Hydrology under change: an evaluation protocol to investigate how hydrological models deal with changing catchments

Abstract Testing hydrological models under changing conditions is essential to evaluate their ability to cope with changing catchments and their suitability for impact studies. With this perspective in mind, a workshop dedicated to this issue was held at the 2013 General Assembly of the International Association of Hydrological Sciences (IAHS) in Göteborg, Sweden, in July 2013, during which the results of a common testing experiment were presented. Prior to the workshop, the participants had been invited to test their own models on a common set of basins showing varying conditions specifically set up for the workshop. All these basins experienced changes, either in physical characteristics (e.g. changes in land cover) or climate conditions (e.g. gradual temperature increase). This article presents the motivations and organization of this experiment—that is—the testing (calibration and evaluation) protocol and the common framework of statistical procedures and graphical tools used to assess the model performances. The basins datasets are also briefly introduced (a detailed description is provided in the associated Supplementary material).

[1]  C. Perrin,et al.  Pathologies of hydrological models used in changing climatic conditions: a review , 2010 .

[2]  Simon Stisen,et al.  Hydrology and Earth System Sciences On the importance of appropriate precipitation gauge catch correction for hydrological modelling at mid to high latitudes , 2012 .

[3]  H. Kling,et al.  Runoff conditions in the upper Danube basin under an ensemble of climate change scenarios , 2012 .

[4]  A. H. Murphy,et al.  Skill Scores Based on the Mean Square Error and Their Relationships to the Correlation Coefficient , 1988 .

[5]  Demetris Koutsoyiannis,et al.  Hydrology and change , 2013 .

[6]  J. Kirchner.  Getting the right answers for the right reasons: Linking measurements, analyses, and models to advance the science of hydrology , 2006 .

[7]  R. Moore,et al.  Hierarchical testing of three rainfall-runoff models in small forested catchments , 1999 .

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

[9]  J. McDonnell,et al.  A decade of Predictions in Ungauged Basins (PUB)—a review , 2013 .

[10]  Ludovic Oudin,et al.  Hydrological model parameter instability: A source of additional uncertainty in estimating the hydrological impacts of climate change? , 2013 .

[11]  Hoshin Vijai Gupta,et al.  Decomposition of the mean squared error and NSE performance criteria: Implications for improving hydrological modelling , 2009 .

[12]  Hubert H. G. Savenije,et al.  An approach to identify time consistent model parameters: sub-period calibration , 2013 .

[13]  Fred L. Ogden,et al.  Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis of the conceptual HBV rainfall-runoff model: implications for parameter estimation. , 2010 .

[14]  Julien Lerat,et al.  Crash testing hydrological models in contrasted climate conditions: An experiment on 216 Australian catchments , 2012 .

[15]  Walter Boughton,et al.  Catchment water balance modelling in Australia 1960-2004 , 2005 .

[16]  Günter Blöschl,et al.  Time stability of catchment model parameters: Implications for climate impact analyses , 2011 .

[17]  Thibault Mathevet,et al.  Hydrology and Earth System Sciences Hess Opinions " Crash Tests for a Standardized Evaluation of Hydrological Models " , 2022 .

[18]  Thibault Mathevet,et al.  All that glitters is not gold: the case of calibrating hydrological models , 2012 .

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

[20]  J. C. Refsgaard,et al.  A framework for testing the ability of models to project climate change and its impacts , 2013, Climatic Change.

[21]  J. Nash,et al.  River flow forecasting through conceptual models part I — A discussion of principles☆ , 1970 .

[22]  Bryan A. Tolson,et al.  An efficient framework for hydrologic model calibration on long data periods , 2013 .

[23]  Günter Blöschl,et al.  Hydrological modelling in a changing world , 2011 .

[24]  Thibault Mathevet,et al.  A bounded version of the Nash-Sutcliffe criterion for better model assessment on large sets of basins , 2006 .

[25]  Demetris Koutsoyiannis,et al.  Holistic versus monomeric strategies for hydrological modelling of human-modified hydrosystems , 2010 .

[26]  C. Perrin,et al.  A review of efficiency criteria suitable for evaluating low-flow simulations , 2012 .

[27]  S. Wȩglarczyk,et al.  The interdependence and applicability of some statistical quality measures for hydrological models , 1998 .

[28]  Jan Seibert,et al.  Reliability of Model Predictions Outside Calibration Conditions , 2003 .

[29]  Nanée Chahinian,et al.  Large Sample Basin Experiments for Hydrological Model Parameterization: Results of the Model Parameter Experiment — MOPEX , 2006 .

[30]  M. Hipsey,et al.  “Panta Rhei—Everything Flows”: Change in hydrology and society—The IAHS Scientific Decade 2013–2022 , 2013 .

[31]  Jin Teng,et al.  Climate non-stationarity – Validity of calibrated rainfall–runoff models for use in climate change studies , 2010 .

[32]  Guillaume Thirel,et al.  On the need to test hydrological models under changing conditions , 2015 .

[33]  Robert E. Criss,et al.  Do Nash values have value? Discussion and alternate proposals , 2008 .