Review Not peer-reviewed version

A Critical Review of Climate Change

Impacts on Groundwater Resources: A

Focus on Current Status, Future

Possibilities, and Role of Simulation

Models

Davamani Veeraswamy , Joseph Ezra John , Poornachandhra Chidamparam , Gopalakrishnan Boopathi ,

*
Arulmani Subramanian , Parameswari Ettiyagounder , Anandhi Santhosh , Asadi Srinivasulu , Alvin Lal ,

*
Ravi Naidu

Posted Date: 18 December 2023

doi: 10.20944/preprints202312.1248.v1

Keywords: Climate Change; Groundwater; Hydrological Models; Model Calibration

Preprints.org is a free multidiscipline platform providing preprint service that

is dedicated to making early versions of research outputs permanently

available and citable. Preprints posted at Preprints.org appear in Web of

Science, Crossref, Google Scholar, Scilit, Europe PMC.

Copyright: This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons

Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any

medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 18 December 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202312.1248.v1

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.

Review
A Critical Review of Climate Change Impacts on
Groundwater Resources: A Focus on Current Status,
Future Possibilities, and Role of Simulation Models
Veeraswamy Davamani 1,2, Joseph Ezra John 3, Chidamparam Poornachandhra 4,
Boopathi Gopalakrishnan 5, Subramanian Arulmani 6, Ettiyagounder Parameswari 2,
Anandhi Santhosh 1, Asadi Srinivasulu 1, Alvin Lal 1,* and Ravi Naidu 1,*
1 Global Centre for Environmental Remediation (GCER), College of Engineering, Science & Environment,
ATC Building, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW-2308,Australia;
[email protected] (DV); [email protected] (AS);
[email protected] (SA); [email protected] (AL); [email protected]
(RN)
2 Department of Environmental Sciences, Directorate of Natural Resource Management, Tamil Nadu

Agricultural University, Coimbatore 641 003, Tamil Nadu, India; [email protected] (DV);
[email protected] (PE)
3 Department of Environment and Climate Change, Tamil Nadu Government, Tamil Nadu, India – 600 015;

[email protected] (EJ)
4 Department of Environmental Sciences, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Tamil Nadu, India – 641 003;

[email protected] (PC)
5 ICAR-National Institute of Abiotic Stress Management, Baramati, India – 413 115;

[email protected] (GB)
6 Department of Chemistry, Bannari Amman Institute of Technology, Sathyamangalam - 638 401, Tamil

Nadu, India; [email protected] (AS)

* Correspondence: [email protected] (AL); Ravi Naidu - [email protected] (RN)

Abstract: The Earth's water resources, totaling 1.386 billion cubic kilometers, predominantly consist
of saltwater in oceans. Groundwater, plays a pivotal role, with 99% of usable freshwater supporting
1.5–3 billion people as drinking water source and 60–70% for irrigation. Climate change, with
temperature increase and altered precipitation patterns, directly impacts groundwater systems,
affecting recharge, discharge, and temperature. Hydrological models are crucial for assessing
climate change effects on groundwater, aiding in management decisions. Advanced hydrological
models, incorporating data assimilation and improved process representation, contribute to
understanding complex systems. Recent studies, employ numerical models to assess climate change
impacts on groundwater recharge that could help in management of Groundwater. Groundwater
vulnerability assessments vary with the spatial and temporal considerations, as well as assumptions
in modelling groundwater susceptibility. The review assesses the vulnerability of groundwater to
climate change and stresses the importance of accurate assessments for sustainable water resource
management. It highlights challenges in assumptions related to soil and aquifer properties, multiple
stressors, adaptive capacity, topography, aquifer properties, and groundwater contamination
processes and gradual sea level rise scenarios and realistic representations of the region of study.
The advancements in hydrological modelling, including the integration of uncertainty
quantification and remote sensing data, artificial intelligence, could assist in the efforts to improve
models for assessing the impacts of climate change on hydrological.

Keywords: climate change; groundwater; hydrological models; model calibration

1. Introduction to groundwater modeling

Earth has an estimated 1.386 billion cubic kilometers of water, with 97% being salt water in
oceans and only 3% freshwater. The majority of freshwater, around 69%, exists as permanent ice and

© 2023 by the author(s). Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY license.

Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 18 December 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202312.1248.v1

snow in Greenland and Antarctica, while 30% is groundwater. Surface water systems like rivers,
lakes, streams, and swamps hold less than 1% of fresh water. Excluding the water in the cryosphere,
only 1% is usable, and 99% of this is groundwater, making it a crucial source for various human uses
and sustaining ecosystems. Approximately 1.5–3 billion people depend on groundwater as their
primary drinking water source, and globally, 60–70% of groundwater withdrawals are used for
irrigation. Groundwater constitutes a quarter of total water withdrawals and 50% of the world's
current potable water, playing a vital role in supporting both human and natural systems [1–4].
Groundwater plays a crucial role in the climate system, as highlighted by Liesch and Wunsch
(2019) [5]. However, many potential impacts of climate change on groundwater remain uncertain due
to the intricate nature of the climate system, characterized by complex interactions and feedbacks [6].
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the global mean surface
temperature has increased by 0.6°C ± 0.2°C since 1861, and a further 2 to 4°C increase is anticipated
in the next century. Temperature rises can significantly influence hydrological processes by
increasing the evaporation of surface water and plant transpiration. These changes are expected to
impact precipitation patterns, timing, and intensity, indirectly influencing the distribution and
storage of water in surface and groundwater reservoirs, including lakes, soil moisture, and
groundwater (IPCC, 5th Assessment Report).
To assess the impact of climate change on groundwater and surface resources, researchers
employed specific hydrological models. Groundwater recharge, influenced not only by hydrological
processes but also by soil and surface structure, has been a subject of study. An early investigation in
the Coastal Plain of Western Australia utilized a one-dimensional unsaturated zone model (based on
Richard's equation) to analyze the effects of changing rainfall on recharge. The findings indicated that
recharge could be significantly altered by factors beyond just rainfall, with vegetation cover playing
a crucial role.
The utilization of groundwater modeling has proven instrumental in supporting groundwater
management planning and decision-making processes. These models provide a theoretical
framework for comprehending the dynamics and controls of groundwater systems, including
processes influenced by human intervention. Groundwater models have become increasingly
essential in research related to water resources assessment, conservation, and restoration. They offer
valuable and cost-effective insights for the development, assessment, and refinement of new
groundwater strategies, legislation, and development designs. It's worth noting that various
groundwater modeling codes are available, each with distinct capabilities, operational characteristics,
and limitations.
Overall, this comprehensive review has illuminates the far-reaching consequences of climate
change on the vulnerability and sustainability of groundwater reserves globally. The urgency of
implementing adaptive and resilient strategies to manage groundwater resources has never been
clearer. As we navigate the complex terrain beneath our feet, it is imperative that policymakers,
researchers, and communities alike recognize the indispensable role of groundwater in sustaining
ecosystems, agriculture, and human populations. This review not only serves as a call to action but
also as a guide for informed decision-making to secure a more resilient future for our planet's vital
groundwater resources.

2. Climate change and groundwater interactions

The considerable rise in the global population and the subsequent surge in water demand do
not fully account for the significant depletion of groundwater storage. Numerous studies, including
those by Asoka et al., de Graaf et al., Russo and Lall, Sivarajan et al., van der Knaap et al., and van
Engelenburg et al. [7–12], have established correlations between climate perturbations and
groundwater levels. The escalating demand for groundwater is expected to play a defining role in
future scenarios for water resource management and food security, particularly in rural areas and
arid regions [13,14]. It serves as the primary means of meeting water needs in these regions. Certain
impacts of climate change are expected to be direct consequences of alterations in temperature,
precipitation, and elevated concentrations of CO2. However, other effects on groundwater systems
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 18 December 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202312.1248.v1

will be indirect, stemming from shifts in land use, the accessibility of other water sources (surface
water), alterations in human water requirements, changes in the spatial distribution of native and
cultivated plant communities, and adjustments in the water consumption patterns of existing crops
and native plants in response to variations in climate and carbon dioxide concentrations. Directly
impacting the entire groundwater system [15], climate change affects various aspects, including
groundwater-surface water interaction, groundwater flows, groundwater recharge and storage [7],
groundwater discharge, and groundwater quality. The impact of climate change on groundwater
systems can also be indirect, manifesting through changes in groundwater abstraction and alterations
in land use/cover. Changes in land use due to climate-induced modifications, such as shifts in
vegetation type and evolving agricultural practices, along with potential increases in crop
evaporative water demand, collectively exert pressure on groundwater resources [16].
The transfer of water from subsurface sources to the surface, whether through an aquifer to a
surface-water body, or withdrawal for human purposes, constitutes groundwater discharge.
Forecasts based on current climatic trends indicate a reduction in discharge from groundwater-fed
springs in regions experiencing an increasingly arid climate, such as the southwestern United States
[17], the Sikkim Himalaya [18], and Niangziguan Springs in Shanxi, China [19]. A significant indirect
consequence of climate change is the extensive extraction of groundwater to meet the growing
demand for irrigation and other human activities, which could substantially lower water table
elevations and, consequently, reduce base flow contributions to stream flow. Studies, such as that by
Solder et al. [20], provide evidence of declining groundwater discharge attributed to climate
variability, change, and increased water demand. Additionally, climate change has the potential to
influence the temperature of groundwater discharges. Simulations conducted by Kurylyk et al. [21]
revealed an increase in groundwater discharge temperature of up to 3.6 °C in their study area in New
Brunswick, Canada. Certain fish species heavily rely on cold groundwater discharges into streams
and rivers to buffer them from temperature extremes and regulate their metabolism, especially
during the summer months. Researchers argue that any future impact of climate change on
groundwater discharge temperature could pose a threat to these already endangered species due to
their critical dependence on thermal conditions [8,9,22]. The expected positive change in
groundwater temperature is driven by projections of rising global air temperatures, with surface air
temperatures and subsurface temperatures exhibiting a strong positive correlation, particularly in
shallow aquifers with greater thermal sensitivities [21]. This raise concerns the likelihood of
exceeding crucial temperature thresholds in groundwater-sourced thermal streams under the most
extreme future climate scenarios.
The bibliometric analysis of the earlier studies on the climate vulnerability of water and features
(Figure 1) shows the interconnectedness between them and the weightage given so far. The line
between the two bubbles in Figure 1 indicates the text similarity between different sub-categories.
The thicker the line, the greater the text similarity between the center of the category, and vice versa.
Based on text similarity between sub-clusters, the 30 sub-clusters can be further converged into three
clusters: 1) climate change facts and projections, 2) climate change impacts, and 3) climate change
mitigation and adaptation. This is consistent with the framework of IPCC assessment reports. Nine
sub-clusters, like climate change modelling, warming and extreme temperature, reconstruction of
climate, and so on, are categorized into the cluster of climate change facts and projections (in purple).
Fifteen sub-clusters, like human health, water resource, forest ecosystems, and so on, are categorized
into climate change impacts (in green). Six sub-clusters, like GHGs emission, co-management of
climate and environment, adaptation policy, and so on, are categorized into climate change
mitigation and adaptation (in red).
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 18 December 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202312.1248.v1

Figure 1. The bibliometric Analysis of Global research trends on Climate vulnerability of hydrological
resources.

