Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A review of model selection for hydrological studies

  • Review Paper
  • Published:
Arabian Journal of Geosciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The key aim of this review was to consolidate the latest information on the regularly used and newly developed hydrological models that may be supportive in choosing the best-suited model for specific research applications in hydrological studies. The paper briefly discusses various models available for the simulation of specific processes in the hydrological cycle. The models presented in this paper are classified based on distributed, semi-distributed, stochastic, and process-based deterministic approaches. These models are employed for research applications in sedimentation analysis, sub-surface modeling, hydraulic routing, and hydrological prediction. Criteria used for assessing models are hydrological components that the model can simulate, the leading equations used to simulate the hydrologic components, requirements of the minimum data necessary to run the model, and the spatiotemporal scale of the model. These are the basic requirements that must always be addressed before selecting any model for future use.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abbott MB, Bathurst JC, Cunge JA, O’Connell PE, Rasmussen J (1986) An introduction to the European hydrological system - systeme hydrologique European, ‘SHE’, 1: history and philosophy of a physically-based, distributed modeling system. J Hydrol 87(1–2):45–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abbott MB, Refsgaard JC (1996) Distributed Hydrological Modeling. Kluwer Academic Publisher, Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-0257-2

  • Ambroise B, Beven K, Freer J (1996) Toward a generalization of the TOPMODEL concepts: Topographic indices of hydrological similarity. Water Resour Res 32(7):2135–2145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersson JCM, Arheimer B, Traoré F, Gustafsson D, Ali A (2017) Process refinements improve a hydrological model concept applied to the Niger River Basin. Hydrol Process 31(25):4540–4554

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arheimer B, Pimentel R, Isberg K, Crochemore L, Andersson JCM, Hasan A, Pineda L (2020) Global catchment modelling usingWorldwide HYPE (WWH), open data, and stepwise parameter estimation. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 24(2):535–559

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnold JG, Moriasi DN, Gassman PW, Abbaspour KC, White MJ, Srinivasan R, Santhi C, Harmel RD, Griensven A. Van, Van Liew MW, Kannan N, Jha MK (2012) SWAT: model use, calibration, and validation. Trans ASABE 55(4):1491–1508

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnold JG, Srinivasan R, Muttiah RS, Williams JR (1998) Large area hydrologic modeling and assessment part I: model development. J Am Water Resour Assoc 34(1):73–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergstroem S (1976) Development and application of a conceptual runoff model for Scandinavian catchment, pp 153

  • Bergström S (1992) The HBV model - its structure and application. SMHI RH 4, Norrkoping

  • Beven K (1997) Topmodel : a critique. Hydrol Process 11:1069–1085

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beven KJ, Kirkby MJ (1979) A physically based, variable contributing area model of basin hydrology. Hydrol Sci Bull 24(1):43–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beven KJ, Kirkby MJ, Schofield N, Tagg AF (1984) Testing a physically-based flood forcasting model (TOPMODEL) for three U. K. catchments. J Hydrol 69:119–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bingner RL, Theurer FD (2005) AnnAGNPS technical processes documentation, version 3.2. USDA‐ARS National Sedimentation Laboratory

  • Bingner RL, Theurer FD, Yuan Y, Taguas EV (2018) AnnAGNPS technical process Version 5.5

  • Bloschl G, Sivaplan M (1995) Scale issues in hydrological modeling: a review. Hydrol Process 9:251–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borah DK, Bera M, Shaw S (2003) Water, sediment, nutrient, and pesticide measurements in an agricultural water-shed in Illinois during storm events. Trans ASAE 46(3):657–674

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butts MB, Payne JT, Kristensen M, Madsen H (2004) An evaluation of the impact of model structure on hydrological modelling uncertainty for stream-flow simulation. J Hydrol 298(1–4):242–266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charley WJ (1995) The hydrologic modeling system (HEC-HMS): Design and development issues (No. 149). US Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center

  • Costanz, R, Voinov A, Boumans R, Maxwell T, Villa F, Wainger L, Voinov H (2002) Integrated ecological economic modeling of the Patuxent River watershed, Maryland. Ecol Monogr 72(2):203–231

  • Davie T (2004) Review of different hydrological modelling frameworks for usage in the Motueka Integrated Catchment Management programme of Research. Motueka Integrated Catchment Management (Motueka ICM) Programme Report Series

