Regionalization of a Rainfall-Runoff Model: Limitations and Potentials
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. RR Model and Parameter Regionalization
2.1.1. Tank Model
2.1.2. Regionalization of the Tank Models
2.2. Model Calibration and Evaluation
2.2.1. Objective Functions
2.2.2. The Automatic Parameter Calibration Algorithm
2.2.3. Model Evaluation Statistics
2.3. Relating Watershed Characteristics to Model Parameter Values
3. Study Watersheds and Their Characteristics
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Parameter Calibration
4.2. Regionalization
4.2.1. Regionalization of the 3-Tank Model
4.2.2. Performance of the Regionalized 3-Tank Models
5. Summary and Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Sivapalan, M. Prediction in ungauged basins: A grand challenge for theoretical hydrology. Hydrol. Process. 2003, 17, 3163–3170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Razavi, T.; Coulibaly, P. Streamflow prediction in ungauged basins: Review of regionalization methods. J. Hydrol. Eng. 2013, 18, 958–975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hrachowitz, M.; Savenije, H.H.G.; Blöschl, G.; McDonnell, J.J.; Sivapalan, M.; Pomeroy, J.W.; Arheimer, B.; Blume, T.; Clark, M.P.; Ehret, U.; et al. A decade of predictions in ungauged basins (PUB)—A review. Hydrol. Sci. J. 2013, 58, 1198–1255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amiri, B.J.; Fohrer, N.; Cullmann, J.; Hörmann, G.; Müller, F.; Adamowski, J. Regionalization of Tank model using landscape metrics of catchments. Water Resour. Manag. 2016, 30, 5065–5085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, X.; Magnusson, J.; Xu, C.-Y. Transferability of regionalization methods under changing climate. J. Hydrol. 2019, 568, 67–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Devia, G.K.; Ganasri, B.P.; Dwarakish, G.S. A review on hydrological models. Aquat. Procedia 2015, 4, 1001–1007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fenicia, F.; Kavetski, D.; Savenije, H.H.G. Elements of a flexible approach for conceptual hydrological modeling: 1. Motivation and theoretical development. Water Resour. Res. 2011, 47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Song, J.-H.; Her, Y.; Park, J.; Kang, M.-S. Exploring parsimonious daily rainfall-runoff model structure using the hyperbolic tangent function and Tank model. J. Hydrol. 2019, 574, 574–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Song, J.-H.; Kang, M.S.; Song, I.; Jun, S.M. Water balance in irrigation reservoirs considering flood control and irrigation efficiency variation. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 2016, 142, 04016003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fenicia, F.; Kavetski, D.; Savenije, H.H.G.; Clark, M.P.; Schoups, G.; Pfister, L.; Freer, J. Catchment properties, function, and conceptual model representation: Is there a correspondence? Hydrol. Process. 2014, 28, 2451–2467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Poncelet, C.; Merz, R.; Merz, B.; Parajka, J.; Oudin, L.; Andréassian, V.; Perrin, C. Process-based interpretation of conceptual hydrological model performance using a multinational catchment set. Water Resour. Res. 2017, 53, 7247–7268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Van Esse, W.R.; Perrin, C.; Booij, M.J.; Augustijn, D.C.M.; Fenicia, F.; Kavetski, D.; Lobligeois, F. The influence of conceptual model structure on model performance: A comparative study for 237 French catchments. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2013, 17, 4227–4239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, H.Y.; Park, S.W. Simulating daily inflow and release rates for irrigation reservoirs (1): Modeling inflow rates by a linear reservoir model. J. Korean Soc. Agric. Eng. 1988, 60, 13–24. [Google Scholar]
- Yokoo, Y.; Kazama, S. Numerical investigations on the relationships between watershed characteristics and water balance model parameters: Searching for universal relationships among regional relationships. Hydrol. Process. 2012, 26, 843–854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seibert, J. Regionalisation of parameters for a conceptual rainfall-runoff model. Agric. For. Meteorol. 1999, 98–99, 279–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wagener, T.; Wheater, H.S. Parameter estimation and regionalization for continuous rainfall-runoff models including uncertainty. J. Hydrol. 2006, 320, 132–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yokoo, Y.; Kazama, S.; Sawamoto, M.; Nishimura, H. Regionalization of lumped water balance model parameters based on multiple regression. J. Hydrol. 