’adi, Z.; Stamataki, I.; Kuntoro, A.A.; Farid, M.; Suwarman, R. Flood modeling and baseline study in urban and
high population environment: A case study of Majalaya, Indonesia. Urban Clim. 2022, 46, 101332. [CrossRef]
48. Prasanchum, H.; Sirisook, P.; Lohpaisankrit, W. Flood risk areas simulation using SWAT and Gumbel distribution method in
Yang Catchment, Northeast Thailand. Geogr. Tech. 2020, 15, 29–39. [CrossRef]
49. Wangpimool, W.; Pongput, K.; Supriyasilp, T.; Sakolnakhon, K.P.N. Hydrological Evaluation with SWAT Model and Numerical
Weather Prediction for Flash Flood Warning System in Thailand. J. Earth Sci. Eng. 2013, 6, 349–357.
50. Maskong, H.; Jothiyangkoon, C.; Hirunteeyakul, C. Flood Hazard Mapping Using on-Site Surveyed Flood Map, HECRAS V.5
and GIS Tool: A Case Study of Nakhon Ratchasima Municipality, Thailand. Int. J. Geomate 2019, 16, 1–8. [CrossRef]
51. Roy, B.; Khan, M.S.M.; Islam, A.K.M.S.; Mohammed, K.; Khan, M.J.U. Climate-induced flood inundation for the Arial Khan River
of Bangladesh using open-source SWAT and HEC-RAS model for RCP8.5-SSP5 scenario. SN Appl. Sci. 2021, 3, 1–13. [CrossRef]
52. Loi, N.K.; Liem, N.D.; Tu, L.H.; Hong, N.T.; Truong, C.D.; Tram, V.N.Q.; Nhat, T.T.; Anh, T.N.; Jeong, J. Automated procedure of
real-time flood forecasting in vu gia—Thu bon river basin, vietnam by integrating swat and hec-ras models. J. Water Clim. Chang.
2019, 10, 535–545. [CrossRef]
53. Warren, R.; Arnell, N.; Nicholls, R.; Levy, P.; Price, J. Understanding the Regional Impacts of Climate Change. Tyndall Cent. Clim.
Chang. Res. Work. Pap. 2006, 27–60, Working Paper 90. Available online: http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/publications/working_
papers/twp90.pdf (accessed on 5 October 2022).
54. Artlert, K.; Chaleeraktrakoon, C.; Van Nguyen, V.T. Modeling and analysis of rainfall processes in the context of climate change
for Mekong, Chi, and Mun River Basins (Thailand). J. Hydro-Environ. Res. 2013, 7, 2–17. [CrossRef]
55. Promping, T.; Tingsanchali, T. Effects of Climate Change and Land-use Change on Future Inflow to a Reservoir: A Case Study of
Sirikit Dam, Upper Nan River Basin, Thailand. Gmsarn Int. J. 2022, 16, 366–376.
56. Igarashi, K.; Koichiro, K.; Tanaka, N.; Aranyabhaga, N. Prediction of the Impact of Climate Change and Land Use Change on
Flood Discharge in the Song Khwae District, Nan Province, Thailand. J. Clim. Chang. 2019, 5, 1–8. [CrossRef]
57. Smith, K.G. Standards for grading texture of erosional topography. Am. J. Sci. 1950, 248, 655–668. [CrossRef]
58. FAO. FAO Digital Soil Map of the World (DSMW). Available online: https://www.fao.org/land-water/land/land-governance/
land-resources-planning-toolbox/category/details/en/c/1026564/ (accessed on 3 March 2023).
59. Pakoksung, K.; Takagi, M. Effect of land cover change in runoff estimation on flood event; case study in the upper part area of
Nan river basin, Thailand. In Proceedings of the 37th Asian Conference on Remote Sensing, ACRS 2016, Colombo, Sri Lanka,
17–21 October 2016; Volume 3, pp. 1788–1797.
60. Koontanakulvong, S.; Pakoksung, K. Impact of Land Use Change on Runoff Volume in Upper Nan Basin Area. In Proceedings of
the 2nd EIT International Conference on Water Resources Engineering, Chiangrai, Thailand, 5–6 September 2013.
61. Paiboonvorachat, C.; Oyana, T.J. Land-cover changes and potential impacts on soil erosion in the nan watershed, Thailand. Int. J.
Remote Sens. 2011, 32, 6587–6609. [CrossRef]
62. Jirasirichote, A.; Ninsawat, S.; Shrestha, S.; Tripathi, N.K. Performance of AnnAGNPS model in predicting runoff and sediment
yields in Nan Province, Thailand. Heliyon 2021, 7, e08396. [CrossRef]
63. Li, C.; Fang, H. Assessment of climate change impacts on the streamflow for the Mun River in the Mekong Basin, Southeast Asia:
Using SWAT model. Catena 2021, 201, 105199. [CrossRef]
64. Arnold, J.G.; Moriasi, D.N.; Gassman, P.W.; Abbaspour, K.C.; White, M.J.; Srinivasan, R.; Jha, M.K. SWAT: Model Use, Calibration,
and Validation. Am. Soc. Agric. Biol. Eng. 2012, 55, 1491–1508.
65. Gassman, P.W.; Sadeghi, A.M.; Srinivasan, R. Applications of the SWAT Model Special Section: Overview and Insights. J. Environ.
Qual. 2014, 43, 1–8. [CrossRef]
66. Aawar, T.; Khare, D. Assessment of climate change impacts on streamflow through hydrological model using SWAT model: A
case study of Afghanistan. Model. Earth Syst. Environ. 2020, 6, 1427–1437. [CrossRef]
67. Chow, V.T. Open-Channel Hydraulics; McGraw Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1959.
68. Jung, I.K.; Park, J.Y.; Park, G.A.; Lee, M.S.; Kim, S.J. A grid-based rainfall-runoff model for flood simulation including paddy
fields. Paddy Water Environ. 2011, 9, 275–290. [CrossRef]
69. Curtis, J. Manning’s n Values for Various Land Covers. To Use for Dam Breach Analyses by NRCS in Kansas, No. February,
pp. 1–2, 2016. Available online: https://rashms.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Mannings-n-values-NLCD-NRCS.pdf
(accessed on 8 October 2022).
70. Bobee, B.B.; Robitaille, R. The Use of the Pearson Type 3 and Log Pearson Type 3 Distribution Revisited. Water Resour. Res. 1977,
13, 427–443. [CrossRef]
71. Kumar, R. Flood Frequency Analysis of the Rapti River Basin using Log Pearson Type-III and Gumbel Extreme Value-1 Methods.
J. Geol. Soc. India 2019, 94, 480–484. [CrossRef]
72. Abbaspour, K.C. SWAT-CUP: SWAT Calibration and Uncertainly Programs—A User Manual; Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic
Science and Technology, Eawag: Dübendorf, Switzerland, 2015. [CrossRef]
73. Guo, J.; Su, X. Parameter sensitivity analysis of SWAT model for streamflow simulation with multisource precipitation datasets.
Hydrol. Res. 2019, 50, 861–877. [CrossRef]
74. Golmohammadi, G.; Prasher, S.; Madani, A.; Rudra, R. Evaluating three hydrological distributed watershed models: MIKE-SHE,
APEX, SWAT. Hydrology 2014, 1, 20–39. [CrossRef]
75. Gitau, M.W.; Chaubey, I. Regionalization of SWAT model parameters for use in ungauged watersheds. Water 2010, 2, 849–871.
[CrossRef]
76. Yang, M.; Xu, J.; Yin, D.; He, S.; Zhu, S.; Li, S. Modified Multi–Source Water Supply Module of the SWAT–WARM Model to
Simulate Water Resource Responses under Strong Human Activities in the Tang–Bai River Basin. Sustainability 2022, 14, 15016.
[CrossRef]
77. Gupta, H.V.; Kling, H.; Yilmaz, K.K.; Martinez, G.F. Decomposition of the mean squared error and NSE performance criteria:
Implications for improving hydrological modelling. J. Hydrol. 2009, 377, 80–91. [CrossRef]
78. Towner, J.; Cloke, H.L.; Zsoter, E.; Flamig, Z.; Hoch, J.M.; Bazo, J.; de Perez, E.C.; Stephens, E.M. Assessing the performance of
global hydrological models for capturing peak river flows in the Amazon basin. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2019, 23, 3057–3080.
[CrossRef]
79. Moriasi, D.N.; Arnold, J.G.; Van Liew, M.W.; Bingner, R.L.; Harmel, R.D.; Veith, T.L. Model Evaluation Guidelines for Systematic
Quantification of Accuracy in Watershed Simulations. Trans. ASABE 2007, 50, 885–900. [CrossRef]
80. Thomson, A.M.; Calvin, K.V.; Smith, S.J.; Kyle, G.P.; Volke, A.; Patel, P.; Delgado-Arias, S.; Bond-Lamberty, B.; Wise, M.A.;
Clarke, L.E.; et al. RCP4.5: A pathway for stabilization of radiative forcing by 2100. Clim. Chang. 2011, 109, 77–94. [CrossRef]
81. Riahi, K.; Rao, S.; Krey, V.; Cho, C.; Chirkov, V.; Fischer, G.; Kindermann, G.E.; Nakicenovic, N.; Rafaj, P. RCP 8.5-A scenario of
comparatively high greenhouse gas emissions. Clim. Chang. 2011, 109, 33–57. [CrossRef]
82. Bevans, R. An Introduction to t Test: Definitions, Formula and Examples; Scribbr: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2022; Available
online: https://www.scribbr.com/statistics/t-test/ (accessed on 18 December 2022).
83. Tuo, Y.; Duan, Z.; Disse, M.; Chiogna, G. Evaluation of precipitation input for SWAT modeling in Alpine catchment: A case study
in the Adige river basin (Italy). Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 573, 66–82. [CrossRef]
84. Nontikansak, P.; Shrestha, S.; Shanmugam, M.S.; Loc, H.H.; Virdis, S.G.P. Rainfall extremes under climate change in the Pasak
River Basin, Thailand. J. Water Clim. Chang. 2022, 13, 3729–3746. [CrossRef]
85. Masson-Delmotte, V.; Barros, V.; Burton, I.; Campbell-Lendrum, D.; Cardona, O.-D.; Cutter, S.L.; Dube, O.P.; Ebi, K.L.; Field, C.B.;
Handmer, J.W.; et al. Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis Summary for Policymakers; Cambridge University Press:
Cambridge, UK, 2021. [CrossRef]
86. Vongvisessomjai, S. Tropical cyclone disasters in the Gulf of Thailand. Songklanakarin J. Sci. Technol. 2009, 31, 213–227.
87. Kure, S.; Tebakari, T. Hydrological impact of regional climate change in the Chao Phraya River Basin, Thailand. Hydrol. Res. Lett.
2012, 6, 53–58. [CrossRef]
88. Hunukumbura, P.B.; Tachikawa, Y. River discharge projection under climate change in the Chao Phraya River basin, Thailand,
using the MRI-GCM3.1S dataset. J. Meteorol. Soc. Jpn. 2012, 90, 137–150. [CrossRef]
89. Son, N.T.; Chen, C.F.; Chen, C.R.; Chang, L.Y. Satellite-based investigation of flood-affected rice cultivation areas in Chao Phraya
River Delta, Thailand. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2013, 86, 77–88. [CrossRef]
90. Kotera, A.; Nagano, T.; Hanittinan, P.; Koontanakulvong, S. Assessing the degree of flood damage to rice crops in the Chao
Phraya delta, Thailand, using MODIS satellite imaging. Paddy Water Environ. 2016, 14, 271–280. [CrossRef]
91. Nara, P.; Mao, G.-G.; Yen, T.-B. Climate Change Impacts on Agricultural Products in Thailand: A Case Study of Thai Rice at the
Chao Phraya River Basin. APCBEE Procedia 2014, 8, 136–140. [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

