Large-sample assessment of varying spatial resolution on the streamflow estimates of the wflowsbm hydrological model

Journal Article (2022)
Author(s)

J.P.M. Aerts (TU Delft - Water Resources)

Rolf Hut (TU Delft - Water Resources)

NC van de Giesen (TU Delft - Water Resources)

Niels Drost (Netherlands eScience Center)

W. J. van Verseveld (Deltares)

Albrecht Weerts (Wageningen University & Research, Deltares)

P. Hazenberg (Florida International University)

Research Group
Water Resources
Copyright
© 2022 J.P.M. Aerts, R.W. Hut, N.C. van de Giesen, Niels Drost, Willem J. van Verseveld, Albrecht H. Weerts, Pieter Hazenberg
DOI related publication
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-4407-2022
More Info
expand_more
Publication Year
2022
Language
English
Copyright
© 2022 J.P.M. Aerts, R.W. Hut, N.C. van de Giesen, Niels Drost, Willem J. van Verseveld, Albrecht H. Weerts, Pieter Hazenberg
Research Group
Water Resources
Issue number
16
Volume number
26
Pages (from-to)
4407-4430
Reuse Rights

Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons.

Abstract

Distributed hydrological modelling moves into the realm of hyper-resolution modelling. This results in a plethora of scaling-related challenges that remain unsolved. To the user, in light of model result interpretation, finer-resolution output might imply an increase in understanding of the complex interplay of heterogeneity within the hydrological system. Here we investigate spatial scaling in the form of varying spatial resolution by evaluating the streamflow estimates of the distributed wflow_sbm hydrological model based on 454 basins from the large-sample CAMELS data set. Model instances are derived at three spatial resolutions, namely 3 km, 1 km, and 200 m. The results show that a finer spatial resolution does not necessarily lead to better streamflow estimates at the basin outlet. Statistical testing of the objective function distributions (Kling–Gupta efficiency (KGE) score) of the three model instances resulted in only a statistical difference between the 3 km and 200 m streamflow estimates. However, an assessment of sampling uncertainty shows high uncertainties surrounding the KGE score throughout the domain. This makes the conclusion based on the statistical testing inconclusive. The results do indicate strong locality in the differences between model instances expressed by differences in KGE scores of on average 0.22 with values larger than 0.5. The results of this study open up research paths that can investigate the changes in flux and state partitioning due to spatial scaling. This will help to further understand the challenges that need to be resolved for hyper-resolution hydrological modelling.