Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14481/jkges.2015.16.5.13

An Extended Model Evaluation Method under Uncertainty in Hydrologic Modeling  

Lee, Giha (Department of Construction and Disaster Prevention Engineering, Kyungpook National University)
Youn, Sangkuk (Department of Construction and Disaster Prevention Engineering, Kyungpook National University)
Kim, Yeonsu (Department of Construction and Disaster Prevention Engineering, Kyungpook National University)
Publication Information
Journal of the Korean GEO-environmental Society / v.16, no.5, 2015 , pp. 13-25 More about this Journal
Abstract
This paper proposes an extended model evaluation method that considers not only the model performance but also the model structure and parameter uncertainties in hydrologic modeling. A simple reservoir model (SFM) and distributed kinematic wave models (KWMSS1 and KWMSS2 using topography from 250-m, 500-m, and 1-km digital elevation models) were developed and assessed by three evaluative criteria for model performance, model structural stability, and parameter identifiability. All the models provided acceptable performance in terms of a global response, but the simpler SFM and KWMSS1 could not accurately represent the local behaviors of hydrographs. Moreover, SFM and KWMSS1 were structurally unstable; their performance was sensitive to the applied objective functions. On the other hand, the most sophisticated model, KWMSS2, performed well, satisfying both global and local behaviors. KMSS2 also showed good structural stability, reproducing hydrographs regardless of the applied objective functions; however, superior parameter identifiability was not guaranteed. A number of parameter sets could result in indistinguishable hydrographs. This result indicates that while making hydrologic models complex increases its performance accuracy and reduces its structural uncertainty, the model is likely to suffer from parameter uncertainty.
Keywords
Extended model evaluation; Model performance; Model structural stability; Parameter identifiability;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Beven, K. (2001), Revisiting the problem of model choice in Rainfall-runoff modeling: The primer, Chichester, John Wiley and Sons, pp. 297-306
2 Beven, K. (2002), Towards an alternative blueprint for a physicallybased digitally simulated hydrologic response modeling system, Hydrological Processes, Vol. 16, No. 2, 189-206.   DOI
3 Beven, K. (2006), A manifesto for the equifinality thesis, Journal of Hydrology, Vol. 320, pp. 18-36.   DOI
4 Beven, K. and Binley, A. M. (1992), The future of distributed models: model calibration and uncertainty prediction, Hydrological Processes, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 279-298.   DOI
5 Beven, K. and Freer, J. (2001), Equifinality, data assimilation, and uncertainty estimation in mechanistic modeling of complex environmental systems, Journal of Hydrology, Vol. 249, pp. 11-29.   DOI
6 Boyle, D. P., Gupta, H. V. and Sorooshian, S. (2000), Toward improved calibration of hydrological models: Combining the strengths of manual and automatic methods, Water Resources Research, Vol. 36, No. 12, pp. 3663-3674.   DOI
7 Boyle, D. P., Gupta, H. V., Sorooshian, S., Koren, V., Zhang, Z. and Smith, M. (2001), Toward improved streamflow forecast: The value of semi-distributed modeling, Water Resources Research, Vol. 37, No. 11, pp. 2739-2759.
8 Duan, Q., Gupta, V. K. and Sorooshian, S. (1993), Shuffled complex evolution approach for effective and efficient global minimization, Journal of Optimization Theory and Application, Vol. 76, No. 3, pp. 501-521.   DOI
9 Duan, Q., Sorooshian, S. and Gupta, V. K. (1992), Effective and efficient global optimization for conceptual rainfall-runoff models, Water Resources Research, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp. 1015-1031.   DOI
10 Duan, Q., Sorooshian, S. and Gupta, V. K. (1994), Optimal use of the SCE-UA global optimization method for calibrating watershed models, Journal of Hydrology, Vol. 158, pp. 265-284.   DOI
11 Feyen, L., Vrugt, J. A., Nualláin, B. Ó., Knijff, J. and Roo, A. D. (2007), Parameter optimization and uncertainty assessment for large-scale streamflow simulation with the LISFLOOD model, Journal of Hydrology, Vol. 332, pp. 276-289.   DOI
12 Freer, J., Beven, K. and Ambroise, B. (1996), Bayesian estimation of uncertainty in runoff prediction and the value of data: An application of GLUE approach, Water Resources Research, Vol. 32, No. 7, pp. 2161-2173.   DOI
13 Gan, T. Y., Dlamini, E. M. and Biftu, G. F. (1997), Effects of model complexity and structure data quality, and objective functions on hydrologic modeling, Journal of Hydrology, Vol. 192, pp. 81-103.   DOI
14 Gelman, A. and Rubin, D. B. (1992), Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences, Statistical Science, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 457-472.   DOI
15 Gupta, H. V., Sorooshian, S., Hogue, T. S. and Boyle, D. P. (2003), Advances in automatic calibration of watershed models, in Advances in calibration of watershed models, edited by Q. Duan, S. Sorooshian, H.V. Gupta, Rosseau, A. and R. Turcotte, Washington, AGU, pp. 9-28.