sustainability-15-05276

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

sustainability-15-05276

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

sustainability-15-05276

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

sustainability

Watershed Management and Environment Program, Faculty of Forestry, Kasetsart University,

Sustainability 2023, 15, 5276. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15065276 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

2. Materials and Methods

Upper Nan Watershed

2.2.2. Hydro-Meteorological Data

2.2. Data Collection

2.2.2. Hydro-Meteorological Data

2.2.3. Discharge Data

2.2.4. Observed Flood Map

2.3. Model Description

2.3.2. HEC-RAS Model

Figure 2. Procedure for flood analysis using a coupled model,

2.4. Model Setup

2.5. Model Evaluation

2.5.2. HEC-RAS Model

2.6. Future Climate Change Projection

2.7. Statistical Test

3.1.1. Selecting the Fittest GCM

Table 1. Total deviation of GCMs value, compared to historical data.

GCM Scenario Deviation

3.1.2. Change in Rainfall Characteristics

Group Obs. Mean Variance P(T ≤ t) Two-Tail Significance

Group Obs. Mean Variance P(T ≤ t) Two-Tail Significance

3.2. Future Streamflow

3.2.1. Parameter Sensitivity, Calibration, and Validation

Table 3. Sensitive parameters for N1 and N64 stations.

Station Parameter Definition Min. Max.

Figure 4. Monthly time4.step:

3.2.2. Effect of 3.2.2.

Station Group Obs. Mean P(T ≤ t) Two-Tail Significance

3.3. Effect of Climate Change on Flood Events

3.3.1. Model Evaluation

Table 5. HEC-RAS model evaluation.

Area Date Manning Total Match Accuracy (%)

3.3.2. Flood Probability

3.3.4. Change in Flooded Area

3.3.4. Change in Flooded Area

Percent Difference (%)

3.3.5. Impact on Land Use

4.2. Effect on Future Streamflow

4.3. Effect on Future Flood Events

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, methodology, analysis, investigation, visualization, and

You might also like