Hydrograph matching method for measuring model performance

Journal of Hydrology

Volumn 408, Issue 1-2, 2011, Pages 178-187

  Ewen, John ^a  

^a NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Calibration; Hydrographs; Nash Sutcliffe Efficiency; Time series matching; Validation

Indexed keywords

AUTOMATIC METHOD; DYNAMIC PROGRAMMING ALGORITHM; ENGLAND; HUMAN EYE; HYDROGRAPHS; HYDROLOGICAL RESPONSE; MATCHING ALGORITHM; MATCHING METHODS; MEAN ABSOLUTE ERROR; MEASURING MODEL; MODEL CALIBRATION; PERFORMANCE MEASURE; PSEUDO-CODE; RAINFALL-RUNOFF MODELS; SIMPLE APPROACH; SPLIT-SAMPLE; TIMING ERRORS; VALIDATION; VISUAL PERFORMANCE;

ALGORITHMS; BRAIN MODELS; CALIBRATION; CATCHMENTS; DYNAMIC PROGRAMMING; ERRORS; RAIN; RUNOFF; TIME SERIES;

COMPUTER SIMULATION;

ALGORITHM; BRAIN; CALIBRATION; DATA MINING; EYE; HYDROGRAPH; MODEL VALIDATION; PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT; RAINFALL-RUNOFF MODELING; TIME SERIES;

ENGLAND; HODDER BASIN; LANCASHIRE; UNITED KINGDOM;

