# Impact of the Grid Resolution and Deterministic Interpolation of Precipitation on Rainfall-Runoff Modeling in a Sparsely Gauged Mountainous Catchment

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

## 2. Materials and Methods

#### 2.1. Description of Study Area

^{2}and is entirely located in the Outer Carpathians. The catchment can be divided into two parts, upper- and lower-one [22], where the upper part is more exposed to the risk of flooding. Within the river basin, the elevation varies from 435 to 1038 m a.s.l. To the southwest of the catchment is the Babia Góra massif—the highest peak of the Polish part of the Carpathian Mountains. The highest rainfall is observed in the Babia Góra region and the lowest in the lower part of the catchment. Most of the catchment area is dominated by a warm temperate (up to approx. 700 m a.s.l.) or a cold temperate cold (at altitudes 700–1100 m a.s.l.). There are four rain gauges in the catchment area, of which one is directly located in the investigated study area. The rain gauges are not well distributed over the entire study area, which makes the areal estimation of precipitation based on them more challenging.

^{2}), which is particularly at risk of flooding [23]. This part of the catchment consists of 6 sub-catchments. The upper Skawa catchment area is characterized by a dense water network with dominant short streams with large slopes, resulting from the mountainous nature of the Skawa river [22]. The area of the catchment is dominated by low permeable soils, which is one of the most major factors contributing to the formation of flash floods caused by excessive rainfall [24,25]. Discharge data for the catchment are available at the gauging station in Osielec, which is located downstream.

#### 2.2. Data Collection and Processing

#### 2.3. Hydrological Modeling and Assesment

#### 2.3.1. Selection of the Model

- precipitation fields interpolated using the IDW interpolation method (IDP = 2.0) for 6 different grid sizes (250, 500, 750, 1000, 2500, and 5000 m);
- precipitation fields interpolated using the IDW interpolation method and different IDP values (0.5, 2.0 and 5.0) for 2 grid sizes (250 and 2500 m);
- precipitation fields interpolated using the first-degree polynomial interpolation method for 6 different grid sizes (250, 500, 750, 1000, 2500, and 5000 m).

#### 2.3.2. Model Assessment

- Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE)—frequently used metric to determine the relative magnitude of the residual variance in relation to the measured data variance [35]. The NSE values range from −1 to 1. The closer to 1, the more accurate the model is. If NSE value = 0, it means that the model predictions are as accurate as the mean value from the observed data. Values < 0 indicate that the mean value from observed data is a better predictor than the model results. The NSE is defined as:$$\mathrm{NSE}=1-\frac{{\sum}_{i=1}^{n}{\left({Q}_{obs}-{Q}_{sim}\right)}^{2}}{{\sum}_{i=1}^{n}{\left({Q}_{obs}-\overline{{Q}_{obs}}\right)}^{2}}$$
_{sim}and Q_{obs}are consecutively simulated and observed river discharge, ${\overline{Q}}_{obs}$ represents the mean of observed values, and n stands for the number of observations. - Kling-Gupta efficiency (KGE)—developed by Gupta et al. [36] is one of the alternatives to the NSE criterion [37], which is based on its decomposition (correlation, variability, and mean bias). Similarly, like NSE, the KGE value equal to 1 indicates a perfect agreement between model results and observation data, and values <0 means that the mean of observation data serves as a better predictor than the model outputs. The KGE is expressed as follows:$$\mathrm{KGE}=1-\sqrt{{\left(r-1\right)}^{2}+{\left(\alpha -1\right)}^{2}+{\left(\beta -1\right)}^{2}}$$
- Percent bias (PBIAS)—this metric is used to assess the model performance regarding the tendency of the simulated flow to be over- or underestimated [26]. If the value of PBIAS is greater than 20%, then it is considered to be unacceptable [38]. The formula for PBIAS is expressed as follows:$$\mathrm{PBIAS}=\frac{{\sum}_{i=1}^{n}\left({Q}_{sim}-{Q}_{obs}\right)}{{\sum}_{i=1}^{n}{Q}_{obs}}$$
_{sim}and Q_{obs}are consecutively simulated and observed river discharge.

#### 2.4. Spatial Interpolation of Precipitation

#### 2.4.1. Interpolation Grid Resolutions

#### 2.4.2. Inverse Distance Weighting

_{i}—rainfall amount measured at the rain gauge, D

_{0i}—distance between the location of the estimated part of the precipitation field and the rain gauge i, n—number of rain gauges used to estimate the precipitation amount at the location 0, p—power exponent responsible for assigning significance weights to individual rain gauges.

