sustainability

Article
Towards a Decision-Making Approach of Sustainable Water
Resources Management Based on Hydrological Modeling:
A Case Study in Central Morocco
Abdennabi Alitane 1,2, * , Ali Essahlaoui 1 , Ann Van Griensven 2,3 , Estifanos Addisu Yimer 2 ,
Narjisse Essahlaoui 1 , Meriame Mohajane 4 , Celray James Chawanda 2 and Anton Van Rompaey 5

1 Geoengineering and Environment Laboratory, Research Group “Water Sciences and Environment
Engineering”, Geology Department, Faculty of Sciences, Moulay Ismail University, Presidency, Marjane 2,
Meknes BP 298, Morocco
2 Hydrology and Hydraulic Engineering Department, Vrije Universiteit Brussels (VUB), 1050 Brussels, Belgium
3 Water Resources and Ecosystems Department, IHE Delft Institute for Water Education,
2611 AX Delft, The Netherlands
4 ITC-CNR, Construction Technologies Institute, National Research Council, 70124 Bari, Italy
5 Geography and Tourism Research Group, Earth and Environmental Science Department, KU Leuven,
Celestijnenlaan 200E, 3001 Heverlee, Belgium
* Correspondence: [email protected] or [email protected]

Abstract: Water is one of the fundamental resources of economic prosperity, food security, human
habitats, and the driver of many global phenomena, such as droughts, floods, contaminated water,
disease, poverty, and hunger. Therefore, its deterioration and its inadequate use lead to heavy
impacts on environmental resources and humans. Thus, we argue that to address these challenges,
Citation: Alitane, A.; Essahlaoui, A.;
one can rely on hydrological management strategies. The objective of this study is to simulate
Van Griensven, A.; Yimer, E.A.;
and quantify water balance components based on a hydrologic model with available data at the
Essahlaoui, N.; Mohajane, M.;
R’Dom watershed in Morocco. For this purpose, the hydrologic model used is the Soil and Water
Chawanda, C.J.; Van Rompaey, A.
Towards a Decision-Making
Assessment Tool + (SWAT+) model. The streamflow model simulations were run at the monthly time
Approach of Sustainable Water step (from 2002 to 2016), during the calibration period 2002–2009, the coefficient of determination
Resources Management Based on (R2 ) and Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE) values were 0.84 and 0.70, respectively, and 0.81 and 0.65,
Hydrological Modeling: A Case respectively, during the validation period 2010–2016. The results of the water balance modeling
Study in Central Morocco. in the watershed during the validation period revealed that the average annual precipitation was
Sustainability 2022, 14, 10848. about 484 mm, and out of this, 5.75 mm came from the development of irrigation in agricultural
https://doi.org/10.3390/su141710848 lands. The evapotranspiration accounted for about 72.28% of the input water of the watershed, while
Academic Editor: Vasilis Kanakoudis surface runoff (surq_gen) accounted for 12.04%, 11.90% was lost by lateral flow (latq), and 4.14% was
lost by groundwater recharge (perco). Our approach is designed to capture a real image of a case
Received: 28 June 2022
study; zooming into other case studies with similar environments to uncover the situation of water
Accepted: 17 August 2022
resources is highly recommended. Moreover, the outcomes of this study will be helpful for policy
Published: 31 August 2022
and decision-makers, and it can be a good path for researchers for further directions based on the
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral SWAT model to simulate water balance to achieve adequate management of water resources.
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil- Keywords: SWAT+ model; R’Dom watershed; streamflow; calibration; validation; water balance
iations.

1. Introduction
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. Water resources hold a special position among all natural resources and are the basis
This article is an open access article for the development of all life systems on the planet [1,2]. It is considered a significant
distributed under the terms and economic resource and a highly distributed element on the planet and is available in all
conditions of the Creative Commons parts of the globe, although in varying quantities, it is essential to both the environment
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// and human life [2]. However, the rapid increase in the human population and accelerating
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ lifestyle changes due to increasing urbanization and rapid industrialization are putting
4.0/). heavy effects on these natural resources.

Sustainability 2022, 14, 10848. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141710848 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2022, 14, 10848 2 of 17

The global water cycle, or hydrologic cycle, includes water in the atmosphere, the
oceans, and the landscape and under the land surface [3,4]. It can be completed by ex-
changes of water between these reservoirs in various phases [5,6]. Water evaporates from
the oceans and the land surfaces into the atmosphere, where it is transported as water
vapor above the Earth’s surface [7]. It eventually condenses in clouds and returns as pre-
cipitation to the Earth’s surface in the form of rain, snow, sleet, or hail [3]. Several factors
interact with the hydrological cycle, such as soil, topography, vegetation cover, climate,
and water bodies [8]. In response to climate changes, the hydrologic cycle is subdivided
into surface runoff, which represents the water circulating on the ground surface, and
lateral flow, which represents the movement of water under gravitational forces parallel
to the slope of the land and groundwater recharge, which represents the water moving
downward from surface water to groundwater [9]. On the other hand, several factors,
including irrigation activity, land treatment, deforestation, human-induced climate change,
and other human activities, affect anthropogenic practices, land development [10,11], and
the hydrological cycle [5].
Previously, different approaches have been applied and used to simulate and quantify
the water balance components including, Système Hydrologique Europeén (SHE) [12], Wa-
ter Evaluation And Planning (WEAP) system [13], the water and energy transfer among soil,
plants, and atmosphere (WetSpass) model [14,15], Topographic Hydrologic Model (TOP-
MODEL) [16], the Distributed Hydrology Soil Vegetation Model (DHSVM) [17], HYDRUS-
1D numerical model [18], and Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) [19]. As an easy and
widely used model [20], SWAT is eminently suitable for water-resource modelling [21].
The Fez-Meknes region in Morocco is responsible for approximately 21.1% of the
country’s gross domestic product (GDP), and so the local population is strongly linked
to agricultural activities [22]. This may have a negative influence on water resources [23].
Towards the goal of the sustainable development of the local socio-economy and water
management, several studies have been conducted in this region. It has been reported
that farmers’ safety behavior can pose negative effects related to the use of pesticides [24].
Additionally, the quantification of soil erosion with risk assessments was considered by
Boufala [25]. Moreover, [26] have demonstrated that population growth and LULC changes
result in increased water consumption.
R’Dom combines forestry, pastoral, agricultural, and irrigation activities, and it is
sensitive to climate change and human influences, leading to heavy challenges in terms of
the sustainability of its land and water resources [23].
In Morocco, several case studies using the SWAT model have been applied, with great
outcomes [27–30]. However, Bouslihim et al. 2019 [31] reported that these cases studied
were done without checking the effect of input data on different hydrological components
of the watershed. In this context, the study developed in this paper is based on remote
sensing open data and preprocessed and validated input parameters.
To the best of the researcher’s knowledge, no previous study has been carried out to
estimate and assess the spatial distribution of water balance components in this watershed
based on validated data and open-source remote sensing inputs. The novelty of this
research project is the testing and application of a SWAT+ hydrological model to quantify
the water balance in its different components. The model results will serve as proof of how
sensitive the water resources are to climatic changes, especially for the project area, where
rainfall and temperature play a major role in determining the distribution of water in the
land and in the atmosphere. The treated aspect of this work focused on the analysis of flow
data during the calibration and validation periods.
The objectives of this study were: (i) to create a hydrological model of the R’Dom
watershed, (ii) to calibrate and validate the SWAT+ model R’Dom river basin, and (iii) to
estimate and assess the spatial distribution of water balance components and water yield. We
therefore hypothesized that the SWAT model could be used for representing hydrological
processes with promising results in this watershed.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 10848 3 of 17

