[1] The problems of identifying the most appropriate model structure for a given problem and quantifying the uncertainty in model structure remain outstanding research challenges for the discipline of hydrology. Progress on these problems requires understanding of the nature of differences between models. This paper presents a methodology to diagnose differences in hydrological model structures: the Framework for Understanding Structural Errors (FUSE). FUSE was used to construct 79 unique model structures by combining components of 4 existing hydrological models. These new models were used to simulate streamflow in two of the basins used in the Model Parameter Estimation Experiment (MOPEX): the Guadalupe River (Texas) and the French Broad River (North Carolina). Results show that the new models produced simulations of streamflow that were at least as good as the simulations produced by the models that participated in the MOPEX experiment. Our initial application of the FUSE method for the Guadalupe River exposed relationships between model structure and model performance, suggesting that the choice of model structure is just as important as the choice of model parameters. However, further work is needed to evaluate model simulations using multiple criteria to diagnose the relative importance of model structural differences in various climate regimes and to assess the amount of independent information in each of the models. This work will be crucial to both identifying the most appropriate model structure for a given problem and quantifying the uncertainty in model structure. To facilitate research on these problems, the FORTRAN-90 source code for FUSE is available upon request from the lead author.

No abstract

Abstract:This paper discusses the need for a well-considered approach to reconciling environmental theory with observations that has clear and compelling diagnostic power. This need is well recognized by the scientific community in the context of the 'Predictions in Ungaged Basins' initiative and the National Science Foundation sponsored 'Environmental Observatories' initiative, among others. It is suggested that many current strategies for confronting environmental process models with observational data are inadequate in the face of the highly complex and high order models becoming central to modern environmental science, and steps are proposed towards the development of a robust and powerful 'Theory of Evaluation'. This paper presents the concept of a diagnostic evaluation approach rooted in information theory and employing the notion of signature indices that measure theoretically relevant system process behaviours. The signature-based approach addresses the issue of degree of system complexity resolvable by a model. Further, it can be placed in the context of Bayesian inference to facilitate uncertainty analysis, and can be readily applied to the problem of process evaluation leading to improved predictions in ungaged basins.

No abstract

The Model Parameter Estimation Experiment (MOPEX) is an international project aimed at developing enhanced techniques for the a priori estimation of parameters in hydrologic models and in land surface parameterization schemes of atmospheric models. The MOPEX science strategy involves three major steps: data preparation, a priori parameter estimation methodology development, and demonstration of parameter transferability. A comprehensive MOPEX database has been developed that contains historical hydrometeorological data and land surface characteristics data for many hydrologic basins in the United States (US) and in other countries. This database is being continuously expanded to include more basins in all parts of the world. A number of international MOPEX workshops have been convened to bring together interested hydrologists and land surface modelers from all over world to exchange knowledge and experience in developing a priori parameter estimation techniques. (Q. Duan). This paper describes the results from the second and third MOPEX workshops. The specific objective of these workshops is to examine the state of a priori parameter estimation techniques and how they can be potentially improved with observations from well-monitored hydrologic basins. Participants of the second and third MOPEX workshops were provided with data from 12 basins in the southeastern US and were asked to carry out a series of numerical experiments using a priori parameters as well as calibrated parameters developed for their respective hydrologic models. Different modeling groups carried out all the required experiments independently using eight different models, and the results from these models have been assembled for analysis in this paper. This paper presents an overview of the MOPEX experiment and its design. The main experimental results are analyzed. A key finding is that existing a priori parameter estimation procedures are problematic and need improvement. Significant improvement of these procedures may be achieved through model calibration of well-monitored hydrologic basins. This paper concludes with a discussion of the lessons learned, and points out further work and future strategy. q

Abstract:Conceptual modelling requires the identification of a suitable model structure and the estimation of parameter values through calibration against observed data. A lack of objective approaches to evaluate model structures and the inability of calibration procedures to distinguish between the suitability of different parameter sets are major sources of uncertainty in current modelling procedures. This paper presents an approach analysing the performance of the model in a dynamic fashion resulting in an improved use of available information. Model structures can be evaluated with respect to the failure of individual components, and periods of high information content for specific parameters can be identified. The procedure is termed dynamic identifiability analysis (DYNIA) and is applied to a model structure built from typical conceptual components.

[1] Distributed hydrological models have the potential to provide improved streamflow forecasts along the entire channel network, while also simulating the spatial dynamics of evapotranspiration, soil moisture content, water quality, soil erosion, and land use change impacts. However, they are perceived as being difficult to parameterize and evaluate, thus translating into significant predictive uncertainty in the model results. Although a priori parameter estimates derived from observable watershed characteristics can help to minimize obstacles to model implementation, there exists a need for powerful automated parameter estimation strategies that incorporate diagnostic information regarding the causes of poor model performance. This paper investigates a diagnostic approach to model evaluation that exploits hydrological context and theory to aid in the detection and resolution of watershed model inadequacies, through consideration of three of the four major behavioral functions of any watershed system; overall water balance, vertical redistribution, and temporal redistribution (spatial redistribution was not addressed). Instead of using classical statistical measures (such as mean squared error), we use multiple hydrologically relevant ''signature measures'' to quantify the performance of the model at the watershed outlet in ways that correspond to the functions mentioned above and therefore help to guide model improvements in a meaningful way. We apply the approach to the Hydrology Laboratory Distributed Hydrologic Model (HL-DHM) of the National Weather Service and show that diagnostic evaluation has the potential to provide a powerful and intuitive basis for deriving consistent estimates of the parameters of watershed models.Citation: Yilmaz, K. K., H. V. Gupta, and T. Wagener (2008), A process-based diagnostic approach to model evaluation: Application to the NWS distributed hydrologic model, Water Resour. Res., 44, W09417,

[1] Human activities exert global-scale impacts on our environment with significant implications for freshwater-driven services and hazards for humans and nature. Our approach to the science of hydrology needs to significantly change so that we can understand and predict these implications. Such an adjustment is a necessary prerequisite for the development of sustainable water resource management strategies and to achieve long-term water security for people and the environment. Hydrology requires a paradigm shift in which predictions of system behavior that are beyond the range of previously observed variability or that result from significant alterations of physical (structural) system characteristics become the new norm. To achieve this shift, hydrologists must become both synthesists, observing and analyzing the system as a holistic entity, and analysts, understanding the functioning of individual system components, while operating firmly within a well-designed hypothesis testing framework. Cross-disciplinary integration must become a primary characteristic of hydrologic research, catalyzing new research and nurturing new educational models. The test of our quantitative understanding across atmosphere, hydrosphere, lithosphere, biosphere, and anthroposphere will necessarily lie in new approaches to benchmark our ability to predict the regional hydrologic and connected implications of environmental change. To address these challenges and to serve as a catalyst to bring about the necessary changes to hydrologic science, we call for a long-term initiative to address the regional implications of environmental change.Citation: Wagener, T