How can expert knowledge increase the realism of conceptual hydrological models? A case study based on the concept of dominant runoff process in the Swiss Pre-Alps

Abstract

Abstract. Both modellers and experimentalists agree that using expert knowledge can improve the realism of conceptual hydrological models. However, their use of expert knowledge differs for each step in the modelling procedure, which involves hydrologically mapping the dominant runoff processes (DRPs) occurring on a given catchment, parameterising these processes within a model, and allocating its parameters. Modellers generally use very simplified mapping approaches, applying their knowledge in constraining the model by defining parameter and process relational rules. In contrast, experimentalists usually prefer to invest all their detailed and qualitative knowledge about processes in obtaining as realistic spatial distribution of DRPs as possible, and in defining narrow value ranges for each model parameter.Runoff simulations are affected by equifinality and numerous other uncertainty sources, which challenge the assumption that the more expert knowledge is used, the better will be the results obtained. To test for the extent to which expert knowledge can improve simulation results under uncertainty, we therefore applied a total of 60 modelling chain combinations forced by five rainfall datasets of increasing accuracy to four nested catchments in the Swiss Pre-Alps. These datasets include hourly precipitation data from automatic stations interpolated with Thiessen polygons and with the inverse distance weighting (IDW) method, as well as different spatial aggregations of Combiprecip, a combination between ground measurements and radar quantitative estimations of precipitation. To map the spatial distribution of the DRPs, three mapping approaches with different levels of involvement of expert knowledge were used to derive socalled process maps. Finally, both a typical modellers' topdown set-up relying on parameter and process constraints and an experimentalists' set-up based on bottom-up thinking and on field expertise were implemented using a newly developed process-based runoff generation module (RGM-PRO). To quantify the uncertainty originating from forcing data, process maps, model parameterisation, and parameter allocation strategy, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed.The simulation results showed that (i) the modelling chains based on the most complex process maps performed slightly better than those based on less expert knowledge; (ii) the bottom-up set-up performed better than the top-down one when simulating short-duration events, but similarly to the top-down set-up when simulating long-duration events; (iii) the differences in performance arising from the different forcing data were due to compensation effects; and (iv) the bottom-up set-up can help identify uncertainty sources, but is prone to overconfidence problems, whereas the top-down set-up seems to accommodate uncertainties in the input data best. Overall, modellers' and experimentalists' concept of "model realism" differ. This means that the level of detail a model should have to accurately reproduce the DRPs expected must be agreed ...

Understanding dominant controls on streamflow spatial variability to set up a semi-distributed hydrological model: the case study of the Thur catchment

“…For example, Fenicia et al (2016) compared various model hypotheses to determine an appropriate discretization of the catchment in HRUs and appropriate structures for different HRUs. Antonetti et al (2016) used a map of dominant runoff processes following Scherrer and Naef (2003) for defining HRUs. However, these approaches require a good experimental understanding of the area, which is not always available.…”

Finding behavioral parameterization for a 1-D water balance model by multi-criteria evaluation

“…This sheds light on the value of the contribution of different forms of data in representing the catchment behavior. In a case study in a Swiss Pre-Alpine catchment, it was also found that the application of expert knowledge and the concept of dominant processes can increase the realism of the hydrological models (Antonetti and Zappa, 2018). Taking into consideration that model evaluation would always be partly subjective, we looked at the model behavior from different perspectives through application of multi criteria evaluation that integrated this additional information.…”

“…As recent studies suggest, use of expert knowledge in choosing parameter sets and introducing constraints by forcing the model to reproduce the processes observed in the real system, can also improve the model performance even without traditional calibration (Bahremand, 2016;Gharari et al, 2014;Hrachowitz et al, 2014). For instance, having expert knowledge on local runoff generation processes, as a potential source of information in every hydrologic unit, can considerably improve hydrological simulations (Antonetti and Zappa, 2018;Casper et al, 2015;Franks et al, 1998;Seibert and McDonnell, 2002). Modelers need to consider a proper balance between parameter identifiability and the model's ability to precisely represent the observed system response.…”

Ensemble flood forecasting considering dominant runoff processes – Part 1: Set-up and application to nested basins (Emme, Switzerland)

“…Uncertainty in the parameters of the hydrological model follows from an incomplete understanding on how to mathematically represent the rainfall-runoff transition process and can be treated with a hydrological multi-model approach (Fenicia et al, 2011;Velazquez et al, 2011). Hydrological model pa-rameter uncertainties result when physical processes affecting runoff generation are modelled conceptually and multiple parameter sets are identified during the calibration process that lead to optimum model performance, a problem which is known as equifinality (Beven, 1993). Zappa et al (2011) treated uncertainty in model parameters with an ensemble of the PREVAH hydrological model and found this uncertainty source to be responsible for the second largest contribution to the total uncertainty in their study.…”