Comparing performance indicators to characterize the water supply to the demands of the Guadiana River basin (Spain)

Figures & data

Figure 1. Differences between variables, indicators and index. Source: Pedro-Monzonís (2016).

Figure 2. Location of the Guadiana River Basin in the Iberian Peninsula.

Figure 3. Conceptual model within socio-hydrology using the pluralistic water research framework of Evers et al. (2017). Steps of the methodology are numbered as follows: 1 – selection of the water demand reliability indicators; 2 – modelling of the Guadiana River Basin system with the AQUATOOL decision support system; and 3 – comparison of the behaviour of the indicators using the proposed dataset.

Table 1. Details of the water demand performance indicators used in the methodology. RI: reliability indicators; SI: sustainability indicators.

Indicator	Performance indicator	Variables	Definition	Index
RIs	Monthly failure criterion, MF	Water supply deficit, value of the water demand	The water supply deficit in one month does not exceed 10% of the corresponding monthly demand	Urban demand reliability index, UDRIx
	Annual failure criterion, AF	Water supply deficit, value of the water demand	In 10 consecutive years, the addition of deficits is less than 8% of the annual demand
	Agricultural demand criterion, A-RI	Deficit of the water supply, annual value of the demand	Deficit in one year cannot exceed 50% of annual demand	Agricultural demand reliability index, ADRIx
	Agricultural demand criterion, B-RI		Deficit of two consecutive years cannot exceed 75% of the annual demand
	Agricultural demand criterion, C-RI		The deficit of 10 consecutive years cannot exceed 100% of annual demand
SIs	Reliability indicator (Rel)	Water supply deficit and water demand	A demand is reliable when the probability of available water supply meets the demand during the simulation period	Sustainability index, SusIndex
	Resilience Indicator (Res)	Those months with deficit of the supply to the water demands	This statistic assesses the capacity of the system to adapt to changing conditions
	Vulnerability Indicator (Vul)	Water supply deficits and demand	The vulnerability of a demand is the addition of the deficits, divided by the number of times deficit periods have occurred

Figure 4. Water allocation model of Guadiana River Basin with the AQUATOOL-SIMGES graphical interface.

Table 2. AQUATOOL-SIMGES model characteristics of the GRB by sub-basin. Average annual values in hm³. Data used in the reference scenario series 1980/81–2011/12. Sub-basins: 1 – Upper Guadiana; 2 – Bullaque; 3 – Central; 4 – Ardila; 5 – South; 6 – Portugal.

Guadiana River Basin water allocation model characteristics (Scenario 0)
		Sub-basin						GRB
		1	2	3	4	5	6
Water resources	Surface resources	653.90	125.01	3138.89	144.27	385.55	1431.20	5,878.82
	Groundwater resources	515.24	–	–	–	–	–	515.24
	Water transfers	49.99	–	6.136	–	–	–	56.13
	Total resources	1219.13	125.01	3145.03	144.27	385.55	1431.20	6,450.18
Demands	Urban	72.41	2.35	90.38	8.80	31.20	51.09	256.23
	Agricultural	317.53	31.69	1334.11	0	136.31	103.80	1,923.44
	Industrial	12.11	–	34.78	2.52	12.27	0	61.67
	Other	–	–	8.56	4.74	1.59	2.88	17.76
	Total demands	402.05	34.04	1467.83	16.07	181.36	157.76	2259.10
Elements	Reservoirs	204.2	183.4	7636	30.8	973.8	3596.81	12,625.01
	Environmental flows	41.95	57.66	464.08	1.29	20.5	1184.23	1,166.72
Operational rules		Albufeira annual and quarterly rules

Table 3. Summary of the differences between scenarios 1 and 2 in the water allocation model. Values in hm³/year. UD: urban demand, AD: agricultural demand. Sub-basins: 1: Upper Guadiana; 2: Bullaque; 3: Central; 4: Ardila; 5: South; 6: Portugal.

