# Parameter Estimation and Uncertainty Analysis: A Comparison between Continuous and Event-Based Modeling of Streamflow Based on the Hydrological Simulation Program–Fortran (HSPF) Model

^{1}

^{2}

^{3}

^{4}

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

## 2. Materials and Methods

#### 2.1. Study Site and Data Collection

#### 2.2. Description of the HSPF Model

#### 2.3. Multi-Objective Calibration

_{10%}, N

_{50%}, and N

_{90%}represent the fractions of time that streamflow equals or exceeds specific flow rates.

_{n}is the number of hourly time steps in event n, i is the time step index, n is the total number of calibrated events, V is the flow volume of an event, and P is the peak flow rate of an event. For each equation, the performance of a model simulation was assumed to be better when the objective function was closer to zero.

^{2}), which are detailed in the Appendix A. For a better comparison of the parameter estimation between the two scenarios, the best overall performance (BOP) solution and optimized parameter range were both used. The BOP solution was selected by calculating and comparing the Euclidean distances between coordinate origin and Pareto solutions [50]. The optimized range for each parameter was determined as an NSE value more than 0.5.

#### 2.4. Sensitivity and Uncertainty Analysis

#### 2.4.1. Regional Sensitivity Analysis

#### 2.4.2. Generalized Likelihood Uncertainty Estimation

## 3. Results and Discussion

#### 3.1. Comparison of Parameter Calibration

^{2}, NSE, and RMSE) in Table 4 and Table 5. The HSPF model showed good performances compared to literature regarding hydrological modelling using the HSPF model [57,58,59].

