| Literature DB >> 35859568 |
H J Jongen1,2, G J Steeneveld2, J Beringer3, A Christen4, N Chrysoulakis5, K Fortuniak6, J Hong7, J W Hong8, C M J Jacobs9,10, L Järvi11,12, F Meier13, W Pawlak6, M Roth14, N E Theeuwes15,16, E Velasco17, R Vogt18, A J Teuling1.
Abstract
Water storage plays an important role in mitigating heat and flooding in urban areas. Assessment of the water storage capacity of cities remains challenging due to the inherent heterogeneity of the urban surface. Traditionally, effective storage has been estimated from runoff. Here, we present a novel approach to estimate effective water storage capacity from recession rates of observed evaporation during precipitation-free periods. We test this approach for cities at neighborhood scale with eddy-covariance based latent heat flux observations from 14 contrasting sites with different local climate zones, vegetation cover and characteristics, and climates. Based on analysis of 583 drydowns, we find storage capacities to vary between 1.3 and 28.4 mm, corresponding to e-folding timescales of 1.8-20.1 days. This makes the urban storage capacity at least five times smaller than all the observed values for natural ecosystems, reflecting an evaporation regime characterized by extreme water limitation.Entities:
Keywords: recession analysis; urban climate
Year: 2022 PMID: 35859568 PMCID: PMC9285425 DOI: 10.1029/2021GL096069
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Geophys Res Lett ISSN: 0094-8276 Impact factor: 5.576
Site Characteristics and Summary of Regression Analysis
| City | Lat. N (°) | Lon. E (°) | Köppen‐ Geiger climate | Avg. Temp. (°C) | Ann. Prec. (mm) | LCZ |
|
|
| Start | End | Source | Drydown | Days | ET0 (mm d−1) |
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amsterdam | 52.37 | 4.89 | Cfb | 9.2 | 805 | 2 | 15 | 40 | 14 | 05–2018 | 10–2020 | Ronda et al. ( | 15 | 61 | 0.9–1.8 (1.4) | 3.4–16.4 (4.5) | 2.4–11.3 (3.1) | 5.0–17.0 (7.3) | 0.66 |
| Steeneveld et al. ( | |||||||||||||||||||
| Arnhem | 51.98 | 5.92 | Cfb | 9.4 | 778 | 2 | 12 | 23 | 11 | 05–2012 | 12–2016 | Jacobs et al. ( | 46 | 183 | 0.7–1.0 (0.8) | 2.5–4.2 (3.0) | 1.8–2.9 (2.1) | 2.3–3.8 (3.0) | 0.72 |
| Basel (AESC) | 47.55 | 7.6 | Cfb | 10 | 778 | 2 | 27 | 39 | 17 | 06–2009 | 12–2020 | Lietzke et al. ( | 120 | 500 | 0.8–1.0 (0.9) | 4.2–5.6 (5.1) | 2.9–4.0 (3.5) | 3.6–4.9 (4.4) | 0.75 |
| Basel (KLIN) | 47.56 | 7.58 | Cfb | 10 | 778 | 2 | 27 | 41 | 17 | 05–2004 | 12–2020 | Schmutz et al. ( | 158 | 661 | 1.0–1.2 (1.1) | 4.9–6.8 (5.9) | 3.4–4.7 (4.1) | 5.4–7.8 (6.5) | 0.72 |
| Berlin (ROTH) | 13.32 | 52.46 | Cfb | 9.1 | 570 | 6 | 56 | 40 | 17 | 06–2018 | 09–2020 | Vulova et al. ( | 7 | 33 | 0.4–0.9 (0.6) | 4.8–11.0 (7.9) | 3.3–7.6 (5.5) | 1.3–9.9 (6.3) | 0.67 |
| Berlin (TUCC) | 13.33 | 52.51 | Cfb | 9.1 | 570 | 5 | 31 | 56 | 20 | 07–2014 | 09–2020 | Jin et al. ( | 36 | 149 | 0.3–0.8 (0.5) | 3.0–5.2 (3.7) | 2.1–3.6 (2.6) | 1.4–3.6 (3.0) | 0.75 |
| Vulova et al. ( | |||||||||||||||||||
| Helsinki | 60.33 | 24.96 | Dfb | 5.1 | 650 | 6 | 54 | 31 | 20 | 01–2006 | 12–2018 | Vesala et al. ( | 45 | 202 | 1.2–1.8 (1.6) | 3.7–6.1 (4.4) | 2.5–4.2 (3.1) | 6.0–11.0 (8.5) | 0.78 |
| Karsisto et al. ( | |||||||||||||||||||