EID: 80052813026     PISSN: 00221694     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.07.038     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Allen, R.G., Pereira, L.S., Raes, D., Smith, M., 1998. Crop Evapotranspiration - Guidelines for Computing Crop Water Requirements. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 56. FAO - Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.
2. Beven, K., Young, P., Romanowicz, R., O'Connell, E., Ewen, J., O'Donnell, G., Holman, I., Posthumus, H., Morris, J., Hollis, J., Rose, S., Lamb, R., Archer, D., 2008. FD2120: Analysis of Historical Data Sets to Look for Impacts of Land Use and Management Change on Flood Generation - R&D Technical Report FD2120/TR, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, UK.
3. Boyle D.P., Gupta H.V., Sorooshian S. Toward improved calibration of hydrologic models: combining the strengths of manual and automatic methods. Water Resour. Res. 2000, 36(12):3663-3674.
4. Dawson C.W., Abrahart R.J., See L.M. HydroTest: a web-based toolbox of evaluation metrics for the standardised assessment of hydrological forecasts. Environ. Modell. Softw. 2007, 22:1034-1052.
5. Duan Q., Sorooshian S., Gupta V. Effective and efficient global optimization for conceptual rainfall-runoff models. Water Resour. Res. 1992, 28(4):1015-1031.
6. Ewen, J., 2010. Building a " virtual hydrologist" into hydrological models to assess performance and confidence. In: British Hydrological Society 3rd International Symposium: Role of Hydrology in Managing Consequences of a Changing Global Environment, Newcastle, UK, pp. 507-511.
7. Ewen J., Parkin G. Validation of catchment models for predicting land-use and climate change impacts: 1. Method. J. Hydrol. 1996, 175:583-594.
8. Ewen J., O'Donnell G., Burton A., O'Connell E. Errors and uncertainty in physically-based rainfall-runoff modelling of catchment change effects. J. Hydrol. 2006, 330:641-650.
9. Gupta H.V., Sorooshian S., Yapo P.O. Towards improved calibration of hydrologic models: multiple and noncommensurable measures of information. Water Resour. Res. 1998, 34(4):751-763. 10.1029/97WR03495.
10. Gupta H.V., Kling H., Yilmaz K.K., Martinez G.F. Decomposition of the mean squared error and NSE performance criteria: implications for improving hydrological modelling. J. Hydrol. 2009, 377:80-91.
11. Hall M.J. How well does your model fit the data?. J. Hydroinf. 2001, 3(1):49-55.
12. Huard D., Mailhot A. A Bayesian perspective on input uncertainty in model calibration: application to hydrological model " abc" Water Resour. Res. 2006, 42:W07416. 10.1029/2005WR004661.
13. Klemes V. Operational testing of hydrological simulation models. Hydrol. Sci. J. 1986, 31:13-24.
14. Krause P., Boyle D.P., Base F. Comparison of different efficiency criteria for hydrological model assessment. Adv. Geosci. 2005, 5:89-97.
15. Lane S.N. Assessment of rainfall-runoff models based upon wavelet analysis. Hydrol. Process. 2007, 21(5):586-607.
16. Latecki, L.J., Megalooikonomou, V., Wang, Q., Lakaemper, R., Ratanamahatana, C.A., Keogh, E., 2005. Partial elastic matching of time series. In: Fifth IEEE International Conference on Data Mining, Houston, TX, USA, pp. 701-704.
17. Legates D.R., McCabe G.J. Evaluating the use of " goodness-of-fit" measures in hydrologic and hydroclimatic model validation. Water Resour. Res. 1999, 35(1):233-241.
18. Lohmann D., Mitchell K.E., Houser P.R., Wood E.F., Schaake J.C., Robock A., Cosgrove B.A., Sheffield J., Duan Q., Luo L., Higgins W., Pinker R.T., Tarpley D. Streamflow and water balance intercomparisons of four land surface models in the North American Land Data Assimilation System project. J. Geophys. Res. 2004, 109:D07S91. 10.1029/2003JD003517.
19. Madsen H. Automatic calibration of a conceptual rainfall-runoff model using multiple objectives. J. Hydrol. 2000, 235:276-288.
20. Madsen H., Wilson G., Ammentrop H. Comparison of different automated strategies for calibration of rainfall-runoff models. J. Hydrol. 2002, 261:48-59.
21. Martinec J., Rango A. Merits of statistical criteria for the performance of hydrological models. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 1989, 25(2):421-432.
22. McCuen R.H., Knight Z., Cutter A.G. Evaluation of the Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency index. J. Hydrol. Eng. 2006, 11(6):597-602.
23. Merz R., Bloschl G. Regionalisation of catchment model parameters. J. Hydrol. 2004, 287(1-4):95-123.
24. Merz R., Parajka J., Bloschl G. Scale effects in conceptual hydrological modeling. Water Resour. Res. 2009, 45:W09405. 10.1029/2009WR007872.
25. Moore R.J. The PDM rainfall-runoff model. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2007, 11(1):483-499.
26. Moussa R. When monstrosity can be beautiful while normality can be ugly: assessing the performance of event-based flood models. Hydrol. Sci. J. 2010, 55(6):1074-1084.
27. Moussa R., Chahinian N. Comparison of different multi-objective calibration criteria using a conceptual rainfall-runoff model of flood events. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2009, 13:519-535.
28. Nash J.E., Sutcliffe J.V. River flow forecasting through conceptual models part 1 - a discussion of principles. J. Hydrol. 1970, 10(3):282-290.
29. Refsgaard J.C., Knudsen J. Operational validation and intercomparison of different types of hydrological models. Water Resour. Res. 1996, 32:2189-2202.
30. Reusser D., Blume T., Schaefli B., Zehe E. Analysing the temporal dynamics of model performance for hydrological models. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2009, 13:999-1018.
31. Schaefli B., Gupta H.V. Do Nash values have value?. Hydrol. Process. 2007, 21:2075-2080.
32. Seibert J. On the need for benchmarks in hydrological modelling. Hydrol. Process. 2001, 15:1063-1064.
33. Solomatine D.P., Shrestha D.L. A novel method to estimate model uncertainty using machine learning techniques. Water Resour. Res. 2009, 45:W00B11. 10.1029/2008WR006839.
34. Yapo P.O., Gupta H.V., Sorooshian S. Multi-objective global optimization for hydrologic models. J. Hydrol. 1998, 204:83-97.