#### 3.2. Comparison of Parameter Sensitivity

#### 3.3. Comparison of Uncertainty Quantification

## 4. Conclusions

## Supplementary Materials

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Acknowledgments

## Conflicts of Interest

## Appendix A

**Table A1.**Performance variables and criteria of the HSPEXP method [48].

Measure | Criteria (% Error) |
---|---|

Total runoff | ±10% |

Highest 10% flows | ±10% |

Lowest 50% flows | ±15% |

Seasonal volume | ±10% |

Storm peak | ±15% |

Summer storm volume | ±15% |

## References

- Westerberg, I.K.; Guerrero, J.-L.; Younger, P.M.; Beven, K.J.; Seibert, J.; Halldin, S.; Freer, J.E.; Xu, C.-Y. Calibration of hydrological models using flow-duration curves. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.
**2011**, 15, 2205–2227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Amaguchi, H.; Kawamura, A.; Olsson, J.; Takasaki, T. Development and testing of a distributed urban storm runoff event model with a vector-based catchment delineation. J. Hydrol.
**2012**, 420–421, 205–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Wellen, C.; Arhonditsis, G.B.; Long, T.; Boyd, D. Accommodating environmental thresholds and extreme events in hydrological models: A Bayesian approach. J. Great Lakes Res.
**2014**, 40, 102–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Wang, L.; van Meerveld, H.J.; Seibert, J. When should stream water be sampled to be most informative for event-based, multi-criteria model calibration? Hydrol. Res.
**2017**, 48, 1566–1584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Stephens, C.M.; Johnson, F.M.; Marshall, L.A. Implications of future climate change for event-based hydrologic models. Adv. Water Resour.
**2018**, 119, 95–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Yu, D.; Xie, P.; Dong, X.; Hu, X.; Liu, J.; Li, Y.; Peng, T.; Ma, H.; Wang, K.; Xu, S. Improvement of the SWAT model for event-based flood simulation on a sub-daily timescale. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.
**2018**, 22, 5001–5019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Qiu, J.; Shen, Z.; Wei, G.; Wang, G.; Xie, H.; Lv, G. A systematic assessment of watershed-scale nonpoint source pollution during rainfall-runoff events in the Miyun Reservoir watershed. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.
**2018**, 25, 6514–6531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Yao, C.; Zhang, K.; Yu, Z.; Li, Z.; Li, Q. Improving the flood prediction capability of the Xinanjiang model in ungauged nested catchments by coupling it with the geomorphologic instantaneous unit hydrograph. J. Hydrol.
**2014**, 517, 1035–1048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Borah, D.K.; Arnold, J.G.; Bera, M.; Krug, E.C.; Liang, X.-Z. Storm Event and Continuous Hydrologic Modeling for Comprehensive and Efficient Watershed Simulations. J. Hydrol. Eng.
**2007**, 12, 605–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Ribarova, I.; Ninov, P.; Cooper, D. Modeling nutrient pollution during a first flood event using HSPF software: Iskar River case study, Bulgaria. Ecol. Model.
**2008**, 211, 241–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Chu, X.; Steinman, A. Event and Continuous Hydrologic Modeling with HEC-HMS. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng.
**2009**, 135, 119–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - De Silva, M.M.G.T.; Weerakoon, S.B.; Herath, S. Modeling of Event and Continuous Flow Hydrographs with HEC–HMS: Case Study in the Kelani River Basin, Sri Lanka. J. Hydrol. Eng.
**2014**, 19, 800–806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Huang, P.; Li, Z.; Yao, C.; Li, Q.; Yan, M. Spatial combination modeling framework of saturation-excess and infiltration-excess runoff for semihumid watersheds. Adv. Meteorol.
**2016**, 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Pfannerstill, M.; Guse, B.; Reusser, D.; Fohrer, N. Process verification of a hydrological model using a temporal parameter sensitivity analysis. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.
**2015**, 19, 4365–4376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Kirchner, J.W. Getting the right answers for the right reasons: Linking measurements, analyses, and models to advance the science of hydrology. Water Resour. Res.
**2006**, 42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Herman, J.D.; Reed, P.M.; Wagener, T. Time-varying sensitivity analysis clarifies the effects of watershed model formulation on model behavior. Water Resour. Res.
**2013**, 49, 1400–1414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Guse, B.; Reusser, D.E.; Fohrer, N. How to improve the representation of hydrological processes in SWAT for a lowland catchment–temporal analysis of parameter sensitivity and model performance. Hydrol. Process.
**2014**, 28, 2651–2670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Xie, H.; Shen, Z.; Chen, L.; Qiu, J.; Dong, J. Time-varying sensitivity analysis of hydrologic and sediment parameters at multiple timescales: Implications for conservation practices. Sci. Total Environ.
**2017**, 598, 353–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Garambois, P.A.; Roux, H.; Larnier, K.; Castaings, W.; Dartus, D. Characterization of process-oriented hydrologic model behavior with temporal sensitivity analysis for flash floods in Mediterranean catchments. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.
**2013**, 17, 2305–2322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Srivastava, V.; Graham, W.; Muñoz-Carpena, R.; Maxwell, R.M. Insights on geologic and vegetative controls over hydrologic behavior of a large complex basin—Global Sensitivity Analysis of an integrated parallel hydrologic model. J. Hydrol.
**2014**, 519, 2238–2257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Herman, J.D.; Kollat, J.B.; Reed, P.M.; Wagener, T. From maps to movies: High-resolution time-varying sensitivity analysis for spatially distributed watershed models. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.
**2013**, 17, 5109–5125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Jiang, S.Y.; Zhang, Q.; Werner, A.D.; Wellen, C.; Jomaa, S.; Zhu, Q.D.; Büttner, O.; Meon, G.; Rode, M. Effects of stream nitrate data frequency on watershed model performance and prediction uncertainty. J. Hydrol.
**2019**, 569, 22–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Wellen, C.; Kamran-Disfani, A.-R.; Arhonditsis, G.B. Evaluation of the Current State of Distributed Watershed Nutrient Water Quality Modeling. Environ. Sci. Technol.
**2015**, 49, 3278–3290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Bicknell, B.R.; Imhoff, J.C.; Kittle, J.L., Jr.; Donigian, A.S., Jr.; Johanson, R.C. Hydrological Simulation Program-FORTRAN. User’s Manual for Release 11; USEPA: Athens, GA, USA, 1997.
- Arnold, J.G.; Srinivasan, R.; Muttiah, R.S.; Williams, J.R. Large area hydrologic modeling and assessment part I: Model development 1. JAWRA J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc.