Climate stands as the primary driver of spatiotemporal variations in groundwater recharge, with
precipitation emerging as the climate element exerting the most direct influence on recharge,
regardless of the specific recharge pathway. The importance of climate in the context of groundwater
is emphasized by the widespread use of Global Climate Models (GCMs) and precipitation data to
predict future groundwater conditions. A rise in overall precipitation at a specific location augments
the quantity of water accessible for groundwater recharge, and under normal circumstances, it is
likely to lead to an increase in recharge. Conversely, reduced precipitation is anticipated to
correspondingly decrease the amount of recharge [23]. Moreover, the type of precipitation event has
an impact on recharge rates. A transition from snow to rain could result in lower recharge-to
precipitation ratios. With the expectation of more precipitation falling as rain than snow on a
warming Earth, regions characterized by cold climates may experience reduced recharge unless
warmer winter temperatures diminish ground frost depth, promoting increased infiltration and
recharge. A warmer winter might lead to earlier and prolonged snowmelt, resulting in substantial
winter recharge but diminished spring and summer recharge [24]. The intensity of rainfall also plays
a role in influencing groundwater recharge. The future of groundwater recharge will be primarily
influenced by rainfall intensity in tropical regions. Evapotranspiration (ET) can also hinder
infiltration below the root zone, making light rainfall less effective in contributing to groundwater
recharge. Additionally, alterations in land use/land cover can modify the effects of precipitation and
groundwater use on recharge. Various studies have demonstrated significant variations in recharge
due to changes such as replacing natural vegetation with arable land or built-up surfaces [25]. For
instance, reducing leaf area through clearing forests for agriculture can enhance groundwater
recharge, even with a slight decrease in rainfall [26]. Conversely, other studies have indicated
decreases in groundwater recharge resulting from increased vegetation density, such as a shift from
grassland to woodland [25], or rapid urbanization and the replacement of natural surfaces with built-
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 18 December 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202312.1248.v1

up areas. In general, whether it is a temporary change, like alterations in vegetation, or a permanent

change, like urbanization, land use/cover modifications can affect recharge by altering water balance
processes, including evaporation, transpiration, infiltration, and surface runoff [27].
In terms of climate change impacts on groundwater quality, existing research is limited, and
predictions are characterized by uncertainty. Nevertheless, two primary modes of impact on
groundwater quality in a changing climate are identified as: (1) the over-exploitation of coastal
aquifers and (2) the introduction of chemical compounds into aquifers through flushing [24].
Infiltrating irrigation return flows can introduce certain chemical compounds into aquifers,
impacting groundwater quality [28]. Future climate conditions, characterized by warmer winter
temperatures and increased snowmelt in mid-/high-latitudes, may enhance pollutant capture and
solute leaching in the unsaturated zone, thereby influencing groundwater quality. Additionally,
studies suggest that climate change may worsen sanitary conditions in less developed regions,
leading to the leaching of human waste from pit latrines into groundwater [29]. The impact of climate
and land use change on groundwater quality, particularly related to nitrate concentrations, has been
quantified in various locations, indicating an increase in nitrate concentrations in groundwater under
scenarios of high irrigation and recharge [30]. Saltwater intrusion (SWI) and subsequent salinization
of freshwater from excessive pumping or over-exploitation of wells, driven by increasing water
demand and droughts associated with climate change and compounded by development, especially
in coastal areas [31,32]. As groundwater abstraction increases, wells may run dry, necessitating
deeper digging, which, in turn, contributes to a decline in groundwater quality, especially in deeper
aquifers in coastal areas that tend to produce lower quality water.
The literature also provides substantial evidence indicating a global decline in groundwater
levels across numerous aquifers. Notable examples include major aquifers in arid and semi-arid
regions, such as the High Plains of the United States [33], and Northwest India, which are
experiencing rapid depletion of groundwater. The significance of groundwater depletion extends
beyond a mere reduction in water availability, posing threats to livelihoods and ecological
sustainability, particularly during periods of drought [34]. The consequences of groundwater
depletion are multifaceted. Firstly, it diminishes groundwater discharge to streams, springs, rivers,
and other surface water bodies, impacting the well-being of Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems
(GDEs). Secondly, it reduces the depth of the water table, thereby escalating the costs associated with
extracting groundwater from deep boreholes and wells. Thirdly, groundwater depletion has been
linked to land subsidence due to the compaction of soil and open pore spaces that previously held
water, a phenomenon observed in locations such as Venice and Bologna, Italy [35], China [36], Iran
[37], the central valley of California [38], and elsewhere. It's worth noting that groundwater storage
exhibits varying sensitivities to seasonal or multi-year climatic fluctuations, with deeper aquifer
systems reacting more slowly to direct changes in precipitation and recharge rates compared to
smaller aquifers with shorter flow paths [22].
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 18 December 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202312.1248.v1

Figure 2. Groundwater systems interactions and changes in the face of climate change.

3. Key modelling approaches

The few available predictions regarding the effects of climate change on groundwater systems
have predominantly utilized numerical models. These models are typically calibrated with historical
data and then employed with climate projections as input. Various approaches have been suggested
for assessing the intrinsic and specific vulnerability of groundwater to contamination. These
approaches can be classified into overlay/index [39], statistical, and process/model-based methods.
Among these, the commonly employed international methods for evaluating intrinsic and specific
vulnerability include DRASTIC, GOD, AVI, SINTACS, modified SINTACS, DART, GALDIT, etc.
[40,41]. Additionally, hybrid methods such as PATRIOT combine these approaches. On the other
hand, analytical methods simplify critical parameters by assuming constant hydraulic conductivity,
transmissivity, and uniform aquifer thickness [42]. Analytical methods also introduce uncertainties
when projecting climate change using climate models [43] and assessing the impacts of climate
change on systems (e.g., groundwater) and processes (e.g., pollution transport to groundwater and
recharge to groundwater) through impact models, owing to the considerable variability in model
outputs.
In a study conducted by Leterme and Mallants [44] in the Nete catchment in Germany, the
HYDRRS-1D model was employed to assess the relative impact of rainfall and land use change
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 18 December 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202312.1248.v1

indicators. The study successfully determined the effects on mean annual recharge under existing
climate and land use conditions, estimating it to be 391 mm. This value decreased to 361 mm (7.7%)
in a warmer climate scenario and further to 128 mm (67.3%) in a colder climate scenario. Under
projected future warmer and colder climates, recharge increased by 31% and 18%, respectively. Land
use changes to all other types resulted in a decrease in recharge in both the current and projected
warmer and colder climates. The reduction in recharge was more pronounced (79%) for the warmer
climate compared to the current (64%) and colder (48%) climates. The decrease in recharge in the
warmer climate is attributed to higher evapotranspiration (ET), although the reduction is less than in
the colder climate due to a high water level (3 m).
In 2006, Scibek and Allen [45] developed a methodology aiming to connect climate models with
groundwater models to explore the prospective effects of climate change on groundwater resources.
The assessment involved an unconfined aquifer near Grand Forks in south-central British Columbia,
Canada. Climate change scenarios derived from model runs in the Canadian Global Coupled Model
1 (CGCM1) were adapted to local conditions using the Statistical Downscaling Model (SDSM). A
three-dimensional transient groundwater flow model, implemented in MODFLOW, was then
utilized to simulate four climate scenarios during 1-year test runs (representing the periods 1961-
1999, 2010-2039, 2040-2069, and 2070-2099) and to compare groundwater levels with present
conditions. The study found that the spatial distribution of recharge significantly influences
groundwater levels, with a greater impact than temporal variations in recharge compared to a
representation of mean annual recharge. According to the downscaled CGCM1 model, the projected
future climate for the Grand Forks region suggests increased recharge to the unconfined aquifer from
spring to summer. However, due to the predominant interactions between the river and aquifer, as
well as river water recharge, the overall impact of this recharge on the water balance is minimal.
In 2009, Toews and Allen [46] created a numerical groundwater model at a regional scale for the
Oliver region in the south Okanagan, British Columbia, Canada. The objective was to simulate the
potential impacts of anticipated climate change on groundwater. The study's projections indicated a
heightened contribution of recharge to the annual water budget in future timeframes (specifically the
2050s and 2080s). The calculated increase was 1.2% for the 2050s and 1.4% for the 2080s of the total
annual budget compared to the existing conditions.
In 2014, Waikar and Somwanshi [47] conducted research on the Impact of Climate Change on
Dynamic Groundwater System in a Drought-Prone Area. The study focused on databases and their
analysis, involving the generation of future rainfall and temperature data, estimation of recharge,
and simulation of groundwater to enhance control and augmentation of groundwater in the basin.
All thematic maps were generated using ILWIS3.2, and necessary data were collected. Future rainfall
was produced for baseline, A1F1, and B1 scenarios for the 2004-2039 period based on the SRES GCM
projections for the South Asia region. The researchers developed a site-specific database for soil,
vegetation, and climate required for the Visual HELP model. Site-specific groundwater recharge was
calculated at twelve basin locations. The groundwater simulation involved dividing the entire basin
into twelve areas and employing the water balance method. The study concluded with the
quantification of the effects of climate change on groundwater recharge and time-slice rates for the
period 2004-2039.
Kumar et al. [48] conducted an assessment of the impact of climate change on groundwater
resources in India, focusing on recent scientific studies and methods for evaluating this impact
through parameters such as soil moisture, groundwater recharge, and coastal aquifers. The study
includes a brief analysis of research conducted in recent years. The estimation of groundwater
recharge was carried out using WHI UnSat Suite and WetSpass. Climate data from weather stations
were evaluated, and General Circulation Models (GCM) were utilized to establish future predicted
climate change datasets. These datasets encompassed variables such as temperature, precipitation,
and solar radiation.
In a groundwater study conducted in the High Plains of the United States, 16 global climate
models (GCMs) and three global warming scenarios were employed to assess changes in
groundwater recharge rates for a 2050 climate compared to a 1990 climate. Groundwater recharge
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 18 December 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202312.1248.v1

