Publications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Modeller subjectivity and calibration impacts on hydrological model applications: an event-based comparison for a road-adjacent catchment in South-East Norway
KTH.
Stockholms universtitet.
KTH.
Norwegian Institute for Agricultural and Environmental Research.
Show others and affiliations
2015 (English)In: Science of the Total Environment, ISSN 0048-9697, E-ISSN 1879-1026, Vol. 502, 315-329 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Identifying a ‘best’ performing hydrologic model in a practical sense is difficult due to the potential influences of modeller subjectivity on, for example, calibration procedure and parameter selection. This is especially true for model applications at the event scale where the prevailing catchment conditions can have a strong impact on apparent model performance and suitability. In this study, two lumped models (CoupModel and HBV) and two physically-based distributed models (LISEM and MIKE SHE) were applied to a small catchment upstream of a road in south-eastern Norway. All models were calibrated to a single event representing typical winter conditions in the region and then applied to various other winter events to investigate the potential impact of calibration period and methodology on model performance. Peak flow and event-based hydrographs were simulated differently by all models leading to differences in apparent model performance under this application. In this case-study, the lumped models appeared to be better suited for hydrological events that differed from the calibration event (i.e., events when runoff was generated from rain on non-frozen soils rather than from rain and snowmelt on frozen soil) while the more physical-based approaches appeared better suited during snowmelt and frozen soil conditions more consistent with the event-specific calibration. This was due to the combination of variations in subsurface conditions over the eight events considered, the subsequent ability of the models to represent the impact of the conditions (particularly when subsurface conditions varied greatly from the calibration event), and the different approaches adopted to calibrate the models. These results indicate that hydrologic models may not only need to be selected on a case-by-case basis but also have their performance evaluated on an application-by-application basis since how a model is applied can be equally important as inherent model structure.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2015. Vol. 502, 315-329 p.
Keyword [en]
Hydrology, Mathematical model, Performance, Selection, Run off, Drainage
National Category
Oceanography, Hydrology, Water Resources
Research subject
30 Road: Highway design, 37 Road: Drainage and runoff
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:vti:diva-6631DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.09.030ISI: 000345730800035PubMedID: 25262294ScopusID: 2-s2.0-84907705405OAI: oai:DiVA.org:vti-6631DiVA: diva2:687469
Available from: 2014-01-14 Created: 2014-01-14 Last updated: 2016-07-06Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMedScopus

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Folkeson, Lennart
By organisation
Environment
In the same journal
Science of the Total Environment
Oceanography, Hydrology, Water Resources

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Altmetric score

Total: 44 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf