Technical note: Comparing three different methods for allocating river points to coarse-resolution hydrological modelling grid cells
-
Published:2024-03-27
Issue:6
Volume:28
Page:1403-1413
-
ISSN:1607-7938
-
Container-title:Hydrology and Earth System Sciences
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.
Author:
Godet JulietteORCID, Gaume EricORCID, Javelle PierreORCID, Nicolle PierreORCID, Payrastre OlivierORCID
Abstract
Abstract. The allocation of points in a river network to pixels of a coarse-resolution hydrological modelling grid is a well-known issue, especially for hydrologists who use measurements at gauging stations to calibrate and validate distributed hydrological models. To address this issue, the traditional approach involves examining grid cells surrounding the considered river point and selecting the best candidate, based on distance and upstream drainage area as decision criteria. However, recent studies have suggested that focusing on basin boundaries rather than basin areas could prevent many allocation errors, even though the performance gain is rarely assessed. This paper compares different allocation methods and examines their relative performances. Three methods representing various families of methods have been designed: area-based, topology-based and contour-based methods. These methods are implemented to allocate 2580 river points to a 1 km hydrological modelling grid. These points are distributed along the entire hydrographic network of the French southeastern Mediterranean region, covering upstream drainage areas ranging from 5 to 3000 km2. The results indicate that the differences between the methods can be significant, especially for small upstream catchment areas.
Funder
Agence Nationale de la Recherche
Publisher
Copernicus GmbH
Reference30 articles.
1. Bartholmes, J. C., Thielen, J., Ramos, M. H., and Gentilini, S.: The european flood alert system EFAS – Part 2: Statistical skill assessment of probabilistic and deterministic operational forecasts, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 13, 141–153, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-13-141-2009, 2009. a 2. Burek, P. and Smilovic, M.: The use of GRDC gauging stations for calibrating large-scale hydrological models, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 15, 5617–5629, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-5617-2023, 2022. a, b, c 3. Burek, P., Satoh, Y., Kahil, T., Tang, T., Greve, P., Smilovic, M., Guillaumot, L., Zhao, F., and Wada, Y.: Development of the Community Water Model (CWatM v1.04) – a high-resolution hydrological model for global and regional assessment of integrated water resources management, Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 3267–3298, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-3267-2020, 2020. a, b, c, d 4. Davies, H. and Bell, V.: Assessment of methods for extracting low-resolution river networks from high-resolution digital data, Hydrolog. Sci. J., 54, 17–28, https://doi.org/10.1623/hysj.54.1.17, 2009. a, b 5. Dottori, F., Kalas, M., Salamon, P., Bianchi, A., Thielen Del Pozo, J., and Feyen, L.: A near real-time procedure for flood hazard mapping and risk assessment in Europe, in: E-proceedings of the 36th IAHR World Congress, https://emergency.copernicus.eu/mapping/ems/near-
real-time-procedure-flood-hazard-mapping-and-risk-assess
ment-europe (last access: 20 March 2024), 2015. a
|
|