Abstract:Abstract. Floods often affect not only a single location, but also a whole region.
Flood frequency analysis should therefore be undertaken at a regional scale
which requires the considerations of the dependence of events at different
locations. This dependence is often neglected even though its consideration
is essential to derive reliable flood estimates. A model used in regional
multivariate frequency analysis should ideally consider the dependence of
events at multiple sites which might show dependence in t… Show more
“…The Thur catchment has been the subject of several studies in the past: Gurtz et al (1999) performed the first modelling study on the entire catchment using a semi-distributed hydrological model; Abbaspour et al (2007) modelled hydrology and water quality using the SWAT model; Fundel et al (2013) and Jorg-Hess et al (2015) focused on low flows and droughts; Jasper et al (2004) investigated the impact of climate change on the natural water budget. Other modelling studies also include Melsen et al (2014Melsen et al ( , 2016, who investigated parameter estimation in data-limited scenarios and parameter transferability across spatial and temporal scales, and Brunner et al (2019), who studied the spatial dependence of floods. The Thur also includes a small-sized experimental subcatchment (Rietholzbach, called Mosnang in this paper after the name of the gauging station) that was the subject of many field studies at the interface between process understanding and hydrological modelling (e.g.…”
Abstract. This study documents the development of a semi-distributed hydrological
model aimed at reflecting the dominant controls on observed streamflow
spatial variability. The process is presented through the case study of the
Thur catchment (Switzerland, 1702 km2), an alpine and pre-alpine
catchment where streamflow (measured at 10 subcatchments) has different
spatial characteristics in terms of amounts, seasonal patterns, and dominance of baseflow. In order to appraise the dominant controls on
streamflow spatial variability and build a model that reflects them, we
follow a two-stage approach. In a first stage, we identify the main
climatic or landscape properties that control the spatial variability of
streamflow signatures. This stage is based on correlation analysis,
complemented by expert judgement to identify the most plausible cause–effect
relationships. In a second stage, the results of the previous analysis are
used to develop a set of model experiments aimed at determining an
appropriate model representation of the Thur catchment. These experiments
confirm that only a hydrological model that accounts for the heterogeneity
of precipitation, snow-related processes, and landscape features such as
geology produces hydrographs that have signatures similar to the observed
ones. This model provides consistent results in space–time validation,
which is promising for predictions in ungauged basins. The presented
methodology for model building can be transferred to other case studies,
since the data used in this work (meteorological variables, streamflow,
morphology, and geology maps) are available in numerous regions around the
globe.
“…The Thur catchment has been the subject of several studies in the past: Gurtz et al (1999) performed the first modelling study on the entire catchment using a semi-distributed hydrological model; Abbaspour et al (2007) modelled hydrology and water quality using the SWAT model; Fundel et al (2013) and Jorg-Hess et al (2015) focused on low flows and droughts; Jasper et al (2004) investigated the impact of climate change on the natural water budget. Other modelling studies also include Melsen et al (2014Melsen et al ( , 2016, who investigated parameter estimation in data-limited scenarios and parameter transferability across spatial and temporal scales, and Brunner et al (2019), who studied the spatial dependence of floods. The Thur also includes a small-sized experimental subcatchment (Rietholzbach, called Mosnang in this paper after the name of the gauging station) that was the subject of many field studies at the interface between process understanding and hydrological modelling (e.g.…”
Abstract. This study documents the development of a semi-distributed hydrological
model aimed at reflecting the dominant controls on observed streamflow
spatial variability. The process is presented through the case study of the
Thur catchment (Switzerland, 1702 km2), an alpine and pre-alpine
catchment where streamflow (measured at 10 subcatchments) has different
spatial characteristics in terms of amounts, seasonal patterns, and dominance of baseflow. In order to appraise the dominant controls on
streamflow spatial variability and build a model that reflects them, we
follow a two-stage approach. In a first stage, we identify the main
climatic or landscape properties that control the spatial variability of
streamflow signatures. This stage is based on correlation analysis,
complemented by expert judgement to identify the most plausible cause–effect
relationships. In a second stage, the results of the previous analysis are
used to develop a set of model experiments aimed at determining an
appropriate model representation of the Thur catchment. These experiments
confirm that only a hydrological model that accounts for the heterogeneity
of precipitation, snow-related processes, and landscape features such as
geology produces hydrographs that have signatures similar to the observed
ones. This model provides consistent results in space–time validation,
which is promising for predictions in ungauged basins. The presented
methodology for model building can be transferred to other case studies,
since the data used in this work (meteorological variables, streamflow,
morphology, and geology maps) are available in numerous regions around the
globe.