2001, 246, 209–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- An, J.H.; Song, J.H.; Kang, M.S.; Song, I.; Jun, S.M.; Park, J. Regression equations for estimating the TANK model parameters. J. Korean Soc. Agric. Eng. 2015, 57, 121–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, H.S. Adequacy of a multi-objective regional calibration method incorporating a sequential regionalisation. Water Resour. Manag. 2014, 28, 5507–5526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bastola, S.; Ishidaira, H.; Takeuchi, K. Regionalisation of hydrological model parameters under parameter uncertainty: A case study involving TOPMODEL and basins across the globe. J. Hydrol. 2008, 357, 188–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prieto, C.; Vine, N.L.; Kavetski, D.; García, E.; Medina, R. Flow prediction in ungauged catchments using probabilistic random forests regionalization and new statistical adequacy tests. Water Resour. Res. 2019, 55, 4364–4392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rojas-Serna, C.; Lebecherel, L.; Perrin, C.; Andréassian, V.; Oudin, L. How should a rainfall-runoff model be parameterized in an almost ungauged catchment? A methodology tested on 609 catchments. Water Resour. Res. 2016, 52, 4765–4784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bulygina, N.; Ballard, C.; McIntyre, N.; O’Donnell, G.; Wheater, H. Integrating different types of information into hydrological model parameter estimation: Application to ungauged catchments and land use scenario analysis. Water Resour. Res. 2012, 48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- McIntyre, N.; Lee, H.; Wheater, H.; Young, A.; Wagener, T. Ensemble predictions of runoff in ungauged catchments. Water Resour. Res. 2005, 41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yang, C.; Wang, N.; Wang, S. A comparison of three predictor selection methods for statistical downscaling. Int. J. Climatol. 2017, 37, 1238–1249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Z.; Wagener, T.; Reed, P.; Bhushan, R. Reducing uncertainty in predictions in ungauged basins by combining hydrologic indices regionalization and multiobjective optimization. Water Resour. Res. 2008, 44, doi. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beven, K.; Freer, J. Equifinality, data assimilation, and uncertainty estimation in mechanistic modelling of complex environmental systems using the GLUE methodology. J. Hydrol. 2001, 249, 11–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Merz, R.; Blöschl, G. Regionalisation of catchment model parameters. J. Hydrol. 2004, 287, 95–123. [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]
- Freer, J.; Beven, K.; Ambroise, B. Bayesian estimation of uncertainty in runoff prediction and the value of data: An application of the GLUE approach. Water Resour. Res. 1996, 32, 2161–2173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Efstratiadis, A.; Koutsoyiannis, D. One decade of multi-objective calibration approaches in hydrological modelling: A review. Hydrol. Sci. J. 2010, 55, 58–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Her, Y.; Seong, C. Responses of hydrological model equifinality, uncertainty, and performance to multi-objective parameter calibration. J. Hydroinformatics 2018, 20, 864–885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kollat, J.B.; Reed, P.M.; Wagener, T. When are multiobjective calibration trade-offs in hydrologic models meaningful? Water Resour. Res. 2012, 48, doi. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oudin, L.; Andréassian, V.; Mathevet, T.; Perrin, C.; Michel, C. Dynamic averaging of rainfall-runoff model simulations from complementary model parameterizations. Water Resour. Res. 2006, 42, doi. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, R.; Moreira, M.; Corte-Real, J. Multi-objective calibration of the physically based, spatially distributed SHETRAN hydrological model. J. Hydroinformatics 2016, 18, 428–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Song, J.-H.; Her, Y.; Park, J.; Lee, K.-D.; Kang, M.-S. Simulink implementation of a hydrologic model: A Tank model case study. Water 2017, 9, 639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sugawara, M. Automatic calibration of the tank model. Hydrol. Sci. Bull. 1979, 24, 375–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, S.-K.; Chen, R.-S.; Yang, T.-Y. Application of a tank model to assess the flood-control function of a terraced paddy field. Hydrol. Sci. J. 2014, 59, 1020–1031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fumikazu, N.; Toshisuke, M.; Yoshio, H.; Hiroshi, T.; Kimihito, N. Evaluation of water resources by snow storage using water balance and tank model method in the Tedori River basin of Japan. Paddy Water Environ. 2013, 11, 113–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huh, Y.M.; Park, S.W.; Im, S.J. A streamflow network model for daily water supply and demands on small watershed (1): Simulating daily streamflow from small watersheds. J. Korean Soc. Agric. Eng. 1993, 35, 40–49. [Google Scholar]