**1998**, 34, 73–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Hydrologic Engieering Center (US). The Hydrologic Modeling System (HEC-HMS); US Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center: Davis, CA, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Rossman, L.A. Storm Water Management Model User’s Manual, Version 5.0; National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development: Cincinnati, OH, USA, 2009.
- Lindström, G.; Pers, C.; Rosberg, J.; Strömqvist, J.; Arheimer, B. Development and testing of the HYPE (Hydrological Predictions for the Environment) water quality model for different spatial scales. Hydrol. Res.
**2010**, 41, 295–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Refsgaard, J.C.; Storm, B. Computer Models of Watershed Hydrology; Water Resources Publications: Fort Collins, CO, USA, 1995; pp. 809–846. [Google Scholar]
- Berndt, M.E.; Rutelonis, W.; Regan, C.P. A comparison of results from a hydrologic transport model (HSPF) with distributions of sulfate and mercury in a mine-impacted watershed in northeastern Minnesota. J. Environ. Manag.
**2016**, 181, 74–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version] - Li, Z.; Luo, C.; Jiang, K.; Wan, R.; Li, H. Comprehensive Performance Evaluation for Hydrological and Nutrients Simulation Using the Hydrological Simulation Program–Fortran in a Mesoscale Monsoon Watershed, China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health
**2017**, 14, 1599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Fonseca, A.; Boaventura, R.A.R.; Vilar, V.J.P. Integrating water quality responses to best management practices in Portugal. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.
**2018**, 25, 1587–1596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ouyang, Y.; Parajuli, P.B.; Feng, G.; Leininger, T.D.; Wan, Y.; Dash, P. Application of Climate Assessment Tool (CAT) to estimate climate variability impacts on nutrient loading from local watersheds. J. Hydrol.
**2018**, 563, 363–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ahn, S.-R.; Kim, S.-J. The Effect of Rice Straw Mulching and No-Tillage Practice in Upland Crop Areas on Nonpoint-Source Pollution Loads Based on HSPF. Water
**2016**, 8, 106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Fonseca, A.R.; Santos, M.; Santos, J.A. Hydrological and flood hazard assessment using a coupled modelling approach for a mountainous catchment in Portugal. Stoch. Environ. Res. Risk Assess.
**2018**, 32, 2165–2177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Xie, H.; Wei, G.; Shen, Z.; Dong, J.; Peng, Y.; Chen, X. Event-based uncertainty assessment of sediment modeling in a data-scarce catchment. CATENA
**2019**, 173, 162–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Lin, S.; Iqbal, J.; Hu, R.; Shaaban, M.; Cai, J.; Chen, X. Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Yellow Brown Soil as Affected by Incorporation of Crop Residues with Different Carbon-to-Nitrogen Ratios: A Case Study in Central China. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol.
**2013**, 65, 183–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - VanWoert, N.D.; Rowe, D.B.; Andresen, J.A.; Rugh, C.L.; Fernandez, R.T.; Xiao, L. Green Roof Stormwater Retention. J. Environ. Qual.
**2005**, 34, 1036–1044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Voyde, E.; Fassman, E.; Simcock, R. Hydrology of an extensive living roof under sub-tropical climate conditions in Auckland, New Zealand. J. Hydrol.
**2010**, 394, 384–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Stovin, V.; Vesuviano, G.; Kasmin, H. The hydrological performance of a green roof test bed under UK climatic conditions. J. Hydrol.
**2012**, 414–415, 148–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Dunnett, N.; Nagase, A.; Booth, R.; Grime, P. Influence of vegetation composition on runoff in two simulated green roof experiments. Urban Ecosyst.
**2008**, 11, 385–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Whittinghill, L.J.; Rowe, D.B.; Andresen, J.A.; Cregg, B.M. Comparison of stormwater runoff from sedum, native prairie, and vegetable producing green roofs. Urban Ecosyst.
**2015**, 18, 13–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Chen, L.; Sun, C.; Wang, G.; Xie, H.; Shen, Z. Event-based nonpoint source pollution prediction in a scarce data catchment. J. Hydrol.
**2017**, 552, 13–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Chen, L.; Sun, C.; Wang, G.; Xie, H.; Shen, Z. Modeling Multi-Event Non-Point Source Pollution in a Data-Scarce Catchment Using ANN and Entropy Analysis. Entropy
**2017**, 19, 265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Deb, K.; Agrawal, S.; Pratap, A.; Meyarivan, T. A Fast Elitist Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm for Multi-objective Optimization: NSGA-II. In Proceedings of the Parallel Problem Solving from Nature PPSN VI; Schoenauer, M., Deb, K., Rudolph, G., Yao, X., Lutton, E., Merelo, J.J., Schwefel, H.-P., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2000; pp. 849–858. [Google Scholar]
- Pfannerstill, M.; Guse, B.; Fohrer, N. Smart low flow signature metrics for an improved overall performance evaluation of hydrological models. J. Hydrol.