was modeled using the WAVES model (Soil Vegetation Atmosphere Transfer) for a variety of soil
and vegetation types covering the High Plains. The median forecast for the year 2050 showed an
increase of +8% in the Northern High Plains, a slight decrease of -3% in the Central High Plains, and
a more substantial decrease in the Southern High Plains (-10%). This amplifies the existing spatial
trend in recharge from north to south. Predicted recharge variations between dry and rainy future
climate scenarios exhibited both increases and decreases in recharge levels, with the magnitude of
this variation surpassing 50% of actual recharge. On a relative scale, the sensitivity of recharge to
changes in rainfall indicated that regions with high current recharge rates were less sensitive to
rainfall changes, and vice versa [49].
The study focused on investigating the impact of climate change on groundwater recharge and
baseflow in the upper Ssezibwa catchment, Uganda. The analysis involved examining historical data,
revealing evident signs of climate change through observed temperature and discharge patterns. To
assess potential climate change projections, the statistical downscaling model (SDSM) was employed
to downscale data derived from the UK climate model HadCM3. The downscaled climate data served
as input for the WetSpa hydrological model, a physically distributed rainfall-runoff model used to
simulate resulting changes in hydrology. During the wet seasons (March-May; October-December),
the downscaled climate projections indicated an increase in precipitation, ranging from 30% in the
2020s to over 100% in the 2080s. Correspondingly, the temperature was projected to rise from 1 to
4°C. These changes were found to intensify the hydrological cycle. The mean annual daily base flow,
constituting 69% of discharge at 157 mm/year during the current period, was anticipated to increase
by 20-80% from the 2020s to the 2080s. Concurrently, the expected increase in recharge ranged from
20 to 100%, relative to the current 245 mm/year [50].

4. Advancement in hydrological modeling technologies

Hydrological modeling has been driven by improvements in data assimilation, computational
capabilities, and a better understanding of hydrological processes has significantly contributed to our
understanding and management of complex systems. Advanced hydrological models provide an
improved representation of land-atmosphere interactions by coupling hydrological models with land
surface models, enhancing the simulation of energy and water fluxes [51]. Hydrological models based
on the land surface data coupled with regional climate models are also used for forecasting the
behavior of hydrological and meteorological events under different climate scenarios. These climate
scenarios are noticeable tools that are useful to decision-makers with respect to characterizing the
future climate [52]. The use of distributed models that consider spatial variability in precipitation,
land use, and soil properties can provide a more accurate representation of hydrological processes
compared to conventional models. Integration of hydro informatics tools and remote sensing data
can result in better model calibration, validation, and monitoring of hydrological processes. This may
result in improved representation of land surface processes, and quantification of human impacts on
water systems [53].
Modifications to hydrological models are often carried out to assess the impacts of climate
change on water resources, considering changes in temperature, precipitation patterns, and extreme
events [54]. Incorporation of advanced uncertainty quantification techniques and data assimilation
methods are essential to improve the model predictions and parameter estimation. The commonly
used methods for uncertainty analysis include Monte Carlo analysis, Bayesian statistics, multi-
objective analysis, least-squares-based inverse modeling, response-surface-based techniques, and
multi-modeling analysis [55,56]. Integrated hydrological models allows for a comprehensive
understanding of the water cycle, incorporating surface water, groundwater, and atmospheric
interactions [57,58]. Earth system models (ESM) simulate the interactions between the atmosphere,
oceans, land surface, and ice, enabling a more holistic representation of climate dynamics. Advances
in the representation of hydrologic processes in earth system models substantially improve the
fidelity of simulations of land-atmosphere fluxes and biogeochemistry [57,58]
Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) integrate multiple domains, such as climate, economy,
and energy, to assess the interactions and trade-offs associated with different policy scenarios.
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 18 December 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202312.1248.v1

Machine learning techniques, including neural networks and ensemble methods, have been
increasingly used for data-driven modeling and prediction in diverse fields [59]. Recent advances in
computational platforms, like cloud and quantum computing, in addition to machine learning to
capture some processes, will support the use of larger and more complex, process-based models.
Models predicting land use changes help assess the impacts of human activities on landscapes and
ecosystems, facilitating sustainable land management [60]. Models that integrate human and natural
systems help analyze feedbacks and interactions between social and environmental components.
These references represent seminal works in their respective fields, providing a foundation for
understanding the advancements in modeling technologies. Keep in mind that the field of modeling
is dynamic, and ongoing research contributes to continuous improvement and innovation in
modeling techniques.

Figure 3. Conceptual illustration of models and their integration for assessing hydrological
vulnerability in the face of climate change.
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 18 December 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202312.1248.v1

10

5. Spatial, Temporal Consideration and Assumptions in Modelling Ground Water Susceptibility

In recent years, researchers worldwide have assessed the vulnerability of groundwater to
climate change at various spatial and temporal scales[61–64]. However, recognizing the similarities
and differences among these studies and identifying potential knowledge gaps can be challenging.
Vulnerability is a result of exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity, and the methods to measure
vulnerability vary significantly due to the context and scale dependence[65]. Different approaches
have been proposed for quantifying the intrinsic and specific vulnerability of groundwater,
categorized into overlay/index statistical and process/model-based methods[66–71]. Commonly used
international methods include DRASTIC, GOD, AVI, SINTACS, modified SINTACS, DART, and
GALDIT, often employed individually or in combination (hybrid methods) like PATRIOT[72–74].
Process/model-based methods are used to quantify specific vulnerability to pollutants and sea-level
rise but provide more complex outputs, such as contaminant concentrations and time of travel.
Both overlay/index and process/model-based methods have been utilized to assess groundwater
vulnerability to climate change, each with its strengths and limitations [75]. Alternative
interpretations of results may arise due to differences in opinion and perception, emphasizing the
critical choice of an appropriate technique. Modified-DRASTIC-AHP is suggested as a convincing
alternative, involving the assignment of weights based on experience to develop a hierarchy of
indicators[65,76]. Analytical methods, simplifying parameters like constant hydraulic conductivity,
transmissivity, and uniform aquifer thickness, also introduce uncertainties, especially in projecting
climate change and its impacts using models[77]. There is a general consensus that no single method
is superior or mutually exclusive, and the choice depends on the study's objectives, available
resources and data, and the time frame[65].
The simplification introduced to modelling techniques may lead to a more rapid simulation of
seawater intrusion, as opposed to the gradual rise in sea levels. However, this simplification is valid
only for assessing the impact of the last interglacial period, during which the sea level rose by 4 to 6
meters[78]. It is not a valid assumption for simulating the impact of future sea level rise because the
projected sea level rise is a slow phenomenon, expected to increase yearly from 0.2 to 4.0 meters from
1990 to 2100 [79,80]. Moreover, the simulated behavior of saltwater intrusion varies depending on
assumptions of instantaneous and gradual sea level rise, with the latter representing the intrusion
process in a more natural way. Therefore, for a more accurate assessment of the implications of sea
level rise on groundwater resources, it is essential to consider the gradual rise in sea level in
modelling efforts.
The assumption of constant or average values for parameters related to soil or aquifer properties
is valid as long as the slope remains unchanged or undergoes negligible changes in topographically
levelled regions[61,81]. However, such assumptions may lead to underestimated assessment results,
particularly in rugged topographies where these properties play a vital role in aquifer recharge
during climate scenarios. The presence of various geological layers overlying groundwater, each with
differing hydraulic properties, can have a significant impact on aquifer recharge, challenging the
validity of uniform assumption. The physical processes involved in groundwater contamination due
to climate change and land use change are complex and encompass mechanisms like biological and
chemical degradation, adsorption on soil particles, and the transport and dilution of
pollutants[66,82,83]. Assuming linearity in these physical processes may result in overestimation or
underestimation of the actual pollution risk. Scale is a critical factor influencing the results, as larger-
scale studies may introduce simplifications to complex processes. Consequently, studies conducted
over a larger spatial scale may overlook or average site-specific processes, impacting the assessment
of groundwater quality. Groundwater recharge is a multifaceted phenomenon dependent on various
factors such as rainfall, land use, aquifer media, depth to the groundwater table, topography, soil
characteristics, and hydraulic conductivity[84]. For instance, a study by Zume and Tarhule [85]
considers recharge solely as a function of rainfall (i.e., 10% of annual direct rainfall), omitting other
influential factors, leading to potential overestimation or underestimation of groundwater recharge.
Multiple stressors are of paramount importance and have a significant impact on a system in
terms of their effects [86–88]. Consequently, these stressors should be incorporated into exposure
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 18 December 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202312.1248.v1

11

assessments, thereby influencing vulnerability evaluations. Climate change, a global phenomenon

that affects systems at various scales through direct effects such as variations in temperature and
precipitation, and indirect, involving changing evapotranspiration, increasing population,
groundwater abstraction, land use and land cover changes, water demand, and more[89–94]. To
comprehensively characterize these influences, an understanding of multiple stressors is essential,
considering the involvement of diverse actors and varying time scales. The selection of stressors and
the methods used for quantification introduce limitations that can lead to misinformed estimations
of impacts. Therefore, a thorough consideration of the various stressors, along with their diverse
actors and time scales, is crucial for accurate exposure and vulnerability assessments.

