Next Article in Journal
Experimental Research on Ice Density Measurement Method Based on Ultrasonic Waves
Previous Article in Journal
Climate Change Effects on Rainfall Intensity–Duration–Frequency (IDF) Curves for the Lake Erie Coast Using Various Climate Models
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Water
Volume 15
Issue 23
10.3390/w15234064
water-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Assessing Water Security in the Jordan River Basin: Temporal Changes for Precipitation, Evapotranspiration and Land Cover

by
Georges F. Comair
1,
Gonzalo E. Espinoza-Dávalos
2,* and
Daene C. McKinney
3
1
World Bank, 1818 H St. NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA
2
Esri, 380 New York St., Redlands, CA 92373, USA
3
Maseeh Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering, Cockrell School of Engineering, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Water 2023, 15(23), 4064; https://doi.org/10.3390/w15234064
Submission received: 8 October 2023 / Revised: 15 November 2023 / Accepted: 21 November 2023 / Published: 23 November 2023
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The Jordan River Basin is experiencing significant water security stress, primarily due to increases in population and agricultural demands. The complex geopolitical dynamics of the region pose challenges in collecting field data such as precipitation and evapotranspiration. Consequently, remote sensing data have emerged as indispensable tools for assessing water availability in the basin. The objective of this research study is to utilize data compiled from the water years of 2003 to 2021 to evaluate water availability in the basin. The water flux data, derived from satellite-observed precipitation (Climate Hazards Group InfraRed Precipitation with Station data, CHIRPS) and evapotranspiration (Simplified Surface Energy Balance, SSEBop), offer a comprehensive summary of hydrologic information for each land use class and country. The annual land use maps were acquired from the European Space Agency Climate Change Initiative (ESA CCI). Results indicate an overall rise in evapotranspiration (3.2%) in the basin between the periods of 2003–2011 and 2012–2020. Increased water consumption, particularly in croplands and urban areas (42%), poses a significant future challenge. These findings can guide the development of effective water resource management policies to enhance water security in a region that is vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.

1. Introduction

The Jordan River Basin shared by Lebanon, Syria, Israel, Jordan, and Palestine (West Bank) is a transboundary water system. It originates from three primary tributaries: the Hasbani River, the Dan River, and the Banias River. These tributaries conflux and the river naturally flows into Lake Tiberius (Sea of Galilee), continues to form the Lower Jordan River, and ultimately drains into the Dead Sea [1].
Due to the lack of comprehensive agreements on shared waters and minimal hydro-political cooperation, there is no detailed study available on the water resources in the Upper Jordan River Basin, which is upstream of Lake Tiberius [2]. This highlights the need for increased efforts to promote collaborative and sustainable management of the Jordan River Basin. As such, acquiring accurate and current data on the river basin is vital to address this research gap.
International water laws, such as the 1966 Helsinki Rules on the Uses of the Waters of International Rivers [3] and the 1997 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Non-navigational Uses of International Watercourses [4], outline key factors to consider for allocating water resources in transboundary river basins. These factors encompass the geography of the basin, such as the drainage area of each riparian state within the basin, the hydrologic processes of the basin, particularly the contribution of each riparian state to the overall water system, and climatic elements.
Historically, watershed contribution areas and river lengths were determined through physical maps and in situ surveys. Nevertheless, these methods are significantly influenced by technician adjustments [5], leading to considerable variation in the reported area of the Jordan River Basin in previous studies. Comprehensive reports on contributing drainage areas and precipitation over the Jordan River Basin are limited, with only a couple of reports known to the authors: one by the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (UN-ESCWA) and Bundesanstalt für Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe (BGR) [6], and another on the Hydrology of the Jordan River Basin [1]. Most of the recent literature [7,8,9,10,11] focuses on specific countries like Jordan or specific basins like the Lower Jordan River Basin or Azraq Basin, rather than the overall Jordan River Basin. Remote sensing data [12] has shown promise for hydrologic forecasting in regions with sparse data. Satellite-derived precipitation data can be effectively used as input for hydrologic modeling, and remote sensing estimates of hydrologic variables can accurately describe a basin’s water balance [13].
In this research, we build upon and extend the work conducted by [1], where the authors examined the long-term average annual precipitation (mm/year) from 1950 to 2000 on a 0.5 × 0.5 degree grid, evapotranspiration, and available water in the Jordan River Basin. The boundaries of catchment areas were identified using the Digital Elevation Model (DEM) from the Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer (ASTER) version 3, which was released in August 2019 [14] and offers a spatial resolution of 30 m. The ASTER v3 DEM improves on spatial accuracy from the previous versions and other data sets such as the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM), used by [15], with a spatial resolution of 3 arc-seconds (about 90 m). Precipitation estimates were obtained from the Climate Hazards Group InfraRed Precipitation with Station data (CHIRPS) v2 from [16]. CHIRPS 2.0 combines satellite and station data to provide continuous precipitation surfaces with a spatial resolution of 5 km. CHIRPS is widely used in areas with sparse and insufficient records, especially for characterizing droughts and famine early warning applications. Evapotranspiration estimates were obtained from the Simplified Surface Energy Balance model for Operational Applications (SSEBop) from [17]. SSEBop includes information from remote sensing and weather stations on a 1 km monthly actual evapotranspiration grid, which follows closely measurements from eddy covariance stations [18]. Land use maps were acquired from the European Space Agency Climate Change Initiative (ESA CCI) Global Land Cover (GLC) data set. The ESA CCI GLC data set has yearly land cover maps with a spatial resolution of 300 m [19].
In this study, we first estimate a summary of long-term precipitation (P), evapotranspiration (ET), and available water (AW) for the Jordan River Basin. Following this, we provide a summary per country sub-basin areas and per land use for the water years from 2003 to 2020. The long-term summaries of P, ET, and AW help in understanding the underlying water fluxes in the region. The novel results of water consumption per land-use class and country in the Jordan River Basin can serve as a baseline for future agreements that can enhance water security in the basin.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