The SWAT + model was developed and applied to predict the impact of land manage-
ment practices on water, agricultural chemicals yields and irrigation systems, and sediment
in large complex watersheds with varying LULC, soil proprieties, and management con-
ditions over long periods of time [32–34]. We chose the SWAT+ model because of its
availability and ease of use in processing the input data, and its suitability to different parts
of the world has been well established [35]. This model requires several input data, such
as geospatial and weather data records from local stations [36]. The results obtained from
this work can facilitate the estimation of the spatial distribution of water balance compo-
nents in response to climatic, pedologic, and topographic factors. Concerning irrigation
farming, several factors determine crop water demand, such as soil properties (available
water-holding capacity), hydrological processes (precipitation and infiltration) distribution,
and crop characteristics (leaf area and rooting depth) [37]. Ultimately, the contribution of
this research aligns with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which may represent
a first path to reducing adverse impacts on water resources in this region. Through this
important study, the application of the SWAT+ model can be at the heart of the policy of
water management and land development and is in the context of the major objective of
the quantitative and qualitative preservation of water resources. It must also consider the
interactions of water resources with the environment within the framework of a global
policy of regional development.
The structure of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 gives a description of the
study area, the data, and the methodology used in this study. Section 3 provide the results
and discussion, and conclusions are given in the last section.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Research Site
The R’Dom watershed is located in the northwestern region of Morocco (Figure 1),
covering an area of 1970 km2 . It extends from the longitudes 5.29◦ –5.75◦ W and the latitudes
between 33.47◦ –34.01◦ N [23]. Located 140 km to the east of Rabat city and 60 km to the west
of Fez city [38]. Topographically, the study area has a moderate flatland in its central parts
and mountainous lands in the northern and southern parts, with a maximum altitude of
1778 m at the southern end and a minimum altitude of 29 m in the northwestern parts. The
climate of the R’Dom watershed is semi-arid, with average annual precipitation varying
between 300 and 500 mm. The annual mean temperature is 17.6◦ with a minimum of 9.4 ◦ C
in January (coldest months) and a maximum of 26.3 ◦ C in August (warmest months). From
a hydrological point of view, the R’Dom watershed has a large network of streams that
have a very low discharge during the prolonged dry season.

2.2. SWAT+ Input Datasets

The implementation of the SWAT model is based on site-specific information, includ-
ing weather, topography, land use, soil properties, and the land management practices
considered in the watershed. The physical aspects are linked to sediment movement, water
movement, nutrient cycling, and crop growth. Table 1 presents the input data used to run
the SWAT+ model in the R’Dom area. Land use/land cover maps, digital elevation models,
soil maps, climate data (precipitation, maximum, and minimum daily air temperatures,
relative humidity, solar radiation, and wind speed), and streamflow data were used in
this study.
Sustainability 2022,14,
Sustainability2022, 14,10848
x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of1917
4 of

Figure 1. Location of the Study Area.

Figure 1. Location of the Study Area.

2.2. SWAT+ Input Datasets

Table 1. Data description.
The implementation of the SWAT model is based on site-specific information, includ-
Data Type ing weather, topography,
Source land use, soil properties, and
Spatial the land management
Resolution practices
Temporal Resolution
considered in the
Shuttle Radar watershed.
Topography The(SRTM),
Mission physical aspects are linked to sediment movement, wa-
Digital elevation map (DEM) ter movement, nutrient cycling, and crop growth. Table
https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov, 1 presents the input data
30 m - used to
(accessed on 3 August 2021)
run the SWAT+ model in the R’Dom area. Land use/land cover maps, digital elevation
models, soil sentinel-2 image, 2016
maps, climate data (precipitation, maximum, and minimum daily air temper-
Land use https://scihub.copernicus.eu/dhus/#/home 10 m -
atures, relative humidity, solar radiation, and wind speed), and streamflow data were
(accessed on 18 May 2021)
used in this study.
Soil National Institute of Agronomic Research 30 m –
Climate data TableSebou Hydraulic
1. Data Basin Agency (SHBA)
description. Point dataset Daily
River discharge Sebou Hydraulic Basin Agency (SHBA) Point dataset Monthly
Data Type Source Spatial Resolution Temporal Resolution
Irrigated areas Food and Agriculture Organization 0.000992◦ –
Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM),
Digital elevation
https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov, (accessed on 3 Au- 30 m -
map (DEM) 2.3. Crop andgust
Irrigation
2021) Water Requirement
The SWAT+image,
sentinel-2 model2016is a tool used for understanding hydro-agronomic processes,
Land use https://scihub.copernicus.eu/dhus/#/home and
and it is considered a complete reasonable model
(accessed 10 m suitable for most -conditions of
irrigationon districts to
18 May 2021)estimate irrigation water requirements [39]. The land use in the
R’Dom watershed is relatively diversified, with a dominance of cereals; the rest is occupied
Soil National Institute of Agronomic Research 30 m –
by fruit crops, legumes, industrial crops, oil crops, vegetable crops, and forage crops.
Climate data Sebou Hydraulic Basin Agency (SHBA) Point dataset Daily
Surface irrigation is the common method of irrigation used in the R’Dom catchment, and
River discharge Sebou
mostHydraulic
irrigationBasin Agency
schemes’ (SHBA)
water are distributedPoint dataset Drip and short
by gravity. Monthly
furrows are
Irrigated areas Food and Agriculture
commonly used in theOrganization
study area, and the furrows0.000992° – and some
are used to irrigate vegetables
cereal crops, such as maize. Irrigation water sources include river diversions and shallow
aquifers. The total irrigated area was 2649.29 ha, which is 1.37% of the total arable land in
the region, and the water used was about 5.75 mm (Figure 2).
 crops, legumes, industrial crops, oil crops, vegetable crops, and forage crops. Surface irri-
gation is the common method of irrigation used in the R’Dom catchment, and most irri-
gation schemes’ water are distributed by gravity. Drip and short furrows are commonly
used in the study area, and the furrows are used to irrigate vegetables and some cereal
crops, such as maize. Irrigation water sources include river diversions and shallow aqui-
Sustainability 2022, 14, 10848 5 of 17
fers. The total irrigated area was 2649.29 ha, which is 1.37% of the total arable land in the
region, and the water used was about 5.75 mm (Figure 2).

