A method of multi-site calibration of distributed hydrological models based on the Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency
https://doi.org/10.24057/2071-9388-2024-3564
Abstract
Contemporary distributed hydrological models are detailed and mathematically rigorous, but their calibration and testing can be still an issue. Often it is based on the quadratic measure of the calculated and observed hydrographs proximity at one outlet gauge station, typically on the Nash-Sutcliffe model efficiency coefficient (NSE). This approach seems insufficient to calibrate a model with hundreds of spatial elements. This paper presents using a multi-dimensional estimator of modeling quality, being a natural generalization of the traditional NSE but which would aggregate data from several hydrological stations using Principal Component Analysis (PCA). The method was tested on the ECOMAG model developed for a sub-basin (24,400 km2, with 15 gauges) of the Ussuri River in Russia. The results show that the presented version of the multi-dimensional NSE with PCA in calibration of spatially-distributed hydrological models has a number of advantages compared to other methods: the reduced dimensionality without loss of important information, straightforward data analysis and the automated calibration procedure; objective separation of the deterministic signal from the noise, calibration using the “informational kernel” of data, leading to more accurate parameters’ estimates. Additionally, the introduced notion of the “compact” dataset allow to interpret physical-geographical homogeneity of the basins in mathematic manner, which can be valuable for hydrological zoning of the basins, hydrological fields analysis, and structuring the models of large basins. There is no doubt that further development and testing of the proposed methodology is advisable in solving spatial hydrological problems based on distributed models, such as managing a cascade of reservoirs, creating hydrological reanalyses, etc.
Keywords
spatially-distributed hydrological models,
multi-site calibration,
multi-dimensional Nash-Sutcliffe coefficient,
prediction for groups of sub-basins
Supporting agencies: This study was partly carried out under the grant from the Russian Science Foundation, No. 23-27-00236.
About the Authors
Boris I. Gartsman
Water Problem Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences ; Vernadsky Crimean Federal University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Gubkina 3, Moscow, 119333
Prospekt Vernadskogo 4, Simferopol, 295007
Dimitri P. Solomatine
Water Problem Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences ; Water Resources Section, Delft University of Technology ; Department of Hydroinformatics and Socio-Technical Innovation, IHE Delft Institute for Water Education
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Gubkina 3, Moscow, 119333
Mekelweg 5, Delft, 2628CD, Netherlands
Westvest 7, Delft, 2611AX, Netherlands
Tatiana S. Gubareva
Water Problem Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Gubkina 3, Moscow, 119333
References
1. Ashu A.B. and Lee S.-I. (2023) Multi-Site Calibration of Hydrological Model and Spatio-Temporal Assessment of Water Balance in a Monsoon Watershed. Water, 15, 360. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15020360.
2. Beven K.J. (2012) Rainfall-Runoff Modelling: The Primer. 2nd ed. Blackwell: Wiley.
3. Bugaets A., Gartsman B., Gubareva T., Lupakov S., Kalugin A., Shamov V. and Gonchukov L. (2023) Comparing the Runoff Decompositions of Small Experimental Catchments: End-Member Mixing Analysis (EMMA) vs. Hydrological Modelling. Water, 15(4), 752, https://doi.org/10.3390/w15040752.
4. Cheng L., Yaeger M., Viglione A., Coopersmith E., Ye S. and Sivapalan M. (2012) Exploring the physical controls of regional patterns of flow duration curves - part 1: Insights from statistical analyses. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 16, 4435–4446, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-16-4435-2012.
5. Danilov-Danilyan V.I., Gelfan A.N., Motovilov Y.G. and Kalugin A.S. (2014) Disastrous flood of 2013 in the Amur Basin: genesis, recurrence assessment, simulation results. Water Resources., 41(2), 115-125, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S0097807814020055.
6. Efstratiadis A. and Koutsoyiannis D. (2010) One decade of multi-objective calibration approaches in hydrological modelling: A review. Hydrol. Sci. J., 55(1), 58–78, https://doi.org/10.1080/02626660903526292.
7. Gupta H.V., Kling H., Yilmaz K.K. and Martinez G.F. (2009) Decomposition of the mean squared error and NSE performance criteria: Implications for improving hydrological modelling. J. Hydrol., 377, 80–91, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.08.003.
8. Harris R.J. (2001) A primer of multivariate statistics. 3nd ed. New York: Psychology Press, https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410600455.
9. Huynh N.N.T, Garambois P.A., Colleoni F. and Javelle P. Signatures-and-sensitivity-based multi-criteria variational calibration for distributed hydrological modeling applied to Mediterranean floods. J. Hydrol., 625, Part A, 129992, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2023.129992.
10. Koch J., Jensen K.H. and Stisen S. (2015) Toward a true spatial model evaluation in distributed hydrological modeling: Kappa statistics, Fuzzy theory, and EOF-analysis benchmarked by the human perception and evaluated against a modeling case study. Water Resour. Res., 51, 1225–1246, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014WR016607.
