Process-based hydrological models seek to represent the dominant hydrological processes in a catchment. However, due to unavoidable incompleteness of knowledge, the construction of “fidelius” process-based models depends largely on expert judgment. We present a systematic approach that treats models as hierarchical assemblages of hypotheses (conservation principles, system architecture, process parameterization equations, and parameter specification), which enables investigating how the hierarchy of model development decisions impacts model fidelity. Each model development step provides information that progressively changes our uncertainty (increases, decreases, or alters) regarding the input-state-output behavior of the system. Following the principle of maximum entropy, we introduce the concept of “minimally restrictive process parameterization equations—MR-PPEs,” which enables us to enhance the flexibility with which system processes can be represented, and to thereby investigate the important role that the system architectural hypothesis (discretization of the system into subsystem elements) plays in determining model behavior. We illustrate and explore these concepts with synthetic and real-data studies, using models constructed from simple generic buckets as building blocks, thereby paving the way for more-detailed investigations using sophisticated process-based hydrological models. We also discuss how proposed MR-PPEs can bridge the gap between current process-based modeling and machine learning. Finally, we suggest the need for model calibration to evolve from a search over “parameter spaces” to a search over “function spaces.”.

It is generally acknowledged in the environmental sciences that the choice of a computational model impacts the research results. In this study of a flood and drought event in the Swiss Thur basin, we show that modeling decisions during the model configuration, beyond the model choice, also impact the model results. In our carefully designed experiment we investigated four modeling decisions in ten nested basins: the spatial resolution of the model, the spatial representation of the forcing data, the calibration period, and the performance metric. The flood characteristics were mainly affected by the performance metric, whereas the drought characteristics were mainly affected by the calibration period. The results could be related to the processes that triggered the particular events studied. The impact of the modeling decisions on the simulations did, however, vary among the investigated sub-basins. In spite of the limitations of this study, our findings have important implications for the understanding and quantification of uncertainty in any hydrological or even environmental model. Modeling decisions during model configuration introduce subjectivity from the modeler. Multiple working hypotheses during model configuration can provide insights on the impact of such subjective modeling decisions.

Hydrologic projections are of vital socio-economic importance. However, they are also prone to uncertainty. In order to establish a meaningful range of storylines to support water managers in decision making, we need to reveal the relevant sources of uncertainty. Here, we systematically and extensively investigate uncertainty in hydrologic projections for 605 basins throughout the contiguous US. We show that in the majority of the basins, the sign of change in average annual runoff and discharge timing for the period 2070-2100 compared to 1985-2008 differs among combinations of climate models, hydrologic models, and parameters. Mapping the results revealed that different sources of uncertainty dominate in different regions. Hydrologic model induced uncertainty in the sign of change in mean runoff was related to snow processes and aridity, whereas uncertainty in both mean runoff and discharge timing induced by the climate models was related to disagreement among the models regarding the change in precipitation. Overall, disagreement on the sign of change was more widespread for the mean runoff than for the discharge timing. The results demonstrate the need to define a wide range of quantitative hydrologic storylines, including parameter, hydrologic model, and climate model forcing uncertainty, to support water resource planning.

The diversity in hydrologic models has historically led to great controversy on the "correct" approach to process-based hydrologic modeling, with debates centered on the adequacy of process parameterizations, data limitations and uncertainty, and computational constraints on model analysis. In this paper, we revisit key modeling challenges on requirements to (1) define suitable model equations, (2) define adequate model parameters, and (3) cope with limitations in computing power. We outline the historical modeling challenges, provide examples of modeling advances that address these challenges, and define outstanding research needs. We illustrate how modeling advances have been made by groups using models of different type and complexity, and we argue for the need to more effectively use our diversity of modeling approaches in order to advance our collective quest for physically realistic hydrologic models.

In this synthesis paper addressing hydrologic scaling and similarity, we posit that roadblocks in the search for universal laws of hydrology are hindered by our focus on computational simulation (the third paradigm) and assert that it is time for hydrology to embrace a fourth paradigm of data-intensive science. Advances in information-based hydrologic science, coupled with an explosion of hydrologic data and advances in parameter estimation and modeling, have laid the foundation for a data-driven framework for scrutinizing hydrological scaling and similarity hypotheses. We summarize important scaling and similarity concepts (hypotheses) that require testing; describe a mutual information framework for testing these hypotheses; describe boundary condition, state, flux, and parameter data requirements across scales to support testing these hypotheses; and discuss some challenges to overcome while pursuing the fourth hydrological paradigm. We call upon the hydrologic sciences community to develop a focused effort towards adopting the fourth paradigm and apply this to outstanding challenges in scaling and similarity.

