The SPAtial EFficiency metric (SPAEF): multiple-component evaluation of spatial patterns for optimization of hydrological models
-
Published:2018-05-15
Issue:5
Volume:11
Page:1873-1886
-
ISSN:1991-9603
-
Container-title:Geoscientific Model Development
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Geosci. Model Dev.
Author:
Koch JulianORCID, Demirel Mehmet CüneydORCID, Stisen SimonORCID
Abstract
Abstract. The process of model evaluation is not only an integral part of
model development and calibration but also of paramount importance when
communicating modelling results to the scientific community and
stakeholders. The modelling community has a large and well-tested toolbox of
metrics to evaluate temporal model performance. In contrast, spatial
performance evaluation does not correspond to the grand availability of
spatial observations readily available and to the sophisticate model codes
simulating the spatial variability of complex hydrological processes. This
study makes a contribution towards advancing spatial-pattern-oriented model
calibration by rigorously testing a multiple-component performance metric.
The promoted SPAtial EFficiency (SPAEF) metric reflects three equally
weighted components: correlation, coefficient of variation and histogram
overlap. This multiple-component approach is found to be advantageous in
order to achieve the complex task of comparing spatial patterns. SPAEF, its
three components individually and two alternative spatial performance
metrics, i.e. connectivity analysis and fractions skill score, are applied
in a spatial-pattern-oriented model calibration of a catchment model in
Denmark. Results suggest the importance of multiple-component metrics
because stand-alone metrics tend to fail to provide holistic pattern
information. The three SPAEF components are found to be independent, which
allows them to complement each other in a meaningful way. In order to
optimally exploit spatial observations made available by remote sensing
platforms, this study suggests applying bias insensitive metrics which
further allow for a comparison of variables which are related but may differ in unit.
This study applies SPAEF in the hydrological context using the mesoscale
Hydrologic Model (mHM; version 5.8), but we see great potential across
disciplines related to spatially distributed earth system modelling.
Publisher
Copernicus GmbH
Reference73 articles.
1. Alexandrov, G. A., Ames, D., Bellocchi, G., Bruen, M., Crout, N.,
Erechtchoukova, M., Hildebrandt, A., Hoffman, F., Jackisch, C., Khaiter, P.,
Mannina, G., Matsunaga, T., Purucker, S. T., Rivington, M., and Samaniego,
L.: Technical assessment and evaluation of environmental models and software:
Letter to the Editor, Environ. Model. Softw., 26, 328–336,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2010.08.004, 2011. 2. Bennett, N. D., Croke, B. F. W., Guariso, G., Guillaume, J. H. A., Hamilton,
S. H., Jakeman, A. J., Marsili-Libelli, S., Newham, L. T. H., Norton, J. P.,
Perrin, C., Pierce, S. A., Robson, B., Seppelt, R., Voinov, A. A., Fath, B.
D., and Andreassian, V.: Characterising performance of environmental models,
Environ. Model. Softw., 40, 1–20, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2012.09.011, 2013. 3. Brown, B. G., Gotway, J. H., Bullock, R., Gilleland, E., Fowler, T.,
Ahijevych, D., and Jensen, T.: The Model Evaluation Tools (MET): Community
tools for forecast evaluation, in: Preprints, 25th Conf. on International
Interactive Information and Processing Systems (IIPS) for Meteorology,
Oceanography, and Hydrology, Phoenix, AZ, Amer. Meteor. Soc. A, Vol. 9, 2009. 4. Clark, M. P., Kavetski, D., and Fenicia, F.: Pursuing the method of multiple
working hypotheses for hydrological modeling, Water Resour. Res., 47, W09301,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2010WR009827, 2011. 5. Cloke, H. L. and Pappenberger, F.: Evaluating forecasts of extreme events
for hydrological applications: An approach for screening unfamiliar
performance measures, Meteorol. Appl., 15, 181–197, 2008.
Cited by
113 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|