“…Flood events are identified for each of the five time series (one observed, four simulated) using a peak-over-threshold (POT) approach similar to the one used in Brunner et al (2019aBrunner et al ( , 2020b. This approach consists of two main steps and results in two data sets each, which are used for the local and spatial analysis, respectively: (1) POT events in individual catchments and 2event occurrences across all catchments.…”
Abstract. Floods cause large damages, especially if they affect large regions. Assessments of current, local and regional flood hazards and their future changes often involve the use of hydrologic models. However, uncertainties in simulated floods can be considerable and yield unreliable hazard and climate change impact assessments. A reliable hydrologic model ideally reproduces both local flood characteristics and spatial aspects of flooding, which is, however, not guaranteed especially when using standard model calibration metrics. In this paper we investigate how flood timing, magnitude and spatial variability are represented by an ensemble of hydrological models when calibrated on streamflow using the Kling–Gupta efficiency metric, an increasingly common metric of hydrologic model performance. We compare how four well-known models (SAC, HBV, VIC, and mHM) represent (1) flood characteristics and their spatial patterns; and (2) how they translate changes in meteorologic variables that trigger floods into changes in flood magnitudes. Our results show that both the modeling of local and spatial flood characteristics is challenging. They further show that changes in precipitation and temperature are not necessarily well translated to changes in flood flow, which makes local and regional flood hazard assessments even more difficult for future conditions. We conclude that models calibrated on integrated metrics such as the Kling–Gupta efficiency alone have limited reliability in flood hazard assessments, in particular in regional and future assessments, and suggest the development of alternative process-based and spatial evaluation metrics.
“…Despite the importance of understanding the spatial dependence of floods when deriving regional flood estimates, it has often been overlooked in practical applications and is not well understood. While the spatial dependence of precipitation has been investigated in several studies (e.g., Davison et al, 2012;Le et al, 2018;Thibaud et al, 2013;Touma et al, 2018), the spatial dependence of floods has been addressed in only a few studies primarily focused on modeling this spatial dependence under stationary conditions (Asadi et al, 2015;Bracken et al, 2016;Brunner et al, 2019;Diederen et al, 2019;Keef et al, 2009;Neal et al, 2013;Quinn et al, 2019). Asadi et al (2015) and Brunner et al (2019) have shown that the spatial dependence of floods at different locations decreases with the increase of the distance along the river network between these stations.…”
Floods often affect large regions and cause adverse societal impacts. Regional flood hazard and risk assessments therefore require a realistic representation of spatial flood dependencies to avoid the overestimation or underestimation of risk. However, it is not yet well understood how spatial flood dependence, that is, the degree of co‐occurrence of floods at different locations, varies in space and time and which processes influence the strength of this dependence. We identify regions in the United States with seasonally similar flood behavior and analyze processes governing spatial dependence. We find that spatial flood dependence varies regionally and seasonally and is generally strongest in winter and spring and weakest in summer and fall. Moreover, we find that land‐surface processes are crucial in shaping the spatiotemporal characteristics of flood events. We conclude that the regional and seasonal variations in spatial flood dependencies must be considered when conducting current and future flood risk assessments.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.