Calibration Catchment Selection for Flood Regionalization Modeling1

Wan Jaafar, Wan Zurina, and Dawei Han, 2012. Calibration Catchment Selection for Flood Regionalization Modeling. Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA) 48(4): 698-706. DOI: 10.1111/j.1752-1688.2012.00648.x Abstract:  There are two unsolved problems in flood regionalization model development related to the quantity and quality of calibration catchments: (1) how many calibration catchments should be used? and (2) how to select the calibration catchments? This study explores these two questions through a case study on the median annual maximum flood (QMED) model in the United Kingdom. It has been found that the chance of developing a good QMED model decreases significantly when the number of calibration catchments drops below a critical number (e.g., 60 in the case study). However, no significant improvement is achieved if the number of calibration catchments is above it. This number could be used as a benchmark for choosing randomly selected calibration catchments. Across a broad range of calibration catchment numbers, there are good and poor calibrated models regardless of calibration catchment numbers. High quality models could be developed from a small number of calibration catchments and also poor models from a large number of calibration catchments. This indicates that the number of calibration catchments may not be the dominating factor for developing a high quality regionalization model. Instead, the information content could be more important. The study has demonstrated that the standard deviation values between the best and poorest groups are distinctive and could be used in choosing appropriate calibration catchments.

[1]  Groupe de recherche en hydrologie statistique.  Presentation and review of some methods for regional flood frequency analysis , 1996 .

[2]  Chang Shu,et al.  Homogeneous pooling group delineation for flood frequency analysis using a fuzzy expert system with genetic enhancement , 2004 .

[3]  W. Reimers.  Estimating hydrological parameters from basin characteristics for large semiarid catchments. , 1989 .

[4]  G. Kuczera.  Improved parameter inference in catchment models: 1. Evaluating parameter uncertainty , 1983 .

[5]  Soroosh Sorooshian,et al.  Toward improved calibration of hydrologic models: Multiple and noncommensurable measures of information , 1998 .

[6]  S. Sorooshian,et al.  Stochastic parameter estimation procedures for hydrologie rainfall‐runoff models: Correlated and heteroscedastic error cases , 1980 .

[7]  George Kuczera,et al.  On the relationship between the reliability of parameter estimates and hydrologic time series data used in calibration , 1982 .

[8]  Taha B. M. J. Ouarda,et al.  Intercomparison of regional flood frequency estimation methods at ungauged sites for a Mexican case study , 2008 .

[9]  Dawei Han,et al.  Uncertainty in index flood modelling due to calibration data sizes , 2012 .

[10]  J. Salas,et al.  Regional flood quantile estimation for a Weibull Model , 1989 .

[11]  Henrik Madsen,et al.  Uncertainty measures of regional flood frequency estimators , 1995 .

[12]  Maria Mimikou,et al.  Predicting the mean annual flood and flood quantiles for ungauged catchments in Greece , 1989 .

[13]  Chang Shu,et al.  Artificial neural network ensembles and their application in pooled flood frequency analysis , 2004 .

[14]  Dawei Han,et al.  Input variable selection for median flood regionalization , 2011 .

[15]  T. Ouarda,et al.  Regional flood frequency estimation with canonical correlation analysis , 2001 .

[16]  Mike Acreman,et al.  Predicting the mean annual flood from basin characteristics in Scotland , 1985 .

[17]  Guirui Yu,et al.  Impacts of precipitation seasonality and ecosystem types on evapotranspiration in the Yukon River Basin, Alaska , 2010 .

[18]  S. Sorooshian,et al.  Evaluation of Maximum Likelihood Parameter estimation techniques for conceptual rainfall‐runoff models: Influence of calibration data variability and length on model credibility , 1983 .

[19]  Jay I. Myung,et al.  Evaluation and comparison of computational models. , 2009, Methods in enzymology.

[20]  T. Ouarda,et al.  Data-based comparison of seasonality-based regional flood frequency methods , 2006 .

[21]  Paolo Canuti,et al.  Relationship between the yearly maxima of peak and daily discharge for some basins in Tuscany , 1982 .

[22]  Groupe de recherche en hydrologie statistique.  Inter-comparison of regional flood frequency procedures for Canadian rivers , 1996 .

[23]  S. Sorooshian.  Parameter estimation of rainfall-runoff models with heteroscedastic streamflow errors — The noninformative data case , 1981 .

[24]  Soroosh Sorooshian,et al.  The relationship between data and the precision of parameter estimates of hydrologic models , 1985 .

[25]  Jery R. Stedinger,et al.  Regional Hydrologic Analysis, 2, Model‐Error Estimators, Estimation of Sigma and Log‐Pearson Type 3 Distributions , 1986 .

[26]  Dawei Han,et al.  Indices for calibration data selection of the rainfall‐runoff model , 2010 .

[27]  D. Burn.  Evaluation of regional flood frequency analysis with a region of influence approach , 1990 .

[28]  Taha B. M. J. Ouarda,et al.  Regional flood peak and volume estimation in northern Canadian basin , 2000 .

[29]  V. Nguyen,et al.  A comparative study of regression based methods in regional flood frequency analysis , 1999 .

[30]  Donald H. Burn,et al.  Analysis of the linkage between rain and flood regime and its application to regional flood frequency estimation , 2002 .