Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Krause, P.; Boyle, D. P.; Bäse, F. (2005)
Publisher: European Geosciences Union
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: Q, QE500-639.5, [ SDU.STU ] Sciences of the Universe [physics]/Earth Sciences, Dynamic and structural geology, Science, QE1-996.5, Geology
International audience; The evaluation of hydrologic model behaviour and performance is commonly made and reported through comparisons of simulated and observed variables. Frequently, comparisons are made between simulated and measured streamflow at the catchment outlet. In distributed hydrological modelling approaches, additional comparisons of simulated and observed measurements for multi-response validation may be integrated into the evaluation procedure to assess overall modelling performance. In both approaches, single and multi-response, efficiency criteria are commonly used by hydrologists to provide an objective assessment of the "closeness" of the simulated behaviour to the observed measurements. While there are a few efficiency criteria such as the Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency, coefficient of determination, and index of agreement that are frequently used in hydrologic modeling studies and reported in the literature, there are a large number of other efficiency criteria to choose from. The selection and use of specific efficiency criteria and the interpretation of the results can be a challenge for even the most experienced hydrologist since each criterion may place different emphasis on different types of simulated and observed behaviours. In this paper, the utility of several efficiency criteria is investigated in three examples using a simple observed streamflow hydrograph.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Bastidas, L. A., Gupta, H. V., Sorooshian, S., Shuttleworth, W. J., and Yang, Z. L.: Sensitivity analysis of a land surface scheme using multicriteria methods, J. Geophys. Res., 104, 19 481-19 490, 1999.
    • Beven, J. K.: Rainfall-Runoff Modelling - The Primer, John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichester, 319, 2001.
    • Blackie, J. R. and Eeles, C. W. O.: Lumped catchment models, in: Hydrological Forecasting, edited by: Anderson, M. G. and Burt, T. P., John Wiley, Chichester, 311-346, 1995.
    • Boyle, D. P., Gupta, H. V., and Sorooshian, S.: Toward improved calibration of hydrologic models: Combining the strengths of manual and automatic methods, Water Resour. Res., AGU, 36(12), 3663-3674, 2000.
    • Boyle, D. P., Gupta, H. V., Sorooshian, S., Koren, V., Zhang, Z., and Smith, M.: Towards improved streamflow forecasts: The value of semi-distributed modeling, Water Resour. Res., AGU, 37(11), 2749-2759, 2001
    • Janssen, P. H. M. and Heuberger, P. S. C: Calibration of processoriented models, Ecological Modelling, 83, 55-66, 1995.
    • Krause, P. and Flu¨gel, W.-A.: Integrated research on the hydrological process dynamics from the Wilde Gera catchment in Germany; Headwater Control VI: Hydrology, Ecology and Water Resources in Headwaters, IAHS Conference, Bergen 2005.
    • Legates, D. R. and McCabe Jr., G. J.: Evaluating the use of “goodness-of-fit” measures in hydrologic and hydroclimatic model validation, Water Resour. Res., 35, 1, 233-241, 1999.
    • Nash, J. E. and Sutcliffe, J. V.: River flow forecasting through conceptual models, Part I - A discussion of principles, J. Hydrol., 10, 282-290, 1970.
    • Willmot, C. J.: On the validation of models, Physical Geography, 2, 184-194, 1981.
    • Willmot, C. J.: On the evaluation of model performance in physical geography, in: Spatial Statistics and Models, edited by: Gaile, G. L. and Willmot, C. J., D. Reidel, Dordrecht, 443-460, 1984.
    • Yapo, P. O., Gupta, H. V., and Sorooshian, S.: Multi-objective global optimization for hydrologic models, J. Hydrol., 204, 83- 97, 1998.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.