All Issue

2026 Vol.59, Issue 10 Preview Page
Estimating water supply deficits using a stress test based on the 2022-2023 drought: A case study of Gwangju

2022~2023 가뭄 사상 기반 스트레스 테스트를 통한 용수 부족량 추정: 광주광역시 사례

Jun Song Kima
,
Jongso Leeb*
,
Sangeun Leec
김 준성a
,
이 종소b*
,
이 상은c
aAssistant Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering & Construction Engineering Research Institute, Hankyong National University, Anseong, Korea
bAssociate Research Fellow, Housing & Real Estate Research Division, Korea Research Institute for Human Settlements, Sejong, Korea
cResearch Fellow, Housing & Real Estate Research Division, Korea Research Institute for Human Settlements, Sejong, Korea
a한경국립대학교 건설환경공학부 조교수
b국토연구원 주택·부동산 연구본부 부연구위원
c국토연구원 주택·부동산 연구본부 연구위원
*Corresponding Author
31 October 2026. pp. 1313-1326
PDF XML Citation
Abstract

This study estimated the required reductions in municipal and industrial water supply for drought response in Gwangju over a future three year period under 2022-2023 drought events, using the California stress test applied to the Juam and Dongbok Dams. Two inflow scenarios were used, a three year average for 2020 to 2022 and a two year average excluding 2020, the year in which a flood occurred. Juam Dam's supply adjustment baseline was derived from PARMA model synthetic inflows following the hedging rule's staged reduction criteria. At the 85% reliability baseline, the flood included scenario showed about 7% shortage only in the first year, while the flood excluded scenario required about 20% reduction throughout all three years, as storage failed to recover above the severe stage threshold. Juam Dam caused about 74% of the shortage in year one, while Dongbok Dam's share increased to roughly half afterward, reflecting the combined effect of Juam Dam’s prolonged 20% reductions and Dongbok Dam's repeated full cutoffs. Shortage varied with reliability level in the flood included scenario, whereas it stayed fixed at about 20% in the flood excluded scenario, since storage fell below even the lowest baseline. Under the conditions simulated in this study, the shortage rate varied with reliability level in the flood included scenario but remained fixed near 20% in the flood excluded scenario. The shortage rate did not substantially exceed 20% across all reliability conditions under the simulation conditions of this study, revealing that the severe stage reduction rate acts as an upper bound even under extreme drought.

Keywords
Drought response
Water supply
Stress test
Hedging rule
Water supply adjustment baseline

본 연구는 캘리포니아 스트레스 테스트를 광주광역시의 상수원인 주암댐과 동복댐에 적용하여, 2022~2023년에 발생한 극한 가뭄과 동일한 수문 조건이 향후에도 지속된다는 가정 하에서의 가뭄 대응을 위한 미래 3년 생·공용수 필요 감축량을 추정하였다. 댐 유입 조건은 2020~2022년 3개 수문년 평균과 홍수가 발생하였던 2020년을 제외한 2개 수문년 평균으로 설정하였으며, 주암댐의 용수공급 조정 기준선은 PARMA 모형으로 생성한 합성 유입량을 기반으로 헤징룰의 단계별 감축 기준에 따라 작성하였다. 실제 기준선에 상응하는 이수안전도 85% 조건에서, 홍수년 포함 유입 조건은 예측 첫해에만 수요 대비 약 7%의 부족이 발생한 반면, 홍수년 제외 유입 조건은 심각단계 진입 후 정상환원단계 기준선까지 저수량이 회복되지 않아 3개년 내내 약 20%의 감축이 요구되었다. 이 기간 부족 기여율은 첫해 주암댐이 약 74%로 대부분을 차지했으나 이후 동복댐 기여율이 절반 수준까지 확대되었는데, 이는 주암댐의 장기 부분 감축과 조정 기준이 없는 동복댐의 반복적 전량 차단이 함께 작용한 결과이다. 이수안전도를 75~95%로 달리 적용한 결과, 홍수년 포함 조건에서는 이수안전도가 높을수록 기준선이 상향되어 부족량이 증가하였다. 반면 홍수년 제외 조건에서는 저수량이 가장 낮은 이수안전도 75% 기준선보다도 낮게 하강하여, 이수안전도 설정과 무관하게 동일한 약 20%의 감축률이 산정되었다. 이는 부족량이 가뭄 강도에 따라 달라짐을 의미한다. 다만 모든 이수안전도 조건에서 부족률이 20%를 크게 초과하지 않아, 본 연구의 모의 조건에서는 심각단계 감축률이 극한 가뭄에서도 부족량의 상한으로 기능함을 확인하였다.

키워드
가뭄 대응
용수공급
스트레스 테스트
헤징룰
용수공급 조정 기준선
References
1

Brown, C., Ghile, Y., Laverty, M., and Li, K. (2012). “Decision scaling: Linking bottom-up vulnerability analysis with climate projections in the water sector.” Water Resources Research, Vol. 48, No. 9, W09547.

10.1029/2011WR011212
2

Culley, S., Noble, S., Yates, A., Timbs, M., Westra, S., Maier, H.R., Giuliani, M., and Castelletti, A. (2016). “A bottom-up approach to identifying the maximum operational adaptive capacity of water resource systems to a changing climate.” Water Resources Research, Vol. 52, No. 9, pp. 6751-6768.

10.1002/2015WR018253
3

Hoseingholi, P., Moeini, R., and Akbary, M. (2026). “Optimal hedging rules determination for dam reservoir operation under climate change.” Water Resources Management, Vol. 40, No. 3, 107.