- Kim, S.J.; Kim, P.S.; Yoon, C.Y. A regression equation of Tank model parameters for daily runoff estimation in a region with insufficient hydrological data. In Proceedings of the 2010 KSAE Annual Conference; Journal of the Korean Society of Agricultural Engineers: Gyeonggi-do, Korea, 2000; pp. 412–418. [Google Scholar]
- 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]
- 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, 233–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kling, H.; Fuchs, M.; Paulin, M. Runoff conditions in the upper Danube basin under an ensemble of climate change scenarios. J. Hydrol. 2012, 424–425, 264–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Santos, L.; Thirel, G.; Perrin, C. Pitfalls in using log-transformed flows within the KGE criterion. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2018, 22, 4583–4591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Allen, R.G.; Pereira, L.S.; Raes, D.; Smith, M. Crop Evapotranspiration-Guidelines for Computing Crop Water Requirements; FAO—Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 1998; p. D05109. [Google Scholar]
- Kang, M.G.; Lee, J.H.; Park, K.W. Parameter regionalization of a Tank model for simulating runoffs from ungauged watersheds. J. Korea Water Resour. Assoc. 2013, 46, 519–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duan, Q.; Sorooshian, S.; Gupta, V.K. Optimal use of the SCE-UA global optimization method for calibrating watershed models. J. Hydrol. 1994, 158, 265–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gupta, H.V.; Sorooshian, S.; Yapo, P.O. Status of automatic calibration for hydrologic models: Comparison with multilevel expert calibration. J. Hydrol. Eng. 1999, 4, 135–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Her, Y.G. HYSTAR: Hydrology and Sediment Transport Simulation Using Time-Area Method. Ph.D. Thesis, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Duan, Q.; Sorooshian, S.; Gupta, V. Effective and efficient global optimization for conceptual rainfall-runoff models. Water Resour. Res. 1992, 28, 1015–1031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hrachowitz, M.; Fovet, O.; Ruiz, L.; Euser, T.; Gharari, S.; Nijzink, R.; Freer, J.; Savenije, H.H.G.; Gascuel-Odoux, C. Process consistency in models: The importance of system signatures, expert knowledge, and process complexity. Water Resour. Res. 2014, 50, 7445–7469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Krause, P.; Boyle, D.P.; Bäse, F. Comparison of different efficiency criteria for hydrological model assessment. Adv. Geosci. 2005, 5, 89–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Crochemore, L.; Perrin, C.; Andréassian, V.; Ehret, U.; Seibert, S.P.; Grimaldi, S.; Gupta, H.; Paturel, J.-E. Comparing expert judgement and numerical criteria for hydrograph evaluation. Hydrol. Sci. J. 2015, 60, 402–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moriasi, D.N.; Gitau, M.W.; Daggupati, P. Hydrologic and water quality models: Performance measures and evaluation criteria. Trans. ASABE 2015, 58, 1763–1785. [Google Scholar]
- James, G.; Witten, D.; Hastie, T.; Tibshirani, R. An Introduction to Statistical Learning; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Song, J.-H. Hydrologic Analysis System with Multi-Objective Optimization for Agricultural Watersheds. Ph.D. Thesis, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Horton, R.E. Drainage-basin characteristics. Eos Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 1932, 13, 350–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thiessen, A.H. Precipitation averages for large areas. Mon. Weather Rev. 1911, 39, 1082–1089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kang, M.S.; Park, S.W.; Lee, J.J.; Yoo, K.H. Applying SWAT for TMDL programs to a small watershed containing rice paddy fields. Agric. Water Manag. 2006, 79, 72–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gan, T.Y.; Dlamini, E.M.; Biftu, G.F. Effects of model complexity and structure, data quality, and objective functions on hydrologic modeling. J. Hydrol. 1997, 192, 81–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moriasi, D.N.; Arnold, J.G.; Van Liew, M.W.; Bingner, R.L.; Harmel, R.D.; Veith, T.L. Model evaluation guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations. Trans. ASABE 2007, 50, 885–900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tingsanchali, T.; Gautam, M.R. Application of Tank, NAM, ARMA and neural network models to flood forecasting. Hydrol. Process. 2000, 14, 2473–2487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Black, P.E. Hydrograph responses to geomorphic model watershed characteristics and precipitation variables. J. Hydrol. 