The Jordan River, a transboundary river stretching 223 km, is shared by five riparian nations: Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine (West Bank), and Syria. The Upper Jordan River is fed by the Banias, Hasbani, and Dan tributaries. After these tributaries converge, the Upper Jordan River discharges into Lake Tiberias, continues its journey through the Lower Jordan, and ultimately empties into the Dead Sea.
The Upper Jordan River primarily derives its base flow from springs (karstic) on Mount Hermon that flow into the three upper tributaries [20]. The Dan Spring is the most substantial, providing a consistent flow that makes up about half of the base flow of the Upper Jordan River, roughly 270 million cubic meters per year (MCM/year) [21]. The estimated average annual water inflow into Lake Tiberias is around 610 million cubic meters per year (MCM/year), with an approximate loss of 240 MCM/year due to evaporation [21]. The majority of Lake Tiberia’s water, around 440 MCM/year, is transferred to Israel by its National Water Carrier (NWC) project [22].
The Yarmouk and Zarqa Rivers are the next largest tributaries within the Lower Jordan River Basin. The Zarqa River primarily conveys the effluent from Amman, the most populated city in the basin. The Yarmouk River, which is nourished by wadis and springs in Syria, has a mean annual flow of approximately 470 million cubic meters per year [23].

2.2. Methodology

2.2.1. Watershed Delineation

The Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer (ASTER) Digital Elevation Model (DEM) was used as input data for the delineation of the Jordan River watershed with a 30 m spatial resolution [24]. The DEM was downloaded from the ASTER DEM public domain website [25]. The watershed delineation was made with Geographic Information System (GIS) tools [26]. The terrain processing tools used the ASTER DEM to fill artificial sinks in the model, determine flow directions and flow accumulations, and delineate the Jordan River watershed for the outlet point located at the Dead Sea (Figure 1). The corresponding drainage area of each riparian country was created by intersecting the Jordan River watershed and the World Countries boundaries data set [27]. The countries’ areas and percentages were estimated using zonal statistics and the Cylindrical Equal-Area projection.

2.2.2. Precipitation

The data for precipitation (P) were sourced from the Climate Hazards Center’s InfraRed Precipitation with Station (CHIRPS) dataset v2 data set from the Climate Hazards Center of the University of California Santa Barbara [16]. The CHIRPS data set is especially useful in dry areas with sparse or a limited number of measurements [28]. CHIRPS was selected due to its high spatial resolution (5 km), bias correction with station data, and close correlation with station data on a monthly scale [29]. The data were downloaded from the Climate Hazards Center website in raster format. The CHIPRS rasters recorded monthly precipitation estimates in a regular 5 km × 5 km grid. Annual precipitation rasters (mm/year) were calculated for the period between the water year of 2003 (i.e., September 2003 to August 2004) to the water year of 2020 (i.e., September 2020 to August 2021). The average annual precipitation for the water years from 2003 to 2020 was computed using GIS tools. A zonal statistics tool was utilized to determine the mean precipitation in each catchment area.

2.2.3. Available Water and Evapotranspiration

Evapotranspiration models at a global scale are driven by remote sensing inputs, constrained by water balance, and forced by precipitation [30], improving performance for water-limited areas [31]. The evapotranspiration (ET) data for the basin were obtained from the Simplified Surface Energy Balance model for Operational Applications (SSEBop) [17]. The SSEBop models evapotranspiration using remote sensing data from the MODerate-resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) [32] MOD16 product and weather variables from the Global Data Assimilation System (GDAS). SSEBop was selected due to its high spatial resolution (1 km), time-series availability (monthly data since 2003), and performance for describing ET fluxes across the landscape [18]. The SSEBop monthly evapotranspiration rasters were downloaded from the Famine Early Warning System Network (FEWS NET) website [33] at a spatial resolution of 0.01 arc degrees (around 1 km). Using GIS tools, the mean annual evapotranspiration was calculated for the water years of 2003 to 2020 (Figure 2). The average ET was calculated for the catchment of each riparian country using zonal statistics.
The yearly average of Available Water (AW) was calculated by subtracting the evapotranspiration data from precipitation using map algebra (P-ET). The AW raster was also summarized for each catchment area using zonal statistics.

2.2.4. Land Use

Land use maps for the Jordan River Basin were obtained from the European Space Agency Climate Change Initiative (ESA CCI) Global Land Cover (GLC) data set [19]. The ESA CCI GLC data set has a spatial resolution of 300 m. The ESA CCI GLC provides annual land cover maps from 1992 to the present. ESA CCI GLC classifies land use using the Land Cover Classification System (LCCS), which includes 22 classes. The ESACCI land cover data were selected because the cropland areas at a country level are strongly aligned with the reported areas in FAOSTAT [34]. The land cover classification was re-classified into 10 classes (e.g., grouping cropland areas) to simplify the water consumption summaries per land use class (Table 1). The simplification of the land use classification also allows comparison of land use classes across different global land use data sets such as the Global Predicted Landcover 2050 data set [35].

3. Results

3.1. Basin Areas

Table 2 shows that Jordan contains the largest portion of the Jordan River Basin, covering 40% of the area. In contrast, Lebanon has the smallest share, with only 3% of the overall area of the basin. The total basin area of the Jordan River, calculated from a 30 m resolution DEM, is 18,103 km2. This is notably smaller than previously reported areas in previous research studies. For example, the Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) reports the total drainage area as 18,850 km2 [36], whereas other sources [37] mention values as high as 19,839 km2 and 18,300 km2 [38]. The United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia [6] report on the Jordan River Basin estimated a total area of 18,285 km2 [6]. Other reports [39,40] suggest a drainage area of 18,194 km2, which matches more closely the result in our analysis.
At the watershed level, the catchment area of the Upper Jordan was found to be 1547 km2. The Hasbani River drainage area, part of the Upper Jordan River Basin, was estimated to be 611 km2, similar to the value of 612 km2 reported by another source [41]. The drainage areas of the Yarmouk and Zarqa River Basins were calculated at 6975 km2 and 3984 km2, respectively. The Yarmouk River Basin is close to the area of 6974 km2 reported by another study [42], but smaller than the GTZ estimation of 7250 km2 [36].
The discrepancies in area values reported in the literature compared to our findings can be attributed to differences in DEM cell sizes used. Our study used smaller cell sizes and thus provided more accurate measurements than those mentioned in the references.
Table 2. Hydrologic parameters of drainage areas, precipitation (P), evapotranspiration (ET), and available water (AW) within the Jordan River Basin for the timeframe spanning September 2003 to August 2021.
Table 2. Hydrologic parameters of drainage areas, precipitation (P), evapotranspiration (ET), and available water (AW) within the Jordan River Basin for the timeframe spanning September 2003 to August 2021.
Riparian CountryTotal Area a in km2Basin AreaAverage PAverage ETAverage AW
km2%mm/YearMCM/Year%mm/YearMCM/Year%MCM/Year%
Israel21,640303317511
[391–650] b		155025610185032−306 (0)0
Jordan88,780718340252
[206–319]		18102923817102910115
Lebanon10,4526063751
[554–912]		4557538326613820
Palestine (West Bank)602015428328
[259–410]		50682924508497
Syria183,630574032337
[270–394]		19343126515212640258
Total in Basin18,1031003466255 3245857 690
Notes: a World Bank [43]. b Precipitation ranges calculated for the 5th and 95th percentiles.

3.2. Precipitation

The average annual precipitation for water years 2003–2020 (Figure 2) varies greatly for each riparian country. The average values for each country are: Israel 511 mm, Jordan 252 mm, Lebanon 751 mm, Palestine (West Bank) 328 mm, and Syria 337 mm.
The precipitation data in our study range between 121 and 965 mm per year (Figure 2), a range similar to that reported in the ESCWA analysis for the Jordan River Basin, with the lowest precipitation observed on the Dead Sea coast (121 mm) and the highest being on the eastern slopes of Mount Hermon (965 mm) [6].
Our approach yielded two distinct precipitation values for Lebanon (751 mm/year) and Syria (337 mm/year), which are more precise than the GTZ-reported value that assumed Lebanon and Syria both represented 508 mm/year of precipitation [36].
Moreover, the Lebanese part of the Jordan River Basin features an intricate terrain that mirrors the coastal ridge of Israel. This aspect is frequently overlooked, leading to an underestimation of the average precipitation over these mountainous regions by all the precipitation models [44]. However, our recent values obtained by the CHIRPS precipitation model (751 mm/year) are very closely aligned with the actual measured rain gauge data recorded by the Ministry of Energy and Water in Lebanon, which indicate a mean precipitation of 700 mm/year in Lebanon. This further validates the accuracy of our approach [45].
The intricate and variable topography of southern Lebanon, including the western side of Mount Hermon at an elevation of 2814 m, along with the mountainous regions and coastal mountains in Israel, make the assimilation of precipitation pattern data challenging. This issue has also been encountered by previous studies that used Regional Climate Models (RCMs) of the same and lower resolution (0.4 degrees) [44,46,47,48,49,50].
Despite the potential underestimation of precipitation, the data are in agreement with other RCMs used in the region. Therefore, the precipitation estimates presented here can be deemed suitable within the scope of this study, which examines the overall annual precipitation and evapotranspiration across the Jordan River Basin.
Regarding Syria, Figure 2 shows an average annual precipitation of 337 mm, but this data could not be verified with local authorities.
Two preceding reports [39,42] have indicated that the average precipitation in the Jordanian region, which is the main contributor to the basin’s precipitation, is approximately 2200 MCM/year. These figures were obtained from the EXACT team. However, this study calculated a slightly lower figure of 1810 MCM/year. The estimated annual precipitation in these research studies varied from 100 to 490 mm, which is comparable to the variation between 206 and 319 mm found in the present research. Another study by [51] examined the Zarqa River Basin at the watershed level, estimating a long-term (1937–1998) annual precipitation of 248 mm. This aligns with the mean annual precipitation of 250 mm calculated in this study for the same sub-basin.
As for Israel and the West Bank, Figure 2 shows an annual precipitation of 511 mm/year and 328 mm/year, respectively. The data could not be contrasted to other studies because past analyses that focused on isotope studies [20] or modeling of the precipitation-streamflow processes [41,52] and hydrochemistry [53] mentioned that precipitation data were gathered from the Israel Hydrological Survey and cannot be acquired publicly. A new study by [8] focused on precipitation-flow relationships for the Hasbani River and not Israel as a whole, making the data incomparable [8].