Figure2.2.(a)
Figure (a)Map
Mapshowing
showing irrigated
irrigated areas
areas in
in R’Dom
R’Dom catchment,
catchment, (b)
(b) Photograph
Photographof
ofirrigated
irrigatedareas
areas
taken on 30 January 2022.
taken on 30 January 2022.

2.4.
2.4.Methodology
Methodology
The
TheSWAT
SWATmodelmodelisisaaphysically
physically based,
based, semi-distributed,
semi-distributed, andand continuous-time
continuous-timestep step
hydrologic
hydrologicmodel
model that
that permits
permits the
the manipulation analysis of
manipulation and analysis of numerous
numeroushydrological
hydrological
and
andagronomic data. Based
agronomic data. Basedonon land
land use/land
use/land cover,
cover, soil type,
soil type, and classes,
and slope slope classes, the
the catch-
catchment is divided
ment is divided into hydrological
into hydrological response
response units (HRUs),
units (HRUs), whichwhich areof
are areas areas of unique
unique prop-
properties of slope,
erties of slope, soil, soil, and land
and land use/land
use/land cover classes
cover classes within within each sub-basin
each sub-basin [39]. The[39].
SWATThe
SWAT
model,model, like other
like other modelingmodeling
tools, tools, requires
requires manymany geospatial
geospatial data
data for for water
water models models
and
and solute flow in different watershed scales [40]. The linkage of SWAT with GIS allows for
managing and processing raster, vector, and alphanumeric data. GIS provides easy and
automated preparation of SWAT input data.
Figure 3 illustrates the detailed methodology applied in this study, and the hydrologi-
cal modeling simulated by the SWAT+ model is based on the following equation:
n  
SWt = SW0 + ∑ Rday − Qsur f − Wseep − Ea − Q gw (1)
i =1

where:
SWt represents the humidity of the soil (mm),
SW 0 is the base humidity of the soil (mm),
t is the time (days),
 𝑛

𝑆𝑊𝑡 = 𝑆𝑊0 + ∑(𝑅𝑑𝑎𝑦 − 𝑄𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑓 − 𝑊𝑠𝑒𝑒𝑝 − 𝐸𝑎 − 𝑄𝑔𝑤 ) (1)

𝑖=1

where:
Sustainability 2022, 14, 10848 6 of 17
SWt represents the humidity of the soil (mm),
SW0 is the base humidity of the soil (mm),
t is the time (days),
R
Rday
day isis the
the rainfall
rainfall volume
volume (mm),
(mm),
Q
Qsurf represents the value of surface runoff,
surf represents the value of surface runoff,
Eaa represents the value of evapotranspiration (mm),
W
Wseep represents the
seep represents the value
value of
of seepage
seepage of
of water
water from
from the soil into deeper layers,
Q
Qgw represents the
gw represents the value
value of
of underground
underground runoff
runoff (mm).

Figure 3. Workflow of the methodology followed in this study.

Figure 3. Workflow of the methodology followed in this study.
2.4.1. Streamflow Data
2.4.1.Runoff
Streamflow Data mainly from cold mountainous regions; the flow occurs along a
is generated
sloping surface
Runoff when the rate
is generated of rainfall
mainly is greater
from cold than theregions;
mountainous infiltration
the rate.
flowThe runoff
occurs ratea
along
in the R’Dom area is a function of the proportion of daily precipitation that falls during
sloping surface when the rate of rainfall is greater than the infiltration rate. The runoff rate the
sub-basin concentration time, daily surface runoff volume, and sub-basin concentration
in the R’Dom area is a function of the proportion of daily precipitation that falls during
time. In general, flows are high from January to April, reaching their maximum in February.
The flow of water in the southern rivers of the basin continues in spring in association with
springs resulting from snowmelt. Minimal flows were observed in the summer. The R’Dom
River is an intermittent river with a mean monthly discharge of 3.74 m3 /s measured at
Souk El had outlet for the period of 2002/2016.

2.4.2. SWAT+ Model

The SWAT+ model was applied in this study to achieve the sustainable use of water
resources, such as the evaluation of the stream flow at the Souk Elhad gauge and to estimate
the spatial distribution of the water balance in the R’Dom watershed. The model is ready
for simulation when all data files have been prepared and all model inputs have been
completed. The simulation was run for 17 years (2000/2016), and the estimated and
measured flows were evaluated at the Souk Elhad station (catchment outlet) sub-basin 1.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 10848 7 of 17

2.4.3. Model Performance Evaluation

The evaluation of the model performance can be applied by combining goodness of fit
statistics and graphical plots. These statistics include Nash-Sutcliffe Efficiency (NSE) and
Determination Coefficient (R2). The NSE [41] is a performance indicator of the predictive
power of models by comparing modeled flows to observed flows. The coefficient of
determination is a concept used in regression analysis and analysis of variance. It is a
measure of the proportion of variance in the data that can be explained. Their equations
are shown below:
2
∑n ( Qi − Qiobs )
NSE = 1 − i=1 sim 2
(2)
∑in=1 ( Qiobs − Qmean
obs )
n i mean

i
∑i=1 Qobs − Qobs Qsim − Qmean


2 sim
R = q (3)
2 n mean )2
∑in=1 ( Qiobs − Qmean
obs ) ∑ i =1 ( Q i
sim − Q sim

where:
Qiobs is the observed parameter’s value,
Qisim is the simulated parameter’s value,
Qmean
obs is the mean of observed parameters,
Qmean
sim is the mean of simulated parameters,
n is the number of time intervals.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Hydrologic Parameter Assessement
The Curve Number (CN2) and available soil moisture content (AWC) are some of the
key parameters for the generation of surface runoff [42]. To allow for the best concordance
between the simulated and observed variables, it is necessary to adapt some parameters of
the model by calibration. It focuses on the soil parameters that have an essential impact
on the simulations. The first control variable of calibration concerns the flow rate of the
measuring station at the monthly time step. CN2, AWC, and ESCO were identified as the
most influential susceptible parameters in the response of runoff generation. The ESCO,
EPCO, Perco, and K were all identified as parameters that had a significant effect on water
balance during the calibration process. More details are given in Table 2.

