Sensitivity analysis, calibration, and testing of a distributed hydrological model using error‐based weighting and one objective function

Abstract

[1] We evaluate the utility of three interrelated means of using data to calibrate the fully distributed rainfall-runoff model TOPKAPI as applied to the Maggia Valley drainage area in Switzerland. The use of error-based weighting of observation and prior information data, local sensitivity analysis, and single-objective function nonlinear regression provides quantitative evaluation of sensitivity of the 35 model parameters to the data, identification of data types most important to the calibration, and identification of correlations among parameters that contribute to nonuniqueness. Sensitivity analysis required only 71 model runs, and regression required about 50 model runs. The approach presented appears to be ideal for evaluation of models with long run times or as a preliminary step to more computationally demanding methods. The statistics used include composite scaled sensitivities, parameter correlation coefficients, leverage, Cook's D, and DFBETAS. Tests suggest predictive ability of the calibrated model typical of hydrologic models.Citation: Foglia, L., M. C. Hill, S. W. Mehl, and P. Burlando (2009), Sensitivity analysis, calibration, and testing of a distributed hydrological model using error-based weighting and one objective function, Water Resour. Res.,

Exploring the impact of forcing error characteristics on physically based snow simulations within a global sensitivity analysis framework

“…The goal of sensitivity analysis is to determine which input factors (F and θ ) are most important to specific outputs (Y) (Matott et al, 2009). Sensitivity analyses often focus more on the model parameter array (θ ) than on the forcing matrix (Foglia et al, 2009;Herman et al, 2013;Li et al, 2013;Nossent et al, 2011;Rakovec et al, 2014;Rosero et al, 2010;Rosolem et al, 2012;Tang et al, 2007;van Werkhoven et al, 2008). However, recent analyses have considered other input factors and sources of uncertainty (e.g., Baroni and Tarantola, 2014;Schoups and Hopmans, 2006).…”

Groundwater recharge in Pleistocene sediments overlying basalt aquifers in the Palouse Basin, USA: modeling of distributed recharge potential and identification of water pathways

“…A NSE value of zero means that the model is able to capture the long-term mean average flows. In this study, the qualitative assessment of NSE by Foglia et al (2009) was adopted, that a NSE below 0.2 is insufficient, 0.2-0.4 is sufficient, 0.4-0.6 is good, 0.6-0.8 is very good, and greater than 0.8 is excellent.…”

A Self-Calibrating Runoff and Streamflow Remote Sensing Model for Ungauged Basins Using Open-Access Earth Observation Data

“…On the monthly scale, the performance of this satellite-based approach rivals that of more complex and data-intensive hydrological models. NSE values on the order of 0.6-0.8, such as those observed in this study, are generally considered high in the context of hydrological model applications [51]. The application of a pixel-based approach, integrating various sources of open-access satellite data to evaluate the full water balance, is rather unique.…”