10.1007/s11269-025-04479-x
4

Jin, Y., Jung, T., and Lee, S. (2021). “Analysis and comparison of the water supply adjustment guide and a hedging rule of reservoir operation derived from mixed-integer programming for water supply operation of a multi-purpose reservoir.” Journal of Korea Water Resources Association, Vol. 54, No. 6, pp. 443-452.

10.3741/JKWRA.2021.54.6.443
5

Jin, Y., Jung, T., Lee, S., and Kang, S. (2016). “Reservoir operations of Hapcheon Dam applying a discrete hedging rule and ensemble streamflow prediction to cope with droughts.” Journal of the Korean Society of Hazard Mitigation, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 93-101.

10.9798/KOSHAM.2016.16.1.93
6

Jin, Y., Lee, S., and Jung, T. (2017). “Reservoir operations applying discrete hedging rule curves depending on current storage to cope with droughts.” Journal of the Korean Society of Hazard Mitigation, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 107-115.

10.9798/KOSHAM.2017.17.1.107
7

Kim, G.J., Seo, S.B., and Kim, Y.-O. (2022). “Adaptive reservoir management by reforming the zone-based hedging rules against multi-year droughts.” Water Resources Management, Vol. 36, No. 10, pp. 3575-3590.

10.1007/s11269-022-03214-0
8

Lee, D. (2018). Water supply adjustment guideline for single-purpose dam against drought. Master Thesis, Kyungpook National University.

9

Lee, K., Jung, M., Lee, J.H., and Kwon, H.H. (2024). “An analysis of the impact of recent severe droughts on dam water supply adjustment baseline: A case study of Juam Dam.” KSCE Journal of Civil and Environmental Engineering Research, Vol. 44, No. 6, pp. 807-815.

10.12652/KSCE.2024.44.6.0807
10

Lund, J., Medellin-Azuara, J., Durand, J., and Stone, K. (2018). “Lessons from California's 2012-2016 drought.” Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, Vol. 144, No. 10, 04018067.

10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000984
11

Mehran, A., Mazdiyasni, O., and AghaKouchak, A. (2015). “A hybrid framework for assessing socioeconomic drought: Linking climate variability, local resilience, and demand.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, Vol. 120, No. 15, pp. 7520-7533.

10.1002/2015JD023147
12

Milly, P.C.D., Betancourt, J., Falkenmark, M., Hirsch, R.M., Kundzewicz, Z.W., Lettenmaier, D.P., and Stouffer, R.J. (2008). “Stationarity is dead: Whither water management?” Science, Vol. 319, No. 5863, pp. 573-574.

10.1126/science.1151915
13

Prudhomme, C., Wilby, R.L., Crooks, S., Kay, A.L., and Reynard, N.S. (2010). “Scenario-neutral approach to climate change impact studies: Application to flood risk.” Journal of Hydrology, Vol. 390, No. 3-4, pp. 198-209.

10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.06.043
14

Rural Development Administration (RDA) (1999). Technologies for mitigating weather-related disasters in major crops. p. 109.

15

Salas, J.D., Delleur, J.W., Yevjevich, V., and Lane, W.L. (1980). Applied modeling of hydrologic time series. Water Resources Publications, Littleton, CO, U.S.

16

Seo, S.B., Kim, Y.O., and Kang, S.U. (2019). “Time-varying discrete hedging rules for drought contingency plan considering long-range dependency in streamflow.” Water Resources Management, Vol. 33, No. 8, pp. 2791-2807.

10.1007/s11269-019-02244-5
17

Shih, J.S., and ReVelle, C. (1994). “Water-supply operations during drought: Continuous hedging rule.” Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, Vol. 120, No. 5, pp. 613-629.

10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(1994)120:5(613)
18

Shih, J.S., and ReVelle, C. (1995). “Water supply operations during drought: A discrete hedging rule.” European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 82, No. 1, pp. 163-175.

10.1016/0377-2217(93)E0237-R
19

Spiliotis, M., Mediero, L., and Garrote, L. (2016). “Optimization of hedging rules for reservoir operation during droughts based on particle swarm optimization.” Water Resources Management, Vol. 30, No. 15, pp. 5759-5778.

10.1007/s11269-016-1285-y
20

Sveinsson, O.G.B., Salas, J.D., Lane, W.L., and Frevert, D.K. (2007). Stochastic Analysis, Modeling, and Simulation (SAMS) version 2007 - User's manual. Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, U.S.

21

Taghian, M., Rosbjerg, D., Haghighi, A., and Madsen, H. (2014). “Optimization of conventional rule curves coupled with hedging rules for reservoir operation.” Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, Vol. 140, No. 5, pp. 693-698.

10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000355
Information
  • Publisher :KOREA WATER RESOURECES ASSOCIATION
  • Publisher(Ko) :한국수자원학회
  • Journal Title :Journal of Korea Water Resources Association
  • Journal Title(Ko) :한국수자원학회 논문집
  • Volume : 59
  • No :10
  • Pages :1313-1326
  • Received Date : 2026-07-22
  • Revised Date : 2026-09-01
  • Accepted Date : 2026-09-03
  • DOI :https://doi.org/10.3741/JKWRA.2026.59.10.1313
Journal Informaiton Journal of Korea Water Resources Association Journal of Korea Water Resources Association
Online Submission
Archives
  • scopus
  • KCI-수자원
  • NRF
  • KOFST
  • KISTI Current Status
  • KISTI Cited-by
  • crosscheck
  • orcid
  • open access
  • ccl
Journal Informaiton Journal Informaiton - close