Table 2. Summary of the model calibration parameters.

Parameter Definition Unit Range Type of Change Best Value References

CN2.hru Initial SCS CN II value null 25–98 Percentage −22.80795 [43]
cn3_swf.hru Soil water factor for cn3 null 0–1 Percentage 8.89045 [43]
Ovn.hru Manning Coefficient null 0.1–30 absolute value 0.74993 [43]
Soil evaporation
ESCO.hru null 0–1 absolute value 0.04 [43,44]
compensation factor
plant uptake
EPCO.hru null 0–1 absolute value 0.00785 [43,44]
compensation factor
Perco.hru Percolation (mm H2 O) 0–1 absolute value 0.80787 [43]
Alpha.aqu Baseflow alpha factor day 0–1 absolute value 0.03163 [43,44]
Baseflow rate when the
entire area is
bf_max.aqu mm 0.1–2 absolute value 1.63215 [43]
contributing to Baseflow,
default =1
Minimum aquifer
flo_min.aqu storage to allow mm 0–5000 absolute value 48.52915 [43,44]
return flow
Sustainability 2022, 14, 10848 8 of 17

Table 2. Cont.

Parameter Definition Unit Range Type of Change Best Value References

Available Water
AWC.hru mm_H2 0/mm 0.01–1 absolute value 0.87555 [43]
Capacity
Saturated Hydraulic
K.hru mm/h 0.0001–2000 absolute value 68.14435 [43]
Conductivity

3.2. Calibaration and Validation

The SWAT+ model was calibrated using an automatic calibration technique. The
monthly observed streamflow data from 2002–2009 were used for model calibration, and
those from 2010–2016 were used for model validation. The data from 2000–2002 were kept
as a warming-up period, which allowed the model to initialize and approach reasonable
initial values of the state variables of the model. The performance of the developed model
during calibration and validation was evaluated using selected statistical indicators, NSE,
R2 , and graphical indicators. The model was evaluated to have the simulated flow series
be as close to the observed (Measured) flow series (Figure 4), and the maximum values
of both flows for the calibration period were about 40 m3 /s and high as 25 m3 /s for the
validation period. These flow values are more concentrated, as low as 10 m3 /s (Figure 5).
Figures 4 and 5 illustrate an almost similar distribution of the observed and simulated
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 19
streamflow hydrographs for both the calibration and validation periods. The results of the
model performance are summarized in Table 3 and Figures 4 and 5.

Figure 4. Comparison of Monthly Streamflow Hydrographs of the model calibration and valida-
Figure 4. Comparison of Monthly Streamflow Hydrographs of the model calibration and validation.
tion.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 10848 9 of 17
Figure 4. Comparison of Monthly Streamflow Hydrographs of the model calibration and valida-
tion.

Figure 5.
Figure 5. Correlation
Correlation between
between monthly
monthly observed
observed and
and simulated
simulatedflows.
flows.

3.3. Spatial
Table Distribution
3. Model of Water
performance Balance
statistics for simulating monthly streamflow.
The R’Dom watershed is divided into sub-watersheds, which are divided into land-
Statistical
scape units. The input Calibration
layers forPeriod
each (2002–2009) Validation
sub-basin are climate, Period (2010–2016)
land use/land cover, soil,
Indicators Observed Simulated Observed Simulated
ponds/wetlands, groundwater and the main channel draining the sub-basins. Further-
more,
Meanthe
(mprocesses
3 /s) in the
3.55watershed are governed
1.80 by the water
3.95 balance, in which
3.06 the
hydrologic
STDEV (mcycle
3 /s) must be5.03
consistent with what
4.84 is happening in the watershed. 5.85
4.62
The
NSEsimulation of the hydrologic
0.70 cycle for the period 2002–2016 is divided into the
0.65
R2 processes and the water
land phase 0.84 0.81 components
or routing phase [41]. The hydrological
Pearson
Correlation 0.69 0.71
Coefficient

3.3. Spatial Distribution of Water Balance

The R’Dom watershed is divided into sub-watersheds, which are divided into land-
scape units. The input layers for each sub-basin are climate, land use/land cover, soil,
ponds/wetlands, groundwater and the main channel draining the sub-basins. Furthermore,
the processes in the watershed are governed by the water balance, in which the hydrologic
cycle must be consistent with what is happening in the watershed.
The simulation of the hydrologic cycle for the period 2002–2016 is divided into the
land phase processes and the water or routing phase [41]. The hydrological components
that are simulated in this process include precipitation, surface runoff, evapotranspiration,
lateral flow, and percolation. The potential for water movement simulated in SWAT+ is
shown in the maps in Figure 6.

3.3.1. Rainfall
The obtained SWAT water balance results show that the precipitation distribution
varies between 409 and 609 mm (Figure 6a); the maximum value was simulated in the
south (upstream) and decreases toward the north (downstream).

3.3.2. Evapotranspiration
The annual average of evapotranspiration (ET), which includes evaporation from a va-
riety of surfaces, such as rivers, irrigation water basins, soils, and transpiration from within
the leaves of plants. The options offered by SWAT+ for calculating potential evapotranspi-
ration (PET) are Penman-Monteith [45] and Hargreaves [46,47]. The spatial distribution
of ET ratios showed the same gradient as rainfall, with the highest ET values dominating
the southern and central areas of R’Dom due to dense vegetation, barren land, and many
irrigated areas. The average minimum and maximum ET are 330 and 530 mm, respectively,
with a decreasing gradient from south to north (Figure 6b).
Sustainability 2022,14,
Sustainability2022, 14,10848
x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 10
of of
1917

Figure 6. Spatial distribution of water balance components (mm) per landscape (2000/2016):
Figure
(a) 6. Spatial
Annual rainfalldistribution
average, (b)ofAnnual
water balance componentsaverage,
evapotranspiration (mm) per(c)landscape (2000/2016):
Annual surface runoff (a)
average,
Annual rainfall average, (b) Annual
and (d) Annual lateral flow average. evapotranspiration average, (c) Annual surface runoff aver-
age, and (d) Annual lateral flow average.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 10848 11 of 17

3.3.3. Surface Runoff

According to the results (Figure 6c), the minimum and maximum annual average
runoff ranges between 0 mm and 50 mm, respectively. The factors that influence the spatial
distribution of surface runoff include the land’s topography, soil permeability, and water
supply for agricultural irrigation, which increase water residence time, evaporation, and
groundwater recharge.