6. Selectivity and sensitivity indicators for climate vulnerability of Ground water

The vulnerability of groundwater resources is contingent upon the specific nature of climate
change and the sensitivity of a given aquifer. Sensitivity, one of the three components of vulnerability,
is connected to the inherent properties of the aquifer [95]. While climate change is a significant factor,
climate variability is equally important. Surprisingly, none of the reviewed studies have incorporated
climate variability into their vulnerability assessments, focusing solely on climate change. It's worth
noting that indicators of climate vulnerability are influenced by both climate change and variability
[93]. The inclusion of variability, which represents the range of changes in climate at a minimum
yearly time scale, is crucial for a more robust analysis of the actual situation. Change, as represented
by the trend of mean climate conditions, may not fully capture the real circumstances. Among the
studies examined, one assessed current vulnerability [96]), while others considered both current and
future times. These studies utilized General Circulation Models (GCMs) for future climate projections
under the Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES) A2, A1B, and B1. Acknowledging the
uncertainties associated with scenarios and GCM projections, the scientific community has raised
concerns. These uncertainties stem from the coarser resolution of GCMs at a scale ranging from 1 to
2°, where one degree equals almost 100 km, making them less accurate in representing certain climate
phenomena [97].
However, [98] effectively demonstrated the impact of indicators on groundwater resources on
Dauphin Island, USA, through a sensitivity analysis. They assessed the quantity of groundwater
resources by considering different scenarios, both individually and in combination. In comparison to
the current salinity level of 1.2%, under Scenario-1 (constant climate, land use/cover, and pumping),
land use/cover change (Scenario-2) led to a 3.9% reduction in the volume of freshwater. Under dry
climate plus land use/cover change (Scenario-3), the quantity of freshwater decreased by 3.3%.
However, under the combined consideration of wet climate and land use/cover (Scenario-4), the
volume of freshwater returned to baseline levels due to an increase in rainfall-triggered recharge.
When dry climate, land use/cover change, and increased pumping were combined (Scenario-5), the
quantity of freshwater decreased by 8.6%. While the magnitude of volume was different at 10 and
50% of initial salinity levels, the direction of impact remained similar. This underscores the relative
sensitivity of groundwater quantity as a function of quality under the influence of both climatic and
non-climatic stressors, emphasizing the critical role of indicator choice.
The role of adaptive capacity in mitigating the vulnerability of a system to climate change is
crucial. This capacity can be evaluated independently or inferred from exposure and sensitivity
indicators. There are generally three categories of adaptive capacity indicators: assets in a system,
available resources, and governing institutions[99–101]. These indicators should be considered,
especially when assessing adaptive capacity independently within vulnerability evaluations. To
enhance the reliability of assessed results, it is recommended to include a variety of indicators (such
as health, wealth, and education) selected based on their functional relationships with each other and
their magnitude of influence on the system[102]. Indicators like governance and the rate of capacity
building, which demonstrate functional relationships, have a significant impact on defining the
adaptive capacity of a system. Therefore, neglecting any of these relevant indicators is likely to result
in sub-optimal assessments.
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 18 December 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202312.1248.v1

12

Table 1. The Predicted Impacts of Climate Change on Groundwater by models.

Major
Impact
S. Coun Major Climate Impact on
on Model used References
No. try Change Event Groundwater
Environ
ment
1 Shaza Rainfall in the River Average Groundwater - [103]
nd region will discharg groundwater Integrated
Plain, decrease by 18– e will level in 2060 may hydrological
Iran 45% (2059) decrease decrease model
Average annual by 63– significantly by MODFLOW-
temperature is 81% by 15.1 m compared OWHM
projected to rise the end to 2010. Climate model -
by 16 % (from of 2059. NorESM, River
13.7 to 15.9). discharge -
HEC-HMS
model.
2 Punja Precipitation is Groundwater Groundwater [104]
b, predicted to rise nitrate pollution contaminants
India by 5% at 2040, will increase to prediction - RF
while it would 49-50% in 2030 model
decline by 0.6% and 65-66% in (Random
at 2030. 2040. Forest)
Climate model -
Global climate
models (GCM).
3 Great High Winters Decline of 40% in Climate model - [105]
Britai greenhouse gas up to annual Global climate
n emission 30% potential models (GCM)
(Colti (atmospheric wetter groundwater (UKCIP02
shall, CO2 and recharge for scenario).
Gatw concentration summers Gatwick and 20%
ick, increases to 525 up to for Coltishall,
and ppm by the end 50% and for Paisley a
Paisle of the present drier are 7% reduction
y) century and rise probable in is likely.
global scenarios
temperature by for
3.5 °C. Coltishal
l and
Paisley
by the
2080s.
4 Palest 10% reduction - 14% to 24% Climate model [106]
ine in annual reduction in – GCM
rainfall groundwater Groundwater
3.0 ℃ increase recharge (636 to flow model –
in temperature. 516 mcm/year). MODFLOW.
5 Oka Annual - Groundwater Climate [107]
River precipitation flow will models (GFDL-
basin, will decrease by 12– ESM2M,
Euro 17% at the HadGEM2-ES,
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 18 December 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202312.1248.v1

13

pean increase by middle of the IPSLCM5A-LR,

Russi almost 10% century and MIROC5).
a Decrease in the about 9% by its
annual runoff end.
will amount to
25–30% by the
middle of the
century, and 18-
22% at the end.
6 Vient Average annual The Average annual Groundwater [107,108]
iane rainfall was water groundwater recharge model
basin, projected to be with the recharge (272 (HELP3),
Laos significantly TDS MCM/year) can groundwater
higher than the between be increased by flow model
baseline 500 and 22.7–47.5% (334 (MODFLOW),
condition (2011- 1,500 to 401 and salt
2020 - 1,438 mm) mg/l will MCM/year). transport model
by about 230, tend to (MT3D).
250, and 700 decrease,
mm/year, while the
respectively, freshwat
from 2021 to er (TDS <
2050. 500
mg/l)
area will
tend to
increase.
7 Mosi Annual Decline of Climate model - [109]
an precipitation groundwater HadCM3
plain, will decrease by level in the study Groundwater
Iran 3% during 2015- area was 0.48 flow model –
2030. m/year during MODFLOW.
the past 24 years.
Annual
groundwater
depletion should
increase to 0.75 m
in the coming 16
years.
8 India Annual mean Groundwater HYDRUS and [63]
(Hary surface air recharge would PMWIN model
ana, temperature decrease by 0.09 for vadose zone
Utter would rise by m to 0.21 m and moisture
Prade 1.7-2℃ in 2030. 0.11 m, movement and
sh, respectively, MODFLOW.
Rajast during 2030 and
han 2100 as compared
and to the reference
Delhi year 2005.
)
9 Arus Mean annual Increase Groundwater Parameter [110]
ha, temperatures d recharge may fall ESTimation
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 18 December 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202312.1248.v1

14

Tanz expected to evapotra 30–44% by 2050, (PEST) package

ania increase by nspiratio causing of MODFLOW
between 0.8 °C n groundwater
and 1.8 °C by levels to drop at
2050 most 75 m.
Annual
precipitation
will decrease by
10-11%.
10 Coast Climate change- Salt Concentrations of [111]
al mediated rise in water Fe (44%), Mn
plain sea level. intrusion (44%), As (4%)
s of into and Al (4%) in
Odis aquifers. post-monsoon
ha, and Fe (32%), Mn
India (32%), As (4%), B
(8%) and Ni
(16%) in pre-
monsoon
exceeded Bureau
of Indian
Standards (BIS)
drinking water
limits. High
concentrations of
heavy metals (Fe,
Sr, Mn, B, Ba, Li,
Ni and Co) and
high EC (>3000
μS/cm).

7. Hybrid Model for Vulnerability assessment of Ground Water and its Challenges
The study conducted by Aslam et al. [65] comprehensively considered all components and
significant indicators contributing to groundwater vulnerability. Exploring the possibility of
integrating these indicators within a system, depending on local conditions, the scale of the study,
and data availability, and identifying their functional relationships and dependencies on other
indicators is an active area of research[112]. This exploration can lead to new insights into the
combined effects of these indicators. The IPCC framework recognizes adaptive capacity as an integral
part of the vulnerability assessment process[79]. Modelling techniques for vulnerability assessment
and index-based assessments have unique ways of quantifying vulnerability. The integrated use of
impact modelling and index-based methodologies, incorporating adaptive capacity, could yield
better results in future research. This approach maximizes the advantages of both methodologies
while minimizing some of their limitations.
Climatic phenomena, encompassing both variability and change, exert influence on the
groundwater system. Some researchers even argue that variability is more influential than change,
opening up another wide area for further research[113–115]. Studies focusing on sea level rise and
recharge estimation have made simplifications for influential factors [78,116], but there is a need for
further research on scenarios of gradual sea level rise, considering real slopes, and addressing the
heterogeneity of aquifer geology and hydraulic conductivity. The use of climate and impact models
to estimate two of the three components of vulnerability should address limitations associated with
index-based methods (e.g., instantaneous sea level rise, lumped slope/hydraulic conductivity, and
homogeneous geology), making the results more convincing. Although model-driven results may
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 18 December 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202312.1248.v1

15

contain uncertainties, these can be quantified and assigned, enhancing the reliability of the
assessment.

7.1. Advantages and limitations of the hybrid study

7.1.1. Gradually sea level rise

By considering gradual sea level rise assumption, sea level increase on yearly rate is accounted
as projected by IPCC (0.2 to 4 m/year) [65]. This avoids considering a single high value for the entire
duration of projection. This significantly improves the credibility of the projections on the
vulnerability to salt water intrusion and contamination.

7.1.2. Topography factors inclusion

The use of a single lumped slope value is a simplification that makes the process more
manageable but can deviate from the actual conditions, resulting in a noticeable discrepancy between
calculated and real-world outcomes[64,117,118]. To address this limitation, adjusting the parameter
from a lumped to its nearly accurate value by considering spatial variability by incorporating data
from the Digital Elevation Model (DEM) would be of better choice. This provides a more precise
representation of the topographical features and enhancing the accuracy of the calculations.

