Multiobjective sensitivity analysis and optimization of distributed hydrologic model MOBIDIC

Abstract. Calibration of distributed hydrologic models usually involves how to deal with the large number of distributed parameters and optimization problems with multiple but often conflicting objectives that arise in a natural fashion. This study presents a multiobjective sensitivity and optimization approach to handle these problems for the MOBIDIC (MOdello di Bilancio Idrologico DIstribuito e Continuo) distributed hydrologic model, which combines two sensitivity analysis techniques (the Morris method and the state-dependent parameter (SDP) method) with multiobjective optimization (MOO) approach e-NSGAII (Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm-II). This approach was implemented to calibrate MOBIDIC with its application to the Davidson watershed, North Carolina, with three objective functions, i.e., the standardized root mean square error (SRMSE) of logarithmic transformed discharge, the water balance index, and the mean absolute error of the logarithmic transformed flow duration curve, and its results were compared with those of a single objective optimization (SOO) with the traditional Nelder–Mead simplex algorithm used in MOBIDIC by taking the objective function as the Euclidean norm of these three objectives. Results show that (1) the two sensitivity analysis techniques are effective and efficient for determining the sensitive processes and insensitive parameters: surface runoff and evaporation are very sensitive processes to all three objective functions, while groundwater recession and soil hydraulic conductivity are not sensitive and were excluded in the optimization. (2) Both MOO and SOO lead to acceptable simulations; e.g., for MOO, the average Nash–Sutcliffe value is 0.75 in the calibration period and 0.70 in the validation period. (3) Evaporation and surface runoff show similar importance for watershed water balance, while the contribution of baseflow can be ignored. (4) Compared to SOO, which was dependent on the initial starting location, MOO provides more insight into parameter sensitivity and the conflicting characteristics of these objective functions. Multiobjective sensitivity analysis and optimization provide an alternative way for future MOBIDIC modeling.

[1]  Henrik Madsen,et al.  Automatic calibration of a conceptual rainfall-runoff model using multiple objectives. , 2000 .

[2]  Henrik Madsen,et al.  Parameter estimation in distributed hydrological catchment modelling using automatic calibration with multiple objectives , 2003 .

[3]  Sujay V. Kumar,et al.  Land information system: An interoperable framework for high resolution land surface modeling , 2006, Environ. Model. Softw..

[4]  Peter C. Young,et al.  State Dependent Parameter metamodelling and sensitivity analysis , 2007, Comput. Phys. Commun..

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

[6]  Keith Beven,et al.  The future of distributed models: model calibration and uncertainty prediction. , 1992 .

[7]  Xavier Blasco Ferragud,et al.  A new graphical visualization of n-dimensional Pareto front for decision-making in multiobjective optimization , 2008, Inf. Sci..

[8]  Patrick M. Reed,et al.  A framework for Visually Interactive Decision-making and Design using Evolutionary Multi-objective Optimization (VIDEO) , 2007, Environ. Model. Softw..

[9]  Jing Yang,et al.  Convergence and uncertainty analyses in Monte-Carlo based sensitivity analysis , 2011, Environ. Model. Softw..

[10]  W. James Shuttleworth,et al.  Towards a comprehensive approach to parameter estimation in land surface parameterization schemes , 2013 .

[11]  S. Sorooshian,et al.  Effective and efficient algorithm for multiobjective optimization of hydrologic models , 2003 .

[12]  Max D. Morris,et al.  Factorial sampling plans for preliminary computational experiments , 1991 .

[13]  Yang Liu,et al.  Sensitivity analysis and automatic calibration of a rainfall-runoff model using multi-objectives , 2010, Ecol. Informatics.

[14]  W. James Shuttleworth,et al.  A fully multiple-criteria implementation of the Sobol' method for parameter sensitivity analysis , 2012 .

[15]  F. Castelli,et al.  Use of multi‐platform, multi‐temporal remote‐sensing data for calibration of a distributed hydrological model: an application in the Arno basin, Italy , 2006 .

[16]  Sujay V. Kumar,et al.  High-performance Earth system modeling with NASA/GSFC’s Land Information System , 2007, Innovations in Systems and Software Engineering.

[17]  P. Reichert,et al.  Hydrological modelling of the Chaohe Basin in China: Statistical model formulation and Bayesian inference , 2007 .

[18]  Mahyar Shafii,et al.  Multi-objective calibration of a distributed hydrological model (WetSpa) using a genetic algorithm , 2009 .

[19]  Patrick M. Reed,et al.  Comparing state-of-the-art evolutionary multi-objective algorithms for long-term groundwater monitoring design , 2005 .

[20]  Misgana K. Muleta,et al.  Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis coupled with automatic calibration for a distributed watershed model , 2005 .

[21]  Shuangzhe Liu,et al.  Global Sensitivity Analysis: The Primer by Andrea Saltelli, Marco Ratto, Terry Andres, Francesca Campolongo, Jessica Cariboni, Debora Gatelli, Michaela Saisana, Stefano Tarantola , 2008 .

[22]  Fabio Castelli,et al.  A distributed package for sustainable water management: a case study in the Arno basin. , 2009 .

[23]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II , 2002, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput..

[24]  Jeffrey G. Arnold,et al.  Model Evaluation Guidelines for Systematic Quantification of Accuracy in Watershed Simulations , 2007 .

[25]  Andrea Saltelli,et al.  An effective screening design for sensitivity analysis of large models , 2007, Environ. Model. Softw..

[26]  Demetris Koutsoyiannis,et al.  One decade of multi-objective calibration approaches in hydrological modelling: a review , 2010 .

[27]  Saltelli Andrea,et al.  Global Sensitivity Analysis: The Primer , 2008 .

[28]  P. Reed,et al.  Sensitivity-guided reduction of parametric dimensionality for multi-objective calibration of watershed models , 2009 .

[29]  John A. Nelder,et al.  A Simplex Method for Function Minimization , 1965, Comput. J..

[30]  J. Vrugt,et al.  Comparison of Three Multiobjective Optimization Algorithms for Inverse Modeling of Vadose Zone Hydraulic Properties , 2008 .

[31]  Soroosh Sorooshian,et al.  Toward improved calibration of hydrologic models: Combining the strengths of manual and automatic methods , 2000 .

[32]  J. A. Cunge,et al.  On The Subject Of A Flood Propagation Computation Method (Musklngum Method) , 1969 .

[33]  DebK.,et al.  A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm , 2002 .

[34]  A. J. MacLean,et al.  Multiobjective calibration of the MESH hydrological model on the Reynolds Creek Experimental Watershed , 2010 .

[35]  Soroosh Sorooshian,et al.  Multi-objective global optimization for hydrologic models , 1998 .

[36]  Harvey M. Wagner,et al.  Global Sensitivity Analysis , 1995, Oper. Res..

[37]  John W. Nicklow,et al.  Multi-objective automatic calibration of SWAT using NSGA-II , 2007 .

[38]  Patrick M. Reed,et al.  How effective and efficient are multiobjective evolutionary algorithms at hydrologic model calibration , 2005 .

[39]  Paola Annoni,et al.  Sixth International Conference on Sensitivity Analysis of Model Output How to avoid a perfunctory sensitivity analysis , 2010 .

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

[41]  Marco Laumanns,et al.  SPEA2: Improving the strength pareto evolutionary algorithm , 2001 .