3.3.4. Lateral Flow

The lateral flow map generated by the SWAT+ hydrological model shows that the
value of the latq factor varies from 10 to 150 (Figure 6d). High values are observed in the
areas of high topography and hydraulic conductivity of the soil provided by the existence
of many forests and trees upstream and downstream of the basin, while low values are
observed in the central part of the basin.

3.3.5. Percolation
The resulting percolation map (Figure 7a) shows the amount of water percolating
to the groundwater (recharge of the aquifer), ranging from 0 to 80 mm over the entire
study area. High percolation was simulated in the southern part of the R’Dom area, which
corresponds to the high rainfall distribution and the main soil properties in this region
of the basin, which allowed the important infiltration and recharge of aquifers. Water
percolation decreases downstream as average precipitation decreases.

3.3.6. Water Yield

The R’Dom area is dominated by an average annual water yield ranging from 20
mm to 150 mm (Figure 6b). The water yield in a watershed is estimated using the fol-
lowing equation (Equation (4)), which includes surface runoff (Qsurf), lateral flow (Qlat),
groundwater contribution to streamflow (Qgw) and transmission losses (Tloss) [48].

Wyield = Qsurf + Qlat + Qgw − Tloss (4)

where:
Qsurf is the surface runoff;
Qlat is the lateral flow;
Qgw is the groundwater contribution to streamflow;
Tloss is the transmission loss.

3.3.7. Water Balance

The assessment of watershed hydrology, both calibrated models and validated water
balance ratios (Table 4) and Figure 7c,d were used, and the results revealed a small difference
between the two models. The water balance results at the R’Dom watershed during the
simulation period (2002–2016) show that the catchment receives an average of 459.50 mm
and the potential ET (PET) is about 1619.1 mm, which is calculated using the Penman–
Monteith Equation by SWAT. ET accounts for more than 70% of the total input, surface flow
accounts for 12.04% of the total precipitation, whereas 11.90% contributes to the lateral
flow, and total aquifer recharge accounts for 4.14%.
Sustainability 2022,14,
Sustainability2022, 14,10848
x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of
13 of 17
19

Figure 7. Spatial distribution of water balance components (mm) per landscape (2000/2016): (a) Annual
Figure 7. Spatial
percolation distribution
average, of water
(b) Annual water balance
yield components
average, (mm) input,
(c) Water balance per landscape (2000/2016):
and (d) Water (a)
balance output.
Annual percolation average, (b) Annual water yield average, (c) Water balance input, and (d) Wa-
ter balance output.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 10848 13 of 17

Table 4. Water balance components.

Parameter Mean Values for Calibration (mm) % Mean Values for Validation (mm) % Average %
Precipitation 435 484 459.5
Input 100 100 100
Irrigation 5.94 5.75 5.85
Surface runoff 56.43 12.70 59.7 12.04 58.02 12.73
Lateral flow 37.2 8.46 58.3 11.90 47.75 10.26
Output
Percolation 10.6 2.40 20.3 4.14 15.45 3.32
Evapotranspiration 331 75.06 354 72.28 342.5 73.60
Balance Input–Output 5.71 1.28 −5.55 −1.12 0.08 0.03

Water demand is increasing considerably, while the supply remains fixed with con-
siderable losses, both in agriculture, industry, and domestic activity. The water problem is
therefore topical, with the general observation that Morocco has gone beyond the period of
abundant water availability to enter a new era characterized by water scarcity and irregular
supply [49]. Water management and planning, particularly in the medium- and long-term,
are therefore critical to ensuring the country’s water and food security. Water balance is the
numerical result of comparing the total water inputs to a watershed with the water outputs.
Water balance plays an interesting role in determining the amount of water available for
use in a region. The physicochemical characteristics of the watershed, including land
use, topography, and soil, influence the components of water balance. The landscape unit
(LSU) is the sub-unit in the SWAT model and is used to simulate water balance processes.
The water balance components simulated by SWAT+ allowed for basic comprehension
of hydrological processes to be established to address water management issues in the
basin. The research suggests that the SWAT+ model shows promise as a tool for predicting
water balance and water yield to support policy and decision-making for sustainable water
management at the basin level.
Previously, [50] studied the impacts of climate change on water balance in the Guajoyo
River Basin (El Salvador) based on the SWAT model. Their results show a decreasing trend
in the amount of water available during the base period (1975–2004). [51] applied SWAT to
simulate hydrological processes in a mountainous watershed in northwest China. They
found rising trends at the watershed scale, and the total runoff increased by 30.5% during
the period 1964 to 2013.
In our case, the results of the water balance showed that the watershed was largely
affected by water loss through evapotranspiration and represented 68% of the water input
to the watershed. Other authors in other areas with similar contexts in Morocco confirmed
these results. The results of a study conducted by [52] showed that the evapotranspiration
rate was 453.2 mm, representing 65% of rainfall. Similarly, SWAT results showed that the
estimated evapotranspiration loss rate is around 77% of the total annual rainfall in the
Sebou watershed, and high water yields are found in the irrigation area east of Meknes.
This is due to the lower AWC of the soils in this area, which causes more water stress in
the crops. As a result, there will be more irrigation demand in this area with an increase in
the water yield [53]. In addition, according to the study of M’Barek et al. [54] the El Grou
watershed’s hydrological system is dominated by evapotranspiration, which represents
75% of the total precipitation.
Additionally, the hypothesis of this study is focused only on whether the quantity
of water loss from land returned as a vapor to the atmosphere is high. Therefore, the
government and water managers must look for new technologies and methods to reduce
evapotranspiration and use hydrological models to implement effective planning for water
management policies in the area.

