Holistic versus monomeric strategies for hydrological modelling of human-modified hydrosystems

Nalbantis, I; Efstratiadis, A; Rozos, E; Kopsiafti, M; Koutsoyiannis, D

dc.contributor.author	Nalbantis, I	en
dc.contributor.author	Efstratiadis, A	en
dc.contributor.author	Rozos, E	en
dc.contributor.author	Kopsiafti, M	en
dc.contributor.author	Koutsoyiannis, D	en
dc.date.accessioned	2014-03-01T01:35:48Z
dc.date.available	2014-03-01T01:35:48Z
dc.date.issued	2011	en
dc.identifier.issn	1027-5606	en
dc.identifier.uri	https://dspace.lib.ntua.gr/xmlui/handle/123456789/21202
dc.subject.classification	Geosciences, Multidisciplinary	en
dc.subject.classification	Water Resources	en
dc.subject.other	Automatic parameter optimization	en
dc.subject.other	Bottom up approach	en
dc.subject.other	Calibration procedure	en
dc.subject.other	Combined effect	en
dc.subject.other	Computational effort	en
dc.subject.other	Critical issues	en
dc.subject.other	Estimation methodologies	en
dc.subject.other	Extended surfaces	en
dc.subject.other	Groundwater process	en
dc.subject.other	Holistic approach	en
dc.subject.other	Hydro-system	en
dc.subject.other	Hydrographs	en
dc.subject.other	Hydrological modelling	en
dc.subject.other	Hydrological process	en
dc.subject.other	Hydrosystems	en
dc.subject.other	Level of detail	en
dc.subject.other	Management process	en
dc.subject.other	Micro-scales	en
dc.subject.other	Model integration	en
dc.subject.other	Model outputs	en
dc.subject.other	Model performance	en
dc.subject.other	Multiple objectives	en
dc.subject.other	Process representation	en
dc.subject.other	Stand -alone	en
dc.subject.other	Stochastic simulations	en
dc.subject.other	System components	en
dc.subject.other	Test case	en
dc.subject.other	Topdown	en
dc.subject.other	Aquifers	en
dc.subject.other	Computer simulation	en
dc.subject.other	Errors	en
dc.subject.other	Groundwater resources	en
dc.subject.other	Hydrogeology	en
dc.subject.other	Parameter estimation	en
dc.subject.other	Parameterization	en
dc.subject.other	Philosophical aspects	en
dc.subject.other	Water management	en
dc.subject.other	Stochastic models	en
dc.subject.other	anthropogenic effect	en
dc.subject.other	bottom-up approach	en
dc.subject.other	holistic approach	en
dc.subject.other	hydrological modeling	en
dc.subject.other	model test	en
dc.subject.other	parameterization	en
dc.subject.other	runoff	en
dc.subject.other	strategic approach	en
dc.subject.other	top-down approach	en
dc.subject.other	water management	en
dc.subject.other	water resource	en
dc.subject.other	Greece	en
dc.title	Holistic versus monomeric strategies for hydrological modelling of human-modified hydrosystems	en
heal.type	journalArticle	en
heal.identifier.primary	10.5194/hess-15-743-2011	en
heal.identifier.secondary	http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/hess-15-743-2011	en
heal.language	English	en
heal.publicationDate	2011	en
heal.abstract	The modelling of human-modified basins that are inadequately measured constitutes a challenge for hydrological science. Often, models for such systems are detailed and hydraulics-based for only one part of the system while for other parts oversimplified models or rough assumptions are used. This is typically a bottom-up approach, which seeks to exploit knowledge of hydrological processes at the micro-scale at some components of the system. Also, it is a monomeric approach in two ways: first, essential interactions among system components may be poorly represented or even omitted; second, differences in the level of detail of process representation can lead to uncontrolled errors. Additionally, the calibration procedure merely accounts for the reproduction of the observed responses using typical fitting criteria. The paper aims to raise some critical issues, regarding the entire modelling approach for such hydrosystems. For this, two alternative modelling strategies are examined that reflect two modelling approaches or philosophies: a dominant bottom-up approach, which is also monomeric and, very often, based on output information, and a top-down and holistic approach based on generalized information. Critical options are examined, which codify the differences between the two strategies: the representation of surface, groundwater and water management processes, the schematization and parameterization concepts and the parameter estimation methodology. The first strategy is based on stand-alone models for surface and groundwater processes and for water management, which are employed sequentially. For each model, a different (detailed or coarse) parameterization is used, which is dictated by the hydrosystem schematization. The second strategy involves model integration for all processes, parsimonious parameterization and hybrid manual-automatic parameter optimization based on multiple objectives. A test case is examined in a hydrosystem in Greece with high complexities, such as extended surface-groundwater interactions, ill-defined boundaries, sinks to the sea and anthropogenic intervention with unmeasured abstractions both from surface water and aquifers. Criteria for comparison are the physical consistency of parameters, the reproduction of runoff hydrographs at multiple sites within the studied basin, the likelihood of uncontrolled model outputs, the required amount of computational effort and the performance within a stochastic simulation setting. Our work allows for investigating the deterioration of model performance in cases where no balanced attention is paid to all components of human-modified hydrosystems and the related information. Also, sources of errors are identified and their combined effect are evaluated. © 2011 Author(s).	en
heal.publisher	COPERNICUS GESELLSCHAFT MBH	en
heal.journalName	Hydrology and Earth System Sciences	en
dc.identifier.doi	10.5194/hess-15-743-2011	en
dc.identifier.isi	ISI:000288990400006	en
dc.identifier.volume	15	en
dc.identifier.issue	3	en
dc.identifier.spage	743	en
dc.identifier.epage	758	en