In hydrology, two somewhat competing philosophies form the basis of most process-based models. At one endpoint of this continuum are detailed, high-resolution descriptions of small-scale processes that are numerically integrated to larger scales (e.g. catchments). At the other endpoint of the continuum are spatially lumped representations of the system that express the hydrological response via, in the extreme case, a single linear transfer function. Many other models, developed starting from these two contrasting endpoints, plot along this continuum with different degrees of spatial resolutions and process complexities. A better understanding of the respective basis as well as the respective shortcomings of different modelling philosophies has the potential to improve our models. In this paper we analyse several frequently communicated beliefs and assumptions to identify, discuss and emphasize the functional similarity of the seemingly competing modelling philosophies. We argue that deficiencies in model applications largely do not depend on the modelling philosophy, although some models may be more suitable for specific applications than others and vice versa, but rather on the way a model is implemented. Based on the premises that any model can be implemented at any desired degree of detail and that any type of model remains to some degree conceptual, we argue that a convergence of modelling strategies may hold some value for advancing the development of hydrological models.

A meta-analysis on 192 peer-reviewed articles reporting on applications of the variable infiltration capacity (VIC) model in a distributed way reveals that the spatial resolution at which the model is applied has increased over the years, while the calibration and validation time interval has remained unchanged. We argue that the calibration and validation time interval should keep pace with the increase in spatial resolution in order to resolve the processes that are relevant at the applied spatial resolution. We identified six time concepts in hydrological models, which all impact the model results and conclusions. Process-based model evaluation is particularly relevant when models are applied at hyper-resolution, where stakeholders expect credible results both at a high spatial and temporal resolution.

The transfer of parameter sets over different temporal and spatial resolutions is common practice in many large-domain hydrological modelling studies. The degree to which parameters are transferable across temporal and spatial resolutions is an indicator of how well spatial and temporal variability is represented in the models. A large degree of transferability may well indicate a poor representation of such variability in the employed models. To investigate parameter transferability over resolution in time and space we have set up a study in which the Variable Infiltration Capacity (VIC) model for the Thur basin in Switzerland was run with four different spatial resolutions (1 km × 1 km, 5 km × 5 km, 10 km × 10 km, lumped) and evaluated for three relevant temporal resolutions (hour, day, month), both applied with uniform and distributed forcing. The model was run 3150 times using the Hierarchical Latin Hypercube Sample and the best 1 % of the runs was selected as behavioural. The overlap in behavioural sets for different spatial and temporal resolutions was used as an indicator of parameter transferability. A key result from this study is that the overlap in parameter sets for different spatial resolutions was much larger than for different temporal resolutions, also when the forcing was applied in a distributed fashion. This result suggests that it is easier to transfer parameters across different spatial resolutions than across different temporal resolutions. However, the result also indicates a substantial underestimation in the spatial variability represented in the hydrological simulations, suggesting that the high spatial transferability may occur because the current generation of large-domain models has an inadequate representation of spatial variability and hydrologic connectivity. The results presented in this paper provide a strong motivation to further investigate and substantially improve the representation of spatial and temporal variability in large-domain hydrological models.

This paper presents a hybrid local-global sensitivity analysis method termed the Distributed Evaluation of Local Sensitivity Analysis (DELSA), which is used here to identify important and unimportant parameters and evaluate how model parameter importance changes as parameter values change. DELSA uses derivative-based "local" methods to obtain the distribution of parameter sensitivity across the parameter space, which promotes consideration of sensitivity analysis results in the context of simulated dynamics. This work presents DELSA, discusses how it relates to existing methods, and uses two hydrologic test cases to compare its performance with the popular global, variance-based Sobol' method. The first test case is a simple nonlinear reservoir model with two parameters. The second test case involves five alternative "bucket-style" hydrologic models with up to 14 parameters applied to a medium-sized catchment (200 km²) in the Belgian Ardennes. Results show that in both examples, Sobol' and DELSA identify similar important and unimportant parameters, with DELSA enabling more detailed insight at much lower computational cost. For example, in the real-world problem the time delay in runoff is the most important parameter in all models, but DELSA shows that for about 20% of parameter sets it is not important at all and alternative mechanisms and parameters dominate. Moreover, the time delay was identified as important in regions producing poor model fits, whereas other parameters were identified as more important in regions of the parameter space producing better model fits. The ability to understand how parameter importance varies through parameter space is critical to inform decisions about, for example, additional data collection and model development. The ability to perform such analyses with modest computational requirements provides exciting opportunities to evaluate complicated models as well as many alternative models. Key Points Sobol' and DELSA methods showed that they yield similar sensitivity results DELSA provides more information at lower calculation costs than Sobol' DELSA is recommended as effective and efficient method for parameter sensitivity