4. Conclusions
This research was conducted with the main aim of simulating streamflow and assessing
water balance in the R’Dom watershed in Morocco. The model was calibrated and validated
with monthly streamflow data. Furthermore, different water balance components were
investigated and analyzed to infer appropriate conclusions for the sustainable management
Sustainability 2022, 14, 10848 14 of 17

of the watershed. For the model output comparison, the Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE)
was used. The SWAT+ model has been successfully implemented in the watershed, and
this has provided comprehensive results on hydrological processes. This approach model
has major advantages, such as: (a) the data used is mostly global and freely available from
the internet; (b) the ungauged watersheds without monitoring data (e.g., flow data) can
be successfully modeled; (c) it is a computational efficiency model which can be simulate
very vast basins with a lot of management options without expending a lot of time or
money; and (d) the SWAT+ model is a public domain model that is capable of integrating
a modelled the climate change and its impacts on hydrology. On the other hand, the
disadvantages of the SWAT model are that there are significant conceptual limitations in
simulating groundwater flow and storage in the aquifer system, and they are not designed
to simulate detailed single flood events.
The calibration and validation results suggested that the NSE is 0.70 and 0.65 for the
monthly time step, respectively; the results should only serve as proof of how sensitive the
streamflow is to climatic conditions, wherein each water balance component plays a major
role in determining the outflow of the R’Dom watershed. According to the water balance,
most precipitation (72.28%) returns to the atmosphere as water vapor evaporated from the
soil and transpired by the plant, 12.04% of precipitation contributes to surface runoff, 11.90%
contributes to lateral flow, and 4.14% contributes to total aquifer recharge. According to
this study, the SWAT+ model is a viable model for predicting water balance and yields
great results to support policies and decision-making for sustainable water management.
There are some natural solutions applied in the region to reduce evapotranspiration,
including planting to capture rain and deliver it to the tree, growing crops under cover
against insolation, using certain soil fertilizers, and planting olive trees around the farms.
Not all trees and vegetation are transpiration efficient and can withstand periods of semi-
arid conditions. Native species to the area are often recommended due to their long history
of local weather adaptations. Many studies indicate that pines use an excessive amount of
water because their stomata stay open or do not close contrary to some other plants. Some
plants have waxy leaves that help retain water. Another way to reduce ET is to plant a
“windbreak” of trees and shrubs. This is particularly effective in warm-dry climates that are
windy. Note that the trees and shrubs will use water. Therefore, trees, and shrubs growing
in a windbreak may offset any ET reduction in a field, and the reduction in the amount of
air-water reduces evaporation in a reservoir. Keeping this in mind, the application of the
SWAT+ model can provide water resources managers of the basins with indicators likely
to feed the reflection around the impacts of climate changes and land use and promote
decision-making at the scale of sub-basins of Moroccan territory.
Accordingly, the following suggestions are made for the study’s advancement and for
future research: (i) the input data used is partly responsible for the model’s accuracy. It is
highly advised to include the impact of irrigation across the study region, and it is crucial
to obtain more precise data, particularly regarding climate. (ii) Since watershed outflow
is mainly governed by climatic data, such as rainfall and temperature, a more simplified
conceptual model could be done using a longer simulation period. (iii) Due to the effect
of climate changes and land-use changes, the possible extension of this study is to use the
SWAT+ model to assess the water quantity of the R’Dom area or for the entire Sebou basin.
This approach may therefore yield good results, which will serve as a guide for water
management in this study. In addition, the developed approach could be applied in
different study areas with similar backgrounds. Therefore, it may play a role as a powerful
tool for management activities to follow by decision-makers in water studies.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 10848 15 of 17

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.A.; Data curation, A.A.; Formal analysis, A.A.; Funding
acquisition, A.E., A.V.G. and A.V.R.; Investigation, A.A.; Methodology, A.A., A.E., A.V.G., E.A.Y.
and N.E.; Project administration, A.A., A.E., A.V.G. and A.V.R.; Resources, A.A.; Software, A.A.,
E.A.Y. and N.E.; Supervision, A.E., A.V.G. and A.V.R.; Validation, A.A.; Visualization, A.A.; Writing—
original draft, A.A. and E.A.Y.; Writing—review & editing, A.A., A.E., A.V.G., M.M. and C.J.C. All
authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank the Thematic Project 4, Integrated Water
Resources Management of the institutional university cooperation, and VLIR-UOS for the financial
support, equipment, and mission in Belgium.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Zhang, H.; Jin, G.; Yu, Y. Review of River Basin Water Resource Management in China. Water 2018, 10, 425. [CrossRef]
2. Shiklomanov, I.A. World Water Resources: A New Appraisal and Assessment for the 21st Century; Cambridge University Press:
Cambridge, UK, 2004; p. 435.
3. Encyclopedia of Global Environmental Change; Munn, R.E. (Ed.) Wiley: Chichester, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2002; ISBN 978-0-471-97796-4.
4. Oki, T.; Entekhabi, D.; Harrold, T.I. The global water cycle. In Geophysical Monograph Series; Sparks, R.S.J., Hawkesworth, C.J.,
Eds.; American Geophysical Union: Washington, DC, USA, 2004; Volume 150, pp. 225–237, ISBN 978-0-87590-415-3.
5. Kuchment, L.S. The Hydrological Cycle and Human Impact on It. Water Resour. Manag. 2004, 41. Available online: http:
//www.biodiversity.ru/programs/ecoservices/library/functions/water/doc/Kuchment.pdf (accessed on 23 May 2022).
6. Hagemann, S.; Arpe, K.; Roeckner, E. Evaluation of the Hydrological Cycle in the ECHAM5 Model. J. Clim. 2006, 19, 3810–3827.
[CrossRef]
7. Costa, M.H.; Foley, J.A. Trends in the Hydrologic Cycle of the Amazon Basin. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 1999, 104, 14189–14198.
[CrossRef]
8. Brouziyne, Y.; Abouabdillah, A.; Bouabid, R.; Benaabidate, L. SWAT Streamflow Modeling for Hydrological Components’
Understanding within an Agro-Sylvo-Pastoral Watershed in Morocco. J. Mater. Environ. Sci. 2018, 9, 128–138. [CrossRef]
9. Madan Kumar Jha, B.U. Assessing Climate Change Impact on Water Balance Components of Upper Baitarni River Basin Using
SWAT Model. J. Earth Sci. Clim. Chang. 2015, 29, 4767–4785. [CrossRef]
10. Jamali, A.A.; Ghorbani Kalkhajeh, R.; Randhir, T.O.; He, S. Modeling Relationship between Land Surface Temperature Anomaly
and Environmental Factors Using GEE and Giovanni. J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 302, 113970. [CrossRef]
11. Jamali, A.A.; Montazeri Naeeni, M.A.; Zarei, G. Assessing the Expansion of Saline Lands through Vegetation and Wetland Loss
Using Remote Sensing and GIS. Remote Sens. Appl. Soc. Environ. 2020, 20, 100428. [CrossRef]
12. Abbott, M.B.; Bathurst, J.C.; Cunge, J.A.; O’Connell, P.E.; Rasmussen, J. An Introduction to the European Hydrological System—
Systeme Hydrologique Europeen, “SHE”, 1: History and Philosophy of a Physically-Based, Distributed Modelling System. J.
Hydrol. 1986, 87, 45–59. [CrossRef]
13. Mourad, K.A.; Alshihabi, O. Assessment of Future Syrian Water Resources Supply and Demand by the WEAP Model. Hydrol. Sci.
J. 2016, 61, 393–401. [CrossRef]
14. Zhang, Y.; Liu, S.; Cheng, F.; Shen, Z. WetSpass-Based Study of the Effects of Urbanization on the Water Balance Components at
Regional and Quadrat Scales in Beijing, China. Water 2018, 10, 5. [CrossRef]
15. El Garouani, A.; Aharik, K.; El Garouani, S. Water Balance Assessment Using Remote Sensing, Wet-Spass Model, CN-SCS, and
GIS for Water Resources Management in Saïss Plain (Morocco). Arab. J. Geosci. 2020, 13, 738. [CrossRef]
16. Beven, K.J.; Kirkby, M.J. A Physically Based, Variable Contributing Area Model of Basin Hydrology/Un Modèle à Base Physique
de Zone d’appel Variable de l’hydrologie Du Bassin Versant. Hydrol. Sci. Bull. 1979, 24, 43–69. [CrossRef]
17. Thanapakpawin, P.; Richey, J.; Thomas, D.; Rodda, S.; Campbell, B.; Logsdon, M. Effects of Landuse Change on the Hydrologic
Regime of the Mae Chaem River Basin, NW Thailand. J. Hydrol. 2007, 334, 215–230. [CrossRef]
18. Er-Raki, S.; Ezzahar, J.; Merlin, O.; Amazirh, A.; Hssaine, B.A.; Kharrou, M.H.; Khabba, S.; Chehbouni, A. Performance of the
HYDRUS-1D Model for Water Balance Components Assessment of Irrigated Winter Wheat under Different Water Managements
in Semi-Arid Region of Morocco. Agric. Water Manag. 2021, 244, 106546. [CrossRef]
19. Adnan, M.; Kang, S.; Zhang, G.; Anjum, M.N.; Zaman, M.; Zhang, Y. Evaluation of SWAT Model Performance on Glaciated and
Non-Glaciated Subbasins of Nam Co Lake, Southern Tibetan Plateau, China. J. Mt. Sci. 2019, 16, 1075–1097. [CrossRef]
20. Ortegón, Y.A.C.; Acosta-Prado, J.C.; Acosta Castellanos, P.M. Impact of Land Cover Changes on the Availability of Water
Resources in the Regional Natural Park Serranía de Las Quinchas. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3237. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022, 14, 10848 16 of 17

