GC
Gemma Coxon
info
Please Note
<p>This page displays the records of the person named above and is not linked to a unique person identifier. This record may need to be merged to a profile.</p>
2 records found
1
Journal article
(2024)
-
Jerom P. M. Aerts, Jannis M. Hoch, Gemma Coxon, Nick C. van de Giesen, Rolf W. Hut
For users of hydrological models, the suitability of models can depend on how well their simulated outputs align with observed discharge. This study emphasizes the crucial role of factoring in discharge observation uncertainty when assessing the performance of hydrological models. We introduce an ad hoc approach, implemented through the eWaterCycle platform, to evaluate the significance of differences in model performance while considering the uncertainty associated with discharge observations. The analysis of the results encompasses 299 catchments from the Catchment Attributes and MEteorology for Large-sample Studies Great Britain (CAMELS-GB) large-sample catchment dataset, addressing three practical use cases for model users. These use cases involve assessing the impact of additional calibration on model performance using discharge observations, conducting conventional model comparisons, and examining how the variations in discharge simulations resulting from model structural differences compare with the uncertainties inherent in discharge observations.
Based on the 5th to 95th percentile range of observed flow, our results highlight the substantial influence of discharge observation uncertainty on interpreting model performance differences. Specifically, when comparing model performance before and after additional calibration, we find that, in 98 out of 299 instances, the simulation differences fall within the bounds of discharge observation uncertainty. This underscores the inadequacy of neglecting discharge observation uncertainty during calibration and subsequent evaluation processes. Furthermore, in the model comparison use case, we identify numerous instances where observation uncertainty masks discernible differences in model performance, underscoring the necessity of accounting for this uncertainty in model selection procedures. While our assessment of model structural uncertainty generally indicates that structural differences often exceed observation uncertainty estimates, a few exceptions exist. The comparison of individual conceptual hydrological models suggests no clear trends between model complexity and subsequent model simulations falling within the uncertainty bounds of discharge observations.
Based on these findings, we advocate integrating discharge observation uncertainty into the calibration process and the reporting of hydrological model performance, as has been done in this study. This integration ensures more accurate, robust, and insightful assessments of model performance, thereby improving the reliability and applicability of hydrological modelling outcomes for model users. ...
Based on the 5th to 95th percentile range of observed flow, our results highlight the substantial influence of discharge observation uncertainty on interpreting model performance differences. Specifically, when comparing model performance before and after additional calibration, we find that, in 98 out of 299 instances, the simulation differences fall within the bounds of discharge observation uncertainty. This underscores the inadequacy of neglecting discharge observation uncertainty during calibration and subsequent evaluation processes. Furthermore, in the model comparison use case, we identify numerous instances where observation uncertainty masks discernible differences in model performance, underscoring the necessity of accounting for this uncertainty in model selection procedures. While our assessment of model structural uncertainty generally indicates that structural differences often exceed observation uncertainty estimates, a few exceptions exist. The comparison of individual conceptual hydrological models suggests no clear trends between model complexity and subsequent model simulations falling within the uncertainty bounds of discharge observations.
Based on these findings, we advocate integrating discharge observation uncertainty into the calibration process and the reporting of hydrological model performance, as has been done in this study. This integration ensures more accurate, robust, and insightful assessments of model performance, thereby improving the reliability and applicability of hydrological modelling outcomes for model users. ...
For users of hydrological models, the suitability of models can depend on how well their simulated outputs align with observed discharge. This study emphasizes the crucial role of factoring in discharge observation uncertainty when assessing the performance of hydrological models. We introduce an ad hoc approach, implemented through the eWaterCycle platform, to evaluate the significance of differences in model performance while considering the uncertainty associated with discharge observations. The analysis of the results encompasses 299 catchments from the Catchment Attributes and MEteorology for Large-sample Studies Great Britain (CAMELS-GB) large-sample catchment dataset, addressing three practical use cases for model users. These use cases involve assessing the impact of additional calibration on model performance using discharge observations, conducting conventional model comparisons, and examining how the variations in discharge simulations resulting from model structural differences compare with the uncertainties inherent in discharge observations.
Based on the 5th to 95th percentile range of observed flow, our results highlight the substantial influence of discharge observation uncertainty on interpreting model performance differences. Specifically, when comparing model performance before and after additional calibration, we find that, in 98 out of 299 instances, the simulation differences fall within the bounds of discharge observation uncertainty. This underscores the inadequacy of neglecting discharge observation uncertainty during calibration and subsequent evaluation processes. Furthermore, in the model comparison use case, we identify numerous instances where observation uncertainty masks discernible differences in model performance, underscoring the necessity of accounting for this uncertainty in model selection procedures. While our assessment of model structural uncertainty generally indicates that structural differences often exceed observation uncertainty estimates, a few exceptions exist. The comparison of individual conceptual hydrological models suggests no clear trends between model complexity and subsequent model simulations falling within the uncertainty bounds of discharge observations.
Based on these findings, we advocate integrating discharge observation uncertainty into the calibration process and the reporting of hydrological model performance, as has been done in this study. This integration ensures more accurate, robust, and insightful assessments of model performance, thereby improving the reliability and applicability of hydrological modelling outcomes for model users.
Based on the 5th to 95th percentile range of observed flow, our results highlight the substantial influence of discharge observation uncertainty on interpreting model performance differences. Specifically, when comparing model performance before and after additional calibration, we find that, in 98 out of 299 instances, the simulation differences fall within the bounds of discharge observation uncertainty. This underscores the inadequacy of neglecting discharge observation uncertainty during calibration and subsequent evaluation processes. Furthermore, in the model comparison use case, we identify numerous instances where observation uncertainty masks discernible differences in model performance, underscoring the necessity of accounting for this uncertainty in model selection procedures. While our assessment of model structural uncertainty generally indicates that structural differences often exceed observation uncertainty estimates, a few exceptions exist. The comparison of individual conceptual hydrological models suggests no clear trends between model complexity and subsequent model simulations falling within the uncertainty bounds of discharge observations.
Based on these findings, we advocate integrating discharge observation uncertainty into the calibration process and the reporting of hydrological model performance, as has been done in this study. This integration ensures more accurate, robust, and insightful assessments of model performance, thereby improving the reliability and applicability of hydrological modelling outcomes for model users.
Journal article
(2022)
-
Anne F. Van Loon, Sally Rangecroft, More authors..., Gemma Coxon, Micha Werner, Niko Wanders, Giuliano Di Baldassarre, Erik Tijdeman, Marianne Bosman, Jose Agustin Breña-Naranjo, Graham Jewitt
Human activities both aggravate and alleviate streamflow drought. Here we show that aggravation is dominant in contrasting cases around the world analysed with a consistent methodology. Our 28 cases included different combinations of human-water interactions. We found that water abstraction aggravated all drought characteristics, with increases of 20%-305% in total time in drought found across the case studies, and increases in total deficit of up to almost 3000%. Water transfers reduced drought time and deficit by up to 97%. In cases with both abstraction and water transfers into the catchment or augmenting streamflow from groundwater, the water inputs could not compensate for the aggravation of droughts due to abstraction and only shift the effects in space or time. Reservoir releases for downstream water use alleviated droughts in the dry season, but also led to deficits in the wet season by changing flow seasonality. This led to minor changes in average drought duration (-26 to +38%) and moderate changes in average drought deficit (-86 to +369%). Land use showed a smaller impact on streamflow drought, also with both increases and decreases observed (-48 to +98%). Sewage return flows and pipe leakage possibly counteracted the effects of increased imperviousness in urban areas; however, untangling the effects of land use change on streamflow drought is challenging. This synthesis of diverse global cases highlights the complexity of the human influence on streamflow drought and the added value of empirical comparative studies. Results indicate both intended and unintended consequences of water management and infrastructure on downstream society and ecosystems.
...
Human activities both aggravate and alleviate streamflow drought. Here we show that aggravation is dominant in contrasting cases around the world analysed with a consistent methodology. Our 28 cases included different combinations of human-water interactions. We found that water abstraction aggravated all drought characteristics, with increases of 20%-305% in total time in drought found across the case studies, and increases in total deficit of up to almost 3000%. Water transfers reduced drought time and deficit by up to 97%. In cases with both abstraction and water transfers into the catchment or augmenting streamflow from groundwater, the water inputs could not compensate for the aggravation of droughts due to abstraction and only shift the effects in space or time. Reservoir releases for downstream water use alleviated droughts in the dry season, but also led to deficits in the wet season by changing flow seasonality. This led to minor changes in average drought duration (-26 to +38%) and moderate changes in average drought deficit (-86 to +369%). Land use showed a smaller impact on streamflow drought, also with both increases and decreases observed (-48 to +98%). Sewage return flows and pipe leakage possibly counteracted the effects of increased imperviousness in urban areas; however, untangling the effects of land use change on streamflow drought is challenging. This synthesis of diverse global cases highlights the complexity of the human influence on streamflow drought and the added value of empirical comparative studies. Results indicate both intended and unintended consequences of water management and infrastructure on downstream society and ecosystems.