  • De Smedt F, Liu Y, Gebremeskel S (2000) Hydrologic modeling on a catchment scale using GIS and remote sensed land use information. WIT Press, Risk Anal. II, pp 295–304

    Google Scholar 

  • Devi GK, Ganasri BP, Dwarakish GS (2015) A review on hydrological models. Int Conf Water Resour Coast Ocean Eng 4:1001–1007

    Google Scholar 

  • Dhami BS, Pandey A (2013) Comparative review of recently developed hydrologic models. J. Indian Water Resour. Soc. 33:34–42

    Google Scholar 

  • DHI (2007) MIKE SHE user manual voume 1: user guide. Dan Hydraul Inst, Denmark (1):420

  • Donnelly C, Andersson JCM, Arheimer B (2016) Using flow signatures and catchment similarities to evaluate the E-HYPE multi-basin model across Europe. Hydrol Sci J 61(2):255–273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Downer CW, Nelson EJ, Byrd A (2003) Primer: Using Watershed Modeling System (Wms) for Gridded Surface Subsurface Hydrologic Analysis (GSSHA) Data Development-Wms 6.1 and GSSHA 1.43 C. Engineer Research and Development Center Vicksburg MS Coastal and Hydraulicslab

  • Downer CW, Ogden FL (2004) GSSHA: model to simulate diverse stream flow producing processes. J Hydrol Eng 9(3):161–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman AD (2000) Hydrologic modeling system HEC-HMS: technical reference manual. US Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center

  • Ford D, Pingel N, DeVries JJ (2008) Hydrologic modeling system HEC-HMS applications guide. U.S. Army Corps Eng. Hydrol. Eng. Center, HEC 609 Second St. Davis, CA 95616-4687

  • Gao C, Yao MT, Wang YJ, Zhai JQ, Buda S, Fischer T, Zeng XF, Wang WP (2016) Hydrological model comparison and assessment: criteria from catchment scales and temporal resolution. Hydrol Sci J 61(10):1941–1951

    Google Scholar 

  • Gassman P, Williams J (2009) The agricultural policy environmental extender (APEX) model: an emerging tool for landscape and watershed environmental analyses. Cent Agric Rural Dev (49):109

  • Golmohammadi G, Prasher S, Madani A, Rudra R (2014) Evaluating three hydrological distributed watershed models: MIKE-SHE, APEX, SWAT. Hydrology 1(1):20–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamman JJ, Nijssen B, Bohn TJ, Gergel DR, Mao Y (2018) The variable infiltration capacity model version 5 (VIC-5): infrastructure improvements for new applications and reproducibility. Geosci Model Dev 11(8):3481–3496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hua L, He X, Yuan Y, Nan H (2012) Assessment of runoff and sediment yields using the AnnAGNPS model in a three-gorge water-shed of China. Int J Environ Res Public Health 9(5):1887–1907

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hundecha Y, Arheimer B, Donnelly C, Pechlivanidis I (2016) A regional parameter estimation scheme for a pan-European multi-basin model. J Hydrol Reg Stud 6:90–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Islam Z (2011) A review on physically based hydrologic modeling 46 pp

  • Jaiswal RK, Ali S, Bharti B (2020) Comparative evaluation of conceptual and physical rainfall–runoff models. Appl Water Sci 10(48):1–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Leavesley GH, Lichty RW, Troutman BM, Saindon LG (1983) Precipitation-runoff modeling system: user’s manual. Water-resources Investigation Report 83-4238. https://doi.org/10.3133/wri834238

  • Liang X, Lettenmaie DP, Wood EF, Burges SJ (1994) A simple hydrologically based model of land surface water and energy fluxes for general circulation model. J Geophys Res Atmos 99(D7):14415–14428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindström G, Pers C, Rosberg J, Stromqvist J, Arheimer B (2010) Development and testing of the HYPE (hydrological predictions for the environment) water quality model for different spatial scales. Hydrol Res 41(3–4):295–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu L, Fischer T, Jiang T, Luo Y (2013) Comparison of uncertainties in projected flood frequency of the Zhujiang River, South China. Quat Int 304:51–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu YB, Smedt F De (2009) WetSpa extension, a GIS-based hydrologic model for flood prediction and watershed management documentation and user manual. Manage:1–126

