A model selection protocol to support the use of models for water management

Hydrology and Earth System Sciences

Volumn 11, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 634-646

  Boorman, David ^a   Williams, Richard ^a   Hutchins, Michael ^a   Penning, Ellis ^b   Groot, Simon ^b   Icke, Joost ^b  

^a CENTRE FOR ECOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY   (United Kingdom)

^b WL DELFT HYDRAULICS   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Model selection; Modelling; Water framework directive; Water management

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; HYDROLOGICAL MODELING; MODEL TEST; WATER MANAGEMENT;

EID: 33846348242     PISSN: 10275606     EISSN: 16077938     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5194/hess-11-634-2007     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Bantz, I.B. and Cembrowicz, R.G., 1983. A combined dynamic flow and quality model for time variable effluents. IAHS Publication no. 147, 395-405.
2. Bart, J., 1995. Acceptance criteria for using individual-based models to make management decisions. Ecol. Appl., 5, 411-420.
3. Beven, K.J., 1993. Prophecy, reality and uncertainty in distributed hydrological modeling. Adv. Water Resour., 16, 41-51.
4. Boorman, D.B., 2003. LOIS in-stream water quality modelling. Part 1: Catchments and methods. Sci. Total Envir., 314/316, 379-395.
5. Carstensen, J., Vanrolleghem, P., Rauch, W. and Reichert, P., 1997, Terminology and methodology in modelling for water quality management - a discussion starter. Water Sci. Technol., 36, 157-168.
6. Crabtree, R.W., Cluckie, I.D., Forster, C.F. and Crockett, C.P., 1986. A comparison of two river quality models. Water Res., 20, 53-61.
7. Dhondia, J. and Stelling, G.S, 2002, Application of One Dimensional - Two Dimensional Integrated Hydraulic Model for Flood Simulation and Damage Assessment. Fifth Int. Conf. on Hydroinformatics, 2002, Cardiff, UK.
8. Katherall, A., Boorman, D.B., Williams, R.J. and Kowe, R., 1998, Modelling in-stream water quality in LOIS. Sci. Total Envir., 210/211, 499-518.
9. Emmerich, W.E., Woolhiser, D.A. and Shirley, E.D., 1989. Comparison of lumped and distributed models for chemical transport by surface runoff. J. Environ. Qual., 18, 120-126.
10. Freer, J. and Beven, K.J., 1996. Bayesian estimation of uncertainty in runoff prediction and the value of dais: an application of the GLUK approach, Water Resour. Res., 32, 2161-2173.
11. Thian Yew Gan, Dlamini, E.M. and Biftu, G.F., 1997. Effects of model complexity and structure, data quality and objective functions on hydrologie modeling. J. Hydrol., 192, 81-103.
12. Heeringen, K.J. Van, Verwey, A. and Melger, K., 2002, Dutch Approach to high speed urban drainage modelling with SOBKK. Proc. 9th Int. Conf. on Urban Storm Drainage, 8-13 September 2002, Portland, USA.
13. Haybye, J.A., 1996. Uncertainty analysis in water quality modelling - Case study:Hjarback Fjord. NordHydrol., 27, 203-214.
14. Houghton-Carr, H.A., 1999, Assessment criteria for simple conceptual daily rainfall-runoff models. Hydrolog. Sci. J., 44, 237-262.
15. Hughes, DA., 1994. Soil moisture and runoff simulations using four catchment rainfall-runoff models. J. Hydrol., 158, 381-404.
16. Lane, S.N. and Richards, K.S., 2001. The 'validation' of hydrodynamic models: some critical perspectives. In: Model Validation: Perspectives in Hydrological Science, M.G. Anderson and P.D. Bates (Eds.), Wiley, Chichester, UK. 413-439.
17. Moll, A. and G. Radach, G., 2003, Review of three-dimensional ecological modeling related to the North Sea shelf system, Part 1: models and their results. Progr. Oceanography, 57, 175-217.
18. Naden, P.S., Cooper, D.M. and Boorman, D.B., 2001. Modelling large-scale river basins. In: A Land Ocean Interaction Study: measuring and modelling fluxes from rivers to the coastal ocean, D. Huntley, G.J.L. Leeks and D.K. Walling (Kds.), International Water Association, London, UK. 105-142.
19. Nix, J.S., 1990, Mathematical modelling of the combined sewer system. In: Controls and treatment of combined sewer overflows, P.E. Moffa (Ed.), Van Nostrad Reinhold, New York, USA. 23-78.
20. Oreskes, N., Shrader-Frechette, K. and Belitz, K., 1994. Verification, validation, and confirmation of numerical models in the earth sciences. Science, 263, 641-646.
21. Refsgaard, J.C. and Henriksen, H.J., 2004. Modelling guidelines - terminology and guiding principles. Adv. Water Resour., 27, 71-82.
22. Rofsgaard, J.C., Henriksen, H. J., Harrar, B., Scholten, H. and Kassahun, A., 2005, Quality assurance in model based water management - review of existing practice and outline of new approaches, Environ. Modal. Software, 20, 1201-1215.
23. Rykiel, E.J., 1994. Comment on Oreskes et al. Science, 264, 330-331.
24. Saloranta, T.M., Kamari, J., Rekolainen, S. and Malve, O., 2003. Benchmark criteria: a tool for selecting appropriate models in the field of water management. Environ. Manage., 32, 322-333.
25. Series on Model Choice, Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology, www.toolkit.net.au/modelehoice.
26. Shoemaker, L., Lahlou, M., Bryer, M., Kumar, D. and Kratt, K., 1997. Compendium of tools for watershed assessment and TMDL development, US EPA Washington DC, EPA841-B-97-006.
27. Stelling, G.S., Kernkamp, H.W.J. and Laguzzi, MM, 1998. Delft Flooding System: a powerful tool for inundation assessment based upon a positive flow simulation. In: Hydroinformatics, Babovic and Larsen, (Eds.), Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 449-456.
28. US Environmental Protection Agency, 1987. Selection criteria for mathematical modela used in exposure assessments: Surface Water Models. US EPA, Washington DC, EPA/600/8-87/042.
29. Van Der Molen, D., 1999. The role of eutrophication models in water management, PhD Thesis, Wageningen University. RIZA report 99.020, Lelystad, The Netherlands.
30. Van Der Perk, M., 1997. Effect of model strueture on the accuracy and uncertainty of results from water quality models. Hydrol. Process., 11, 227-239.
31. Vandewiele G.L. and Ni-Lar-Win, 1998. Monthly water balance models for 55 basins in 10 countries. Ifydrolog. Sci. J., 43, 687-699.
32. Van Oijen, M., Rougier, J. and Smith, R., 2005. Bayesian calibration of process-based forest models: bridging the gap between models and data. Tree Physiol., 25, 915-927.
33. Van Waveren, R.H., Groot, S., Scholten, H., Van Geer, F.C., Wösten, J.H.M. and Koezc, R.D., 1999. Good modelling practice handbook. STOWA Report 99-05. Utrecht, RWS-RIZA, Lelystad, The Netherlands.
34. Verwey, A., 2001, Latest developments in floodplain modelling - 1D/2D integration, Proa. 6th Conf. on Hydraulics in Civil Engineering, The Institution of Engineers, Hobart, Australia,
35. Warwick, J.J. and Roberts, L.A., 1992. Computing the risks associated with wastcload allocation modelling. Water Res. Bull., 28, 903-915.
36. Wasson, J.G., Tusseau-Vuillemin, M.H., Andréassian, V., Perrin, C., Faure, J.B. and Barreteau, O., 2003, What kind of water models are needed for the implementation of the European Water Framework Directive? Examples from France. Int. J. River Basin Manage., 1, 125-135.