3.3. Available Water and Evapotranspiration

There is a significant spatial variation in evapotranspiration (ET) across the basin, which is largely dependent on climate and land use. As depicted in Figure 3, the highest levels of evapotranspiration are observed in the northern part of the basin, where precipitation is more abundant. However, small areas of intense evapotranspiration, likely due to irrigated agriculture, are visible in Jordan and Israel. This study reveals that 90% of all precipitation within the basin evaporates or transpires. This matches estimates in the existing literature, which vary from 85 to 90% [39,54,55]. The average ET across the basin is 324 mm/year.
No previous studies were found that examined actual evapotranspiration (ET) for the whole Jordan River Basin. However, a research study on the Lower Jordan River Basin utilized the Shuttleworth–Wallace equation to estimate ET of 269 mm/year [56].
Figure 4 presents the average annual Available Water (AW) for the Jordan River Basin. A review of each country’s area, precipitation, and evapotranspiration contribution in relation to available water reveals that despite the Lebanese headwaters receiving the highest precipitation rates in the basin, the West Bank, which receives 57% less precipitation per area, has lower evapotranspiration than Lebanon (292 mm vs. 538 mm/year) and a larger surface area contributing to the basin.
In the case of Syria, it contributes 58% of the basin’s AW (402 MCM/year). This region averages 265 mm/year of evapotranspiration and receives 337 mm/year in precipitation. These findings contradict our previous 2012 study, [1], which indicated a water deficit due to highly inefficient irrigated agriculture fed by groundwater pumping [57,58,59]. The increase in AW observed in this study for Syria could be attributed to conflict, which prevented the country from utilizing its resources. Similar pre- and post-conflict data are presented in another study [10].
Although Israel does not have as much territory in the Jordan River Basin as Jordan, nor does it receive as much precipitation as the Lebanese part of the basin, the 17% of the basin controlled by Israel receives 511 mm/year of precipitation, which is the highest rate among any riparian country other than Lebanon. However, the ET rate of Israel has significantly increased from the previous comparable study [1], reflecting an annual average of 610 mm/year, resulting in no available water attributed to the Israeli territory.
The data in this study show that available water for Israel from 2003 to 2020 is negative (−306 MCM/year), in contrast to positive (470 MCM/year) in our previous study [1], indicating a significant increase in water withdrawals in the area. In fact, [8] shows that the measured flow of the Hasbani River decreased by 41% in the period of 2008–2020, reaching 66 MCM; contrarily, water withdrawals sharply rose to 48 MCM, reflecting a 60% increase [8]. This could be due to the expansion of irrigated agriculture and human activities in the basin [8]. Jordan covers 40% of the basin’s area and receives merely 252 mm/year of precipitation. Regardless it having a lower evapotranspiration rate than Israel, averaging around 238 mm/year, Jordan contributes annually 101 MCM of available water. This accounts for about 15% of the basin’s total supply, a significant decrease from the 22% supply estimated in the previous 2012 study [1].
The aggregated available water in the basin for human withdrawal is 690 MCM/year based on these results. This is a decrease from the 987 MCM/year calculated in the 2012 study [1], showing a 30% difference in available water between the two studies. This suggests a decreasing trend in available water in the basin. The literature estimates water use in the Jordan River Basin to be about 800 MCM/year, [44] with Israel diverting around 500–600 MCM/year [60,61]. The current discharge into the Dead Sea is estimated between 20 MCM and 200 MCM, compared to the historic flow of approximately 1300 MCM [6].

3.4. Land Use

The annual land use maps from ESA CCI (Figure 5) show an increase in the Artificial Surface or Urban Areas from 2.4% in 2003 to 4% in 2020. It is worth mentioning that the Mostly Cropland class decreased from 41.3% to 40.5% for the same 2003–2020 period, even though water consumption (ET) increased in cropland areas (Table 3).
The average water consumption for the periods of 2003–2011 and 2012–2020 was calculated. Table 3 shows the average water consumption for the land use classes of (1) Mostly Cropland and (2) Artificial Surface or Urban Areas. These two classes have the largest change between 2003 and 2020. For the two 9-year periods, the Mostly Cropland class increased water consumption from 41,048 Mm3 in 2003–2011 to 41,253 Mm3 in 2012–2020. Syria had the largest decrease in water consumption in Mostly Cropland areas, followed by Israel (−0.6%). Lebanon remained basically without change (0.1%). Jordan (6.1%) and Palestine (7.2%) had the largest increase. Furthermore, water consumption in the Artificial Surface or Urban class increased significantly overall in the basin (42%). Israel had the smallest increase of the riparian countries (36%) but remained the largest water consumption user in Artificial Surface or Urban Areas with 2059 Mm3/year, evapotranspiration of 53%, in the Urban land use class in the Jordan River Basin.
The average water consumption in the 2003–2020 period was 90,460 Mm3/year (Table 4). There was an overall increase of 3.2% in water consumption in the basin in the periods of 2003–2011 (89,028 Mm3/year) and 2012–2020 (−1893 Mm3/year); the land use class with the largest increase in water consumption between both periods was Artificial Surface or Urban Area (42%). The water consumption of the (1) Mostly Cropland and (2) Artificial Surface or Urban Area is more than 72% of the evapotranspiration in the basin.