Sub-basin	Scenario 1			Scenario 2
	UD (hm^3)	AD (hm^3)	Water resources (hm^3)	UD (hm^3)	AD (hm^3)	Water resources (hm^3)
1	72.41	317.53	1145.98	81.46	327.42	1145.98
2	2.35	31.69	117.513	2.18	28.20	117.513
3	90.38	1334.11	2956.32	99.76	1501.16	2956.32
4	8.80	0	135.61	7.92	0.00	135.61
5	31.20	136.31	362.42	28.56	140.71	362.42
6	51.09	103.80	1345.33	51.25	103.80	1345.33
GRB	256.23	1923.44	6063.17	271.13	2101.28	6063.17

Table 4. Results of sustainability and reliability indicators and indices for urban demands with deficit values in the temporal series under Scenario 0.

Sub-system	UD	Rel	Res	Vul	SI	UDRIx	MF	AF	n – MF/n
Ardila	62B	0.75	0.14	0.11	0.22	1	95	24	0.75
	63B	0.15	0.08	0.11	0.11	1	324	32	0.16
	68B	0.94	0.33	0.12	0.34	1	24	20	0.94
Central	20B	0.5	0.09	0.13	0.18	1	190	28	0.51
	25B	0.88	0.49	0.85	0.71	1	40	17	0.9
	43B	0.93	0.19	0.09	0.25	1	27	16	0.93
	56B	0.74	0.09	0.08	0.18	1	98	25	0.74
	60B	0.78	0.15	0.16	0.27	1	84	30	0.78
Portugal	70P	0.48	0.12	0.7	0.34	1	169	29	0.56
	71P	0.48	0.12	0.3	0.26	1	195	29	0.49

UDRIx: 0 when it complies with the urban demands RI, 1 when it does not comply. MF: monthly failures; AF: annual failures; n: number of months in the time series (= 384).

Figure 5. Comparison between the reliability indicator (Rel) and the monthly failure indicator (MF) for those urban demands (UD) that fail in the model under Scenario 0.

Figure 6. Comparison between the resilience indicator (Res) and the annual failure indicator (AF) for the urban demands (UD) that fail in the model under Scenario 0.

Table 5. Results of sustainability and reliability indicators and indices for agricultural demands with deficit values in the temporal series under Scenario 0.

Sub-system	AD	Rel	Res	Vul	SI	ADRIx	A-RI	B-RI
Central	35B	0.61	0.2	0	0	1	30	29
Upper	20A	0.98	0.86	0.83	0.89	0	0	0
	2A	0.49	0.16	0.02	0.12	1	32	29
Bullaque	17A	0.54	0.18	0.01	0.1	1	27	23
South	1 C	0.28	0.15	0.09	0.15	1	30	27
	3 C	0.81	0.16	0.51	0.41	0	0	0
Portugal	52P	0.73	0.26	0.26	0.37	1	21	9
	68P	0.26	0.11	0	0	1	32	31
	Sotavento	0.5	0.17	0	0	1	32	31

ADRIx: 0 when it complies with agricultural demands RI, 1 when it does not comply. A-RI: number of times reliability indicator A is not accomplished; B-RI: number of times reliability indicator B is not accomplished.

Figure 7. Comparison between the sustainability indicators (SIs) and the A and B indicators for the reliability of the agricultural demands (AD) that fail in the model under Scenario 0.

Figure 8. Comparison between the sustainability index (SusInd) and the agricultural demands reliability index (ADRIx) for the agricultural demands (AD) that fail in the model under Scenario 0.

Figure 9. Results (in %) of the sustainability index by group under the different scenarios: (a) urban demands and (b) agricultural demands.

Figure 10. Conceptual model with our suggestions to the Spanish authorities within the socio-hydrological framework based on Evers et al. (2017).

Pedro-Monzonís, M., 2016. Assessment of water exploitation indexes based on water accounting. Thesis (PhD). Universitat Politècnica de València.

 Google Scholar

Evers, M., et al., 2017. The pluralistic water research concept: A new human-water system research approach. Water (Switzerland), 9 (12), 1–12.

 Google Scholar