Skip to main content
Log in

Improving watershed decisions using run-off and yield models at different simulation scales

  • Published:
Environment Systems and Decisions Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Water managers face the daunting task of balancing limited water resources with over-subscribed water users among competing demands. They face the additional challenge of taking water planning decisions in an uncertain environment with limited and sometimes inaccurate observed and simulated hydrological data. Within South African watersheds, spatial parameterization data for hydrological models are now available at two different basin management resolutions (termed quaternary and quinary). Currently, water management decisions in the Crocodile River watershed are often made at a more coarse resolution, which may exclude crucial insights into the data. This research has the following aims (1) to explore whether model performance is improved by parameterization using a more detailed quinary-scale watershed data and (2) to explore whether quinary-scale models reduce uncertainty in allocation or restriction decisions to provide better informed water resources management and decision outcomes. This study used the Agricultural Catchments Research Unit (ACRU) agro-hydrological watershed model, to evaluate the effects of spatial discretization at the quaternary and quinary scales on watershed hydrological response and runoff within the Crocodile River basin. Model performance was evaluated using statistical comparisons of results using traditional goodness-of-fit measures such as the coefficient of efficiency (C eff), root mean square of the error and the coefficient of determination (R 2) to compare simulated monthly flows and observed flows in six subcatchments. Traditional interpretation of these goodness-of-fit measures may be inadequate as they can be subjectively interpreted and easily influenced by the number of data points, outliers and model bias. This research utilizes a recently released model evaluation program (FITEVAL) which presents probability distributions of R 2and C eff derived by bootstrapping, graphical representation of observed and simulated stream flows, incorporates statistical significance to detect the sufficiency of the R 2and C eff and determines the presence of outliers and bias. While analyses indicate that the ACRU model performs marginally better when parameterized and calibrated at the quinary scale, the measurements at both scales show significant variability in predictions for both high and low flows that are endemic to southern African hydrology. The improved evaluation methods also allow for the analysis of data collection errors at monitoring sites and help determine the effect of data quality on adaptive water planning management decisions. Given that many water resource challenges are complex adaptive systems, these expanded performance analysis tools help provide deeper insights into matching watershed decision metrics and model-derived predictions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Biggs H (2013, March 4). KNP Network meeting. (G. A. Kiker, Interviewer) Skukuza, Mpumalanga, South Africa

  • Breen C, Dent M, Jaganyi JB, Madikizela B, Maganbeharie J, Ndlovu A (2000) ‘The Kruger National Park Rivers Research Programme (Report TT 130/00). Water Research Commission, Pretoria

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (2002) Ecological reserve determination for the Crocodile River Catchment, Incomati System (Report no. ENV-P-C 2002 009), Pretoria

  • Crawford J (2004) An analysis of the social, economic and environmental direct and indirect costs and benefits of water use in irrigated agriculture and forestry: a case study of the Crocodile River Catchment Mpumalanga Province: report to the Water Research Commission

  • Cumming SG, Norberg J (2008) Complexity theory for a sustainable future. Columbia University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Danish Hydraulic Institute (2008) Mike 11—a modelling system for rivers and channels

  • Department of Water Affairs (2008a) Hydrological services—surface water (data, dams, floods and flows). Retrieved 2011, from Department of Water Affairs, Republic of South Africa: http://www.dwaf.gov.za/Hydrology/

  • Department of Water Affairs (2008b). The development of a real-time decision support system (DSS) for the Crocodile East river system—Inception report (Project No WP 9429)

  • Department of Water Affairs (2009) Operationalise the reserve: rapid habitat assessment model manual. In: Louw D, Kleyhans CJ (eds) Pretoria, South Africa

  • Du Toit DR, Biggs H, Pollard S (2011) The potential role of mental model methodologies in multistakeholder negotiations: integrated water resources management in South Africa. Ecol Soc 16(3). doi:10.5751/ES-04237-160321

  • Efron B (1979) Bootstrap methods: another look at the jackknife. Annal Stat 7(1):1–26. doi:10.1214/aos/1176344552

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etienne M, Du Toit DR, Pollard S (2011) ARDI: a co-construction method for participatory modeling in natural resources management. Ecol Soc 16(1). Retrieved from http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss1/art44/

  • Foxcroft LC (2009) Developing thresholds of potential concern for invasive alien species: hypotheses and concepts. Koedoe 51(1):1–6. doi:10.4102/koedoe.v51i1.157