4. Discussion

The Jordan River Basin was subject to temporal changes between the 2003–2011 and 2012–2020 periods in precipitation, evapotranspiration (with an overall rise of 3.2%), and land cover. The summary of water consumption measured as ET per land use class reveals that urban areas are experiencing a significant increase in water consumption (42%). Croplands have had a modest increase (0.5%) in the basin, but this is unequal among the riparian countries. Jordan (6.1%) and Palestine (West Bank) (7.2%) had the largest increase, Lebanon (0.1%) and Israel (−0.6%) had essentially a similar ET in croplands, and Syria had the largest decrease (−3.2%) highly likely as a result of internal armed conflict. About 72% of the consumed water leaves the basin as ET from urban or cropland areas.
Precipitation data from CHIRPS provided average annual precipitation for Lebanon (751 mm/year) and Syria (337 mm/year) which was closer to the values reported in ESCWA. This represents an improvement from GTZ studies that stated a similar contribution in both countries (508 mm/year), probably due to averaging the differences and underestimating precipitation in mountainous regions. Precipitation contributions per country provide a guideline of the contribution to the water system in the region. The ESA CCI land use maps show that the high increase in water consumption in urban areas can be explained by the rapid expansion from 2.4% of the area of the basin in 2003 to 4% suggesting that water supply and sanitation will continue to be an area of focus in the coming years.
The increase in water use in the basin poses a future challenge for water security in the region. Given the region’s complex geopolitical dynamics, ‘new’ sources of water such as desalination, wastewater reuse, and roof rainwater harvesting are likely to be part of the solution to address the potable water shortage in densely populated areas. The development of effective water resource management policies as part of peace negotiations is crucial for enhancing water security in a region vulnerable to climate change impacts.
Further research studies can include information about water productivity in crops, groundwater outcrop, and recharge areas, and a comprehensive socio-economic water allocation model.

5. Conclusions

The challenge of studying the Jordan River Basin stems from the need to interpret the diverse references and data sources available. The inherent transboundary essence of the basin and the lack of an agreement between the riparian countries mean that regional studies typically focus on one country, leaving it to the reader to extract information relevant to the Jordan River Basin. The political context further complicates matters, with data primarily obtained from individual governments. As an updated study of this basin, values for catchment areas and precipitation can only be interpreted in comparison with other available sources. This study contributes additional information about the water available for runoff in the Jordan River Basin from precipitation, excluding human impacts. Opportunities for statistical verification of the results were restricted because of a lack of available data.
Overall, the results show signs of increasing ET on average over the basin in comparison to the 1950–2000 time period and a decrease in AW. This suggests that the basin is becoming water-scarce, as evidenced by the increase in drought and climate change effects observed in the region. The basin reports an increase in water consumption principally in croplands and urban land use areas. The increase in demand for urban and cropland areas in the basin represents a major water challenge for the upcoming years.
The analysis reported here using remote sensing products can help the riparian countries understand the overall picture of the hydrology of the basin; a relatively easy analysis can be performed by the local officials of each country to at least agree on the border of the watershed, irrespective of any political boundaries. Looking at the Jordan River Basin as a natural entity will give a global picture of the situation that goes beyond country borders.
In the future, a complete geodatabase that includes climatology, water availability, water, and its uses will help develop different scenarios for water planning and management, as well as water availability under climate change.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.F.C. and D.C.M.; methodology, G.F.C. and G.E.E.-D.; software, G.E.E.-D.; validation, G.F.C.; formal analysis, G.F.C. and G.E.E.-D.; investigation, G.F.C. and D.C.M.; resources, G.F.C. and G.E.E.-D.; data curation, G.F.C.; writing—original draft preparation, G.F.C.; writing—review and editing, G.F.C., G.E.E.-D., and D.C.M.; visualization, G.E.E.-D.; supervision, G.F.C.; project administration, G.F.C.; funding acquisition, G.F.C. and D.C.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

Publicly available datasets were analyzed in this study. These data can be found here: CHIRPS https://www.chc.ucsb.edu/data, SSEBop https://earlywarning.usgs.gov/ssebop, and ESA-CCI land cover https://www.esa-landcover-cci.org.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to express their gratitude to the team at Esri’s ArcGIS Living Atlas of the World (https://livingatlas.arcgis.com/) for providing tools and guidance on creating the maps and figures.

Conflicts of Interest

Author Gonzalo E. Espinoza-Dávalos was employed by the company Esri. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect the views of the Executive Directors of World Bank, or the governments they represent.

