Validation of a watershed model without calibration

[1] Traditional approaches for the validation of watershed models focus on the “goodness of fit” between model predictions and observations. It is possible for a watershed model to exhibit a “good” fit, yet not accurately represent hydrologic processes; hence “goodness of fit” can be misleading. Instead, we introduce an approach which evaluates the ability of a model to represent the observed covariance structure of the input (climate) and output (streamflow) without ever calibrating the model. An advantage of this approach is that it is not confounded by model error introduced during the calibration process. We illustrate that once a watershed model is calibrated, the unavoidable model error can cloud our ability to validate (or invalidate) the model. We emphasize that model hypothesis testing (validation) should be performed prior to, and independent of, parameter estimation (calibration), contrary to traditional practice in which watershed models are usually validated after calibrating the model. Our approach is tested using two different watershed models at a number of different watersheds in the United States.

[1]  Peter Young,et al.  Data-based Mechanistic Modelling and Validation of Rainfall-flow Processes , 2001 .

[2]  Richard M. Vogel,et al.  Stochastic and Deterministic World Views , 1999 .

[3]  Z. Samani,et al.  Estimating Potential Evapotranspiration , 1982 .

[4]  M. Kendall,et al.  The Logic of Scientific Discovery. , 1959 .

[5]  J.S. Carson,et al.  Model verification and validation , 2002, Proceedings of the Winter Simulation Conference.

[6]  Gary James Jason,et al.  The Logic of Scientific Discovery , 1988 .

[7]  Jose D. Salas,et al.  Physical Basis of Stochastic Models of Annual Flows , 1981 .

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

[9]  W. Beckman,et al.  Solar Engineering of Thermal Processes , 1985 .

[10]  Chong-Yu Xu,et al.  Methodology and comparative study of monthly water balance models in Belgium, China and Burma , 1992 .

[11]  C. Daly,et al.  A Statistical-Topographic Model for Mapping Climatological Precipitation over Mountainous Terrain , 1994 .

[12]  V. Singh,et al.  Computer Models of Watershed Hydrology , 1995 .

[13]  J. Refsgaard,et al.  Operational Validation and Intercomparison of Different Types of Hydrological Models , 1996 .

[14]  Horritt,et al.  Model Validation: Perspectives in Hydrological Science , 2001 .

[15]  R. Vogel,et al.  Regional calibration of a watershed model , 2000 .

[16]  William M. Alley,et al.  On the Treatment of Evapotranspiration, Soil Moisture Accounting, and Aquifer Recharge in Monthly Water Balance Models , 1984 .

[17]  V. Singh,et al.  Mathematical Modeling of Watershed Hydrology , 2002 .

[18]  P. Flavelle,et al.  A quantitative measure of model validation and its potential use for regulatory purposes , 1992 .

[19]  P. Bates,et al.  Model Validation - Perspectives in Hydrological Science , 2001 .

[20]  J. R. Wallis,et al.  Regional frequency analysis , 1997 .

[21]  George M. Hornberger,et al.  RECENT ADVANCES IN WATERSHED MODELLING , 1995 .

[22]  S. Sorooshian,et al.  Effective and efficient global optimization for conceptual rainfall‐runoff models , 1992 .

[23]  J. R. Wallis,et al.  Regional Frequency Analysis: An Approach Based on L-Moments , 1997 .

[24]  Chin-Fu Tsang,et al.  The Modeling Process and Model Validation , 1991 .

[25]  Kevin Bishop,et al.  A TEST OF TOPMODEL'S ABILITY TO PREDICT SPATIALLY DISTRIBUTED GROUNDWATER LEVELS , 1997 .

[26]  R. Vogel,et al.  Annual hydroclimatology of the United States , 2000 .

[27]  Richard P. Hooper,et al.  Testing and validating environmental models , 1996 .

[28]  N Oreskes,et al.  Verification, Validation, and Confirmation of Numerical Models in the Earth Sciences , 1994, Science.

[29]  V. Klemeš,et al.  Operational Testing of Hydrological Simulation Models , 2022 .

[30]  Richard M. Vogel,et al.  The regional persistence and variability of annual streamflow in the United States , 1998 .

[31]  J. M. Landwehr,et al.  Hydro-climatic data network (HCDN); a U.S. Geological Survey streamflow data set for the United States for the study of climate variations, 1874-1988 , 1992 .

[32]  Dennis McLaughlin,et al.  A stochastic approach to model validation , 1992 .

[33]  Jery R. Stedinger,et al.  Synthetic streamflow generation: 1. Model verification and validation , 1982 .

[34]  Richard P. Hooper,et al.  Applying the scientific method to small catchment studies: a review of the Panola Mountain experience , 2001 .

[35]  John D. Bredehoeft,et al.  Ground-water models cannot be validated , 1992 .

[36]  Keith Beven,et al.  Calibration of watershed models , 2003 .

[37]  R. Spear.  Eutrophication in peel inlet—II. Identification of critical uncertainties via generalized sensitivity analysis , 1980 .