## 3 Results
### Assessment of Water Supply Capacity by Climate Change Scenario  
Furthermore, four GCMs with lower time reliability and one GCM with the median value of reliability were selected for estimating water supply capacity. The assessment was performed using the method shown in Section 2.3. To this end, we applied the termination criteria at each drought response stage to each selected climate change scenario. Time reliability, supply reliability, resiliency, and vulnerability were calculated on a daily basis (Table 5). The four GCMs with lower time reliability were found to be CMCC-CMS(RCP4.5), IPSL-CM5A-MR(RCP8.5), INM-CM4(RCP8.5), and MIROC-ESM(RCP8.5), and the GCM with the median value was CMSM4(RCP4.5). We also found that CMCC-CMS(RCP4.5) was the GCM with the lowest time reliability and supply reliability (65.6 and 79.9%, respectively). For these lowest values, as for the other three GCMs with low values of reliability, the time reliability was \(\geq\)80%, and the supply reliability was \(\geq\)90%, thereby indicating a significant difference from the values of CMCC-CMS(RCP4.5). Moreover, the sizes of the values of time reliability and supply reliability were also in the order of the aforementioned GCMs. From a resiliency perspective, the MIROC-ESM(RCP8.5) model yielded the lowest value at 54.9 days, while IPSL-CM5A-MR(RCP8.5) yielded the second lowest value of resiliency at 57.9 days. The resiliency of the CMCC-CMS(RCP4.5) model, which was marked by the lowest time reliability and supply reliability, was 65.1 days. Of the five selected GCMs, INM-CM4(RCP8.5) was found to be the model with the highest value of resiliency at 86.7 days. From the vulnerability perspective, unlike the case of resiliency, the value of INM-CM4(RCP8.5) was estimated to be 79.6 m\({}^{3}\)/d, and that of CMCC-CMS(RCP4.5) was found to be 63.9 m\({}^{3}\)/d. This finding indicates a significant volume of water shortage. Time reliability and supply reliability exhibited the same trend in terms of the sizes of values for the above-mentioned GCMs, but resiliency and vulnerability exhibited a different trend. Possibly, the main driver of this phenomenon was the discrepancy in days of water supply restriction for each GCM, volume of water supply reduction by drought stage, and the number of event occurrences, in which the water supply restriction was triggered and then terminated. When the termination criteria for each drought response stage were applied to the selected climate change scenario, the volume of additional water supply and the number of days for water supply availability increased (Table 6). The CMCC-CMS(RCP4.5) model, with the lowest reliability values, exhibited an increased volume of 74.15 million m\({}^{3}\), which corresponds to 52.0 days of water supply for residential and industrial use and 47.7 days of water supply for residential, industrial, and agricultural use and river maintenance. IPSL-CM5A-MR(RCP8.5) was the GCM with the second largest volume of additional water supply. Specifically, it exhibited an increased volume of 15.83 million m\({}^{3}\), which corresponds to 11.1 days of water supply for residential and industrial use and 10.2 days of water supply for residential, industrial, and agricultural use and river maintenance. INM-CM4(RCP8.5) was the GCM with the third largest volume of additional water supply. It exhibited an increased volume of 14.49 million m\({}^{3}\), which corresponds to 10.1 days of water supply for residential and industrial use and 9.3 days of water supply for residential, indus \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Reliability** & **Reliability** & **Resiliency** & **Vulnerability** \\  & **(Time)** & **(Supply)** & **(Day)** & **(Million m\({}^{3}\))** \\ \hline CMCC-CMS(RCP4.5) & 65.6 & 79.9 & 65.1 & 63.9 \\ IPSL-CM5A-MR & 86.0 & 91.9 & 57.9 & 51.9 \\ (RCP8.5) & 87.4 & 93.1 & 86.7 & 79.6 \\ MIROC-ESM(RCP8.5) & 88.2 & 93.3 & 54.9 & 47.3 \\ CMSM4(RCP4.5) & 95.4 & 97.5 & 61.8 & 54.6 \\ (median) & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}