#### 2.4.3. Polynomial Interpolation

_{1}–a

_{6}—regression function coefficients.

## 3. Results and Discussion

#### 3.1. Impact of the Grid Resolution on the IDW Method

#### 3.2. Impact of the IDP Value on the IDW Method

#### 3.3. Impact of the Grid Resolution on the Polynomial Interpolation

## 4. Summary and Conclusions

- When analyzing Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure 6, Figure 7 and Figure 8, it must be noticed that the curves for various sizes of the grid and different IDP values for the IDW method are very correlated when compared to the curve of the observed flow. Therefore, the choice of a different grid size (or IDP for the IDW method) does not change much the picture with respect to the observed discharge. However, when looking at the data more precisely with statistical analysis, some differences can be detected.
- The impact of the grid resolution is more visible for the IDW method than for the first-degree polynomial interpolation. As for the IDW method, the maximum difference for the NSE criterion is 0.26 for both, calibration, and validation phases. For the first-degree polynomial method, the maximum differences for the NSE are 0.12 and 0.16, respectively. As the IDW method is frequently used in hydrological applications, the appropriate choice of the interpolation grid is of particular importance.
- Among the analyzed grid resolutions, the best results for the IDW method were obtained for the grids of 250 m and 2500 m (average values of the NSE were 0.62 and 0.65 for the calibration and 0.74 and 0.76 for the validation respectively). For the first-degree polynomial method, higher grid resolutions (smaller or equal to 750 m) outperformed the lower ones (greater or equal to 1000 m). The mean value of the NSE for the calibration phase for grids up to 750 m was 0.63 and 0.67 for validation. As for the lower resolution grids, the results were 0.60 and 0.65 consecutively.
- The applied value of the IDP in the IDW method has a significant impact on the outputs of hydrological modeling. In most of the cases, more accurate results were obtained using different values of IDP than traditionally applied value equal to 2.0. Therefore, the choice of the appropriate IDP value when using a semi-distributed hydrological model cannot be neglected and should be taken into account.
- The IDP value in the IDW interpolation method has more impact on the simulation results than the grid size. That can be clearly seen when comparing the results presented in Table 6.
- Within the analyzed deterministic interpolation methods, slightly better results were obtained for the first-degree interpolation method than for the IDW interpolation considering the results of the evaluation criteria presented in Table 3, Table 4, Table 5, Table 6, Table 7 and Table 8. Tobin et al. [39] reported that the IDW method tends to significantly underestimate rainfall volume, but this study shows that when using the right grid size and appropriate IDP value, this method can also be effective. It should also be noted (Figure A3) that the first-degree polynomial method can lead to significant underestimation of precipitation over relatively large areas (horizontal), especially when using low-resolution grids.
- For small mountainous catchments, the best data source on the precipitation field would be rain gauge data interpolated using the first-degree interpolation method and grid size smaller or equal to 750 m. This method, unlike the IDW, is more straightforward in application, and does not require subjective investigation of the method’s parameters (the IDP value in the IDW interpolation method).
- Kling-Gupta efficiency (KGE), which is considered as one of the alternatives to the Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE), generally tends to provide higher and less varied values, which makes it less useful for the evaluation of the results.

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Data Availability Statement

## Acknowledgments

## Conflicts of Interest

## Appendix A

**Figure A1.**Comparison of precipitation fields obtained using the Inverse Distance Weighting interpolation method (IDP = 2.0) for different grid sizes: (

**a**) 250 m, (

**b**) 500 m, (

**c**) 750 m, (

**d**) 1000 m, (

**e**) 2500 m, (

**f**) 5000 m.

**Figure A2.**Comparison of precipitation fields obtained using the Inverse Distance Weighting interpolation method and a grid size of 250 m: (

**a**,

**c**,

**e**) and 2500 m: (

**b**,

**d**,

**f**) for the IDP values of 0.5, 2.0, and 5.0 consecutively.

**Figure A3.**Comparison of precipitation fields obtained using the first-degree polynomial as an interpolation method for different grid sizes: (