21. Dananto, M.; Aga, A.O.; Yohannes, P.; Shura, L. Assessing the Water-Resources Potential and Soil Erosion Hotspot Areas
for Sustainable Land Management in the Gidabo Watershed, Rift Valley Lake Basin of Ethiopia. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5262.
[CrossRef]
22. Ijlil, S.; Essahlaoui, A.; Mohajane, M.; Essahlaoui, N.; Mili, E.M.; Van Rompaey, A. Machine Learning Algorithms for Modeling
and Mapping of Groundwater Pollution Risk: A Study to Reach Water Security and Sustainable Development (Sdg) Goals in a
Mediterranean Aquifer System. Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 2379. [CrossRef]
23. Alitane, A.; Essahlaoui, A.; El Hafyani, M.; El Hmaidi, A.; El Ouali, A.; Kassou, A.; El Yousfi, Y.; van Griensven, A.; Chawanda, C.J.;
Van Rompaey, A. Water Erosion Monitoring and Prediction in Response to the Effects of Climate Change Using RUSLE and
SWAT Equations: Case of R’Dom Watershed in Morocco. Land 2022, 11, 93. [CrossRef]
24. Berni, I.; Menouni, A.; El Ghazi, I.; Godderis, L.; Duca, R.-C.; Jaafari, S.E. Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Based on
Pesticide Monitoring in Saïss Plain (Morocco) Groundwater. Environ. Pollut. 2021, 276, 116638. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
25. Boufala, M.; El Hmaidi, A.; Essahlaoui, A.; Chadli, K.; El Ouali, A.; Lahjouj, A. Assessment of the Best Management Practices
under a Semi-Arid Basin Using SWAT Model (Case of M’dez Watershed, Morocco). Model. Earth Syst. Environ. 2022, 8, 713–731.
[CrossRef]
26. El Hafyani, M.; Essahlaoui, A.; Van Rompaey, A.; Mohajane, M.; El Hmaidi, A.; El Ouali, A.; Moudden, F.; Serrhini, N.-E.
Assessing Regional Scale Water Balances through Remote Sensing Techniques: A Case Study of Boufakrane River Watershed,
Meknes Region, Morocco. Water 2020, 12, 320. [CrossRef]
27. Bouslihim, Y.; Kacimi, I.; Brirhet, H.; Khatati, M.; Rochdi, A.; Pazza, N.E.A.; Miftah, A.; Yaslo, Z. Hydrologic Modeling Using
SWAT and GIS, Application to Subwatershed Bab-Merzouka (Sebou, Morocco). J. Geogr. Inf. Syst. 2016, 8, 20–27. [CrossRef]
28. Briak, H.; Mrabet, R.; Moussadek, R.; Aboumaria, K. Use of a Calibrated SWAT Model to Evaluate the Effects of Agricultural
BMPs on Sediments of the Kalaya River Basin (North of Morocco). Int. Soil Water Conserv. Res. 2019, 7, 176–183. [CrossRef]
29. Fadil, A.; Rhinane, H.; Kaoukaya, A.; Kharchaf, Y.; Bachir, O.A. Hydrologic Modeling of the Bouregreg Watershed (Morocco)
Using GIS and SWAT Model. J. Geogr. Inf. Syst. 2011, 3, 279–289. [CrossRef]
30. Semlali, I.; Ouadif, L.; Baba, K.; Akhssas, A.; Bahi, L. Using GIS and SWAT Model for Hydrological Modelling of Oued Laou
Watershed (Morocco). ARPN J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 2017, 12, 11.
31. Bouslihim, Y.; Rochdi, A.; El Amrani Paaza, N.; Liuzzo, L. Understanding the Effects of Soil Data Quality on SWAT Model
Performance and Hydrological Processes in Tamedroust Watershed (Morocco). J. Afr. Earth Sci. 2019, 160, 103616. [CrossRef]
32. Jayakrishnan, R.; Srinivasan, R.; Santhi, C.; Arnold, J.G. Advances in the Application of the SWAT Model for Water Resources
Management. Hydrol. Process. 2005, 19, 749–762. [CrossRef]
33. Dechmi, F.; Burguete, J.; Skhiri, A. SWAT Application in Intensive Irrigation Systems: Model Modification, Calibration and
Validation. J. Hydrol. 2012, 470, 227–238. [CrossRef]
34. Rostamian, R.; Jaleh, A.; Afyuni, M.; Mousavi, S.F.; Heidarpour, M.; Jalalian, A.; Abbaspour, K.C. Application of a SWAT Model
for Estimating Runoff and Sediment in Two Mountainous Basins in Central Iran. Hydrol. Sci. J. 2008, 53, 977–988. [CrossRef]
35. Saleh, A.; Arnold, J.G.; Gassman, P.W.A.; Hauck, L.M.; Rosenthal, W.D.; Williams, J.R.; McFarland, A.M.S. Application of SWAT
for the Upper North Bosque River Watershed. Trans. ASAE 2000, 43, 1077–1087. [CrossRef]
36. Tomy, T.; Sumam, K.S. Determining the Adequacy of CFSR Data for Rainfall-Runoff Modeling Using SWAT. Procedia Technol.
2016, 24, 309–316. [CrossRef]
37. Santhi, C.; Muttiah, R.S.; Arnold, J.G.; Srinivasan, R. A Gis-based regional planning tool for irrigation demand assessment and
savings using swat. Trans. ASAE 2005, 48, 137–147. [CrossRef]
38. Ben-Daoud, M.; Mahrad, B.E.; Elhassnaoui, I.; Moumen, A.; Sayad, A.; ELbouhadioui, M.; Moros, anu, G.A.; Mezouary, L.E.;
Essahlaoui, A.; Eljaafari, S. Integrated Water Resources Management: An Indicator Framework for Water Management System
Assessment in the R’Dom Sub-Basin, Morocco. Environ. Chall. 2021, 3, 100062. [CrossRef]
39. Betrie, G.D.; Mohamed, Y.A.; van Griensven, A.; Srinivasan, R. Sediment Management Modelling in the Blue Nile Basin Using
SWAT Model. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2011, 15, 807–818. [CrossRef]
40. Leon, L.F.; George, C. WaterBase: SWAT in an Open Source GIS. Open Hydrol. J. 2008, 2, 1–6. [CrossRef]
41. Nash, J.E.; Sutcliffe, J.V. River Flow Forecasting through Conceptual Models Part I—A Discussion of Principles. J. Hydrol. 1970,
10, 282–290. [CrossRef]
42. Xie, X.; Cui, Y. Development and Test of SWAT for Modeling Hydrological Processes in Irrigation Districts with Paddy Rice. J.
Hydrol. 2011, 396, 61–71. [CrossRef]
43. Del, O. SWAT+ INPUT DATA. 2016, p. 222. Available online: https://swat.tamu.edu/media/116078/inputs_swatplus.pdf
(accessed on 23 May 2022).
44. Guug, S.S.; Abdul-Ganiyu, S.; Kasei, R.A. Application of SWAT Hydrological Model for Assessing Water Availability at the
Sherigu Catchment of Ghana and Southern Burkina Faso. HydroResearch 2020, 3, 124–133. [CrossRef]
45. Monteith, J.L. Evaporation and Environment. Symp. Soc. Exp. Biol. 1965, 19, 205–234. [PubMed]
46. Hargreaves, G.H.; Allen, R.G. History and Evaluation of Hargreaves Evapotranspiration Equation. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 2003, 129,
53–63. [CrossRef]
47. Priestley, C.H.B.; Taylor, R.J. On the Assessment of Surface Heat Flux and Evaporation Using Large-Scale Parameters. Mon.
Weather Rev. 1972, 100, 81–92. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022, 14, 10848 17 of 17

