Assessing the impact of land use change on hydrology by ensemble modelling (LUCHEM) IV: Model sensitivity to data aggregation and spatial (re-)distribution

Abstract This paper analyses the effect of spatial resolution and distribution of model input data on the results of regional-scale land use scenarios using three different hydrological catchment models. A 25 m resolution data set of a mesoscale catchment and three land use scenarios are used. Data are systematically aggregated to resolutions up to 2 km. Land use scenarios are spatially redistributed, both randomly and topography based. Using these data, water fluxes are calculated on a daily time step for a 16 year time period without further calibration. Simulation results are used to identify grid size, distribution and model dependent scenario effects. In the case of data aggregation, all applied models react sensitively to grid size. WASIM and TOPLATS simulate constant water balances for grid sizes from 50 m to 300–500 m, SWAT is more sensitive to input data aggregation, simulating constant water balances between 50 m and 200 m grid size. The calculation of scenario effects is less robust to data aggregation. The maximum acceptable grid size reduces to 200–300 m for TOPLATS and WASIM. In case of spatial distribution, SWAT and TOPLATS are slightly sensitive to a redistribution of land use (below 1.5% for water balance terms), whereas WASIM shows almost no reaction. Because the aggregation effects were stronger than the redistribution effects, it is concluded that spatial discretisation is more important than spatial distribution. As the aggregation effect was mainly associated with a change in land use fraction, it is concluded that accuracy of data sets is much more important than a high spatial resolution.

[1]  G. Fogg.  The state and movement of water in living organisms. , 1966, Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom.

[2]  Helge Bormann,et al.  Hydrology and Earth System Sciences Impact of Spatial Data Resolution on Simulated Catchment Water Balances and Model Performance of the Multi-scale Toplats Model , 2022 .

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

[4]  J. Famiglietti,et al.  Multiscale modeling of spatially variable water and energy balance processes , 1994 .

[5]  D. Lettenmaier,et al.  Satellite-derived digital elevation model accuracy: hydrological modelling requirements , 2000 .

[6]  M. H. Costa,et al.  Effects of large-scale changes in land cover on the discharge of the Tocantins River, Southeastern Amazonia , 2003 .

[7]  K. Eckhardt,et al.  Hydrologic Response to land use changes on the catchment scale , 2001 .

[8]  H. Pelgrum,et al.  Spatial aggregation of land surface characteristics: impact of resolution of remote sensing data on land surface modelling. , 2000 .

[9]  Eric F. Wood,et al.  A soil‐vegetation‐atmosphere transfer scheme for modeling spatially variable water and energy balance processes , 1997 .

[10]  M. B. Beck,et al.  Modelling Change in Environmental Systems , 1995 .

[11]  M. J. Hall,et al.  The effects of afforestation and deforestation on water yields , 1996 .

[12]  P. Milly.  An event-based simulation model of moisture and energy fluxes at a bare soil surface , 1986 .

[13]  Chris S. Renschler,et al.  Regionalisation concept for hydrological modelling on different scales using a physically based model: Results and evaluation , 1999 .

[14]  Jeffrey G. Arnold,et al.  Automatic calibration of a distributed catchment model , 2001 .

[15]  Jens Christian Refsgaard,et al.  Assessing the effect of land use change on catchment runoff by combined use of statistical tests and hydrological modelling: Case studies from Zimbabwe , 1998 .

[16]  K. Eckhardt,et al.  Plant parameter values for models in temperate climates , 2003 .

[17]  S. Uhlenbrook,et al.  Quantifying the impact of land-use changes at the event and seasonal time scale using a process-oriented catchment model , 2004 .

[18]  Bruno Merz,et al.  Effects of spatial variability on the rainfall runoff process in a small loess catchment , 1998 .

[19]  Nicola Fohrer,et al.  Assessment of the effects of land use patterns on hydrologic landscape functions: development of sustainable land use concepts for low mountain range areas , 2005 .

[20]  John R. Williams,et al.  LARGE AREA HYDROLOGIC MODELING AND ASSESSMENT PART I: MODEL DEVELOPMENT 1 , 1998 .

[21]  K. Beven,et al.  THE PREDICTION OF HILLSLOPE FLOW PATHS FOR DISTRIBUTED HYDROLOGICAL MODELLING USING DIGITAL TERRAIN MODELS , 1991 .

[22]  W. Green,et al.  Studies on Soil Phyics. , 1911, The Journal of Agricultural Science.

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

[24]  Vincent Chaplot,et al.  Impact of DEM mesh size and soil map scale on SWAT runoff, sediment, and NO3-N loads predictions , 2005 .

[25]  Nicola Fohrer,et al.  An interdisciplinary modelling approach to evaluate the effects of land use change , 2002 .

[26]  R. DeFries,et al.  Land‐use change and hydrologic processes: a major focus for the future , 2004 .

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

[28]  K. Beven,et al.  Sensitivity to space and time resolution of a hydrological model using digital elevation data. , 1995 .

[29]  Ian D. Moore,et al.  Terrain attributes: estimation methods and scale effects , 1993 .

[30]  M. J. Booij,et al.  Impact of climate change on river flooding assessed with different spatial model resolutions , 2005 .

[31]  D. Wolock,et al.  Effects of digital elevation model map scale and data resolution on a topography‐based watershed model , 1994 .

[32]  M. Voltz,et al.  Effects of the spatial organization of agricultural management on the hydrological behaviour of a farmed catchment during flood events , 2001 .

[33]  U. Wendling,et al.  Bereitstellung von täglichen Informationen zum Wasserhaushalt des Bodens für die Zwecke der agrarmeteorologischen Beratung , 1991 .

[34]  N. Farajalla,et al.  Capturing the essential spatial variability in distributed hydrological modelling: Infiltration parameters , 1995 .

[35]  W. R. Gardner.  SOME STEADY‐STATE SOLUTIONS OF THE UNSATURATED MOISTURE FLOW EQUATION WITH APPLICATION TO EVAPORATION FROM A WATER TABLE , 1958 .

[36]  M. Vanclooster,et al.  Sensitivity of the SWAT model to the soil and land use data parametrisation : a case study in the thyle catchment, belgium , 2005 .

[37]  M. Wegehenkel.  Estimating of the impact of land use changes using the conceptual hydrological model THESEUS––a case study , 2002 .

[38]  Tammo S. Steenhuis,et al.  Effect of grid size on runoff and soil moisture for a variable‐source‐area hydrology model , 1999 .

[39]  D. Scott Mackay,et al.  Effects of distribution-based parameter aggregation on a spatially distributed agricultural nonpoint source pollution model , 2004 .

[40]  A. Brath,et al.  The effects of the spatial variability of soil infiltration capacity in distributed flood modelling , 2000 .

[41]  T. Meixner.  Spatial Patterns in Catchment Hydrology , 2002 .

[42]  D. Montgomery,et al.  Digital elevation model grid size, landscape representation, and hydrologic simulations , 1994 .

[43]  Helge Bormann.  Evaluation of hydrological models for scenario analyses: signal-to-noise-ratio between scenario effects and model uncertainty , 2005 .

[44]  A. Bronstert,et al.  Land-use impacts on storm-runoff generation: scenarios of land-use change and simulation of hydrological response in a meso-scale catchment in SW-Germany , 2002 .