**a**) 250 m, (

**b**) 500 m, (

**c**) 750 m, (

**d**) 1000 m, (

**e**) 2500 m, (

**f**) 5000 m.

## References

- Cheng, M.; Wang, Y.; Engel, B.; Zhang, W.; Peng, H.; Chen, X.; Xia, H.; Cheng, M.; Wang, Y.; Engel, B.; et al. Performance Assessment of Spatial Interpolation of Precipitation for Hydrological Process Simulation in the Three Gorges Basin. Water
**2017**, 9, 838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Caracciolo, D.; Arnone, E.; Noto, L.V. Influence of Spatial Precipitation Sampling on Hydrological Response at the Catchment Scale. J. Hydrol. Eng.
**2014**, 19, 544–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Price, K.; Purucker, S.T.; Kraemer, S.R.; Babendreier, J.E.; Knightes, C.D. Comparison of radar and gauge precipitation data in watershed models across varying spatial and temporal scales. Hydrol. Process.
**2014**, 28, 3505–3520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Chen, T.; Ren, L.; Yuan, F.; Yang, X.; Jiang, S.; Tang, T.; Liu, Y.; Zhao, C.; Zhang, L. Comparison of spatial interpolation schemes for rainfall data and application in hydrological modeling. Water
**2017**, 9, 342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Bell, V.A.; Moore, R.J. The sensitivity of catchment runoff models to rainfall data at different spatial scales. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.
**2000**, 4, 653–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Li, J.; Heap, A.D. A review of comparative studies of spatial interpolation methods in environmental sciences: Performance and impact factors. Ecol. Inform.
**2011**, 6, 228–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Gabella, M.; Speirs, P.; Hamann, U.; Germann, U.; Berne, A. Measurement of precipitation in the alps using dual-polarization C-Band ground-based radars, the GPMSpaceborne Ku-Band Radar, and rain gauges. Remote Sens.
**2017**, 9, 1147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Kitchen, M.; Blackall, R.M. Representativeness errors in comparisons between radar and gauge measurements of rainfall. J. Hydrol.
**1992**. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Michaelides, S.; Levizzani, V.; Anagnostou, E.; Bauer, P.; Kasparis, T.; Lane, J.E. Precipitation: Measurement, remote sensing, climatology and modeling. Atmos. Res.
**2009**, 94, 512–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Herrera, S.; Kotlarski, S.; Soares, P.M.M.; Cardoso, R.M.; Jaczewski, A.; Gutiérrez, J.M.; Maraun, D. Uncertainty in gridded precipitation products: Influence of station density, interpolation method and grid resolution. Int. J. Climatol.
**2019**, 39, 3717–3729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kurtzman, D.; Navon, S.; Morin, E. Improving interpolation of daily precipitation for hydrologic modelling: Spatial patterns of preferred interpolators. Hydrol. Process.
**2009**, 23, 3281–3291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ly, S.; Charles, C.; Degré, A. Different methods for spatial interpolation of rainfall data for operational hydrology and hydrological modeling at watershed scale: A review. Biotechnol. Agron. Soc. Environ.
**2013**, 17, 392–406. [Google Scholar] - Zareian, M.J.; Eslamian, S.; Safavi, H.R. A modified regionalization weighting approach for climate change impact assessment at watershed scale. Theor. Appl. Climatol.
**2015**, 122, 497–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Gilewski, P. Sensitivity of the Catchment Outflow in a Mountainous Region Modeled with the Rainfall-Runoff Hydrological 529 Model to the Spatial-Temporal Distribution of Precipitation. Ph.D. Thesis, Warsaw University of Technology, Warsaw, Poland, 2020. (In Polish). [Google Scholar]
- Wang, S.; Huang, G.H.; Lin, Q.G.; Li, Z.; Zhang, H.; Fan, Y.R. Comparison of interpolation methods for estimating spatial distribution of precipitation in Ontario, Canada. Int. J. Climatol.
**2014**, 34, 3745–3751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Foehn, A.; García Hernández, J.; Schaefli, B.; De Cesare, G. Spatial interpolation of precipitation from multiple rain gauge networks and weather radar data for operational applications in Alpine catchments. J. Hydrol.
**2018**. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Simanton, J.; Osborn, H. Reciprocal-Distance Estimate of Point Rainfall. J. Hydraul. Div.
**1980**, 106, 1242–1246. [Google Scholar] - Tung, Y. Point Rainfall Estimation for a Mountainous Region. J. Hydraul. Eng.
**1983**. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Chen, F.-W.; Liu, C.-W. Estimation of the spatial rainfall distribution using inverse distance weighting (IDW) in the middle of Taiwan. Paddy Water Environ.
**2012**, 10, 209–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Wu, J.; Zheng, C.; Chien, C.C. Cost-effective sampling network design for contaminant plume monitoring under general hydrogeological conditions. J. Contam. Hydrol.
**2005**, 77, 41–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Malvić, T.; Ivšinović, J.; Velić, J.; Rajić, R. Interpolation of small datasets in the sandstone hydrocarbon reservoirs, case study of the sava depression, Croatia. Geosciences
**2019**, 9, 201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Punzet, J. Hydrology of the Skawa river basin. Wiad. Sluz. Hydr. Meteo.
**1994**, 3–4, 29–40. [Google Scholar] - Franczak, P. Rola wielkich wezbrań powodziowych w kształtowaniu życia ludności w zlewni górnej Skawy od XV wieku The role of major floods in shaping the life of the population in the catchment area of the upper Skawa River since the 15 th century. Wspolczesne Probl. Kierun. Badaw. Geogr.