**2014**, 510, 447–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kim, S.M.; Benham, B.L.; Brannan, K.M.; Zeckoski, R.W.; Doherty, J. Comparison of hydrologic calibration of HSPF using automatic and manual methods. Water Resour. Res.
**2007**, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Lumb, A.M.; McCammon, R.B.; Kittle, J.L. Users Manual for an Expert System (HSPEXP) for Calibration of the Hydrological Simulation Program—Fortran; US Geological Survey Reston: Reston, Virginia, 1994.
- Nash, J.E.; Sutcliffe, J.V. River flow forecasting through conceptual models part I—A discussion of principles. J. Hydrol.
**1970**, 10, 282–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Hallema, D.W.; Moussa, R.; Andrieux, P.; Voltz, M. Parameterization and multi-criteria calibration of a distributed storm flow model applied to a Mediterranean agricultural catchment. Hydrol. Process.
**2013**, 27, 1379–1398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Song, X.; Zhang, J.; Zhan, C.; Xuan, Y.; Ye, M.; Xu, C. Global sensitivity analysis in hydrological modeling: Review of concepts, methods, theoretical framework, and applications. J. Hydrol.
**2015**, 523, 739–757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Spear, R.C.; Hornberger, G.M. Eutrophication in peel inlet—II. Identification of critical uncertainties via generalized sensitivity analysis. Water Res.
**1980**, 14, 43–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Wagener, T.; Boyle, D.P.; Lees, M.J.; Wheater, H.S.; Gupta, H.V.; Sorooshian, S. A framework for development and application of hydrological models. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.
**2001**, 5, 13–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Pianosi, F.; Sarrazin, F.; Wagener, T. A Matlab toolbox for Global Sensitivity Analysis. Environ. Model. Softw.
**2015**, 70, 80–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Beven, K.; Binley, A. The future of distributed models: Model calibration and uncertainty prediction. Hydrol. Process.
**1992**, 6, 279–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Abbaspour, K.C. User Manual for SWAT-CUP: SWAT Calibration and Uncertainty Analysis Program; Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, Eawag: Duebendorf, Switzerland, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Fonseca, A.; Ames, D.P.; Yang, P.; Botelho, C.; Boaventura, R.; Vilar, V. Watershed model parameter estimation and uncertainty in data-limited environments. Environ. Model. Softw.
**2014**, 51, 84–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Chung, E.-S.; Park, K.; Lee, K.S. The relative impacts of climate change and urbanization on the hydrological response of a Korean urban watershed. Hydrol. Process.
**2011**, 25, 544–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Seong, C.; Her, Y.; Benham, B.L. Automatic calibration tool for Hydrologic Simulation Program-FORTRAN using a shuffled complex evolution algorithm. Water
**2015**, 7, 503–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Hayashi, S.; Murakami, S.; Xu, K.-Q.; Watanabe, M. Simulation of the reduction of runoff and sediment load resulting from the Gain for Green Program in the Jialingjiang catchment, upper region of the Yangtze River, China. J. Environ. Manag.
**2015**, 149, 126–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Baloch, M.A.; Ames, D.P.; Tanik, A. Hydrologic impacts of climate and land-use change on Namnam Stream in Koycegiz Watershed, Turkey. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol.
**2015**, 12, 1481–1494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Choi, W.; Deal, B.M. Assessing hydrological impact of potential land use change through hydrological and land use change modeling for the Kishwaukee River basin (USA). J. Environ. Manag.
**2008**, 88, 1119–1130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Verhagen, W. Wetland Restoration in an Agricultural Basin. Linking Hydrologic Response, Optimal Location, Ecosystem Services and Stakeholder Opinions. Master’s Thesis, Utrecht University Repository, Utrecht, The Netherlands, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Lott, D.A.; Stewart, M.T. Base flow separation: A comparison of analytical and mass balance methods. J. Hydrol.
**2016**, 535, 525–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Risser, D.W.; Gburek, W.J.; Folmar, G.J. Comparison of Methods for Estimating Ground-Water Recharge and Base Flow at a Small Watershed Underlain by Fractured Bedrock in the Eastern United States; US Department of the Interior, US Geological Survey: Reston, VA, USA, 2005; Volume 5038.
- Abdulla, F.; Eshtawi, T.; Assaf, H. Assessment of the Impact of Potential Climate Change on the Water Balance of a Semi-arid Watershed. Water Resour. Manag.
**2009**, 23, 2051–2068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Mishra, A.; Kar, S.; Singh, V.P. Determination of runoff and sediment yield from a small watershed in sub-humid subtropics using the HSPF model. Hydrol. Process.
**2007**, 21, 3035–3045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Shen, Z.; Chen, L.; Liao, Q.; Liu, R.; Hong, Q. Impact of spatial rainfall variability on hydrology and nonpoint source pollution modeling. J. Hydrol.
**2012**, 472–473, 205–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Mohamoud, Y.M.; Parmar, R.; Wolfe, K.; Carleton, J. HSPF toolkit: A tool for stormwater management at the watershed scale. Proc. Water Environ. Fed.
**2008**, 2008, 421–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Schultz, C.L.; Ahmed, S.N.; Mandel, R.; Moltz, H.L.N. Improvement in HSPF’s Low-Flow Predictions by Implementation of a Power Law Groundwater Storage-Discharge Relationship. JAWRA J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc.
**2014**, 50, 909–927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Sun, N.; Hong, B.; Hall, M. Assessment of the SWMM model uncertainties within the generalized likelihood uncertainty estimation (GLUE) framework for a high-resolution urban sewershed. Hydrol. Process.
**2014**, 28, 3018–3034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Vezzaro, L.; Mikkelsen, P.S. Application of global sensitivity analysis and uncertainty quantification in dynamic modelling of micropollutants in stormwater runoff. Environ. Model. Softw.
**2012**, 27–28, 40–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

