Comparison of Simple and Complex Hydrological Models for Predicting Catchment Discharge Under Climate Change
Shailesh Kumar Singh Nelly Marcy
Hydrological models are used for various purposes, including flow forecasting, flood forecasting and short and long term water management. However, models suffer from uncertainties from different sources, such as parameterisation, input data errors and process descriptions. The choice of a hydrological model depends on the purpose of its utilisation and data availability. The objectives of this study are, firstly, to investigate the consequences (uncertainty) of using simple versus a complex hydrological model to predict discharge and to quantify the uncertainty of results owing to differences between hydrological models, and secondly, to investigate the effects of using simple versus complex hydrological models in climate change studies. The complexity of each hydrological model is defined based on input data requirements, number of parameters and the level of description of the hydrological processes in the model. Model responses are compared using five hydrological models, ranging from conceptual-lumped to physically-based fully-distributed (HYMOD, HBV, HydroMAD, TopNet WaSiM-ETH) employing data from the Waiokura catchment, in the North Island of New Zealand. Climate change scenarios for three emission scenarios (B1, A1B and A1F1) have been assessed and using the models for three different time periods: “current” (1980–1999), “2040 condition” (2030–2049) and “2090 condition” (2080–2099). It was found that different models need different amounts of input data and time for the set up and the calibration and validation. The analysis of the climate change scenarios shows that the resulting discharges differ significantly between the selected models. This uncertainty indicates a need to carefully choose the model for a given application. Based on the results from the different scenarios, we conclude that a simple to moderately complex model is probably sufficient for most climate change studies; for more realistic results, using a multi-model ensemble is preferable, as it will reduce uncertainty due to model structure and complexity.
/style/web/images/custom/favicon.ico
AIMS Geosciences
Hydrological models are used for various purposes, including flow forecasting, flood forecasting and short and long term water management. However, models suffer from uncertainties from different sources, such as parameterisation, input data errors and process descriptions. The choice of a hydrological model depends on the purpose of its utilisation and data availability. The objectives of this study are, firstly, to investigate the consequences (uncertainty) of using simple versus a complex hydrological model to predict discharge and to quantify the uncertainty of results owing to differences between hydrological models, and secondly, to investigate the effects of using simple versus complex hydrological models in climate change studies. The complexity of each hydrological model is defined based on input data requirements, number of parameters and the level of description of the hydrological processes in the model. Model responses are compared using five hydrological models, ranging from conceptual-lumped to physically-based fully-distributed (HYMOD, HBV, HydroMAD, TopNet WaSiM-ETH) employing data from the Waiokura catchment, in the North Island of New Zealand. Climate change scenarios for three emission scenarios (B1, A1B and A1F1) have been assessed and using the models for three different time periods: “current” (1980–1999), “2040 condition” (2030–2049) and “2090 condition” (2080–2099). It was found that different models need different amounts of input data and time for the set up and the calibration and validation. The analysis of the climate change scenarios shows that the resulting discharges differ significantly between the selected models. This uncertainty indicates a need to carefully choose the model for a given application. Based on the results from the different scenarios, we conclude that a simple to moderately complex model is probably sufficient for most climate change studies; for more realistic results, using a multi-model ensemble is preferable, as it will reduce uncertainty due to model structure and complexity.

Keywords:

uncertainty,

hydrologic modelling,

climate change

Citation: Shailesh Kumar Singh, Nelly Marcy. Comparison of Simple and Complex Hydrological Models for Predicting Catchment Discharge Under Climate Change[J]. AIMS Geosciences, 2017, 3(3): 467-497. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2017.3.467

Related Papers:

Abstract

Hydrological models are used for various purposes, including flow forecasting, flood forecasting and short and long term water management. However, models suffer from uncertainties from different sources, such as parameterisation, input data errors and process descriptions. The choice of a hydrological model depends on the purpose of its utilisation and data availability. The objectives of this study are, firstly, to investigate the consequences (uncertainty) of using simple versus a complex hydrological model to predict discharge and to quantify the uncertainty of results owing to differences between hydrological models, and secondly, to investigate the effects of using simple versus complex hydrological models in climate change studies. The complexity of each hydrological model is defined based on input data requirements, number of parameters and the level of description of the hydrological processes in the model. Model responses are compared using five hydrological models, ranging from conceptual-lumped to physically-based fully-distributed (HYMOD, HBV, HydroMAD, TopNet WaSiM-ETH) employing data from the Waiokura catchment, in the North Island of New Zealand. Climate change scenarios for three emission scenarios (B1, A1B and A1F1) have been assessed and using the models for three different time periods: “current” (1980–1999), “2040 condition” (2030–2049) and “2090 condition” (2080–2099). It was found that different models need different amounts of input data and time for the set up and the calibration and validation. The analysis of the climate change scenarios shows that the resulting discharges differ significantly between the selected models. This uncertainty indicates a need to carefully choose the model for a given application. Based on the results from the different scenarios, we conclude that a simple to moderately complex model is probably sufficient for most climate change studies; for more realistic results, using a multi-model ensemble is preferable, as it will reduce uncertainty due to model structure and complexity.