**2014**, 2, 117–129. [Google Scholar] - Bronstert, A. Rainfall-runoff modelling for assessing impacts of climate and land-use change. Hydrol. Process.
**2004**, 18, 567–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Witkowski, K. Evolution of the lower Skawa river bed in regard to hydrotechnical buildings. Acta Sci. Pol. Form. Circumiectus
**2015**, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Gilewski, P.; Nawalany, M. Inter-Comparison of Rain-Gauge, Radar, and Satellite (IMERG GPM) Precipitation Estimates Performance for Rainfall-Runoff Modeling in a Mountainous Catchment in Poland. Water
**2018**, 10, 1665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Szturc, J.; Jurczyk, A.; Ośródka, K.; Wyszogrodzki, A.; Giszterowicz, M. Precipitation estimation and nowcasting at IMGW-PIB ( SEiNO system ). Meteorol. Hydrol. Water Manag. Res. Oper. Appl.
**2017**, 6, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Gilewski, P.; Węglarz, A. Impact of land-cover change related urbanization on surface runoff estimation. In Proceedings of the MATEC Web of Conferences, Lille, France, 8–10 October 2018; Volume 196, pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
- Gent, P.R.; Danabasoglu, G.; Donner, L.J.; Holland, M.M.; Hunke, E.C.; Jayne, S.R.; Lawrence, D.M.; Neale, R.B.; Rasch, P.J.; Vertenstein, M.; et al. The Community Climate System Model Version 4. J. Clim.
**2011**, 24, 4973–4991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kirchner, J.W. Catchments as simple dynamical systems: Catchment characterization, rainfall-runoff modeling, and doing hydrology backward. Water Resour. Res.
**2009**, 45, 1–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Koster, R.D.; Mahanama, S.P.; Koster, R.D.; Mahanama, S.P.P. Land Surface Controls on Hydroclimatic Means and Variability. J. Hydrometeorol.
**2012**, 13, 1604–1620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Orth, R.; Staudinger, M.; Seneviratne, S.I.; Seibert, J.; Zappa, M. Does model performance improve with complexity? A case study with three hydrological models. J. Hydrol.
**2015**, 523, 147–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Pina, R.D.; Ochoa-Rodriguez, S.; Simões, N.E.; Mijic, A.; Marques, A.S.; Maksimović, Č. Semi- vs. Fully-distributed urban stormwater models: Model set up and comparison with two real case studies. Water
**2016**, 8, 58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Zhang, H.L.; Wang, Y.J.; Wang, Y.Q.; Li, D.X.; Wang, X.K. Quantitative comparison of semi- and fully-distributed hydrologic models in simulating flood hydrographs on a mountain watershed in southwest China. J. Hydrodyn.
**2013**, 25, 877–885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - 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] - Gupta, H.; Kling, H.; Yilmaz, K.; Martinez, G. 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] - Knoben, W.; Freer, J.; Woods, R. Technical note: Inherent benchmark or not? Comparing Nash—Sutcliffe and Kling—Gupta efficiency scores. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.
**2019**, 23, 4323–4331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Fang, G.; Yuan, Y.; Gao, Y.; Huang, X.; Guo, Y. Assessing the Effects of Urbanization on Flood Events with Urban Agglomeration Polders Type of Flood Control Pattern Using the HEC-HMS Model in the Qinhuai River Basin, China. Water
**2018**, 10, 1003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Tobin, C.; Nicotina, L.; Parlange, M.B.; Berne, A.; Rinaldo, A. Improved interpolation of meteorological forcings for hydrologic applications in a Swiss Alpine region. J. Hydrol.
**2011**, 401, 77–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Shepard, D. Two-dimensional interpolation function for irregularly-spaced data. In Proceedings of the 1968 23rd ACM national Conference, New York, NY, USA, 27–29 August 1968; pp. 517–524. [Google Scholar]
- Garcia, M.; Peters-Lidard, C.D.; Goodrich, D.C. Spatial interpolation of precipitation in a dense gauge network for monsoon storm events in the southwestern United States. Water Resour. Res.
**2008**, 44, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Lu, G.Y.; Wong, D.W. An adaptive inverse-distance weighting spatial interpolation technique. Comput. Geosci.
**2008**. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ruelland, D.; Ardoin-Bardin, S.; Billen, G.; Servat, E. Sensitivity of a lumped and semi-distributed hydrological model to several methods of rainfall interpolation on a large basin in West Africa. J. Hydrol.
**2008**, 361, 96–117. [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, 205–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Masih, I.; Maskey, S.; Uhlenbrook, S.; Smakhtin, V. Assessing the Impact of Areal Precipitation Input on Streamflow Simulations Using the SWAT Model. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc.
**2011**. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Szczepanek, R. Spatio-Temporal Structre of Precipitation in Mountainous Catchment. Ph.D. Thesis, Cracow 592 University of Technology, Kraków, Poland, 2003. (In Polish). [Google Scholar]
- Basistha, A.; Arya, D.S.; Goel, N.K. Spatial Distribution of Rainfall in Indian Himalayas—A Case Study of Uttarakhand Region. Water Resour. Manag.
**2008**, 22, 1325–1346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Gentilucci, M.; Bisci, C.; Burt, P.; Fazzini, M.; Vaccaro, C. Interpolation of Rainfall Through Polynomial Regression in the Marche Region (Central Italy). In Proceedings of the Annual International Conference on Geographic Information Science, Lund, Sweden, 12–15 June 2018; Springer: Cham, Swizerland, 2018; pp. 55–73. [Google Scholar]