**Figure 3.**Water storages and movement represented in the PERLND module. ET: evapotranspiration, AGWS: active ground water storage, LZS: lower zone storage, UPS: upper zone storage, IFWS: interflow storage, SURS: surface detention storage, CEPS: Interception storage.

**Figure 5.**Pareto sets achieved by the multi-objective calibration. The left part is for the continuous modeling, where green, blue, and red dots represent solutions those that achieved four, five, and six criteria of the HSEXP statistics, respectively. The right part is for the event-based modeling, where green dots represent all the Pareto solutions. The original MATLAB figure files (Pareto front-continuous scenario.fig and Pareto front-event-based scenario.fig) are provided as Supplementary Materials.

**Figure 6.**Hyetograph, simulated and observed hydrographs in the calibration and validation periods for the continuous modeling.

**Figure 7.**Hyetograph, and simulated and observed hydrographs in the calibration and validation periods for the 12 rainfall–runoff events.

**Figure 8.**Comparison of the optimized parameter ranges between the continuous and event-based modeling.

**Figure 9.**Comparison of parameter sensitivity between the continuous and event-based modeling Cumulative normalized Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency were plotted against parameter values. Parameter populations from best to worst are ranked and divided into ten bins of equal size.

**Figure 10.**Observations and 95 PPU bounds of streamflow in the continuous modeling. The left and right parts present results of daily and monthly simulation, respectively.