| Heraklion (HECKOR) | 35.34 | 25.13 | Csa | 17.8 | 464 | 3 | 12 | 27 | 11.3 | Nov‐16 | May‐21 | Stagakis et al. ( | 5 | 24 | 0.4–2.0 (0.5) | 1.8–13.3 (6.5) | 1.3–9.2 (4.5) | 1.5–13.2 (2.8) | 0.51 |
| Łódź | 51.76 | 19.45 | Dfb | 7.9 | 564 | 5 | 31 | 37 | 11 | 07–2006 | 09–2015 | Fortuniak et al. ( | 57 | 261 | 0.9–1.6 (1.3) | 4.0–5.4 (4.4) | 2.8–3.7 (3.1) | 3.8–6.9 (5.8) | 0.66 |
| Melbourne (Preston) | −37.73 | 145.01 | Cfb | 14.8 | 666 | 5 | 38 | 40 | 6 | 08–2003 | 11–2004 | Coutts et al. ( | 2 | 9 | 1.6–2.1 (1.9) | 2.6–13.2 (7.9) | 1.8–9.2 (5.5) | 5.5–21.3 (13.4) | 0.69 |
| Coutts et al. ( | |||||||||||||||||||
| Mexico City | 19.4 | −99.18 | Cwb | 15.9 | 625 | 2 | 6 | 37 | 9.7 | 06–2011 | 09–2012 | Velasco et al. ( | 8 | 49 | 0.7–1.5 (1.3) | 5.5–16.5 (10.4) | 3.8–11.5 (7.2) | 5.8–21.9 (9.5) | 0.65 |
| Velasco et al. ( | |||||||||||||||||||
| Seoul | 37.54 | 127.04 | Dwa | 11.9 | 1373 | 1 | 40 | 30 | 20 | 03–2015 | 02–2016 | Hong et al. ( | 10 | 59 | 0.6–2.0 (1.3) | 2.3–9.9 (6.5) | 1.6–6.9 (4.5) | 3.3–10.7 (6.1) | 0.56 |
| Hong et al. ( | |||||||||||||||||||
| Singapore | 1.31 | 103.91 | Af | 26.8 | 2378 | 3 | 15 | 24 | 10 | 03–2013 | 03–2014 | Velasco et al. ( | 7 | 40 | 1.3–1.6 (1.4) | 4.6–20.1 (8.2) | 3.2–14.0 (5.7) | 7.7–28.4 (11.3) | 0.81 |
| Roth et al. ( | |||||||||||||||||||
| Harshan et al. ( | |||||||||||||||||||
| Vancoucer | 49.23 | −123.08 | Csb | 9.9 | 1283 | 6 | 35 | 28 | 5 | 05–2008 | 07–2017 | Christen et al. ( | 67 | 308 | 1.2–1.4 (1.3) | 6.5–8.9 (7.3) | 4.5–6.2 (5.1) | 7.1–9.5 (8.3) | 0.54 |
Note. The climate statistics are long‐term means (1999–2019). The indicated ranges for the parameters are the 5th and 95th percentile of the median distribution from the bootstrapping re‐samples with in brackets the median itself (LCZ Stewart and Oke (2012): 1 = compact high‐rise, 2 = compact mid‐rise, 3 = compact low‐rise, 5 = open mid‐rise, 6 = open low‐rise, F : Surface fraction covered by vegetation in a 500 m radius around the measurement site, z : Height of sensors above ground level, z : Mean building height, ET0: Initial evapotranspiration, λ: e‐folding timescale, : Half‐life, S 0: Effective, dynamic water storage capacity), R 2: Median goodness‐of‐fit.
Figure 1Illustration of the recession analysis. 24‐hour aggregated evapotranspiration versus the number of days following the last hour of precipitation for an example drydown from the Seoul data set with the fitted recession curve. Note that the fit was obtained by a linear fit on log‐transformed data (see Data and Methods). In the figure the parameters are indicated.
Figure 2Daily average evapotranspiration versus the day since the last precipitation with in red (continuous) the recession curve using the median parameter values, in blue (dotted) the 5th and 95th percentile of the median distribution from the bootstrapping re‐samples, and in gray all individual drydowns. The boxplots show the spread of the observations. The parameters of the fitted curves are shown in Table 1. Since the parameters are based on individual drydowns, they do not necessarily follow the trend of the distributions.
Figure 3The seasonal dependency of the median S 0 for the sites on the northern hemisphere (Melbourne is included shifted by half a year) in blue and for Singapore as gray dots. The uncertainty is determined similarly as in Figure 2.