    Google Scholar 

  • Harmel RD, Cooper RJ, Slade RM, Haney RL, Arnold JG (2006) Cumulative uncertainty in measured streamflow and water quality data for small watersheds. Trans ASAE 49(3):689–701

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes D, Hannart P (2003) A desktop model used to provide an initial estimate of the ecological instream flow requirements of rivers in South Africa. J Hydrol 270(3–4):167–181. doi:10.1016/S0022-1694(02)00290-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes D, Louw D, Mallory S (2008) Methods and software for the real-time implementation of the ecological reserve: explanations and user manual (No. 1582/1/08). Water Research Commission, Pretoria. Retrieved from http://www.wrc.org.za

  • Inkhlakanipho Consultants (2009) The development of the Inkomati Catchment Management Strategy: book of maps for status quo report. Nelspruit

  • Inkomati Catchment Management Agency (2012) Retrieved 8 Sept 2012, from Crocodile River DSS: http://crocdss.inkomaticma.co.za/Website/Index.html

  • Jewitt G, Schulze R (1999). Verification of the ACRU model for forest hydrology. Water SA 25(4):483–490. Retrieved from http://www.wrc.org.za

  • Jewitt GP, Garratt JA, Calder IR, Fuller L (2004). Water resources planning and modelling tools for the assessment of land use change in the Luvuvhu Catchment, South Africa. Phys Chem Earth A/B/C, 29(15–18): 1233–1241. doi:10.1016/j.pce.2004.09.020

  • Kiker GA, Clark DJ, Martinez CJ, Schulze R (2006) A java-based, object-oriented modeling system for Southern African hydrology. Trans ASABE 49(5):1419–1434

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleynhans C (2007) Module D: fish response assessment index in river ecoclassification: manual for ecostatus determination (WRC Report No. TT). Department of Water Affairs and Forestry. Water Research Commission

  • Krause P, Boyle DP, Bäse F (2005) Comparison of different efficiency criteria for hydrological model assessment. Adv Geosci 5:89–97. doi:10.5194/adgeo-5-89-2005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kruger National Park (2006) Setting the thresholds of potential concern for river flow and quality. Retrieved 9 April 2012, from http://www.sanparks.org/parks/kruger/conservation/scientific/mission/TPC_River_Flow_and_Quality.pdf

  • Leavesley G, Lichty R, Troutman B, Saindon L (1983) Precipitation-runoff modeling system user’s manual. U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigations, Reston, VA. Retrieved from http://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/1983/4238/report.pdf

  • Legates DR, McCabe GJ Jr (1999) Evaluating the use of “goodness-of-fit” measures in hydrologic and hydroclimatic model validation. Water Resour Res 35(1):233–241. doi:10.1029/1998WR900018

    Google Scholar 

  • Mallory S (2009) Inkomati water availability and assessment study: hydrology report for the Crocodile River. Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, Directorate of Water Resource Planning Systems

  • Mallory S, Odendaal P, Desai A (2008) The water resources modelling platform user’s guide version 3. Retrieved from www.waterforafrica.com

  • McCuen RH, Knight Z, Cutter AG (2006) Evaluation of the Nash–Sutcliffe Efficiency Index. J Hydrol Eng 11(6):597–602. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0699(2006)11:6(597

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLoughlin CA, Deacon A, Ababio TG, Sithole H (2011) History, rationale, and lessons learned: thresholds of potential concern in Kruger National Park river adaptive management. Koedoe 53(2). doi:10.4102/koedoe.v53i2.996

  • National Water Act, No.36 (1998)

  • Noss RF (1990) Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical approach. Conserv Biol 4(4):355–364. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2385928

  • Pelletier PM (1988) Uncertainties in the single determination of river discharge: a literature review. Can J Civil Eng 15(5):834–850

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollard S, Du Toit D, Biggs H (2011) River management under transformation: the emergence of strategic adaptive management of river systems in the Kruger National Park. Koedoe 53(2):14. doi:10.4102/koedoe.v53i2.1011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ritchie JT (1972) Model for predicting evaporation from a row crop with incomplete cover. Water Resour Res 8(5):1204–1213. doi:10.1029/WR008i005p01204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ritter A (2013) Available software. Retrieved from software: http://webpages.ull.es/users/aritter/software.html