References

[1] Martínez-Santiago S, López-Santos A, González-Cervantes G, et al. (2017) Evaluating the impacts of climate change on soil erosion rates in central mexico. AIMS Geosci 3: 327-351. [2] Orth R, Staudinger M, Seneviratne SI, et al. (2015) Does model performance improve with complexity? A case study with three hydrological models. J Hydrol 523: 147-159. [3] Singh SK (2016) Long-term streamflow forecasting based on ensemble streamflow prediction technique: A case study in new zealand. Water Resour Manag 30: 2295-2309. [4] Michaud J, Sorooshian S (1994) Comparison of simple versus complex distributed runoff models on a midsized semiarid watershed. Water Resour Res 30: 593-605. [5] Ludwig R, May I, Turcotte R, et al. (2009) The role of hydrological model complexity and uncertainty in climate change impact assessment. Adv Geosci 21: 63-71. doi: 10.5194/adgeo-21-63-2009 [6] Graham LP, Andréasson J, Carlsson B (2007) Assessing climate change impacts on hydrology from an ensemble of regional climate models, model scales and linking methods–a case study on the lule river basin. Clim Change 81: 293-307. [7] Bergström S, Carlsson B, Gardelin M, et al. (2001) Climate change impacts on runoff in sweden-assessments by global climate models, dynamical downscaling and hydrological modelling. Clim res 16: 101-112. [8] Xu C.-y. (1999) Climate change and hydrologic models: A review of existing gaps and recent research developments. Water Resour Manag 13: 369-382. [9] Menzel L, Bürger G (2002) Climate change scenarios and runoff response in the mulde catchment (southern elbe, germany). J Hydrol 267: 53-64. [10] Akhtar M, Ahmad N, Booij MJ (2008) The impact of climate change on the water resources of hindukush–karakorum–himalaya region under different glacier coverage scenarios. J Hydrol 355: 148-163. [11] Teutschbein C, Seibert J (2012) Bias correction of regional climate model simulations for hydrological climate-change impact studies: Review and evaluation of different methods. J Hydrol 456: 12-29. [12] Hattermann F, Krysanova V, Gosling SN, et al. (2017)Cross‐scale intercomparison of climate change impacts simulated by regional and global hydrological models in eleven large river basins. Clim Change 141: 561-576. [13] Najafi M, Moradkhani H, Jung I (2011) Assessing the uncertainties of hydrologic model selection in climate change impact studies. Hydrol process 25: 2814-2826. doi: 10.1002/hyp.8043 [14] Bastola S, Murphy C, Sweeney J (2011) The role of hydrological modelling uncertainties in climate change impact assessments of irish river catchments. Adv Water Resour 34: 562-576. [15] Steinschneider S, Wi S, Brown C (2015) The integrated effects of climate and hydrologic uncertainty on future flood risk assessments. Hydrol Process 29: 2823-2839. [16] Seiller G, Anctil F (2014) Climate change impacts on the hydrologic regime of a canadian river: Comparing uncertainties arising from climate natural variability and lumped hydrological model structures. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 18: 2033. doi: 10.5194/hess-18-2033-2014 [17] Oyerinde GT, Wisser D, Hountondji FC, et al. (2016) Quantifying uncertainties in modeling climate change impacts on hydropower production. Clim 4: 34. doi: 10.3390/cli4030034 [18] Mango LM, Melesse AM, McClain ME, et al. (2011) Land use and climate change impacts on the hydrology of the upper mara river basin, kenya: Results of a modeling study to support better resource management. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 15: 2245. doi: 10.5194/hess-15-2245-2011 [19] Zhang X, Srinivasan R, Hao F (2007) Predicting hydrologic response to climate change in the luohe river basin using the swat model. Transactions of the ASABE 50: 901-910. [20] Jasper K, Calanca P, Gyalistras D, et al. (2004) Differential impacts of climate change on the hydrology of two alpine river basins. Clim Res 26: 113-129. doi: 10.3354/cr026113 [21] Middelkoop H, Daamen K, Gellens D, et al. (2001) Impact of climate change on hydrological regimes and water resources management in the rhine basin. Clim change 49: 105-128. doi: 10.1023/A:1010784727448 [22] Velázquez J, Schmid J, Ricard S, et al. (2013) An ensemble approach to assess hydrological models' contribution to uncertainties in the analysis of climate change impact on water resources. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 17: 565. doi: 10.5194/hess-17-565-2013 [23] Poyck S, Hendrikx J, McMillan H, et al. (2011) Combined snow and streamflow modelling to estimate impacts of climate change on water resources in the clutha river, new zealand. J Hydrol (New Zealand) 293-311. [24] Lawrence J, Reisinger A, Mullan B, et al. (2013) Exploring climate change uncertainties to support adaptive management of changing flood-risk. Environ Sci Policy 33: 133-142. [25] Gawith D, Kingston DG, McMillan H (2012) The effects of climate change on runoff in the lindis and matukituki catchments, otago, new zealand. J Hydrol (New Zealand) 121-135. [26] Jiang T, Chen YD, Xu C.