1972, 17, 309–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, P.-S.; Lin, J.-Y.; Hung, J.-C.; Yang, M.-D. Assessing debris-flow hazard in a watershed in Taiwan. Eng. Geol. 2002, 66, 295–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, C.; Takase, K.; Oue, H.; Ebisu, N.; Yan, H. Effects of land use change on hydrological cycle from forest to upland field in a catchment, Japan. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng. 2013, 7, 456–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clarke, R.T. A critique of present procedures used to compare performance of rainfall-runoff models. J. Hydrol. 2008, 352, 379–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pushpalatha, R.; Perrin, C.; Moine, N.L.; Andréassian, V. A review of efficiency criteria suitable for evaluating low-flow simulations. J. Hydrol. 2012, 420–421, 171–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pfannerstill, M.; Bieger, K.; Guse, B.; Bosch, D.D.; Fohrer, N.; Arnold, J.G. How to constrain multi-objective calibrations of the SWAT model using water balance components. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2017, 53, 532–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Parameter | Description | Min. | Max. |
---|---|---|---|
Side-outlet coefficient for the first side outlet in the first tank (dimensionless) | 0.08 | 0.5 | |
Side-outlet coefficient for the second side outlet in the first tank (dimensionless) | 0.08 | 0.5 | |
Height of side outlet for the first side outlet in the first tank (mm) | 5 | 60 | |
Height of side outlet for the second side outlet in the first tank (mm) | 20 | 110 | |
Bottom-outlet coefficient for the first tank (dimensionless) | 0.1 | 0.5 | |
Side-outlet coefficient in the second tank (dimensionless) | 0.03 | 0.5 | |
Height of side outlet in the second tank (mm) | 0 | 100 | |
Bottom-outlet coefficient for the second tank (dimensionless) | 0.01 | 0.35 | |
Side-outlet coefficient in the third tank (dimensionless) | 0.003 | 0.03 | |
Soil evaporation compensation parameter | 0.001 | 0.1 |
Reference | Country | No. Tanks | No. Watersheds | Drainage Area (km2) | Period (Years) | Optimization Method | Objective Function | Dependent Variables |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yokoo et al. [17] | Japan | 4 | 12 | 100–805 | 3 | Powell method | Area (km2), representative gradient (%), percentage of three geology types (%), percentage of three soil types (%), percentage of eight land-use types (%) | |
Amiri et al. [4] | Germany | 4 | 30 | 53–737 | 15 | Marquardt algorithm | Percentage of three soil types (%), mean patch size of the water body patches (ha), mean shape index of mix forest patches (-), mean perimeter to area ratio of two land-use patches (m/ha), patch density of five land-use patches (No./ha) | |
Kim and Park [13] | Korea | 3 | 12 | 0.5–140.5 | 1–2 | Manual | Area (km2), Forest (%), Upland (%), Paddy (%) | |
Huh et al. [40] | Korea | 3 | 15 | 3–2060 | 3–10 | Rosenbrock | Area (km2), Length (km), Form (-), Forest (%), Upland (%), Paddy (%) | |
Kim et al. [41] | Korea | 3 | 26 | 5.9–7126 | 7–10 | Manual | NA | Area (km2), W_Slope (%), Length (km), Form (-), Forest (%), Upland (%), Paddy (%) |
An et al. [18] | Korea | 3 | 30 | 56–6662 | 5–36 | Genetic Algorithm | Area (km2), Length (km), W_Slope (%), Forest (%), Upland (%), Paddy (%) |
Period | Model | Performance | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Unsatisfactory | Satisfactory | |||||
Fine a | Good b | Very Good c | Total | |||
Calibration | 5% | 36% | 33% | 26% | 95% | |
10% | 28% | 31% | 31% | 90% | ||
Validation | 28% | 31% | 28% | 13% | 72% | |
15% | 46% | 26% | 13% | 85% |
Par. | Equations | R2 | |
---|---|---|---|
0.123 | |||
0.364 | |||
0.25 | 0.22 | ||
0.66 | 0.60 | ||
0.23 | 0.17 | ||
0.20 | 0.17 | ||
46.2 | |||
b2 | 0.061 | ||
a3 | 0.007 | ||
−0.0143 + 0.0283 × Density(km−1) − 0.1235 × Form(−) + 0.0061 × ln(Area(km2)) | 0.40 | 0.33 |
Par. | Equations | ||
---|---|---|---|
0.168 | |||
0.45 | 0.35 | ||
0.33 | 0.31 | ||
0.32 | 0.27 | ||
0.100 | |||
0.57 | 0.54 | ||
0.37 | 0.30 | ||
0.48 | 0.42 | ||
0.42 | 0.31 | ||
0.0470 |
© 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
Song, J.-H.; Her, Y.; Suh, K.; Kang, M.-S.; Kim, H. Regionalization of a Rainfall-Runoff Model: Limitations and Potentials. Water 2019, 11, 2257. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11112257
Song J-H, Her Y, Suh K, Kang M-S, Kim H. Regionalization of a Rainfall-Runoff Model: Limitations and Potentials. Water. 2019; 11(11):2257. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11112257
Chicago/Turabian StyleSong, Jung-Hun, Younggu Her, Kyo Suh, Moon-Seong Kang, and Hakkwan Kim. 2019. "Regionalization of a Rainfall-Runoff Model: Limitations and Potentials" Water 11, no. 11: 2257. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11112257