  • Ritter A, Muñoz-Carpena R (2013) Predictive ability of hydrological models: objective assessment of goodness-of-fit with statistical significance. J Hydrol 480(1):33–45. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.12.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers KH, Bestbier RX (1997) Development of a protocol for the definition of the desired state of riverine systems in South Africa. Pretoria, South Africa: Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. Retrieved from http://www.ccwr.ac.za/knprrp/index.html

  • Rogers K, Biggs H (1999) Integrating indicators, endpoints and value systems in strategic management of the Kruger National Park. Freshw Biol 41:439–451. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2427.1999.00441.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers KH, Biggs HC (2003) An adaptive system to link science, monitoring and management in practice. In: Du Toit JT, Rogers KH, Biggs HC (eds) The Kruger experience ecology and management of savanna heterogeneity. Island Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Rountree M, McLoughlin C, Mackenzie J, Deacon A, Sithole H (2008) Kruger National Park TPC data collection, testing and implementation (WRC 330/08)

  • Roux DJ, Kleynhans CJ, Thirion C, Hill L, Engelbrecht JS, Deacon AR, Kemper N (1999) Adaptive assessment and management of riverine ecosystems: the Crocodile/Elands River case study. Water SA 25(4):501–511

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulze RE (1995) Hydrology and agrohydrology: a text to accompany the Acru 3.00 agrohydrological modelling system. Water Research Commission

  • Slade RM (2004) General method, information, and sources for collecting and analyzing water-resources data. CDROM

  • Smithers J, Schulze R, Pike A, Jewitt G (2001) A hydrological perspective of the February 2000 floods: a case study in the Sabie River Catchment. Water SA 27(3):321–328. Retrieved from http://www.wrc.org.za

  • Stone-Jovicich SS, Lynam T, Leitch A, Jones NA (2011) Using consensus analysis to assess mental models about water use and management in the Crocodile River Catchment, South Africa. Ecol Soc 16(1). Retrieved from http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss1/art45/

  • United States Department of Agriculture (1972) National engineering handbook: section 4—hydrology. United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, Washington, DC. Retrieved from ftp://wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/wntsc/H&H/NEHhydrology/ch21.pdf

  • Venter FJ, Deacon AR (1995) Managing rivers for conservation and ecotourism in the Kruger National Park. Water Sci Technol 32(5):227–233. doi:10.1016/0273-1223(95)00667-2

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wallach D, Makowski D, Jones JW (2006) Working with dynamic crop models, 1st edn. Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Water Research Commission (2006) South African atlas of agrohydrology and climatology. In: Lynch SD (ed). Retrieved 14 March 2011, from Table of contents: http://planet.uwc.ac.za/NISL/Invasives/Assignments/GARP/atlas/atlas.htm

  • Wessels P, Rooseboom A (2009) Flow-gauging structures in South African rivers—part 2: calibration. Water SA 35. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10019.1/10804

  • Wilcox BP, Rawls WJ, Brakensiek DL (1990) Predicting runoff from rangeland catchments: a comparison of two models. Water Resour Res 26(10):2401–2410. doi:10.1029/WR026i010p02401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willmott CJ, Matsuura K (2005) Advantages of the mean absolute error (MAE) over the root mean square error (RMSE) in assessing average model performance. Clim Res 30(1):79–82. doi:10.3354/cr030079

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willmott C, Ackleson SG, Davis RE, Feddema JJ, Klink KM, Legates DR, Rowe CM (1985) Statistics for the evaluation and comparison of models. J Geophys Res 90(C5):8995–9005. doi:10.1029/JC090iC05p08995

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Funding for this research was generously provided for by the Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering at the University of Florida and fieldwork studies by the Rotary Foundation. The authors also wish to recognize the contributions and support of Dr. Jeff Smithers, Dr. Mark Dent and Mark Horan of the University of Kwa-Zulu Natal Department of Bioresources Engineering and Environmental Hydrology, Dr. Tally Palmer of the Akili Initiative, Harry Biggs and Craig Mc Loughlin of the Kruger National Park Service Scientific Services and Brian Jackson of the Inkomati Catchment Management Agency.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Nathan Wangusi or Gregory Kiker.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wangusi, N., Kiker, G., Muñoz-Carpena, R. et al. Improving watershed decisions using run-off and yield models at different simulation scales. Environ Syst Decis 33, 440–456 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-013-9454-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-013-9454-5

Keywords

Navigation