7.1.3. Heterogenous aquifer properties

By utilizing semi or fully distributed hydrological models, a more realistic representation of the
aquifer system is represented[87,102]. In particular, fully-distributed, 3D groundwater flow models
like MODFLOW are capable of incorporating heterogeneity in the aquifer and its properties[119].
This capability allows for a more accurate and detailed simulation of the groundwater system,
considering variations in geological features and hydraulic properties within the aquifer.

7.1.4. Groundwater contamination and rainfall recharge process optimization

The use of semi-distributed models, such as SWAT (Soil and Water Assessment Tool) and
WetSpass, offer an advantageous middle ground as they do not demand as much data [78,100].
Additionally, they introduce heterogeneity in various processes, in contrast to lumped models,
operating at the Hydrological Response Unit (HRU) or sub-basin levels. This characteristic allows for
a more nuanced representation of hydrological processes, providing an optimal solution to the
limitations encountered in previous methodologies.

8. Implications for sustainable water resource management (policy considerations)

There is increased pressure on water reserves due to population growth, urban sprawl, rapid
industrialization, intensive farming, growing areas in tourism, climate change. Sustainable water
resource management is a critical aspect of environmental stewardship, and policy considerations
play a pivotal role in shaping effective strategies. Sustainable management of water resource is
comprehensive involving not only a wide range of objectives and possible activities, but also the
improvement of institutional framework and working practice. Some of the key implications for
sustainable water resource management that has to be tackled through policy interventions are
discussed.
Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM) is crucial for addressing the complexity of
water systems, considering the interconnections between surface water, groundwater, and
ecosystems. The sector approach to water resource management is fragmented and uncoordinated
resulting in inefficient management and increasing competition for scarce resources. Development
and enforcement of policies that promote IWRM principles, emphasizing stakeholder engagement,
decentralized decision-making, and the integration of social, economic, and environmental
considerations should be given high priority [120]. Climate change poses challenges to water
availability and quality, necessitating adaptive strategies to cope with changing precipitation
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 18 December 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202312.1248.v1

16

patterns and increasing variability. Integration of climate change considerations into water
management policies, including the development of adaptive strategies, infrastructure resilience, and
promotion of water-use efficiency will be beneficial in the long run [121]. Currently more than 70%
of the water is used in agriculture, and this quantity will increase in the future. Therefore, sustainable
water resource management will need to find optimal solutions for managing water resources used
in agriculture so as not to affect the water needs of the ever-increasing population [122].
Effective water governance structures and institutions are essential for the sustainable use and
management of water resources, ensuring equitable distribution and minimizing conflicts.
Establishing and strengthening water governance frameworks, emphasizing transparency,
accountability, and the active involvement of local communities in decision-making processes will
lead to sustainable resource use [123]. The Institutional Resources Regime (IRR) theorizes about the
sustainable use of natural resources, particularly water, stating that a sufficient degree of regulation
and policy mixtures that are coherent within and across policy sectors are required for sustainability
[124]g. Proper valuation of water resources through pricing mechanisms can incentivize efficient use
and conservation. Implementing water pricing policies that reflect the true cost of water, encourage
conservation, and provide funding for infrastructure development and maintenance should be the
top priority [125].
Emergence of new industrial hubs due to economic development involves activities that are
water-consuming and waste-producing. While the functioning of these hubs is essential for the
economic development of a region it is also recommended to consider the water reserves existing in
that region and suitable policy should be framed for preserving them. Healthy ecosystems are vital
for water quality and quantity; degradation can lead to reduced water availability and increased
treatment costs. Enacting and enforcing policies that protect and restore ecosystems, emphasizing the
importance of maintaining natural hydrological processes and biodiversity will be beneficial [126].
The policy considerations, informed by scientific research and practical experiences, can contribute
to more sustainable water resource management practices. It is important for policymakers to adapt
these principles to the specific contexts and challenges of their regions.

9. Summary and future prospective

The hydrological modeling has greatly improved our capacity to study and comprehend
intricate water systems. A more comprehensive depiction of the hydrological cycle has been made
possible by the integration of numerous elements, including surface water, groundwater, and land
surface processes, into comprehensive models. In conjunction with advancements in computer
power, data integration methodologies, and the incorporation of geographic variability, hydrological
models have emerged as indispensable instruments for the management of water resources,
evaluation of the consequences of climate change, and environmental strategy. The reliability of
model predictions and parameter estimates has been further enhanced by the integration of
uncertainty quantification approaches and data assimilation techniques. In order to address the
inherent complexities and uncertainties related to hydrological processes, this has proved extremely
important. The integration of hydro informatics tools and remote sensing data has opened new
avenues for model calibration, validation, and monitoring, providing a more data-rich environment
for hydrological studies.Furthermore, using machine learning and artificial intelligence approaches
into hydrological modeling has the potential to significantly improve model accuracy and efficiency.
As the effects of climate change become more apparent, hydrological models will be critical in
assessing and adjusting to these changes. More sophisticated models that account for the dynamic
interactions between climate, land use, and water systems may be developed in the future.

10. Conclusions
The future of hydrological modeling is bright, with ongoing attempts to improve existing
models and develop new approaches. With the increased availability of high-resolution data, there
is a greater emphasis on enhancing model spatial and temporal resolution to capture finer-scale
phenomena. Evaluating the vulnerability of groundwater to potential stressors is crucial in
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 18 December 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202312.1248.v1

17

translating these impacts into actionable measures. Recently, various initiatives have been
undertaken globally at different scales to address this concern. To enhance understanding, a
comprehensive review was conducted to analyses previous research, critically assess methodologies,
and identify knowledge gaps based on underlying assumptions. The review emphasizes the
significance of indicator selection in evaluating groundwater vulnerability to climate change,
outlining limitations and gaps in the methodologies. This would help in developing approach that
integrates the strengths of both impact modelling and index-based approaches, presenting a
promising alternative for future research to overcome existing limitations and enhance the
effectiveness of vulnerability assessments. Moreover, collaborative efforts between researchers,
policymakers, and practitioners will be essential to ensure that hydrological models are effectively
utilized in real-world decision-making processes. These advancements will contribute to a more
comprehensive understanding of water systems, ultimately supporting sustainable water resource
management in the face of evolving environmental challenges.

Acknowledgments: The authors greatly acknowledge the Global Centre for Environmental Remediation
(GCER), College of Engineering, Science & Environment, ATC Building, The University of Newcastle,
Callaghan, NSW-2308,Australia for providing research facilities and also thankful to Tamil Nadu Agricultural
University, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India for extending support under GoI-ICAR-NAHEP-IDP for
International Training Program.

References
1. Du Plessis, A. Freshwater Challenges of South Africa and Its Upper Vaal River; Springer, 2017; ISBN 3319495011.
2. López-Morales, C.A.; Mesa-Jurado, M.A. Valuation of Hidden Water Ecosystem Services: The Replacement
Cost of the Aquifer System in Central Mexico. Water (Basel) 2017, 9, 571.
3. Misra, A.K. Climate Change and Challenges of Water and Food Security. International Journal of Sustainable
Built Environment 2014, 3, 153–165.
4. Velis, M.; Conti, K.I.; Biermann, F. Groundwater and Human Development: Synergies and Trade-Offs
within the Context of the Sustainable Development Goals. Sustain Sci 2017, 12, 1007–1017.
5. Liesch, T.; Wunsch, A. Aquifer Responses to Long-Term Climatic Periodicities. J Hydrol (Amst) 2019, 572,
226–242.
6. Munday, P.L.; Donelson, J.M.; Domingos, J.A. Potential for Adaptation to Climate Change in a Coral Reef
Fish. Glob Chang Biol 2017, 23, 307–317.
7. Asoka, A.; Gleeson, T.; Wada, Y.; Mishra, V. Relative Contribution of Monsoon Precipitation and Pumping
to Changes in Groundwater Storage in India. Nat Geosci 2017, 10, 109–117.
8. de Graaf, I.E.M.; van Beek, R.L.P.H.; Gleeson, T.; Moosdorf, N.; Schmitz, O.; Sutanudjaja, E.H.; Bierkens,
M.F.P. A Global-Scale Two-Layer Transient Groundwater Model: Development and Application to
Groundwater Depletion. Adv Water Resour 2017, 102, 53–67.
9. Russo, T.A.; Lall, U. Depletion and Response of Deep Groundwater to Climate-Induced Pumping
Variability. Nat Geosci 2017, 10, 105–108.
10. Sivarajan, N.A.; Mishra, A.K.; Rafiq, M.; Nagraju, V.; Chandra, S. Examining Climate Change Impact on
the Variability of Ground Water Level: A Case Study of Ahmednagar District, India. Journal of Earth System
Science 2019, 128, 1–7.
11. van der Knaap, Y.A.M.; de Graaf, M.; van Ek, R.; Witte, J.-P.M.; Aerts, R.; Bierkens, M.F.P.; van Bodegom,
P.M. Potential Impacts of Groundwater Conservation Measures on Catchment-Wide Vegetation Patterns
in a Future Climate. Landsc Ecol 2015, 30, 855–869.
12. van Engelenburg, J.; Hueting, R.; Rijpkema, S.; Teuling, A.J.; Uijlenhoet, R.; Ludwig, F. Impact of Changes
in Groundwater Extractions and Climate Change on Groundwater-Dependent Ecosystems in a Complex
Hydrogeological Setting. Water resources management 2018, 32, 259–272.
13. Gamvroudis, C.; Dokou, Z.; Nikolaidis, N.P.; Karatzas, G.P. Impacts of Surface and Groundwater
Variability Response to Future Climate Change Scenarios in a Large Mediterranean Watershed. Environ
Earth Sci 2017, 76, 1–16.
14. Mustafa, I. Methylene Blue Removal from Water Using H2SO4 Crosslinked Magnetic Chitosan
Nanocomposite Beads. Microchemical Journal 2019, 144, 397–402.
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 18 December 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202312.1248.v1