11. Malik M.A., Dar A.Q., Jain M.K. (2022) Modelling streamflow using the SWAT model and multi-site calibration utilizing SUFI-2 of SWAT-CUP model for high altitude catchments, NW Himalaya’s. Model. Earth Syst. Environ., 8, 1203–1213, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-021-01145-0.
12. Mascaro G., Vivoni E.R. and Méndez-Barroso L.A. (2015) Hyperresolution hydrologic modeling in a regional watershed and its interpretation using empirical orthogonal functions. Advances in Water Resources., 83, 190–206, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2015.05.023.
13. Mohammed S.A., Solomatine D.P., Hrachowitz M. and Hamouda M.A. (2021) Impact of dataset size on the signature-based calibration of a hydrological model. Water., 13, 970, https://doi.org/10.3390/w13070970.
14. Moreido V., Gartsman B., Solomatine D.P. and Suchilina Z. (2021) How well can machine learning models perform without hydrologists? Application of rational feature selection to improve hydrological forecasting. Water., 13, 1696, https://doi.org/10.3390/w13121696.
15. Motovilov Yu.G., Gottschalk L., Engeland K. and Belokurov A. (1999) ECOMAG – regional model of hydrological cycle. Application to the NOPEX region. Oslo: Univ. of Oslo, https://studylib.net/doc/11453981/ecomag--regional-model-of-hydrological.
16. Murphy A. (1988) Skill Scores Based on the Mean Square Error and Their Relationships to the Correlation Coefficient. Monthly Weather Review., 116, 2417–2424, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1988)116<2417:SSBOTM>2.0.CO;2.
17. Nash J.E. and Sutcliffe J.V. (1970) River flow forecasting through conceptual models part I — A discussion of principles. J. Hydrol. 10(3), 282–290, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(70)90255-6.
18. Pfannerstill M., Guse B. and Fohrer N. (2014) Smart low flow sig-nature metrics for an improved overall performance evaluation of hydrological models. J. Hydrol., 510, 447–458, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2013.12.044.
19. Pokhrel P., Yilmaz K.K. and Gupta H.V. (2012) Multiple-criteria calibration of a distributed watershed model using spatial regularization and response signatures. J. Hydrol., 418-419, 49–60, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2008.12.004.
20. Pomerantsev A.L. (2014) Chemometrics in Excel. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley, https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118873212.
21. Reusser D.E., Buytaert W. and Zehe E. (2011) Temporal dynamics of model parameter sensitivity for computationally expensive models with Fourier amplitude sensitivity test. Water Resour. Res., 47, W07551, https://doi.org/10.1029/2010WR009947.
22. Rodríguez-Iturbe I. and Rinaldo A. (1997) Fractal River Basins: Chance and Self-Organization. Cambrige: Cambrige University Press. Ruiz-Pérez G., Koch J., Manfreda S., Caylor K. and Francés F. (2017) Calibration of a parsimonious distributed ecohydrological daily model in a data-scarce basin by exclusively using the spatio-temporal variation of NDVI. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 6235–6251, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-6235-2017.
23. Serur A.B. and Adi K.A. (2022) Multi-site calibration of hydrological model and the response of water balance components to land use land cover change in a rift valley Lake Basin in Ethiopia. Sci. Afr., 15, e01093, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sciaf.2022.e01093.
24. Solomatine D.P., Dibike Y. and Kukuric N. (1999) Automatic calibration of groundwater models using global optimization techniques. Hydrol. Sci. J., 44, 879-894, https://doi.org/10.1080/02626669909492287.
25. Wagener T., McIntyre N., Lees M.J., Wheater H.S. and Gupta, H.V. (2003) Towards reduced uncertainty in conceptual rainfall-runoff modelling: Dynamic identifiability analysis. Hydrol. Process., 17, 455–476, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.1135.
26. Wang S., Zhang Z., Sun G., Strauss P., Guo J., Tang Y. and Yao A. (2012) Multi-site calibration, validation, and sensitivity analysis of the MIKE SHE Model for a large watershed in northern China. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 16, 4621–4632, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-16-4621-2012.
27. Xu Z., Wu Z., Shao Q., He H., and Guo X. (2022) A two-step calibration framework for hydrological parameter regionalization based on streamflow and remote sensing evapotranspiration, Journal of Hydrology, 613, Part A, 128320, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.128320.
28. Yilmaz K.K., Gupta H.V. and Wagener T. (2008) A process-based diagnostic approach to model evaluation: Application to the NWS distributed hydrologic model. Water Resour. Res., 44, W09417, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007WR006716.
Review
For citations:
Gartsman B.I., Solomatine D.P., Gubareva T.S. A method of multi-site calibration of distributed hydrological models based on the Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency. GEOGRAPHY, ENVIRONMENT, SUSTAINABILITY. 2024;17(4):76-87. https://doi.org/10.24057/2071-9388-2024-3564
Views:
342
Email this article 