Abstract
In the calibration of hydrological models, evaluation criteria are explicitly and quantitatively defined as single- or multi-objective functions when utilizing automatic calibration approaches. In most previous studies, there is a general opinion that no single-objective function can represent all important characteristics of even one specific hydrological variable (e.g., streamflow). Thus hydrologists must turn to multi-objective calibration. In this study, we demonstrated that an optimized single-objective function can compromise multi-response modes (i.e., multi-objective functions) of the hydrograph, which is defined as summation of a power function of the absolute error between observed and simulated streamflow with the exponent of power function optimized for specific watersheds. The new objective function was applied to 196 model parameter estimation experiment (MOPEX) watersheds across the eastern United States using the semi-distributed Xinanjiang hydrological model. The optimized exponent value for each watershed was obtained by targeting four popular objective functions focusing on peak flows, low flows, water balance, and flashiness, respectively. Results showed that the optimized single-objective function can achieve a better hydrograph simulation compared to the traditional single-objective function Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency coefficient for most watersheds, and balance high flow part and low flow part of the hydrograph without substantial differences compared to multi-objective calibration. The proposed optimal single-objective function can be practically adopted in the hydrological modeling if the optimal exponent value could be determined a priori according to hydrological/climatic/landscape characteristics in a specific watershed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bao H J, Zhao L N, He Y et al., 2011. Coupling ensemble weather predictions based on TIGGE database with Grid-Xinanjiang model for flood forecast. Advances in Geosciences, 29: 61–67. doi: https://doi.org/10.5194/adgeo-29-61-2011
Bekele E G, Nicklow J W, 2007. Multi-objective automatic calibration of SWAT using NSGA-II. Journal of Hydrology, 341(3–4): 165–176. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2007.05.014
Booij M J, Krol M S, 2010. Balance between calibration objectives in a conceptual hydrological model. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 55(6): 1017–1032. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2010.505892
Box G E P, Cox D R, 1964. An analysis of transformations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 26(2): 211–252.
Boyle D P, Gupta H V, Sorooshian S, 2000. Toward improved calibration of hydrologic models: combining the strengths of manual and automatic methods. Water Resources Research, 36(12): 3663–3674. doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/2000WR900207
Cheng C T, Zhao M Y, Chau K W et al., 2006. Using genetic algorithm and TOPSIS for Xinanjiang model calibration with a single procedure. Journal of Hydrology, 316(1–4): 129–140. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.04.022
Deb K, Pratap A, Agarwal S et al., 2002. A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 6(2): 182–197. doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/4235.996017
Duan Q, Schaake J, Andréassian V et al., 2006. Model parameter estimation experiment (MOPEX): an overview of science strategy and major results from the second and third workshops. Journal of Hydrology, 320(1–2): 3–17. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.07.031
Efstratiadis A, Koutsoyiannis D, 2010. One decade of multi- objective calibration approaches in hydrological modelling: a review. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 55(1): 58–78. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/02626660903526292
Faustini J M, Kaufmann P R, Herlihy A T, 2009. Downstream variation in bankfull width of wadeable streams across the conterminous United States. Geomorphology, 108(3–4): 292–311. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2009.02.005
Fenicia F, Savenije H H G, Matgen P et al., 2007. A comparison of alternative multiobjective calibration strategies for hydrological modeling. Water Resources Research, 43(3): W03434. doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/2006WR005098
Gan T Y, Dlamini E M, Biftu G F, 1997. Effects of model complexity and structure, data quality, and objective functions on hydrologic modeling. Journal of Hydrology, 192(1–4): 81–103. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(96)03114-9
Gill M K, Kaheil Y H, Khalil A et al., 2006. Multiobjective particle swarm optimization for parameter estimation in hydrology. Water Resources Research, 42(7): W07417. doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/2005WR004528
Guinot V, Cappelaere B, Delenne C et al., 2011. Towards improved criteria for hydrological model calibration: theoretical analysis of distance- and weak form-based functions. Journal of Hydrology, 401(1–2): 1–13. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.02.004
Gupta H V, Sorooshian S, Yapo P O, 1998. Toward improved calibration of hydrologic models: multiple and noncommensurable measures of information. Water Resources Research, 34(4): 751–763. doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/97WR03495
Gupta H V, Kling H, Yilmaz K K et al., 2009. Decomposition of the mean squared error and NSE performance criteria: implications for improving hydrological modelling. Journal of Hydrology, 377(1–2): 80–91. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.08.003
Hall J W, Tarantola S, Bates P D et al., 2005. Distributed sensitivity analysis of flood inundation model calibration. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 131(2): 117–126. doi: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2005)131:2(117)
Jain S K, Sudheer K P, 2008. Fitting of hydrologic models: a close look at the Nash-Sutcliffe index. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 13(10): 981–986. doi: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0699(2008)13:10(981)
Ju Q, Yu Z B, Hao Z C et al., 2009. Division-based rainfall-runoff simulations with BP neural networks and Xinanjiang model. Neurocomputing, 72(13–15): 2873–2883. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2008.12.032
Khu S T, Madsen H, di Pierro F, 2008. Incorporating multiple observations for distributed hydrologic model calibration: an approach using a multi-objective evolutionary algorithm and clustering. Advances in Water Resources, 31(10): 1387–1398. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2008.07.011
Kollat J B, Reed P M, 2006. Comparing state-of-the-art evolutionary multi-objective algorithms for long-term groundwater monitoring design. Advances in Water Resources, 29(6): 792–807. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2005.07.010