**Figure 1.**Characteristics of the Upper Skawa River catchment in reference to digital elevation model (DEM).

**Figure 2.**Comparison of the interpolation grids investigated in the study (

**a**) 250 m, (

**b**) 500 m, (

**c**) 750, (

**d**) 1000 m, (

**e**) 2500 m. (

**f**) 5000 m.

**Figure 3.**Comparison of observed and simulated hydrographs using different grid sizes and inverse distance weighting (IDW) (inverse distance power (IDP) = 2.0) as an interpolation method for the calibration events (

**a**) Event 1: May 2014, (

**b**) Event 2: May 2015, (

**c**) Event 3: July 2016, (

**d**) Event 4: October 2016.

**Figure 4.**Comparison of observed and simulated hydrographs using different grid sizes and IDW (IDP = 2.0) as an interpolation method for the validation events (

**a**) Event 1: April 2017, (

**b**) Event 2: July 2018, (

**c**) Event 3a: May 2019, (

**d**) Event 3b: May 2019.

**Figure 5.**Comparison of observed and simulated hydrographs using two grid sizes (250 m and 2500 m) and three IDW (IDP = 0.5, 2.0, 5.0) as an interpolation method for the calibration events (

**a**) Event 1: May 2014, (

**b**) Event 2: May 2015, (

**c**) Event 3: July 2016, (

**d**) Event 4: October 2016.

**Figure 6.**Comparison of observed and simulated hydrographs using two grid sizes (250 m and 2500 m) and three IDW (IDP = 0.5, 2.0, 5.0) as an interpolation method for the validation events (

**a**) Event 1: April 2017, (

**b**) Event 2: July 2018, (

**c**) Event 3a: May 2019, (

**d**) Event 3b: May 2019.

**Figure 7.**Comparison of observed and simulated hydrographs using different grid sizes and first-degree polynomial as an interpolation method for the calibration events (

**a**) Event 1: May 2014, (

**b**) Event 2: May 2015, (

**c**) Event 3: July 2016, (

**d**) Event 4: October 2016.

**Figure 8.**Comparison of observed and simulated hydrographs using different grid sizes and first-degree polynomial as an interpolation method for the validation events (

**a**) Event 1: April 2017, (

**b**) Event 2: July 2018, (

**c**) Event 3a: May 2019, (

**d**) Event 3b: May 2019.

Rain Gauge Station | Station Code | Acronym | Longitude | Latitude | Altitude [m a.s.l] |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

Maków Podhalański | 249190190 | RG-1 | 19°40′36.59″49° | 49°43′51.29″ | 367 |

Markowe Szczawiny | 249190390 | RG-2 | 19°30′58.55″ | 49°35′17.05″ | 1184 |

Spytkowice Górne | 249190460 | RG-3 | 19°50′0.57″ | 49°34′38.78″ | 525 |

Zawoja | 249190350 | RG-4 | 19°34′1″ | 49°40′1″ | 604 |

**Table 2.**Methods applied in the Hydrologic Engineering Center-Hydrologic Modelling System (HEC-HMS) hydrological model.

Catchment Model | Meteorological Model | ||
---|---|---|---|

Parameter | Method | Parameter | Method |

Rainfall losses | SCS Curve Number | Precipitation | Specified hyetographs for each of the data sources of precipitation |

Transformation of effective precipitation | Snyder Unit Hydrograph | ||

Baseflow | Recession baseflow | ||

Routing | Muskingum-Cunge |

**Table 3.**The results of the evaluation criteria for the calibration events using different grids sizes and IDW (IDP = 2.0) as an interpolation method.

Event | Nash-Sutcliffe Efficiency (NSE) | Kling-Gupta Efficiency (KGE) | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Grid Resolution [m] | Grid Resolution [m] | |||||||||||

250 | 500 | 750 | 1000 | 2500 | 5000 | 250 | 500 | 750 | 1000 | 2500 | 5000 | |

Event 1 | 0.61 | 0.56 | 0.58 | 0.56 | 0.60 | 0.56 | 0.79 | 0.64 | 0.73 | 0.74 | 0.80 | 0.76 |

Event 2 | 0.65 | 0.65 | 0.64 | 0.65 | 0.60 | 0.59 | 0.69 | 0.64 | 0.62 | 0.69 | 0.60 | 0.67 |

Event 3 | 0.52 | 0.50 | 0.47 | 0.47 | 0.57 | 0.59 | 0.55 | 0.54 | 0.53 | 0.53 | 0.56 | 0.61 |

Event 4 | 0.75 | 0.80 | 0.73 | 0.72 | 0.77 | 0.8 | 0.85 | 0.88 | 0.86 | 0.85 | 0.88 | 0.89 |

Percent bias (PBIAS) | ||||||||||||

Grid resolution [m] | ||||||||||||

Event 1 | 2.6 | −14.8 | −5 | −3.5 | 2.6 | 1.3 | ||||||

Event 2 | 3.3 | 12.4 | 5.8 | 1.5 | 14.6 | 12.2 | ||||||

Event 3 | 33.4 | 26 | 23.2 | 31.9 | 27.5 | 28.3 | ||||||

Event 4 | −3.9 | −3.3 | −3.2 | −5.9 | −2.7 | −4.2 |

**Table 4.**The results of the evaluation criteria for the validation events using different grids sizes and IDW (IDP = 2.0) as an interpolation method.

Event | NSE | KGE | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Grid Resolution [m] | Grid Resolution [m] | |||||||||||

250 | 500 | 750 | 1000 | 2500 | 5000 | 250 | 500 | 750 | 1000 | 2500 | 5000 | |

Event 1 | 0.56 | 0.6 | 0.65 | 0.72 | 0.67 | 0.46 | 0.67 | 0.67 | 0.67 | 0.73 | 0.7 | 0.62 |

Event 2 | 0.64 | 0.65 | 0.66 | 0.64 | 0.64 | 0.65 | 0.8 | 0.81 | 0.81 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.81 |

Event 3a | 0.84 | 0.72 | 0.69 | 0.78 | 0.79 | 0.83 | 0.87 | 0.77 | 0.77 | 0.82 | 0.79 | 0.82 |

Event 3b | 0.93 | 0.93 | 0.93 | 0.93 | 0.93 | 0.92 | 0.95 | 0.95 | 0.95 | 0.95 | 0.95 | 0.95 |

PBIAS | ||||||||||||

Grid Resolution [m] | ||||||||||||

Event 1 | −30.4 | −32.3 | −32.6 | −25.6 | −29.7 | −35.2 | ||||||

Event 2 | 6.5 | 5.9 | 6.3 | 6 | 10.6 | 8.8 | ||||||

Event 3a | 4.2 | 0.5 | −0.2 | −2 | 0.2 | 0.4 | ||||||

Event 3b | 1 | −0.6 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 1.6 | −1.7 |

**Table 5.**The results of the evaluation criteria for the calibration events using two grid sizes (250 m and 2500 m) and three IDW (IDP = 0.5, 2.0, 5.0) as an interpolation method.

Event | NSE | KGE | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Grid Resolution [m] | Grid Resolution [m] | |||||||||||

250 | 2500 | 250 | 2500 | |||||||||

IDP | 0.5 | 2.0 | 5.0 | 0.5 | 2.0 | 5.0 | 0.5 | 2.0 | 5.0 | 0.5 | 2.0 | 5.0 |

Event 1 | 0.52 | 0.61 | 0.65 | 0.54 | 0.60 | 0.63 | 0.56 | 0.79 | 0.81 | 0.60 | 0.80 | 0.80 |

Event 2 | 0.64 | 0.65 | 0.63 | 0.55 | 0.60 | 0.60 | 0.66 | 0.69 | 0.70 | 0.61 | 0.60 | 0.65 |

Event 3 | 0.38 | 0.52 | 0.53 | 0.38 | 0.57 | 0.54 | 0.30 | 0.55 | 0.58 | 0.37 | 0.56 | 0.57 |

Event 4 | 0.69 | 0.75 | 0.79 | 0.72 | 0.77 | 0.79 | 0.84 | 0.85 | 0.89 | 0.82 | 0.88 | 0.89 |

Event | PBIAS | |||||||||||

Grid Resolution [m] | ||||||||||||

250 | 250 | |||||||||||

IDP | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | ||||||

Event 1 | −23.0 | −23.0 | −23.0 | −23.0 | −23.0 | −23.0 | ||||||

Event 2 | 1.2 | 1.2 | 1.2 | 1.2 | 1.2 | 1.2 | ||||||

Event 3 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | ||||||

Event 4 | − 6.9 | − 6.9 | − 6.9 | − 6.9 | − 6.9 | − 6.9 |

**Table 6.**The results of the evaluation criteria for the validation events using two grid sizes (250 m and 2500 m) and three IDW (IDP = 0.5, 2.0, 5.0) as an interpolation method.

Event | NSE | KGE | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Grid Resolution [m] | Grid Resolution [m] | |||||||||||

250 | 2500 | 250 | 2500 | |||||||||

IDP | 0.5 | 2.0 | 5.0 | 0.5 | 2.0 | 5.0 | 0.5 | 2.0 | 5.0 | 0.5 | 2.0 | 5.0 |

Event 1 | 0.75 | 0.56 | 0.62 | 0.60 | 0.67 | 0.63 | 0.73 | 0.67 | 0.65 | 0.66 | 0.70 | 0.69 |

Event 2 | 0.68 | 0.64 | 0.62 | 0.68 | 0.64 | 0.61 | 0.83 | 0.80 | 0.79 | 0.83 | 0.80 | 0.77 |

Event 3a | 0.81 | 0.84 | 0.86 | 0.83 | 0.79 | 0.85 | 0.77 | 0.87 | 0.84 | 0.81 | 0.79 | 0.84 |

Event 3b | 0.92 | 0.93 | 0.90 | 0.92 | 0.93 | 0.93 | 0.96 | 0.95 | 0.92 | 0.96 | 0.95 | 0.96 |

Event | PBIAS | |||||||||||

Grid Resolution [m] | ||||||||||||

250 | 250 | |||||||||||

IDP | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | ||||||

Event 1 | −26.2 | −26.2 | −26.2 | −26.2 | −26.2 | −26.2 | ||||||

Event 2 | 3.7 | 3.7 | 3.7 | 3.7 | 3.7 | 3.7 | ||||||

Event 3a | −2.1 | −2.1 | −2.1 | −2.1 | −2.1 | −2.1 | ||||||

Event 3b | −1.1 | −1.1 | −1.1 | −1.1 | −1.1 | −1.1 |

**Table 7.**The results of the evaluation criteria for the validation events using different grids sizes and first-degree polynomial as an interpolation method.

Event | NSE | KGE | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Grid Resolution [m] | Grid Resolution [m] | |||||||||||

250 | 500 | 750 | 1000 | 2500 | 5000 | 250 | 500 | 750 | 1000 | 2500 | 5000 | |

Event 1 | 0.47 | 0.52 | 0.48 | 0.50 | 0.48 | 0.48 | 0.72 | 0.73 | 0.72 | 0.74 | 0.72 | 0.72 |

Event 2 | 0.74 | 0.75 | 0.75 | 0.71 | 0.63 | 0.63 | 0.70 | 0.81 | 0.75 | 0.75 | 0.73 | 0.73 |

Event 3 | 0.48 | 0.56 | 0.53 | 0.52 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.56 | 0.56 | 0.58 | 0.55 | 0.57 | 0.57 |

Event 4 | 0.78 | 0.78 | 0.73 | 0.78 | 0.75 | 0.75 | 0.88 | 0.89 | 0.85 | 0.87 | 0.87 | 0.87 |

Event | PBIAS | |||||||||||

Grid Resolution [m] | ||||||||||||

Event 1 | 11.06 | 4.0 | 12.3 | 9.2 | 12.0 | 12.0 | ||||||

Event 2 | −0.2 | 2.9 | 9.9 | 7.8 | 3.3 | 3.3 | ||||||

Event 3 | 21.7 | 20.3 | 29.0 | 23.1 | 29.2 | 29.2 | ||||||

Event 4 | −6.3 | −0.3 | −8.7 | −0.8 | −3.4 | −3.4 |

**Table 8.**The results of the evaluation criteria for the validation events using different grids sizes and first-degree polynomial as an interpolation method.

Event | NSE | KGE | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Grid Resolution [m] | Grid Resolution [m] | |||||||||||

250 | 500 | 750 | 1000 | 2000 | 5000 | 250 | 500 | 750 | 1000 | 2500 | 5000 | |

Event 1 | 0.61 | 0.54 | 0.68 | 0.52 | 0.57 | 0.57 | 0.67 | 0.66 | 0.70 | 0.64 | 0.65 | 0.65 |

Event 2 | 0.72 | 0.79 | 0.79 | 0.74 | 0.74 | 0.74 | 0.78 | 0.85 | 0.85 | 0.83 | 0.82 | 0.82 |

Event 3a | 0.38 | 0.41 | 0.37 | 0.38 | 0.40 | 0.40 | 0.65 | 0.66 | 0.64 | 0.66 | 0.65 | 0.65 |

Event 3b | 0.92 | 0.89 | 0.89 | 0.91 | 0.90 | 0.90 | 0.91 | 0.91 | 0.91 | 0.91 | 0.88 | 0.88 |

Event | PBIAS | |||||||||||

Grid Resolution [m] | ||||||||||||

Event 1 | −32.7 | −32.9 | −30.0 | −34.4 | −34.0 | −34.0 | ||||||

Event 2 | −18.3 | −11.0 | −11.6 | −12.5 | −14.4 | −14.4 | ||||||

Event 3a | 19.1 | 19.6 | 20.0 | 17.6 | 19.4 | 19.4 | ||||||

Event 3b | 1.7 | 0.5 | 25.3 | 0.9 | −2.8 | −2.8 |

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |

© 2021 by the author. 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**

Gilewski, P.
Impact of the Grid Resolution and Deterministic Interpolation of Precipitation on Rainfall-Runoff Modeling in a Sparsely Gauged Mountainous Catchment. *Water* **2021**, *13*, 230.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w13020230

**AMA Style**

Gilewski P.
Impact of the Grid Resolution and Deterministic Interpolation of Precipitation on Rainfall-Runoff Modeling in a Sparsely Gauged Mountainous Catchment. *Water*. 2021; 13(2):230.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w13020230

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Gilewski, Paweł.
2021. "Impact of the Grid Resolution and Deterministic Interpolation of Precipitation on Rainfall-Runoff Modeling in a Sparsely Gauged Mountainous Catchment" *Water* 13, no. 2: 230.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w13020230