**Figure 11.**Hyetograph, observations, and 95 PPU bounds of streamflow in the representative rainfall–runoff events.

Event Type | 24-h Cumulative Amount | 12-h Cumulative Amount |
---|---|---|

Light | 0.1 mm–9.9 mm | 0.1 mm–4.9 mm |

Medium | 10 mm–24.9 mm | 5.0 mm–14.9 mm |

Heavy | 25.0 mm–49.9 mm | 15.0 mm–29.9 mm |

Very heavy | 50.0 mm–99.9 mm | 30.0 mm–69.9 mm |

Extremely heavy | 100 mm–249.9 mm | 70.0 mm–139.9 mm |

Torrential | ≥250 mm | ≥140 mm |

Event | Start Date | Event Type | Rainfall Amount (mm) | Rainfall Duration (h) | Maximum Intensity (mm/h) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

1 | 28 August 2013 | Very heavy | 56.5 | 3 | 40.5 |

2 | 21 April 2014 | Medium | 24.0 | 6 | 9.2 |

3 | 20 July 2014 | Heavy | 34.7 | 3 | 28.7 |

4 | 24 July 2014 | Heavy | 33.0 | 5 | 19.6 |

5 | 8 May 2014 | Extremely heavy | 104.7 | 10 | 45.4 |

6 | 9 February 2014 | Heavy | 48.2 | 8 | 10.0 |

8 | 25 June 2013 | Heavy | 31.6 | 6 | 30.3 |

11 | 24 September 2013 | Heavy | 48.1 | 20 | 4.4 |

7 | 15 April 2014 | Medium | 18.2 | 2 | 14.6 |

9 | 25 June 2014 | Heavy | 37.4 | 11 | 7.9 |

10 | 7 August 2014 | Very heavy | 69.2 | 8 | 27.4 |

12 | 23 August 2014 | Heavy | 30.4 | 7 | 11.2 |

Parameter | Description | Unit | Possible Range | Calibrated Values for Continuous | Calibrated Values for Event-Based |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

LZSN | Low zone nominal soil moisture storage | in. | 2.0–15.0 | 5.502 | 3.703 |

INFILT | Index to mean soil infiltration rate | in./h | 0.001–0.50 | 0.079 | 0.067 |

KVARY | Parameter to describe non-linear groundwater recession rate | in^{−1} | 0.0–5.0 | 3.643 | 0.202 |

AGWRC | Groundwater recession rate | day^{−1} | 0.85–0.999 | 0.987 | 0.850 |

DEEPFR | Fraction of infiltrating water which enters deep aquifers | none | 0.0–0.50 | 0.005 | 0.057 |

BASETP | Fraction of potential evapotranspiration which fulfilled only as outflow exists | none | 0.0–0.20 | 0.000 | 0.161 |

AGWETP | Fraction of remaining evapotranspiration that be met from active groundwater storage | none | 0.0–0.20 | 0.000 | 0.166 |

CEPSC | Interception storage capacity | in. | 0.01–0.40 | 0.010 | 0.123 |

UZSN | Nominal upper zone soil moisture storage | in. | 0.05–2.0 | 0.668 | 0.415 |

INTFW | Interflow inflow parameter | none | 1.0–10.0 | 1.000 | 9.999 |

IRC | Interflow recession parameter | day^{−1} | 0.3–0.85 | 0.300 | 0.300 |

LZETP | Index to lower zone evapotranspiration | none | 0.1–0.9 | 0.400 | 0.494 |

Measures | Observed | Simulated | Percent Error % | HSPEXP Performance Criteria |
---|---|---|---|---|

Total runoff (mm) | 543.34 | 534.08 | −1.70 | √ |

Mean of highest 10% flows (m^{3}) | 0.05692 | 0.0535 | −5.97 | √ |

Mean of lowest 50% flows (m^{3}) | 0.0062 | 0.0059 | −4.54 | √ |

Seasonal volume error (mm) | 297.25 | 268.43 | −9.70 | √ |

Mean of storm peaks (m^{3}) | 0.0960 | 0.0940 | −2.06 | √ |

Summer storm volume (mm) | 50.13 | 46.24 | −7.76 | √ |

Coefficient of determination | 0.83 | |||

Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency | 0.82 | |||

Root mean square error | 0.76 |

Event | Start date | NSE | RMSE | R^{2} | PFE ^{a} | SVE ^{b} | PTO ^{c} |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