Kollat J B, Reed P M, Wagener T, 2012. When are multiobjective calibration trade-offs in hydrologic models meaningful? Water Resources Research, 48(3): 03520. doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/2011WR011534
Krause P, Boyle D P, Bäse F, 2005. Comparison of different efficiency criteria for hydrological model assessment. Advances in Geosciences, 5: 89–97. doi: https://doi.org/10.5194/adgeo-5-89-2005
Laumanns M, Thiele L, Deb K et al., 2002. Combining convergence and diversity in evolutionary multiobjective optimization. Evolutionary Computation, 10(3): 263–282. doi: https://doi.org/10.1162/106365602760234108
Li H X, Zhang Y Q, Chiew F H S et al., 2009. Predicting runoff in ungauged catchments by using Xinanjiang model with MODIS leaf area index. Journal of Hydrology, 370(1–4): 155–162. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.03.003
Li H Y, Wigmosta M S, Wu H et al., 2013. A physically based runoff routing model for land surface and earth system models. Journal of Hydrometeorology, 14(3): 808–828. doi: https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-12-015.1
Madsen H, 2000. Automatic calibration of a conceptual rainfall-runoff model using multiple objectives. Journal of Hydrology, 235(3–4): 276–288. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(00)00279-1
Madsen H, Wilson G, Ammentorp H C 2002. Comparison of different automated strategies for calibration of rainfall-runoff models. Journal of Hydrology, 261(1–4): 48–59. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(01)00619-9
Madsen H, 2003. Parameter estimation in distributed hydrological catchment modelling using automatic calibration with multiple objectives. Advances in Water Resources, 26(2): 205–216. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0309-1708(02)00092-1
Matott L S, Babendreier J E, Purucker S T, 2009. Evaluating uncertainty in integrated environmental models: a review of concepts and tools. Water Resources Research, 45(6): W06421. doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/2008WR007301
McCuen R H, Knight Z, Cutter A G, 2006. Evaluation of the Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency index. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 11(6): 597–602. doi: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0699(2006)11:6(597)
Muleta M K, 2012. Model performance sensitivity to objective function during automated calibrations. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 17(6): 756–767. doi: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0000497
Nash J E, Sutcliffe J V, 1970. River flow forecasting through conceptual models part I—A discussion of principles. Journal of Hydrology, 10(3): 282–290. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(70)90255-6
Pokhrel P, Gupta H V, 2010. On the use of spatial regularization strategies to improve calibration of distributed watershed models. Water Resources Research, 46(1): W01505. doi:https://doi.org/10.1029/2009WR008066
Price K, Purucker S T, Kraemer S R et al., 2012. Tradeoffs among watershed model calibration targets for parameter estimation. Water Resources Research, 48(10): W10542. doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/2012WR012005
Reed P, Minsker B S, Goldberg D E, 2003. Simplifying multiobjective optimization: an automated design methodology for the nondominated sorted genetic algorithm-II. Water Resources Research, 39(7): 1196. doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/2002WR001483
Schaefli B, Gupta H V, 2007. Do Nash values have value? Hydrological Processes, 21(15): 2075–2080. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.6825
Sun Y, Tian F Q, Yang L et al., 2014. Exploring the spatial variability of contributions from climate variation and change in catchment properties to streamflow decrease in a mesoscale basin by three different methods. Journal of Hydrology, 508: 170–180. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2013.11.004
Tang Y, Reed P, Wagener T, 2006. How effective and efficient are multiobjective evolutionary algorithms at hydrologic model calibration? Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 10(2): 289–307. doi: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-10-289-2006
Tang Y, Reed P M, Kollat J B, 2007. Parallelization strategies for rapid and robust evolutionary multiobjective optimization in water resources applications. Advances in Water Resources, 30(3): 335–353. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2006.06.006
Tekleab S, Uhlenbrook S, Mohamed Y et al., 2011. Water balance modeling of Upper Blue Nile catchments using a top-down approach. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 15(7): 2179–2193. doi: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-15-2179-2011
van Griensven A, Bauwens W, 2003. Multiobjective autocalibration for semidistributed water quality models. Water Resources Research, 39(12): 1348. doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/2003WR002284
van Werkhoven K, Wagener T, Reed P et al., 2009. Sensitivity-guided reduction of parametric dimensionality for multi-objective calibration of watershed models. Advances in Water Resources, 32(8): 1154–1169. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2009.03.002
Vrugt J A, Bouten W, Gupta H V et al., 2002. Toward improved identifiability of hydrologic model parameters: the information content of experimental data. Water Resources Research, 38(12): 1312. doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/2001WR001118
Vrugt J A, Gupta H V, Bastidas L A et al., 2003. Effective and efficient algorithm for multiobjective optimization of hydrologic models. Water Resources Research, 39(8): 1214–1232. doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/2002WR001746
Wagener T, 2003. Evaluation of catchment models. Hydrological Processes, 17(16): 3375–3378. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.5158
Yapo P O, Gupta H V, Sorooshian S, 1998. Multi-objective global optimization for hydrologic models. Journal of Hydrology, 204(1–4): 83–97. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(97)00107-8
Zhao R J, 1992. The Xinanjiang model applied in China. Journal of Hydrology, 135(1–4): 371–381. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(92)90096-E
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Foundation item: Under the auspices of National Key Research and Development Program of China (No. 2016YFC0402701), National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 51825902)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Tian, F., Hu, H., Sun, Y. et al. Searching for an Optimized Single-objective Function Matching Multiple Objectives with Automatic Calibration of Hydrological Models. Chin. Geogr. Sci. 29, 934–948 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11769-019-1068-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11769-019-1068-5