48. Ayivi, F.; Jha, M.K. Estimation of Water Balance and Water Yield in the Reedy Fork-Buffalo Creek Watershed in North Carolina
Using SWAT. Int. Soil Water Conserv. Res. 2018, 6, 203–213. [CrossRef]
49. El Yousfi, Y.; Himi, M.; El Ouarghi, H.; Elgettafi, M.; Benyoussef, S.; Gueddari, H.; Aqnouy, M.; Salhi, A.; Alitane, A. Hydrogeo-
chemical and Statistical Approach to Characterize Groundwater Salinity in the Ghiss-Nekkor Coastal Aquifers in the Al Hoceima
Province, Morocco. Groundw. Sustain. Dev. 2022, 19, 100818. [CrossRef]
50. Blanco-Gómez, P.; Jimeno-Sáez, P.; Senent-Aparicio, J.; Pérez-Sánchez, J. Impact of Climate Change on Water Balance Components
and Droughts in the Guajoyo River Basin (El Salvador). Water 2019, 11, 2360. [CrossRef]
51. Yin, Z.; Feng, Q.; Zou, S.; Yang, L. Assessing Variation in Water Balance Components in Mountainous Inland River Basin
Experiencing Climate Change. Water 2016, 8, 472. [CrossRef]
52. Khalid, C. Hydrological Modeling of the Mikkés Watershed (Morocco) Using ARCSWAT Model. Sustain. Water Resour. Manag.
2018, 4, 105–115. [CrossRef]
53. Terink, W.; Hunink, J.; Droogers, P.; Reuter, H.; van Lynden, G.; Kauffman, J. Impacts of Land Management Options in
the Sebou Basin: Using the Soil and Water Assessment Tool-SWAT. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2011, 1. Available online: https:
//www.isric.org/sites/default/files/isric_gwc_report_m1.pdf (accessed on 23 May 2022).
54. Ait M’Barek, S.; Rochdi, A.; Bouslihim, Y.; Miftah, A. Multi-Site Calibration and Validation of SWAT Model for Hydrologic
Modeling and Soil Erosion Estimation: A Case Study in El Grou Watershed, Morocco. Ecol. Eng. Environ. Technol. 2021, 22, 45–52.
[CrossRef]