References

  1. Comair, G.F.; McKinney, D.C.; Siegel, D. Hydrology of the Jordan River Basin: Watershed Delineation, Precipitation and Evapotranspiration. Water Resour. Manag. 2012, 26, 4281–4293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Comair, G.F.; Gupta, P.; Ingenloff, C.; Shin, G.; McKinney, D.C. Water resources management in the Jordan River Basin. Water Environ. J. 2013, 27, 495–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. International Law Association. The Helsinki Rules—International Water Law. 1966. Available online: https://www.internationalwaterlaw.org/documents/intldocs/ILA/Helsinki_Rules-original_with_comments.pdf (accessed on 1 August 2023).
  4. United Nations. Convention on the Law of Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses. 1997. Available online: https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/8_3_1997.pdf (accessed on 1 August 2023).
  5. Patiño-Gomez, C.; McKinney, D.C.; Maidment, D.R. Sharing Water Resources Data in the Binational Rio Grande/Bravo Basin. J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag. 2007, 133, 416–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. UN-ESCWA; BGR. Inventory of Shared Water Resources in Western Asia; UN: Beirut, Lebanon, 2013.
  7. Black, E. The impact of climate change on daily precipitation statistics in Jordan and Israel. Atmos. Sci. Lett. 2009, 10, 192–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Shentsis, I.; Rosenthal, E.; Flexer, A.; Inbar, N. Assessing Water Withdrawals in Scarce-Data Transboundary Areas by Use of Dynamic Precipitation–Flow Relationships: The Case of the Hasbani River Basin. Water 2021, 13, 1440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Matouq, M.; El-Hasan, T.; Al-Bilbisi, H.; Abdelhadi, M.; Hindiyeh, M.; Eslamian, S.; Duheisat, S. The climate change implication on Jordan: A case study using GIS and Artificial Neural Networks for weather forecasting. J. Taibah Univ. Sci. 2013, 7, 44–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Rajsekhar, D.; Gorelick, S.M. Increasing drought in Jordan: Climate change and cascading Syrian land-use impacts on reducing transboundary flow. Sci. Adv. 2023, 3, e1700581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Al Qatarneh, G.N.; Al Smadi, B.; Al-Zboon, K.; Shatanawi, K.M. Impact of climate change on water resources in Jordan: A case study of Azraq basin. Appl. Water Sci. 2018, 8, 50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Su, F.; Hong, Y.; Lettenmaier, D.P. Evaluation of TRMM Multisatellite Precipitation Analysis (TMPA) and Its Utility in Hydrologic Prediction in the La Plata Basin. J. Hydrometeorol. 2008, 9, 622–640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Karimi, P.; Bastiaanssen, W.G.M.; Molden, D.; Cheema, M.J.M. Basin-wide water accounting based on remote sensing data: An application for the Indus Basin. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2013, 17, 2473–2486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. NASA; METI; AIST; Japan Spacesystems; U.S./Japan ASTER Science Team. The Terra Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer. 2001. Available online: https://asterweb.jpl.nasa.gov/ (accessed on 1 August 2023).
  15. Lange, J.; Husary, S.; Gunkel, A.; Bastian, D.; Grodek, T. Potentials and limits of urban rainwater harvesting in the Middle East. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss. 2011, 8, 10369–10396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Funk, C.; Peterson, P.; Landsfeld, M.; Pedreros, D.; Verdin, J.; Shukla, S.; Husak, G.; Rowland, J.; Harrison, L.; Hoell, A.; et al. The climate hazards infrared precipitation with stations—A new environmental record for monitoring extremes. Sci. Data 2015, 2, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Senay, G.B.; Bohms, S.; Singh, R.K.; Gowda, P.H.; Velpuri, N.M.; Alemu, H.; Verdin, J.P. Operational Evapotranspiration Mapping Using Remote Sensing and Weather Datasets: A New Parameterization for the SSEB Approach. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2013, 49, 577–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. da Motta Paca, V.H.; Espinoza-Dávalos, G.E.; Hessels, T.M.; Moreira, D.M.; Comair, G.F.; Bastiaanssen, W.G.M. The spatial variability of actual evapotranspiration across the Amazon River Basin based on remote sensing products validated with flux towers. Ecol. Process. 2019, 8, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. ESA CCI. Land Cover Classification Gridded Maps from 1992 to Present Derived from Satellite Observations. 2017. Available online: https://maps.elie.ucl.ac.be/CCI/viewer/download/ESACCI-LC-Ph2-PUGv2_2.0.pdf (accessed on 1 August 2023).
  20. Simpson, B.D.; Carmi, I. The hydrology of the Jordan tributaries (Israel): Hydrographic and isotopic investigation. J. Hydrol. 1983, 62, 225–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. International Water Association. The Kinneret Watershed. Israel Water Authority. 2010. Available online: http://www.water.gov.il/Hebrew/ProfessionalInfoAndData/2012/09-Israel-Water-Sector-Lake-Kinneret-watershed.pdf (accessed on 1 August 2023).
  22. Klein, M. Water Balance of the Upper Jordan River Basin. Water Int. 1998, 23, 244–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Salameh, E.; Bannayan, H. Water Resources of Jordan; Present Status and Future Potentials. FES, RSCN, Amman. 1993. Available online: https://library.fes.de/pdf-files/bueros/vifa-nahost/a94_00241.pdf (accessed on 1 August 2023).
  24. ASTER Science Team. ASTER DEM. 2001. Available online: https://www.jspacesystems.or.jp/ersdac/GDEM/E/ (accessed on 1 August 2023).
  25. ASTER GDEM Validation Team. ASTER Global DEM Validation Summary Report. 2009. Available online: https://lpdaac.usgs.gov/documents/28/ASTER_GDEM_Validation_1_Summary_Report.pdf (accessed on 1 August 2023).
  26. Maidment, D.R. Arc Hydro: GIS for Water Resources; Esri Press: Redlands, CA, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  27. Esri; Garmin International Inc.; U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. World Countries. 2013. Available online: https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=ac80670eb213440ea5899bbf92a04998 (accessed on 1 August 2023).
