Crash tests for a standardized evaluation of hydrological models

Hydrology and Earth System Sciences

Volumn 13, Issue 10, 2009, Pages 1757-1764

  Andreassian V ^a   Perrin, C ^a   Berthet, L ^a,e   Le Moine, N ^b   Lerat, J ^c,f   Loumagne, C ^a   Oudin, L ^d   Mathevet, T ^b   Ramos, M H ^a   Valery A ^a  

^a National Research Institute of Science and Technology for Environment and Agriculture   (France)

^b EDF R AND D   (France)

^c UMR G EAU   (France)

^d SORBONNE UNIVERSITÉ   (France)

^e AGROPARISTECH   (France)

^f CSIRO   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CATCHMENT; DATA SET; HYDROLOGICAL MODELING; MODEL TEST; PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT;

EID: 76349113838     PISSN: 10275606     EISSN: 16077938     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5194/hess-13-1757-2009     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Andersson, L.: Improvement of runoff models. What way to go?, Nord. Hydrol., 23, 315-332, 1992.
2. Andréassian, V., Loumagne, C., Mathevet, T., Michel, C., Oudin, L., and Perrin, C.: What is really undermining hydrologic science today? Hydrol. Process., 21, 2819-2822, 2007.
3. Bergström, S.: Principles and confidence in hydrological modelling, Nord. Hydrol., 22, 123-136, 1991.
4. Beven, K.: On explanatory depth and predictive power, Hydrol. Process., 15, 3069-3072, 2001.
5. Beven, K.: Towards integrated environmental models of everywhere: uncertainty, data and modelling as a learning process, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 11, 460-467, 2007, http://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/11/460/2007/.
6. Boughton, W. and Chiew, F.: Estimating runoff in ungauged catchments from rainfall, PET and the AWBM model, Environ. Modell. Softw., 22, 476-487, 2007.
7. Clarke, R. T.: A critique of present procedures used to compare performance of rainfall-runoff models, J. Hydrol., 352, 379-387, 2008a.
8. Clarke, R. T.: Issues of experimental design for comparing the performance of hydrologic models, Water Resour. Res., 44(1), W01409, doi:10.1029/2007WR005927, 2008b. (Pubitemid 351304134)
9. de Marsily, G., Combes, P., and Goblet, P.: Comment on "Groundwater models cannot be validated", by Konikow, L. F. and Bredehoeft, J. D., Adv. Water Resour., 15, 367-369, 1992.
10. Donelly-Makowecki, L. M. and Moore, R. D.: Hierarchical testing of three rainfall-runoff models in small forested catchments, J. Hydrol., 219, 136-152, 1999.
11. Ewen, J. and Parkin, G.: Validation of catchment models for predicting land-use and climate change impacts, 1, Method. J. Hydrol., 175, 583-594, 1996.
12. Fenicia, F., Savenije, H. H. G., Matgen, P., and Pfister, L.: Understanding catchment behavior through stepwise model concept improvement, Water Resour. Res., 44, W01402, doi:10.1029/2006WR005563, 2008a. (Pubitemid 351304127)
13. Fenicia, F., McDonnell, J. J., and Savenije, H. H. G.: Learning from model improvement: On the contribution of complementary data to process understanding, Water Resour. Res., 44(6), W06419, doi:10.1029/2007WR006386, 2008b.
14. Kay, A. L., Jones, D. A., Crooks, S. M., Calver, A., and Reynard, N. S.: A comparison of three approaches to spatial generalization of rainfall-runoff models, Hydrol. Process., 20, 3953-3973, 2006.
15. Kirchner, J.: Getting the right answers for the right reasons: linking measurements, analyses, and models to advance the science of hydrology, Water Resour. Res., 42, W03S04, doi:10.1029/2005WR004362, 2006.
16. Klemes, V.: Operational testing of hydrologic simulation models, Hydrolog. Sci. J., 31, 13-24, 1986.
17. Konikow, L. F., and Bredehoeft, J. D.: Ground-water models cannot be validated, Adv. Water Resour. 15, 75-83, 1992.
18. Koutsoyiannis, D., Makropoulos, C., Langousis, A., Baki, S., Efstratiadis, A., Christofides, A., Karavokiros, G., and Mamassis, N.: HESS Opinions: "Climate, hydrology, energy, water: recognizing uncertainty and seeking sustainability", Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 13, 247-257, 2009, http://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/13/247/2009/.
19. Le Moine, N., Andréassian, V., Perrin, C., and Michel, C.: How can rainfall-runoff models handle intercatchment groundwater flows? Theoretical study over 1040 French catchments, Water Resour. Res., 43, W06428, doi:10.1029/2006WR005608, 2007. (Pubitemid 47124449)
20. Le Moine, N.: Le bassin versant de surface vu par le souterrain: une voie d'aḿelioration des performances et du réalisme des mod̀eles pluie-d́ebit? Universit́e Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris, PhD thesis, 322 pp., 2008.
21. Linsley, R. K.: Rainfall-runoff models-an overview, in: Proceedings of the international symposium on rainfall-runoff modelling, edited by: Singh, V. P., Water Resources Publications, Littleton, CO, 3-22, 1982.
22. Martin, P. H.: Physics of stamp-collecting? Thoughts on ecosystem model design, Sci. Total Environ., 183, 7-15, 1996.
23. Mathevet, T., Michel, C., Andréassian, V., and Perrin, C.: A bounded version of the Nash-Sutcliffe criterion for better model assessment on large sets of basins, IAHS Red Books Series, 307, 211-219, 2006.
24. McDonnell, J. J., Sivapalan, M., Vache, K., Dunn, S., Grant, G., Haggerty, R., Hinz, C., Hooper, R., Kirchner, J., Roderick, M. L., Selker, J., and Weiler, M.: Moving beyond heterogeneity and process complexity: a new vision for watershed hydrology, Water Resour. Res., 43(7), W07301, doi:10.1029/2006WR005467, 2007. (Pubitemid 350194455)
25. McIntyre, N., Lee, H., Wheater, H., Young, A., and Wagener, T.: Ensemble predictions of runoff in ungauged catchments, Water Resour. Res., 41, W12434, doi:10.1029/2005WR004289, 2005. (Pubitemid 43151131)
26. Merz, R. and Blöschl, G.: Regionalisation of catchment model parameters, J. Hydrol., 287, 95-123, 2004.
27. Michel, C., Perrin, C., Andréassian, V., Oudin, L., and Mathevet, T.: Has basin-scale modelling advanced beyond empiricism?, in: Large sample basin experiments for hydrological model parameterization, results of the Model Parameter Experiment -MOPEX, IAHS Publication 307, edited by: Andréassian, V., Hall, A., Chahinian, N., and Schaake, J., IAHS, Wallingford, 2006.
28. Moore, I. D. and Mein, R. G.: An evaluation of three rainfall-runoff models, Hydrological Symposium, Sydney, 122-126, 1975.
29. Mouelhi, S., Michel, C., Perrin, C., and Andréassian, V.: Linking stream flow to rainfall at the annual time step: the Manabe bucket model revisited, J. Hydrol., 328, 283-296, 2006.
30. Nathan, R. J. and McMahon, T. A.: The SFB model Part I - validation of fixed model parameters, Civ. Eng. Trans., Inst. Engs. Australia, CE32, 157-161, 1990.
31. Oreskes, N., Shrader-Frechette, K., and Belitz, K.: Verification, validation, and confirmation of numerical models in the earth sciences, Science, 263, 641-646, 1994.
32. Oreskes, N.: Evaluation (not validation) of quantitative models, Environ. Health Persp., 106, 1453-1460, 1998.
33. Oudin, L., Perrin, C., Mathevet, T., Andréassian, V., and Michel, C.: Impact of biased and randomly corrupted inputs on the efficiency and the parameters of watershed models, J. Hydrol., 320, 62-83, 2006.
34. Oudin, L., Andréassian, V., Lerat, J., and Michel, C.: Has land cover a significant impact on mean annual streamflow? An international assessment using 1508 catchments, J. Hydrol., 357, 303-316, 2008.
35. Perrin, C., Michel, C., and Andréassian, V.: Does a large number of parameters enhance model performance? Comparative assessment of common catchment model structures on 429 catchments, J. Hydrol., 242, 275-301, 2001.
36. Perrin, C., Oudin, L., Andréassian, V., Rojas-Serna, C., Michel, C., and Mathevet, T.: Impact of limited streamflow knowledge on the efficiency and the parameters of rainfall-runoff models, Hydrolog. Sci. J., 52, 131-151, 2007.
37. Popper, K.: The logic of scientific discovery, Routldege, London, 513 pp., 1959.
38. Refsgaard, J. C. and Knudsen, J.: Operational validation and intercomparison of different types of hydrological models, Water Resour. Res., 32, 2189-2202, 1996.
39. Refsgaard, J. C. and Henriksen, H. J.: Modelling guidelines - terminology and guiding principles, Adv. Water Res., 27, 71-82, 2004.
40. Roche, M.: Les divers types de mod̀eles d́eterministes, La Houille Blanche, 111-129, 1971.
41. Savenije, H. H. G.: HESS Opinions "The art of hydrology", Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 13, 157-161, 2009, http://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci. net/13/157/2009/.
42. Schaake, J., Duan, Q., Andréassian, V., Franks, S., Hall, A., and Leavesley, G.: The model parameter estimation experiment - MOPEX, J. Hydrol., 320, 1-2, 2006.
43. Seibert, J.: Reliability of model predictions outside calibration conditions, Nord. Hydrol., 34, 477-492, 2003.
44. Silberstein, R. P.: Hydrological models are so good, do we still need data? Environ. Modell. Softw., 21, 1340-1352, 2005.
45. Smith, M. B., Seo, D. J., Koren, V. I., Reed, S. M., Zhang, Z., Duan, Q., Moreda, F., and Cong, S.: The distributed model intercomparison project (DMIP): motivation and experiment design, J. Hydrol., 298, 4-26, 2004.
46. Vandewiele, G. L., Xu, C. Y., and Win, N. L.: Methodology and comparative study of monthly models in Belgium, China and Burma, J. Hydrol., 134, 315-347, 1992.
47. WMO: Intercomparison of conceptual models used in operational hydrological forecasting, Operational Hydrology Report no.7 and WMO no. 429,World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, 1975.
48. WMO: Intercomparison of models of snowmelt runoff, Operational Hydrology Report no.23 and WMO no. 646,World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, 1986.
49. WMO: Simulated real-time intercomparison of hydrological models, Operational Hydrology Report no. 38 and WMO no. 779, World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, 1992.
50. Xu, C. Y.: Operational testing of a water balance model for predicting climate change impacts, Agr. Forest Meteorol., 98(9), 295-304, 1999.
51. Young, A. R.: Stream flow simulation within UK ungauged catchments using a daily rainfall-runoff model, J. Hydrol., 320, 155-172, 2006.