-y., et al. (2007) Comparison of hydrological impacts of climate change simulated by six hydrological models in the dongjiang basin, south china. J hydrol 336: 316-333. doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2007.01.010 [27] NIWA (2013) Overview of new zealand climate. Available from: Https://www.Niwa.Co.Nz/climate/summaries/annual/annual-climate-summary-2013. [28] Tait A, Henderson R, Turner R, et al. (2006) Thin plate smoothing spline interpolation of daily rainfall for new zealand using a climatological rainfall surface. Int J Clim 26: 2097-2115. doi: 10.1002/joc.1350 [29] Snelder TH, Biggs BJF (2002) Multiscale river environment classification for water resources managements1. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resour Assoc 38: 1225-1239. [30] Newsome PFJ, Wilde RH, Willoughby EJ (2000) Land resource information system spatial data layers. Landcare Research Technical Report No.84p. [31] Mullan B, Wratt D, Dean S, et al. (2008) Climate change effects and impacts assessment. A guidance manual for local government. 2nd edition, ministry for the environment, wellington. 149p, Available from: http://www.Mfe.Govt.Nz/sites/default/files/climate-change-effect-impacts-assessment-may08.Pdf. [32] IPCC (2007) Climate change 2007: Synthesis report. Contribution of working groups i, ii and iii to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate chnage.(core writing team, pachauri, p.K. And reisinger, a. (eds.)) ipcc, geneva,switzerland, 104pp. [33] Singh SK, Bárdossy A (2015) Hydrological model calibration by sequential replacement of weak parameter sets using depth function. Hydrol 2: 69-92. [34] Singh SK (2010) Parameterization of hydrological model in ungauged catchments: A regionalization technique. LAP Lambert Academic Publishing AG & Co KG: Germany, ISBN-13: 978-3838375588. [35] Andrews F, Croke B, Jakeman A (2011) An open software environment for hydrological model assessment and development. Environmental Modelling & Software 26: 1171-1185. [36] Jakeman A, Littlewood I, Whitehead P (1990) Computation of the instantaneous unit hydrograph and identifiable component flows with application to two small upland catchments. J hydrol 117: 275-300. [37] Croke BF, Jakeman AJ (2004) A catchment moisture deficit module for the ihacres rainfall-runoff model. Environmental Modelling & Software 19: 1-5. [38] Peck EL (1976) Catchment modeling and initial parameter estimation for the national weather service river forecast system. Noaa technical memorandum nws hydro-31. Office of hydrology, national weather service. Washinton d. C. [39] Perrin C, Michel C, AndrC)assian V (2003) Improvement of a parsimonious model for streamflow simulation. J Hydrol 279: 275-289. doi: 10.1016/S0022-1694(03)00225-7 [40] Boughton W (2004) The australian water balance model. Environmental Modelling & Software 19: 943-956. [41] Teemu K, Harri K, Anthony J, et al. (2006) In Construction of a degree-day snow model in the light of the "ten iterative steps in model development", Software, E.M.a., Ed. Proceedings of the iEMSs Third Biennial Meeting: Summit on Environmental Modelling and Software. . [42] Beven K, Kirkby M (1979) A physically based, variable contributing area model of basin hydrology/un modèle à base physique de zone d'appel variable de l'hydrologie du bassin versant. Hydrol Sci J 24: 43-69. [43] Bandaragoda C, Tarboton DG, Woods R (2004) Application of topnet in the distributed model intercomparison project. J Hydrol 298: 178-201. doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2004.03.038 [44] Clark MP, Rupp DE, Woods RA, et al. (2008) Hydrological data assimilation with the ensemble kalman filter: Use of streamflow observations to update states in a distributed hydrological model. Adv water resour 31: 1309-1324. [45] Klok E, Jasper K, Roelofsma K, et al. (2001) Distributed hydrological modelling of a heavily glaciated alpine river basin. Hydrol Sci J 46: 553-570. [46] Schulla J, Jasper K (2007) Model description wasim-eth, institute for atmospheric and climate science, swiss federal institute of technology, zürich. Available from: Http://www.Wasim.Ch/downloads/doku/wasim/wasim_2007_en.Pdf. [47] Bárdossy A, Singh S (2008) Robust estimation of hydrological model parameters. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 12: 1273-1283. doi: 10.5194/hess-12-1273-2008 [48] Duan Q, Sorooshian S, Gupta VK (1992) Effective and efficient global optimization for conceptual rainfall-runff models. Water Resour Res 28: 1015-1031. [49] Nash JE, Sutcliffe JV (1970) River flow forecasting through conceptual models part i: A discussion of principles. J Hydrol 10: 282-290. doi: 10.1016/0022-1694(70)90255-6 [50] Pechlivanidis I, Jackson B, McIntyre N, et al. (2011) Catchment scale hydrological modelling: A review of model types, calibration approaches and uncertainty analysis methods in the context of recent developments in technology and applications. Global NEST J 13: 193-214. [51] Schaefli B, Gupta HV (2007) Do nash values have value? Hydrol Process 21: 2075-2080. [52] Singh SK (2010) Robust parameter estimation in gauged and ungauged basins. PhD Thesis Nr. 198, University of Stuttgart, Germany, http://dx.doi.org/10.18419/opus-360. [53] Singh SK, Liang J, Bárdossy A (2012) Improving the calibration strategy of the physically-based model wasim-eth using critical events. Hydrol Sci J 57: 1487-1505. doi: 10.1080/02626667.2012.727091 [54] Singh SK, Liang J, Chamorro A (2017) Influence of calibration data on hydrological model prediction. Int J Hydrol Sci Technol, in press.