  28. Toté, C.; Patricio, D.; Boogaard, H.; van der Wijngaart, R.; Tarnavsky, E.; Funk, C. Evaluation of satellite rainfall estimates for drought and flood monitoring in Mozambique. Remote Sens. 2015, 7, 1758–1776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. da Motta Paca, V.H.; Espinoza-Dávalos, G.E.; Hessels, T.M.; Moreira, D.M.; Comair, G.F.; Bastiaanssen, W.G.M. Variability of Trends in Precipitation across the Amazon River Basin Determined from the CHIRPS Precipitation Product and from Station Records. Water 2020, 12, 1244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ma, N.; Szilagyi, J.; Zhang, Y. Calibration-Free Complementary Relationship Estimates Terrestrial Evapotranspiration Globally. Water Resour. Res. 2021, 57, e2021WR029691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Fu, J.; Wang, W.; Shao, Q.; Xing, W.; Cao, M.; Wei, J.; Chen, Z.; Nie, W. Improved global evapotranspiration estimates using proportionality hypothesis-based water balance constraints. Remote Sens. Environ. 2022, 279, 113140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. NASA. Global Modeling and Assimilation Office. 2011. Available online: https://gmao.gsfc.nasa.gov/ (accessed on 1 June 2023).
  33. Senay, G.B.; Kagone, S.; Velpuri, N.M. Operational Global Actual Evapotranspiration: Development, Evaluation, and Dissemination. Sensors 2020, 20, 1915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Liu, X.; Yu, L.; Li, W.; Peng, D.; Zhong, L.; Li, L.; Xin, Q.; Lu, H.; Yu, C.; Gong, P. Comparison of country-level cropland areas between ESA-CCI land cover maps and FAOSTAT data. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2018, 39, 6631–6645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Esri. Esri Land Cover 2050. 2022. Available online: https://livingatlas.arcgis.com/landcover-2050/ (accessed on 1 June 2023).
  36. Middle East Regional Study on Water Supply and Demand Development: Regional Overview: Phase 1; Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ): Bonn/Eschborn, Germany, 1996.
  37. Elmusa, S. Water Conflict: Economics, Politics, Law and Palestinian-Israeli Water Resources; Institute for Palestine Studies: Washington, DC, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  38. Amery, H.A.; Wolf, A.T. Water in the Middle East: A Geography of Peace; University of Texas: Austin, TX, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  39. Courcier, R.; Venot, J.-P.; Molle, F. Historical Transformations of the Lower Jordan River Basin (in Jordan): Changes in Water Use and Projections (1950–2025); International Water Management Institute: Colombo, Sri Lanka, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  40. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit. National Water Master Plan of Jordan; Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit: Amman, Jordan, 1977; Available online: https://worldbank.on.worldcat.org/oclc/1043306543 (accessed on 10 November 2023).
  41. Rimmer, A.; Salingar, Y. Modelling precipitation-streamflow processes in karst basin: The case of the Jordan River sources, Israel. J. Hydrol. 2006, 331, 524–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Suleiman, R. Water Resources Development in the Lower Jordan River Basin; International Water Management Institute: Stockholm, Sweden, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  43. World Bank. World Bank Open Data. 2023. Available online: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/ (accessed on 1 June 2023).
  44. Mithen, S.; Black, E. (Eds.) Water, Life and Civilisation; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  45. Ministry of Energy and Water. Precipitation in Southern Lebanon; Ministry of Energy and Water of Lebanon: Beirut, Lebanon, 2011.
  46. Goldreich, Y. The spatial distribution of annual rainfall in Israel—A review. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 1994, 50, 45–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Lionello, P.; Giorgi, F. Winter precipitation and cyclones in the Mediterranean region: Future climate scenarios in a regional simulation. Adv. Geosci. 2007, 12, 153–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Krichak, S.O.; Alpert, P.; Bassat, K.; Kunin, P. The surface climatology of the eastern Mediterranean region obtained in a three-member ensemble climate change simulation experiment. Adv. Geosci. 2007, 12, 67–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Kitoh, A.; Yatagai, A.; Alpert, P. First super-high-resolution model projection that the ancient “Fertile Crescent” will disappear in this century. Hydrol. Res. Lett. 2008, 2, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Evans, J.P.; Smith, R.B.; Oglesby, R.J. Middle East climate simulation and dominant precipitation processes. Int. J. Climatol. 2004, 24, 1671–1694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Al-Abed, N.; Al-Sharif, M. Hydrological modeling of Zarqa River Basin—Jordan using the hydrological simulation program—FORTRAN (HSPF) model. Water Resour. Manag. 2008, 22, 1203–1220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Gil’ad, D.; Bonne, J. The snowmelt of Mt. Hermon and its contribution to the sources of the Jordan River. J. Hydrol. 1990, 114, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Gur, D.; Bar-Matthews, M.; Sass, E. Hydrochemistry of the main Jordan River sources: Dan, Banias, and Kezinim springs, north Hula Valley, Israel. Isr. J. Earth Sci. 2003, 52, 155–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Fisher, F.M.; Arlosoroff, S.; Eckstein, Z.; Haddadin, M.; Hamati, S.G.; Huber-Lee, A.; Jarrar, A.; Jayyousi, A.; Shamir, U.; Wesseling, H. Optimal water management and conflict resolution: The Middle East Water Project. Water Resour. Res. 2002, 38, 17–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. El-Naser, H. The partition of water resources in the Jordan river basin: History and current development. In Proceedings of the Conference on Water in the Mediterranean Countries: Management Problems of a Scarce Resource, Naples, Italy, 4–5 December 1997; Available online: https://www.mewf.de/uploads/1549191713176.pdf (accessed on 22 November 2023).
  56. Gunkel, A.; Lange, J. New Insights Into The Natural Variability of Water Resources in The Lower Jordan River Basin. Water Resour. Manag. 2012, 26, 963–980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Bakir, H. Water Demand Management and Pollution Control: Key to Securing and Safeguarding the Water Supplies of Mena in the 21st Century; UN: Beirut, Lebanon, 2001.
