Do Nash values have value?

Hydrological Processes

Volumn 21, Issue 15, 2007, Pages 2075-2080

  Schaefli, Bettina ^a   Gupta, Hoshin V ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF POTSDAM   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 34547136487     PISSN: 08856087     EISSN: 10991085     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/hyp.6825     Document Type: Note

References (16)

1. Boyle DP. 2000. Multicriteria calibration of hydrological models. PhD Dissertation, Department of Hydrology and Water Resources, The University of Arizona, Tucson.
2. Chow V-T, Maidment DR, Mays LW. 1988. Applied Hydrology. McGraw-Hill: New York, 572.
3. Garrick M, Cumane C, Nash JE. 1978. A criterion of efficiency for rainfall-runoff models. Journal of Hydrology 36: 375-381.
4. Gurtz J, Baltensweiler A, Lang H. 1999. Spatially distributed hydrotope-based modelling of evapotranspiration and runoff in mountainous basins. Hydrological Processes 13: 2751-2768.
5. Gurtz J, Zappa M, Jasper K, Lang H, Verbunt M, Badoux A, Vitvar T. 2003. A comparative study in modelling runoff and its components in two mountainous catchments. Hydrological Processes 17: 297-311.
6. Hasselmann K. 1976. Stochastic climate models. Part I: theory. Tellus 28: 473-485.
7. Legates DR, McCabe GJ Jr. 1999. Evaluating the use of "goodness-of-fit" measures in hydrologic and hydroclimatic model validation. Water Resources Research 35: 233-241, DOI: 10-1029/1998WR900018.
8. Martinec J, Rango A. 1989. Merits of statistical criteria for the performance of hydrological models. Water Resources Bulletin 252: 421-432.
9. Morin E, Georgakakos KP, Shamir U, Garti R, Enzel Y. 2002. Objective, observations-based, automatic estimation of the catchment response timescale. Water Resources Research 38: 1212, DOI: 10-1029/ 2001WR000808.
10. Nash JE, Sutcliffe JV. 1970. River flow forecasting through conceptual models. Part I: a discussion of principles. Journal of Hydrology 10: 282-290.
11. Pappenberger F, Beven KJ. 2006. Ignorance is bliss: or seven reasons not to use uncertainty analysis. Water Resources Research 42: W05 302, DOI: 10.1029/2005WR004820.
12. Parajka J, Merz R, Bloschl G. 2005. A comparison of regionalisation methods for catchment model parameters. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 9: 157-171.
13. Schaefli B, Hingray B, Niggli M, Musy A. 2005. A conceptual glaciohydrological model for high mountainous catchments. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 9: 95-109.
14. Seibert J. 2001. On the need for benchmarks in hydrological modelling. Hydrological Processes 15: 1063-1064. DOI: 10.1002/hyp.446.
15. Vrugt JA, Gupta HV, Bouten W, Sorooshian S. 2003. A shuffled complex evolution metropolis algorithm for optimization and uncertainty assessment of hydrologic models. Water Resources Research 39: 1201, DOI:10.1029/2002WR001642.
16. World Meteorological Organisation. 1986. Intercomparison of models of snowmelt runoff, Operational Hydrology Report No. 23. Secretariat of the World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.