16 Gupta, H. V., Sorooshian, S. and Yapo, P. O. (1998), Toward improved calibration of hydrologic models: Multiple and noncommensurable measures of information, Water Resources Research, Vol. 134, No. 4, pp. 751-763.
17 Ichikawa, Y., Shiiba, M., Tachikawa, Y. and Takara, K. (2000), Object-oriented hydrological modeling system, Proceeding of 4th International Conference Hydro- informatics 2000 CD-ROM, Iowa, pp. 8-15.
18 Jakeman, A. J. and Hornberger, G. M. (1993), How much complexity is warranted in a rainfall-runoff model?, Water Resources Research, Vol. 29, No. 8, pp. 2637-2649.   DOI
19 Kuczera, G. and Parent, E. (1998), Monte Carlo assessment of parameter uncertainty in conceptual catchment models: the Metropolis algorithm, Journal of Hydrology, Vol. 211, pp. 69-85.   DOI
20 Refsgaard, J. C. and Knudsen J. (1996), Operational validation and intercomparison of different types of hydrologic models, Water Resources Research, Vol. 32, No. 7, pp. 2189-2202.   DOI
21 Sorooshian, S. and Dracup, J. A. (1980), Stochastic parameter estimation procedures for hydrologic rainfall-runoff models: Correlated and heteroscedastic error cases, Water Resources Research, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 430-442.   DOI
22 Spear, R. C. and Hornberger, G. M. (1980), Eutrophication in Peel Inlet - Identification of critical uncertainties via generalized sensitivity analysis, Water Research, Vol. 14, pp. 43-49.   DOI
23 Tachikawa, Y., Nagatani, G. and Takara, K. (2004), Development of stage-discharge relationship equation incorporating saturatedunsaturated flow mechanism, Annual Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, Vol. 48, pp. 7-12 (in Japanese).   DOI
24 Takasao, T. and Shiiba, M. (1988), Incorporation of the effect of concentration of flow into the kinematic wave equations and its applications to runoff system lumping, Journal of Hydrology, Vol. 102, pp. 301-322.   DOI
25 Takasao, T., Shiiba, M. and Ichikawa, Y. (1996), A runoff simulation with structural hydrological modeling system, Journal of Hydroscience and Hydraulic Engineering, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 47-55.
26 Uhlenbrook, S., Seibert, J., Leibundgut, C. and Rohde, A. (1999), Prediction uncertainty of conceptual rainfall-runoff models caused by problems in identifying model parameters and structures, Hydrological Sciences Bulletin, Vol. 44, No. 5, pp. 779-797.   DOI
27 Wagener, T. and Gupta H. V. (2005), Model identification for hydrological forecasting under uncertainty, Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, Vol. 19, pp. 378-387.   DOI
28 Vrugt, J. A., Gupta, H. V., Bouten, W. and Sorooshian, S. (2003), A shuffled complex evolution metropolis algorithm for optimization and uncertainty assessment of hydrologic model parameters, Water Resources Research, Vol. 39, No. 8, pp. 1-14.
29 Wagener, T. (2003), Evaluation of catchment models, Hydrological Processes, Vol. 17, pp. 3375-3378.   DOI
30 Wagener, T., Boyle, D. P., Leeds, M. J., Wheater, H. S., Gupta, H. V. and Sorooshian, S. (2001), A framework for development and application of hydrological models, Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, Vol. 5, pp. 13-26.   DOI
31 Wagener, T., Wheater, H. S. and Gupta, H. V. (2003a), Identification of Watershed Models in Advances in calibration of watershed models, edited by Q. Duan, S. Sorooshian, H.V. Gupta, Rosseau, A. and R. Turcotte, Washington, AGU, pp. 29-47.
32 Wagener, T., Leeds, M. J., Wheater, H. S. and Gupta, H. V. (2003b), Towards reduced uncertainty in conceptual rainfallrunoff modeling: dynamic identifiability analysis. Hydrological Processes, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 455-476.   DOI
33 Wagener, T., Wheater, H. S. and Gupta, H. V. (2004), Rainfallrunoff modeling in gauged and ungauged catchments, London, Imperial College Press, 306 pp.
34 Yapo, P. O., Gupta, H. V. and Sorooshian, S. (1998), Multiobjective global optimization for hydrologic models, Journal of Hydrology, Vol. 204, pp. 83-97.   DOI
35 Yu, P. S., Yang, T. C. and Chen, S. J. (2001), Comparison of uncertainty analysis methods for a distributed rainfall-runoff model, Journal of Hydrology, Vol. 244, pp. 43-59.   DOI   ScienceOn