  58. Daoudy, M. Le Partage de l’eau Entre la Syrie, l’Irak et la Turquie—Négociation, Sécurité et Assymétrie des Pouvoirs; CNRS Éditions: Paris, France, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  59. Phillips, D.J.H.; Jägerskog, A.; Turton, A. The Jordan River basin: 3. Options for satisfying the current and future water demand of the five riparians. Water Int. 2009, 34, 170–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Zeitoun, M.; Eid-Sabbagh, K.; Dajani, M.; Talhami, M. Hydro-Political Baseline of the Upper Jordan River; Association of the Friends of Ibrahim Abd el Al: Beirut, Lebanon, 2012; Available online: https://www.pseau.org/outils/ouvrages/iaf_hydro_political_baseline_of_the_upper_jordan_river_2012.pdf (accessed on 1 June 2023).
  61. FoEME. Roadmap for the Rehabilitation of the Lower Jordan River. 2011. Available online: https://ecopeaceme.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/roadmap-for-the-rehabilitation-of-the-lower-jordan-river.pdf (accessed on 1 August 2023).
Water 15 04064 g001
Figure 1. The Jordan River Basin. Percentage of watershed area per riparian country.
Figure 1. The Jordan River Basin. Percentage of watershed area per riparian country.
Water 15 04064 g001
Water 15 04064 g002
Figure 2. Average yearly precipitation over the basin for the period between the water years of 2003 and 2020.
Figure 2. Average yearly precipitation over the basin for the period between the water years of 2003 and 2020.
Water 15 04064 g002
Water 15 04064 g003
Figure 3. The evapotranspiration (ET) on an annual basis over the Jordan River Basin for the water years spanning from 2003 to 2020.
Figure 3. The evapotranspiration (ET) on an annual basis over the Jordan River Basin for the water years spanning from 2003 to 2020.
Water 15 04064 g003
Water 15 04064 g004
Figure 4. Annual Available Water (AW) over the Jordan River Basin for the period between the water years 2003 and 2020.
Figure 4. Annual Available Water (AW) over the Jordan River Basin for the period between the water years 2003 and 2020.
Water 15 04064 g004
Water 15 04064 g005
Figure 5. Jordan River Basin land use map and percentage area per class in 2003 (left) and 2020 (right).
Figure 5. Jordan River Basin land use map and percentage area per class in 2003 (left) and 2020 (right).
Water 15 04064 g005
Table 1. Land Cover Classification System (LCCS) in the ESA Climate Change Initiative (CCI) Global Land Cover (GLC) and a simplified Land Cover Classification used for water consumption summaries.
Table 1. Land Cover Classification System (LCCS) in the ESA Climate Change Initiative (CCI) Global Land Cover (GLC) and a simplified Land Cover Classification used for water consumption summaries.
Land Cover Classification System (LCCS)Land Cover Classification
Cropland, rainfedMostly Cropland
Cropland, irrigated or post-flooding
Mosaic cropland (>50%)/natural vegetation (tree, shrub,
herbaceous cover) (<50%)
Tree cover, broad-leaved, evergreen, closed to open (>15%)Mostly Deciduous Forest
Tree cover, broad-leaved, deciduous, closed to open (>15%)
Tree cover, needle-leaved, evergreen, closed to open (>15%)Mostly Needleleaf/Evergreen Forest
Tree cover, needle-leaved, deciduous, closed to open (>15%)
Tree cover, mixed leaf type (broadleaved and needle-leaved)
Mosaic natural vegetation (tree, shrub, herbaceous cover) (>50%)/cropland (<50%)Grassland, Scrub, or Shrub
Mosaic tree and shrub (>50%)/herbaceous cover (<50%)
Mosaic herbaceous cover (>50%)/tree and shrub (<50%)
Shrubland
Grassland
Lichens and mosses
Sparse vegetation (tree, shrub, herbaceous cover) (<15%)Sparse Vegetation
Tree cover, flooded, fresh, or brackish waterSwampy or Often Flooded Vegetation
Tree cover, flooded, saline water
Shrub or herbaceous cover, flooded, fresh/saline/brackish water
Water bodiesSurface Water
Urban areasArtificial Surface or Urban Area
Bare areasBare Area
Permanent snow and icePermanent Snow and Ice
Table 3. Average water consumption measured as evapotranspiration (ET) in the Jordan River Basin (Mm3/year) per country for the periods of 2003–2011 and 2012–2020. The increase or decrease in water consumption between periods is shown in parentheses.
Table 3. Average water consumption measured as evapotranspiration (ET) in the Jordan River Basin (Mm3/year) per country for the periods of 2003–2011 and 2012–2020. The increase or decrease in water consumption between periods is shown in parentheses.
CountryLand Use/Period
Mostly CroplandArtificial Surface or Urban Area
2003–20112012–20202003–20112012–2020
Israel50655036 (−0.6%)254345 (36%)
Jordan12,98213,778 (6.1%)14722059 (40%)
Lebanon25102512 (0.1%)2439 (63%)
Palestine (West Bank)851912 (7.2%)2543 (72%)
Syria19,64119,016 (−3.2%)9681416 (46%)
Basin Total41,04941,253 (0.5%)27433901 (42%)
Table 4. Average water consumption (ET) in the Jordan River Basin for the period 2003–2020 per land use class (Mm3/year).
Table 4. Average water consumption (ET) in the Jordan River Basin for the period 2003–2020 per land use class (Mm3/year).
Land CoverIsraelJordanLebanonPalestineSyriaBasin Total
Mostly Cropland505113,380251188119,32941,151
Grassland, Scrub, or Shrub2628116219269418,32324,133
Mostly Deciduous Forest38---2664
Mostly Needleleaf/Evergreen Forest12---1527
Sparse Vegetation3612514107749749699417
Swampy or Often Flooded Vegetation------
Artificial Surface or Urban Area2991765323411923322
Bare Area112523279824944788277
Surface Water365834--3774069
Totals13,17221,1825643175648,70890,460
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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Comair, G.F.; Espinoza-Dávalos, G.E.; McKinney, D.C. Assessing Water Security in the Jordan River Basin: Temporal Changes for Precipitation, Evapotranspiration and Land Cover. Water 2023, 15, 4064. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15234064

AMA Style

Comair GF, Espinoza-Dávalos GE, McKinney DC. Assessing Water Security in the Jordan River Basin: Temporal Changes for Precipitation, Evapotranspiration and Land Cover. Water. 2023; 15(23):4064. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15234064

Chicago/Turabian Style

Comair, Georges F., Gonzalo E. Espinoza-Dávalos, and Daene C. McKinney. 2023. "Assessing Water Security in the Jordan River Basin: Temporal Changes for Precipitation, Evapotranspiration and Land Cover" Water 15, no. 23: 4064. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15234064

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop