When monstrosity can be beautiful while normality can be ugly: Assessing the performance of event-based flood models;Quand la monstruosité peut être belle alors que la normalité peut être laide: Une nouvelle méthode pour évaluer les performances d'un modèle événementiel de crue

Hydrological Sciences Journal

Volumn 55, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 1074-1084

  Moussa, Roger ^a  

^a UMR LISAH   (France)

Author keywords

Flood event model; Multi criteria performance analysis; Nash Sutcliffe efficiency; Performance criteria function

Indexed keywords

EVENT-BASED; FLOOD EVENT; FLOOD MODELS; HYDROGRAPHS; MODEL PERFORMANCE; MULTI CRITERIA ANALYSIS; MULTI-CRITERIA; NASH-SUTCLIFFE EFFICIENCY; PERFORMANCE CRITERIA FUNCTION; REFERENCE MODELS;

CATCHMENTS; FLOODS; MODELS;

COMPUTER SIMULATION;

COMPUTER SIMULATION; ERROR ANALYSIS; FLOOD FORECASTING; FLOW MODELING; MULTICRITERIA ANALYSIS; NUMERICAL MODEL; PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT;

FRANCE; GARDON BASIN; LANGUEDOC-ROUSSILLON;

EID: 78649756503     PISSN: 02626667     EISSN: 21503435     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/02626667.2010.505893     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Andréassian, V., Perrin, C., Parent, E. & Bárdossy, A. (2010) The Court of Miracles of Hydrology: can failure stories contribute to hydrological science? Hydrol. Sci. J. 55(6), 849-856 (this issue).
2. Chow, V. T., Maidment, D. R. & Mays, L. W. (1988) Applied Hydrology. New York, McGraw-Hill.
3. Dawson, C. W., Abrahart, R. J. & See, L. M. (2007) HydroTest: A web-based toolbox of evaluation metrics for the standardised assessment of hydrological forecasts. Environ. Model. Software 22, 1034-1052.
4. Efstratiadis, A. & Koutsoyiannis, D. (2010) One decade of multiobjective calibration approaches an hydrological modelling: a review. Hydrol. Sci. J. 55(1), 58-78.
5. Garrick, M., Cumane, C. & Nash, J. E. (1978) A criterion of efficiency for rainfall-runoff models. J. Hydrol. 36, 375-381.
6. Gupta, H. V., Kling, H., Yilmaz, K. K. & Martinez, G. F. (2009) Decomposition of the mean squared error and NSE performance criteria: Implications for improving hydrological modelling. J. Hydrol. 377, 80-91.
7. Kitanidis, P. K. & Bras, R. L. (1980) Real-time forecasting with a conceptual hydrologic model. 2. Application and results. Water Resour. Res. 16(6), 1034-1044.
8. Legates, D. R. & McCabe, G. J. Jr (1999) Evaluating the use of "goodness-of-fit" measures in hydrologic and hydroclimatic model validation. Water Resour. Res. 35, 233-241.
9. Madsen, H. (2000) Automatic calibration of a conceptual rainfall-runoff model using multiple objectives. J. Hydrol. 235, 276-288.
10. Martinec, J. & Rango, A. (1989) Merits of statistical criteria for the performance of hydrological models. Water Resour. Bull. 252, 421-432.
11. Morin, E., Georgakakos, K. P., Shamir, U., Garti, R. & Enzel, Y. (2002) Objective, observations-based, automatic estimation of the catchment response timescale. Water Resour. Res. 38, 1212.
12. Moussa, R. (1996) Analytical Hayami solution for the diffusive wave flood routing problem with lateral inflow. Hydrol. Processes 10, 1209-1227.
13. Moussa, R. & Chahinian, N. (2009) Comparison of different multiobjective calibration criteria using a conceptual rainfallrunoff model of flood events. Hydrol. Earth System Sci. 13, 519-535.
14. Moussa, R., Chahinian, N.& Bocquillon, C. (2007) Distributed hydrological modelling of a Mediterranean mountainous catchment - model construction and multi-site validation. J. Hydrol. 337, 35-51.
15. Nash, J. E. & Sutcliffe, J. V. (1970) River flow forecasting through conceptual models. Part I: A discussion of principles. J. Hydrol. 10, 282-290.
16. Oudin, L., Andréassian, V., Mathevet, T., Perrin, C. & Michel, C. (2006) Dynamic averaging of rainfall-runoff model simulations from complementary model parameterizations. Water Resour. Res. 42(7), W07410. doi:10.1029/2005WR004636.
17. Perrin, C. (2000) Vers une amélioration d'un modèle global pluie- débit au travers d'une approche comparative. Thesis (PhD). INPG (Grenoble)/Cemagref (Antony), France.
18. Perrin, C., Andréassian, V. & Michel, C. (2006) Simple benchmark models as a basis for criteria of model efficiency. Archiv für Hydrobiologie Supplement 161/1-2, Large Rivers 17(1-2), 221-244.
19. Reusser, D. E., Blume, T., Schaefli, B. & Zehe, E. (2009) Analysing the temporal dynamics of model performance for hydrological models. Hydrol. Earth System Sci. 13, 999-1018.
20. Schaefli, B. & Gupta, H. V. (2007) Do Nash values have value? Hydrol. Processes 21, 2075-2080.
21. Seibert, J. (2001) On the need for benchmarks in hydrological modelling. Hydrol. Processes 15, 1063-1064.
22. Yapo, P., Gupta, H. & Sorooshian, S. (1998) Multi-objective global optimisation for hydrologic models. J. Hydrol. 204, 83-97.