18

15. da Costa, A.M.; de Salis, H.H.C.; Viana, J.H.M.; Leal Pacheco, F.A. Groundwater Recharge Potential for
Sustainable Water Use in Urban Areas of the Jequitiba River Basin, Brazil. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2955.
16. Alam, S.; Gebremichael, M.; Li, R.; Dozier, J.; Lettenmaier, D.P. Climate Change Impacts on Groundwater
Storage in the Central Valley, California. Clim Change 2019, 157, 387–406.
17. Weissinger, R.; Philippi, T.E.; Thoma, D. Linking Climate to Changing Discharge at Springs in Arches
National Park, Utah, USA. Ecosphere 2016, 7, e01491.
18. Tambe, S.; Kharel, G.; Arrawatia, M.L.; Kulkarni, H.; Mahamuni, K.; Ganeriwala, A.K. Reviving Dying
Springs: Climate Change Adaptation Experiments from the Sikkim Himalaya. Mt Res Dev 2012, 32, 62–72.
19. Zhong, Y.; Hao, Y.; Huo, X.; Zhang, M.; Duan, Q.; Fan, Y.; Liu, Y.; Liu, Y.; Yeh, T.J. A Statistical Model for
Karst Spring Discharge Estimation under Extensive Groundwater Development and Extreme Climate
Change. Hydrological Sciences Journal 2016, 61, 2011–2023.
20. Solder, J.E.; Stolp, B.J.; Heilweil, V.M.; Susong, D.D. Characterization of Mean Transit Time at Large Springs
in the Upper Colorado River Basin, USA: A Tool for Assessing Groundwater Discharge Vulnerability.
Hydrogeol J 2016, 24, 2017.
21. Kurylyk, B.L.; MacQuarrie, K.T.B.; Caissie, D.; McKenzie, J.M. Shallow Groundwater Thermal Sensitivity
to Climate Change and Land Cover Disturbances: Derivation of Analytical Expressions and Implications
for Stream Temperature Modeling. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 2015, 19, 2469–2489.
22. Amanambu, A.C.; Obarein, O.A.; Mossa, J.; Li, L.; Ayeni, S.S.; Balogun, O.; Oyebamiji, A.; Ochege, F.U.
Groundwater System and Climate Change: Present Status and Future Considerations. J Hydrol (Amst) 2020,
589, 125163.
23. Fu, G.; Crosbie, R.S.; Barron, O.; Charles, S.P.; Dawes, W.; Shi, X.; Van Niel, T.; Li, C. Attributing Variations
of Temporal and Spatial Groundwater Recharge: A Statistical Analysis of Climatic and Non-Climatic
Factors. J Hydrol (Amst) 2019, 568, 816–834.
24. Kløve, B.; Ala-Aho, P.; Bertrand, G.; Gurdak, J.J.; Kupfersberger, H.; Kværner, J.; Muotka, T.; Mykrä, H.;
Preda, E.; Rossi, P. Climate Change Impacts on Groundwater and Dependent Ecosystems. J Hydrol (Amst)
2014, 518, 250–266.
25. Oliveira, P.T.S.; Leite, M.B.; Mattos, T.; Nearing, M.A.; Scott, R.L.; de Oliveira Xavier, R.; da Silva Matos,
D.M.; Wendland, E. Groundwater Recharge Decrease with Increased Vegetation Density in the Brazilian
Cerrado. Ecohydrology 2017, 10, e1759.
26. Owuor, S.O.; Butterbach-Bahl, K.; Guzha, A.C.; Rufino, M.C.; Pelster, D.E.; Díaz-Pinés, E.; Breuer, L.
Groundwater Recharge Rates and Surface Runoff Response to Land Use and Land Cover Changes in Semi-
Arid Environments. Ecol Process 2016, 5, 1–21.
27. Kundu, S.; Khare, D.; Mondal, A. Past, Present and Future Land Use Changes and Their Impact on Water
Balance. J Environ Manage 2017, 197, 582–596.
28. Merz, C.; Lischeid, G. Multivariate Analysis to Assess the Impact of Irrigation on Groundwater Quality.
Environ Earth Sci 2019, 78, 274.
29. McGill, B.M.; Altchenko, Y.; Hamilton, S.K.; Kenabatho, P.K.; Sylvester, S.R.; Villholth, K.G. Complex
Interactions between Climate Change, Sanitation, and Groundwater Quality: A Case Study from
Ramotswa, Botswana. Hydrogeol J 2019, 27, 997–1015.
30. Pulido-Velazquez, M.; Peña-Haro, S.; García-Prats, A.; Mocholi-Almudever, A.F.; Henríquez-Dole, L.;
Macian-Sorribes, H.; Lopez-Nicolas, A. Integrated Assessment of the Impact of Climate and Land Use
Changes on Groundwater Quantity and Quality in the Mancha Oriental System (Spain). Hydrol Earth Syst
Sci 2015, 19, 1677–1693.
31. Romanazzi, A.; Gentile, F.; Polemio, M. Modelling and Management of a Mediterranean Karstic Coastal
Aquifer under the Effects of Seawater Intrusion and Climate Change. Environ Earth Sci 2015, 74, 115–128.
32. Knott, J.F.; Jacobs, J.M.; Daniel, J.S.; Kirshen, P. Modeling Groundwater Rise Caused by Sea-Level Rise in
Coastal New Hampshire. J Coast Res 2019, 35, 143–157.
33. Dong, Y.; Jiang, C.; Suri, M.R.; Pee, D.; Meng, L.; Goldstein, R.E.R. Groundwater Level Changes with a
Focus on Agricultural Areas in the Mid-Atlantic Region of the United States, 2002–2016. Environ Res 2019,
171, 193–203.
34. Brauman, K.A.; Richter, B.D.; Postel, S.; Malsy, M.; Flörke, M. Water Depletion: An Improved Metric for
Incorporating Seasonal and Dry-Year Water Scarcity into Water Risk Assessments. Elementa 2016, 4, 83.
35. Tosi, L.; Strozzi, T.; Da Lio, C.; Teatini, P. Regional and Local Land Subsidence at the Venice Coastland by
TerraSAR-X PSI. Proceedings of the International Association of Hydrological Sciences 2015, 372, 199–205.
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 18 December 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202312.1248.v1

19

36. Zhu, L.; Gong, H.; Li, X.; Wang, R.; Chen, B.; Dai, Z.; Teatini, P. Land Subsidence Due to Groundwater
Withdrawal in the Northern Beijing Plain, China. Eng Geol 2015, 193, 243–255.
37. Ghazifard, A.; Moslehi, A.; Safaei, H.; Roostaei, M. Effects of Groundwater Withdrawal on Land Subsidence
in Kashan Plain, Iran. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment 2016, 75, 1157–1168.
38. Faunt, C.C.; Sneed, M.; Traum, J.; Brandt, J.T. Water Availability and Land Subsidence in the Central Valley,
California, USA. Hydrogeol J 2016, 24, 675.
39. Li, R.; Merchant, J.W. Modeling Vulnerability of Groundwater to Pollution under Future Scenarios of
Climate Change and Biofuels-Related Land Use Change: A Case Study in North Dakota, USA. Science of the
total environment 2013, 447, 32–45.
40. Luoma, S.; Okkonen, J.; Korkka-Niemi, K. Comparison of the AVI, Modified SINTACS and GALDIT
Vulnerability Methods under Future Climate-Change Scenarios for a Shallow Low-Lying Coastal Aquifer
in Southern Finland. Hydrogeol J 2017.
41. Seeboonruang, U. Impact Assessment of Climate Change on Groundwater and Vulnerability to Drought
of Areas in Eastern Thailand. Environ Earth Sci 2016, 75, 1–13.
42. Chang, S.W.; Nemec, K.; Kalin, L.; Clement, T.P. Impacts of Climate Change and Urbanization on
Groundwater Resources in a Barrier Island. Journal of Environmental Engineering 2016, 142, D4016001.
43. De Sherbinin, A.; Bukvic, A.; Rohat, G.; Gall, M.; McCusker, B.; Preston, B.; Apotsos, A.; Fish, C.;
Kienberger, S.; Muhonda, P. Climate Vulnerability Mapping: A Systematic Review and Future Prospects.
Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Change 2019, 10, e600.
44. Leterme, B.; Mallants, D. Climate and Land Use Change Impacts on Groundwater Recharge. Proceedings
Model CARE 2011.
45. Scibek, J.; Allen, D.M. Modeled Impacts of Predicted Climate Change on Recharge and Groundwater
Levels. Water Resour Res 2006, 42.
46. Toews, M.W.; Allen, D.M. Simulated Response of Groundwater to Predicted Recharge in a Semi-Arid
Region Using a Scenario of Modelled Climate Change. Environmental Research Letters 2009, 4, 35003.
47. Waikar, M.L.; Somwanshi, M.A. Data Preparation For Assessing Impact Of Climate Change On
Groundwater Recharge. International Journal Of Innovative Research In Advanced Engineering (Ijirae) 2014, 1.
48. Manish, K.; Telwala, Y.; Nautiyal, D.C.; Pandit, M.K. Modelling the Impacts of Future Climate Change on
Plant Communities in the Himalaya: A Case Study from Eastern Himalaya, India. Model Earth Syst Environ
2016, 2, 1–12.
49. Crosbie, R.S.; Scanlon, B.R.; Mpelasoka, F.S.; Reedy, R.C.; Gates, J.B.; Zhang, L. Potential Climate Change
Effects on Groundwater Recharge in the High Plains Aquifer, USA. Water Resour Res 2013, 49, 3936–3951.
50. Nyenje, P.M.; Batelaan, O. Estimating the Effects of Climate Change on Groundwater Recharge and
Baseflow in the Upper Ssezibwa Catchment, Uganda. Hydrological sciences journal 2009, 54, 713–726.
51. Niu, G.; Yang, Z.; Mitchell, K.E.; Chen, F.; Ek, M.B.; Barlage, M.; Kumar, A.; Manning, K.; Niyogi, D.;
Rosero, E. The Community Noah Land Surface Model with Multiparameterization Options (Noah-MP): 1.
Model Description and Evaluation with Local-scale Measurements. Journal of Geophysical Research:
Atmospheres 2011, 116.
52. Banda, V.D.; Dzwairo, R.B.; Singh, S.K.; Kanyerere, T. Hydrological Modelling and Climate Adaptation
under Changing Climate: A Review with a Focus in Sub-Saharan Africa. Water (Basel) 2022, 14, 4031.
53. Hrachowitz, M.; Savenije, H.H.G.; Blöschl, G.; McDonnell, J.J.; Sivapalan, M.; Pomeroy, J.W.; Arheimer, B.;
Blume, T.; Clark, M.P.; Ehret, U. A Decade of Predictions in Ungauged Basins (PUB)—a Review.
Hydrological sciences journal 2013, 58, 1198–1255.
54. Milly, P.C.D.; Betancourt, J.; Falkenmark, M.; Hirsch, R.M.; Kundzewicz, Z.W.; Lettenmaier, D.P.; Stouffer,
R.J. Stationarity Is Dead: Whither Water Management? Science (1979) 2008, 319, 573–574.
55. Clark, M.P.; Fan, Y.; Lawrence, D.M.; Adam, J.C.; Bolster, D.; Gochis, D.J.; Hooper, R.P.; Kumar, M.; Leung,
L.R.; Mackay, D.S. Improving the Representation of Hydrologic Processes in Earth System Models. Water
Resour Res 2015, 51, 5929–5956.
56. Moges, E.; Demissie, Y.; Larsen, L.; Yassin, F. Sources of Hydrological Model Uncertainties and Advances
in Their Analysis. Water (Basel) 2021, 13, 28.
57. Flato, G.; Marotzke, J.; Abiodun, B.; Braconnot, P.; Chou, S.C.; Collins, W.; Cox, P.; Driouech, F.; Emori, S.;
Eyring, V. Evaluation of Climate Models. In Climate change 2013: the physical science basis. Contribution of
Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Cambridge
University Press, 2014; pp. 741–866.
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 18 December 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202312.1248.v1

