Comparison of Precision Coefficients for Streamflow Data Simulation
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Streamflow data is crucial for water resource development projects. Acquiring long-term streamflow data poses difficulties due to maintenance or technological issues. The use of a mathematical model may reconstruct missing streamflow data. Nevertheless, it is necessary to calibrate and validate simulation data using precision coefficients. Different precision coefficients can be used to evaluate the results of hydrological simulations. This paper presents the suitability and constraints of precision coefficients in evaluating streamflow outcomes using a hydrological model under three conditions: water balance, flood, and drought. The simulated data was generated with both systematic and dynamic errors. Twenty-one coefficients were selected based on the principle of relative and absolute errors to evaluate the simulated data. Regardless of systematic errors, the findings indicate that all simulated outcome conditions could be evaluated using several coefficients such as NSE, NSEj=1, NSEj=3, NSErQ, ln NSE, NSEsqrtQ, NSEiQ, MSE, RMSE, MAE, RMSRE, and AAPE. These coefficients could analyze the simulation’s accuracy as well as determine its accuracy tendency. In addition, the precision coefficient RLFDoH can be used to evaluate the simulation results for flood scenarios, and the precision coefficients NSEuL, BuL, and RLFDuL can be used to assess the simulations for drought scenarios. For dynamic errors, the coefficients of NSEj=1, NSEiQ, and RMSRE were suitable for assessing the water balance and flood conditions, while drought is aligned with the coefficients of NSEuL and RLFDuL. The results can serve as a criterion for determining appropriate coefficients for streamflow simulation.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
References
Srivichai, M. 2016. The vulnerability of water resources management as a result of climate change in Chiang Rai province. Journal of Current Science and Technology, 6(2), 165-171.
Tal-maon, M., Broitman, D., Portman, M. E. and Housh, M. 2024. Combining a hydrological model with ecological planning for optimal placement of water-sensitive solutions. Journal of Hydrology, 628, 1-9, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2023.130457.
Mehta, D. et al. 2023. Improving flood forecasting in Narmada river basin using hierarchical clustering and hydrological modelling. Results in Engineering, 20, 1-13, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2023.101571.
Horta, A., Oliveira, A.R., Azevedo, L. and Ramos, T.B. 2023. Assessing the use of digital soil maps in hydrological modeling for soil-water budget simulations-implications for water management plans in southern Portugal. Geoderma Regional, 1-25, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geodrs.2023.e00741.
Yu, S., Qin, H. and Ding, W. 2023. Modeling the effects of vegetation dynamics on the hydrological performance of a bioretention system. Journal of Hydrology, 620, 1-7, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2023.129473.
Nash, J.E. and Sutcliffe, J.V. 1970. River flow forecasting through conceptual models part I—A discussion of principles. Journal of hydrology, 10(3), 282-290.
Krause, P., Boyle, D.P. and Bäse, F. 2005. Comparison of different efficiency criteria for hydrological model assessment. Advances in geosciences, 5, 89-97, https://doi.org/10.5194/adgeo-5-89-2005.
Jain, S.K. and Sudheer, K.P. 2008. Fitting of hydrologic models: a close look at the Nash–Sutcliffe index. Journal of hydrologic engineering, 13(10), 981-986, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0699(2008)13:10(981).
Perrin, C., Michel, C., and Andréassian, V. 2001. Does a large number of parameters enhance model performance? Comparative assessment of common catchment model structures on 429 catchments. Journal of hydrology, 242(3-4), 275-301, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(00)00393-0.
Wright, S. 1921. Correlation and causation. Journal of Agricultural Research, 20, 557–585.
Moriasi, D.N. et al. 2007. Model evaluation guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations. Transactions of the ASABE, 50(3), 885-900.
Hogue, T.S. et al. 2000. A multistep automatic calibration scheme for river forecasting models. Journal of Hydrometeorology, 1(6), 524-542, https://doi.org/10.1175/1525-7541(2000)001<0524:AMACSF>2.0.CO;2.
Oudin, L. et al. 2006. Dynamic averaging of rainfall‐runoff model simulations from complementary model parameterizations. Water Resources Research, 42(7), 1-10, https://doi.org/10.1029/2005WR004636.
Le Moine, N. 2008. The surface watershed seen from underground: a way to improve the performance and realism of rainfall-runoff models. Ph.D. Thesis, Geosciences and Natural Resources, Pierre and Marie Curie University.
Pushpalatha, R., Perrin, C., Le Moine, N. and Andréassian, V. 2012. A review of efficiency criteria suitable for evaluating low-flow simulations. Journal of Hydrology, 420, 171-182, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.11.055.
Willmott, C.J. 1984. On the evaluation of model performance in physical geography. Spatial statistics and models, 40, 443-460, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-3048-8_23.
Fiseha, B.M. et al. 2013. Hydrological analysis of the Upper Tiber River Basin, Central Italy: a watershed modelling approach. Hydrological processes, 27(16), 2339-2351, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.9234.
Hwang, S.H., Ham, D.H. and Kim, J.H. 2012. A new measure for assessing the efficiency of hydrological data-driven forecasting models. Hydrological sciences journal, 57(7), 1257-1274, https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2012.710335.