1 | 28 August 2013 | 0.91 | 9.72 | 0.92 | 0.16 | 0.05 | 0 |

2 | 21 April 2014 | 0.65 | 1.13 | 0.71 | 0.04 | 0.13 | 0 |

3 | 20 July 2014 | 0.93 | 0.60 | 0.93 | 0.01 | 0.05 | 0 |

4 | 24 July 2014 | 0.90 | 2.11 | 0.93 | 0.20 | 0.10 | 0 |

5 | 5 August 2014 | 0.79 | 27.91 | 0.81 | 0.08 | 0.34 | 0 |

6 | 2 September 2014 | 0.73 | 3.22 | 0.82 | 0.07 | 0.22 | 0 |

7 | 25 June 2013 | 0.83 | 16.17 | 0.98 | 0.38 | 0.29 | 0 |

8 | 24 September 2013 | 0.74 | 0.71 | 0.92 | 0.10 | 0.05 | 5 |

9 | 15 April 2014 | 0.49 | 0.57 | 0.77 | 0.18 | 0.15 | 0 |

10 | 25 June 2014 | 0.83 | 0.48 | 0.84 | 0.07 | 0.04 | 0 |

11 | 7 August 2014 | −0.1172 | 60.81 | 0.12 | 0.21 | 0.28 | 5 |

12 | 23 August 2014 | 0.82 | 0.60 | 0.95 | 0.25 | 0.02 | 0 |

^{a}PFE stands for peak flow error;

^{b}SVE stands for storm volume error;

^{c}PTO stands for peak time offset.

Water Balance | Forest | Tea | Agriculture | Urban | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Surface flow | 9.23% | 20.9% | 5.76% | 30.13% | 3.44% | 27.53% | 6.34% | 8.44% |

Interflow | 2.69% | 63.03% | 4.34% | 54.92% | 6.11% | 65.61% | 2.75% | 64.33% |

Base flow | 8.45% | 1.31% | 37.6% | 1.95% | 28.46% | 0.03% | 27.44% | 6.06% |

Deep aquifer | 0.52% | 2.65% | 2.26% | 2.92% | 1.72% | 0.08% | 1.65% | 5.72% |

Total ET | 79.1% | 12.11% | 50.04% | 10.08% | 60.26% | 6.74% | 61.82% | 15.45% |

Scenario | Period | p-Factor (%) | r-Factor |
---|---|---|---|

Continuous | 2011–2012 (daily) | 40.25 | 2.58 |

2011–2012 (monthly) | 70.83 | 0.85 | |

Event-based | Event 1 (Very heavy) | 44.44 | 1.20 |

Event 2 (Medium) | 68.75 | 0.52 | |

Event 3 (Heavy) | 33.3 | 1.13 | |

Event 4 (Heavy) | 41.67 | 1.21 | |

Event 5 (Extremely heavy) | 41.17 | 1.79 | |

Event 6 (Heavy) | 65 | 1.17 |

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Xie, H.; Shen, Z.; Chen, L.; Lai, X.; Qiu, J.; Wei, G.; Dong, J.; Peng, Y.; Chen, X.
Parameter Estimation and Uncertainty Analysis: A Comparison between Continuous and Event-Based Modeling of Streamflow Based on the Hydrological Simulation Program–Fortran (HSPF) Model. *Water* **2019**, *11*, 171.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w11010171

**AMA Style**

Xie H, Shen Z, Chen L, Lai X, Qiu J, Wei G, Dong J, Peng Y, Chen X.
Parameter Estimation and Uncertainty Analysis: A Comparison between Continuous and Event-Based Modeling of Streamflow Based on the Hydrological Simulation Program–Fortran (HSPF) Model. *Water*. 2019; 11(1):171.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w11010171

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Xie, Hui, Zhenyao Shen, Lei Chen, Xijun Lai, Jiali Qiu, Guoyuan Wei, Jianwei Dong, Yexuan Peng, and Xinquan Chen.
2019. "Parameter Estimation and Uncertainty Analysis: A Comparison between Continuous and Event-Based Modeling of Streamflow Based on the Hydrological Simulation Program–Fortran (HSPF) Model" *Water* 11, no. 1: 171.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w11010171