20

58. Swenson, S.C.; Lawrence, D.M. Assessing a Dry Surface Layer-based Soil Resistance Parameterization for
the Community Land Model Using GRACE and FLUXNET-MTE Data. Journal of Geophysical Research:
Atmospheres 2014, 119, 10–299.
59. LeCun, Y.; Bengio, Y.; Hinton, G. Deep Learning. Nature 2015, 521, 436–444.
60. Verburg, P.H.; Erb, K.-H.; Mertz, O.; Espindola, G. Land System Science: Between Global Challenges and
Local Realities. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2013, 5, 433–437.
61. Dembélé, M.; Salvadore, E.; Zwart, S.; Ceperley, N.; Mariéthoz, G.; Schaefli, B. Water Accounting under
Climate Change in the Transboundary Volta River Basin with a Spatially Calibrated Hydrological Model.
J Hydrol (Amst) 2023, 626, 130092, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2023.130092.
62. Swain, S.; Taloor, A.K.; Dhal, L.; Sahoo, S.; Al-Ansari, N. Impact of Climate Change on Groundwater
Hydrology: A Comprehensive Review and Current Status of the Indian Hydrogeology. Appl Water Sci 2022,
12, doi:10.1007/s13201-022-01652-0.
63. Kambale, J.B.; Singh, D.K.; Sarangi, A. Impact of Climate Change on Groundwater Recharge in a Semi-Arid
Region of Northern India. Appl Ecol Environ Res 2017, 15, 335–362, doi:10.15666/aeer/1501_335362.
64. Crosbie, R.S.; McCallum, J.L.; Walker, G.R.; Chiew, F.H.S. Modelling Climate-Change Impacts on
Groundwater Recharge in the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia. Hydrogeol J 2010, 18, 1639–1656,
doi:10.1007/s10040-010-0625-x.
65. Aslam, R.A.; Shrestha, S.; Pandey, V.P. Groundwater Vulnerability to Climate Change: A Review of the
Assessment Methodology. Science of the Total Environment 2018, 612, 853–875.
66. Li, R.; Merchant, J.W. Modeling Vulnerability of Groundwater to Pollution under Future Scenarios of
Climate Change and Biofuels-Related Land Use Change: A Case Study in North Dakota, USA. Science of
The Total Environment 2013, 447, 32–45, doi:10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2013.01.011.
67. Kerr Environmental, R.S.; Bear, J.; Beljin, M.S.; Ross, R.R.; Kovalick, W.W. Ground Water Issue Fundamentals
of Ground-Water Modeling Superfund Technology Support Center for Ground Water;
68. Rodella, A.-S.; Zaveri, E.; Bertone, F. About the Water Global Practice; 2023;
69. Reilly, T.E.; Harbaugh, A.W. Guidelines for Evaluating Ground-Water Flow Models;
70. Forero-Ortiz, E.; Martínez-Gomariz, E.; Monjo, R. Climate Change Implications for Water Availability: A
Case Study of Barcelona City. Sustainability (Switzerland) 2020, 12, 1–15, doi:10.3390/su12051779.
71. Bhunia, G.S.; Chatterjee, U. Chapter 15 - Ground Water Depletion and Climate Change: Role of Geospatial
Technology for a Mitigation Strategy. In Climate Change, Community Response and Resilience; Chatterjee, U.,
Shaw, R., Bhunia, G.S., Setiawati, M.D., Banerjee, S., Eds.; Elsevier, 2023; Vol. 6, pp. 291–304 ISBN 978-0-
443-18707-0.
72. Scibek, J.; Allen, D.M.; Cannon, A.J.; Whitfield, P.H. Groundwater-Surface Water Interaction under
Scenarios of Climate Change Using a High-Resolution Transient Groundwater Model. J Hydrol (Amst) 2007,
333, 165–181, doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2006.08.005.
73. Ejaz, F.; Guthke, A.; Wöhling, T.; Nowak, W. Comprehensive Uncertainty Analysis for Surface Water and
Groundwater Projections under Climate Change Based on a Lumped Geo-Hydrological Model. J Hydrol
(Amst) 2023, 626, 130323, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2023.130323.
74. Ejaz, F.; Guthke, A.; Wöhling, T.; Nowak, W. Comprehensive Uncertainty Analysis for Surface Water and
Groundwater Projections under Climate Change Based on a Lumped Geo-Hydrological Model. J Hydrol
(Amst) 2023, 626, 130323, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2023.130323.
75. Goderniaux, P.; Brouyére, S.; Blenkinsop, S.; Burton, A.; Fowler, H.J.; Orban, P.; Dassargues, A. Modeling
Climate Change Impacts on Groundwater Resources Using Transient Stochastic Climatic Scenarios. Water
Resour Res 2011, 47, doi:10.1029/2010WR010082.
76. Tootoonchi, F.; Todorović, A.; Grabs, T.; Teutschbein, C. Uni- and Multivariate Bias Adjustment of Climate
Model Simulations in Nordic Catchments: Effects on Hydrological Signatures Relevant for Water
Resources Management in a Changing Climate. J Hydrol (Amst) 2023, 623, 129807,
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2023.129807.
77. Di Salvo, C. Groundwater Hydrological Model Simulation. Water (Switzerland) 2023, 15.
78. Reinecke, R.; Müller Schmied, H.; Trautmann, T.; Seaby Andersen, L.; Burek, P.; Flörke, M.; Gosling, S.N.;
Grillakis, M.; Hanasaki, N.; Koutroulis, A.; et al. Uncertainty of Simulated Groundwater Recharge at
Different Global Warming Levels: A Global-Scale Multi-Model Ensemble Study. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 2021,
25, 787–810, doi:10.5194/hess-25-787-2021.
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 18 December 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202312.1248.v1

21

79. Calvin, K.; Dasgupta, D.; Krinner, G.; Mukherji, A.; Thorne, P.W.; Trisos, C.; Romero, J.; Aldunce, P.;
Barrett, K.; Blanco, G.; et al. IPCC, 2023: Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups
I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team,
H. Lee and J. Romero (Eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland.; Arias, P., Bustamante, M., Elgizouli, I., Flato, G.,
Howden, M., Méndez-Vallejo, C., Pereira, J.J., Pichs-Madruga, R., Rose, S.K., Saheb, Y., Sánchez Rodríguez,
R., Ürge-Vorsatz, D., Xiao, C., Yassaa, N., Romero, J., Kim, J., Haites, E.F., Jung, Y., Stavins, R., Birt, A., Ha,
M., Orendain, D.J.A., Ignon, L., Park, S., Park, Y., Reisinger, A., Cammaramo, D., Fischlin, A., Fuglestvedt,
J.S., Hansen, G., Ludden, C., Masson-Delmotte, V., Matthews, J.B.R., Mintenbeck, K., Pirani, A.,
Poloczanska, E., Leprince-Ringuet, N., Péan, C., Eds.; 2023;
80. IPCC Summary for Policymakers Sixth Assessment Report (WG3); 2022; ISBN 9781107415416.
81. Benini, L.; Antonellini, M.; Laghi, M.; Mollema, P.N. Assessment of Water Resources Availability and
Groundwater Salinization in Future Climate and Land Use Change Scenarios: A Case Study from a Coastal
Drainage Basin in Italy. Water Resources Management 2016, 30, 731–745, doi:10.1007/s11269-015-1187-4.
82. Giordano, M. Global Groundwater? Issues and Solutions. Annu Rev Environ Resour 2009, 34, 153–178,
doi:10.1146/annurev.environ.030308.100251.
83. Mc, M. Climate Change Impacts on Groundwater: Literature Review. 2017, 2, 16.
84. Lal, M.; Sau, B.L.; Patidar, J.; Patidar, A. Climate Change and Groundwater: Impact, Adaptation and
Sustainable. International Journal of Bio-resource and Stress Management 2018, 9, 408–415,
doi:10.23910/IJBSM/2018.9.3.3C0671b.
85. Zume, J.T.; Tarhule, A.A. Modelling the Response of an Alluvial Aquifer to Anthropogenic and Recharge
Stresses in the United States Southern Great Plains. Journal of earth system science 2011, 120, 557–572.
86. Shah, T.; Molden, D.; Sakthivadivel, R.; Seckler, D. The Global Groundwater Situation: Overview of
Opportunities and Challenges; 2000;
87. Kenda, K.; Čerin, M.; Bogataj, M.; Senožetnik, M.; Klemen, K.; Pergar, P.; Laspidou, C.; Mladenić, D.
Groundwater Modeling with Machine Learning Techniques: Ljubljana Polje Aquifer.; MDPI AG, August 3
2018; p. 697.
88. Riedel, T. Temperature-Associated Changes in Groundwater Quality. J Hydrol (Amst) 2019, 572, 206–212,
doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.02.059.
89. McNeill, V.F. Atmospheric Aerosols: Clouds, Chemistry, and Climate. Annu Rev Chem Biomol Eng 2017, 8,
427–444.
90. de Vries, F.W.T.P. Rice Production and Climate Change. In Systems approaches for agricultural development:
Proceedings of the International Symposium on Systems Approaches for Agricultural Development, 2--6 December
1991, Bangkok, Thailand; de Vries, F.P., Teng, P., Metselaar, K., Eds.; Springer Netherlands: Dordrecht, 1993;
pp. 175–189 ISBN 978-94-011-2842-1.
91. Mitsch, W.J.; Bernal, B.; Nahlik, A.M.; Mander, Ü.; Zhang, L.; Anderson, C.J.; Jørgensen, S.E.; Brix, H.
Wetlands, Carbon, and Climate Change. Landsc Ecol 2013, 28, 583–597, doi:10.1007/s10980-012-9758-8.
92. Climate Change and Food Security: Risks and Responses;
93. Lavell, A.; Oppenheimer, M.; Diop, C.; Hess, J.; Lempert, R.; Li, J.; Muir-Wood, R.; Myeong, S.; Moser, S.;
Takeuchi, K. Climate Change: New Dimensions in Disaster Risk, Exposure, Vulnerability, and Resilience.
In Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation: Special report of the
intergovernmental panel on climate change; Cambridge University Press, 2012; pp. 25–64.
94. Earman, S.; Dettinger, M. Potential Impacts of Climate Change on Groundwater Resources - A Global
Review. Journal of Water and Climate Change 2011, 2, 213–229, doi:10.2166/wcc.2011.034.
95. Wallace, L.; Sundaram, B.; Ross, S.; Brodie, M.S.; Dawson, S.; Jaycock, J.; Stewart, G.; Furness, L.
Vulnerability Assessment of Climate Change Impact on Groundwater Resources in Timor Leste. Australia
Government Department of climate change and energy efficiency 2012, 55.
96. Chattopadhyay, P.B.; Singh, V.S. Hydrochemical Evidences: Vulnerability of Atoll Aquifers in Western
Indian Ocean to Climate Change. Glob Planet Change 2013, 106, 123–140.
97. Gosling, S.N.; Taylor, R.G.; Arnell, N.W.; Todd, M.C. A Comparative Analysis of Projected Impacts of
Climate Change on River Runoff from Global and Catchment-Scale Hydrological Models. Hydrol Earth Syst
Sci 2011, 15, 279–294.
98. Chang, S.W.; Nemec, K.; Kalin, L.; Clement, T.P. Impacts of Climate Change and Urbanization on
Groundwater Resources in a Barrier Island. Journal of Environmental Engineering 2016, 142, D4016001.
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 18 December 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202312.1248.v1

22

99. Patle, G.T.; Singh, D.K.; Sarangi, A.; Sahoo, R.N. Modelling of Groundwater Recharge Potential from
Irrigated Paddy Field under Changing Climate. Paddy and Water Environment 2017, 15, 413–423,
doi:10.1007/s10333-016-0559-6.
100. Sishodia, R.P.; Shukla, S.; Wani, S.P.; Graham, W.D.; Jones, J.W. Future Irrigation Expansion Outweigh
Groundwater Recharge Gains from Climate Change in Semi-Arid India. Science of the Total Environment
2018, 635, 725–740, doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.04.130.
101. Dangar, S.; Asoka, A.; Mishra, V. Causes and Implications of Groundwater Depletion in India: A Review.
J Hydrol (Amst) 2021, 596.
102. Ferrant, S.; Caballero, Y.; Perrin, J.; Gascoin, S.; Dewandel, B.; Aulong, S.; Dazin, F.; Ahmed, S.; Maréchal,
J.C. Projected Impacts of Climate Change on Farmers’ Extraction of Groundwater from Crystalline Aquifers
in South India. Sci Rep 2014, 4, doi:10.1038/srep03697.
103. Soltani, F.; Javadi, S.; Roozbahani, A.; Massah Bavani, A.R.; Golmohammadi, G.; Berndtsson, R.; Ghordoyee
Milan, S.; Maghsoudi, R. Assessing Climate Change Impact on Water Balance Components Using
Integrated Groundwater–Surface Water Models (Case Study: Shazand Plain, Iran). Water (Basel) 2023, 15,
813.
104. Sarkar, S.; Mukherjee, A.; Senapati, B.; Duttagupta, S. Predicting Potential Climate Change Impacts on
Groundwater Nitrate Pollution and Risk in an Intensely Cultivated Area of South Asia. ACS Environmental
Au 2022, 2, 556–576.
105. Herrera-Pantoja, M.; Hiscock, K.M. The Effects of Climate Change on Potential Groundwater Recharge in
Great Britain. Hydrological Processes: An International Journal 2008, 22, 73–86.
106. Mizyed, N. Climate Change Challenges to Groundwater Resources: Palestine as a Case Study. J Water
Resour Prot 2018, 10, 215–229.
107. Kalugin, A.S. The Impact of Climate Change on Surface, Subsurface, and Groundwater Flow: A Case Study
of the Oka River (European Russia). Water Resources 2019, 46, S31–S39.
108. Soundala, P.; Saraphirom, P. Impact of Climate Change on Groundwater Recharge and Salinity
Distribution in the Vientiane Basin, Lao PDR. Journal of Water and Climate Change 2022, 13, 3812–3829.
109. Ghazavi, R.; Ebrahimi, H. Predicting the Impacts of Climate Change on Groundwater Recharge in an Arid
Environment Using Modeling Approach. Int J Clim Chang Strateg Manag 2018, 11, 88–99.
110. Olarinoye, T.; Foppen, J.W.; Veerbeek, W.; Morienyane, T.; Komakech, H. Exploring the Future Impacts of
Urbanization and Climate Change on Groundwater in Arusha, Tanzania. In Groundwater; Routledge, 2023;
pp. 79–93.
111. Nayak, S.K.; Nandimandalam, J.R. Impacts of Climate Change and Coastal Salinization on the
Environmental Risk of Heavy Metal Contamination along the Odisha Coast, India. Environ Res 2023, 238,
117175.
112. Wojkowski, J.; Wałęga, A.; Młyński, D.; Radecki-Pawlik, A.; Lepeška, T.; Piniewski, M.; Kundzewicz, Z.W.
Are We Losing Water Storage Capacity Mostly Due to Climate Change – Analysis of the Landscape Hydric
Potential in Selected Catchments in East-Central Europe. Ecol Indic 2023, 154, 110913,
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2023.110913.
113. Bennour, A.; Jia, L.; Menenti, M.; Zheng, C.; Zeng, Y.; Barnieh, B.A.; Jiang, M. Assessing Impacts of Climate
Variability and Land Use/Land Cover Change on the Water Balance Components in the Sahel Using Earth
Observations and Hydrological Modelling. J Hydrol Reg Stud 2023, 47, 101370,
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2023.101370.
114. Amanambu, A.C.; Obarein, O.A.; Mossa, J.; Li, L.; Ayeni, S.S.; Balogun, O.; Oyebamiji, A.; Ochege, F.U.
Groundwater System and Climate Change: Present Status and Future Considerations. J Hydrol (Amst) 2020,
589.
115. Adhikari, R.K.; Yilmaz, A.G.; Mainali, B.; Dyson, P.; Imteaz, M.A. Methods of Groundwater Recharge
Estimation under Climate Change: A Review. Sustainability (Switzerland) 2022, 14.
116. Hughes, A.; Mansour, M.; Ward, R.; Kieboom, N.; Allen, S.; Seccombe, D.; Charlton, M.; Prudhomme, C.
The Impact of Climate Change on Groundwater Recharge: National-Scale Assessment for the British
Mainland. J Hydrol (Amst) 2021, 598, doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.126336.
117. Ng, G.H.C.; McLaughlin, D.; Entekhabi, D.; Scanlon, B.R. Probabilistic Analysis of the Effects of Climate
Change on Groundwater Recharge. Water Resour Res 2010, 46, doi:10.1029/2009WR007904.
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 18 December 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202312.1248.v1

23

118. Wood, W.W.; Imes, J.L. Dating of Holocene Ground-Water Recharge in Western Part of Abu Dhabi (United
Arab Emirates): Constraints on Global Climate-Change Models. In Developments in Water Science;
Alsharhan, A.S., Wood, W.W., Eds.; Elsevier, 2003; Vol. 50, pp. 379–385 ISBN 0167-5648.
119. Wu, W.Y.; Lo, M.H.; Wada, Y.; Famiglietti, J.S.; Reager, J.T.; Yeh, P.J.F.; Ducharne, A.; Yang, Z.L. Divergent
Effects of Climate Change on Future Groundwater Availability in Key Mid-Latitude Aquifers. Nat Commun
2020, 11, doi:10.1038/s41467-020-17581-y.
120. Gleick, P.H. Global Freshwater Resources: Soft-Path Solutions for the 21st Century. Science (1979) 2003, 302,
1524–1528.
121. Bates, B.; Kundzewicz, Z.; Wu, S. Climate Change and Water; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Secretariat, 2008; ISBN 9291691232.
122. Boretti, A.; Rosa, L. Reassessing the Projections of the World Water Development Report. NPJ Clean Water
2019, 2, 15.
123. Pahl-Wostl, C. A Conceptual Framework for Analysing Adaptive Capacity and Multi-Level Learning
Processes in Resource Governance Regimes. Global environmental change 2009, 19, 354–365.
124. Gerber, J.-D.; Knoepfel, P.; Nahrath, S.; Varone, F. Institutional Resource Regimes: Towards Sustainability
through the Combination of Property-Rights Theory and Policy Analysis. Ecological economics 2009, 68, 798–
809.
125. Tsur, Y. Economic Aspects of Irrigation Water Pricing. Canadian Water Resources Journal 2005, 30, 31–46.
126. Postel, S.; Richter, B. Rivers for Life: Managing Water for People and Nature; Island press, 2012; ISBN
1597267805.

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.