  • Luo C, Li Z, Li H, Chen X (2015) Evaluation of the annAGNPS model for predicting runoff and nutrient export in a typical small water-shed in the hilly region of Taihu lake. Int J Environ Res Public Health 12(9):10955–10973

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markstrom SL, Niswonger RG, Regan RS, Prudic DE, Barlow PM (2008) GSFLOW-Coupled Ground-water and Surface-water FLOW model based on the integration of the Precipitation-Runoff Modeling System (PRMS) and the Modular Ground-Water Flow Model (MODFLOW-2005). US Geological Survey techniques and methods, 6, 240

  • Michaud J, Sorooshian S (1994) Comparison of simple versus complex distributed runoff models on a midsized semiarid water-shed. Water Resour Res 30(3):593–605

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Migliaccio KW, Srivastava P (2007) Hydrologic components of watershed-scale models. A Soc Agric Biol Eng 50(5):1695–1703

    Google Scholar 

  • Orth R, Staudinger M, Seneviratne SI, Seibert J, Zappa M (2015) Does model performance improve with complexity? A case study with three hydrological models. J Hydrol 523:147–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oudin L, Hervieu F, Michel C, Perrin C, Andréassian V, Anctil F, Loumagne C (2005) Which potential evapotranspiration input for a lumped rainfall-runoff model? Part 2 - towards a simple and efficient potential evapotranspiration model for rainfall-runoff modelling. J Hydrol 303(1–4):290–306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parajuli PB, Nelson NO, Frees LD, Mankin KR (2010) Comparison of AnnAGNPS and SWAT model simulation results in USDA-CEAP agricultural water-sheds in south-central Kansas. Wiley Intersci 2274(15):2267–2274

    Google Scholar 

  • Pechlivanidis IG, Arheimer B (2015) Large-scale hydrological modelling by using modified PUB recommendations: the India-HYPE case. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 19(11):4559–4579

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reggiani P, Rientjes THM (2005) Flux parameterization in the representative elementary water-shed approach: application to a natural basin. Water Resour Res 41(4):1–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rwetabula J, de Smedt F, Rebhun M (2007) Prediction of runo ff and discharge in the Simiyu River ( tributary of Lake Victoria, Tanzania ) using the WetSpa model. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci Discuss 4:881–908

    Google Scholar 

  • Scharffenberg W, Fleming M (2010) Hydrologic modeling system HEC-HMS v3. 2 user’s manual. USACE-HEC, Davis, USA

  • Seibert J, Vis MJP (2012) Teaching hydrological modeling with a user-friendly catchment-runoff-model software package. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 16(9):3315–3325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh SK (2016) Long-term stream-flow forecasting based on ensemble stream-flow prediction technique: a case study in New Zealand. Water Resour Manag 30(7):2295–2309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh SK, Marcy N (2017) Comparison of simple and complex hydrological models for predicting catchment discharge under climate change. AIMS Geosci 3(3):467–497

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh VP, Woolhiser DA (2002) Mathematical modeling of watershed hydrology. J Hydrol Eng 7(4):270–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tassew BG, Belete MA, Miegel K (2019) Application of HEC-HMS model for flow simulation in the Lake Tana Basin: the case of Gilgel Abay catchment, Upper Blue Nile Basin, Ethiopia. Hydrology 6(1):1–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tegegne G, Park DK, Kim YO (2017) Comparison of hydrological models for the assessment of water resources in a data-scarce region, the Upper Blue Nile River Basin. J Hydrol Reg Stud 14:49–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang S, Wang Y, Wang Y, Wang Z (2022) Assessment of influencing factors on non-point source pollution critical source areas in an agricultural water-shed. Ecol Indic 141(35):109084

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang ZM, Batelaan O, Smedt F. De (1997) A distributed model for water and energy transfer between soils, plants and atmosphere (WetSpa). Phys Chem Earth 21(3):189–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wigmosta MS, Nijssen B, Storck P, Lettenmaier DP (2002) The distributed hydrology soil vegetation model. Mathematical Models of Small Watershed Hydrology and Applications, 7–42

  • Wigmosta MS, Vail LW, Lettemaier (1994) Adistributed hydrology-vegetation model for complex terrain. Water Resour Res 30(6):1665–1679

  • Williams JR, Izaurralde RC (2010) The APEX model. CRC Press, In watershed models

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams JW, Izaurralde RC, Steglich EM (2008) Agricultural policy/environmental extender model theoretical documentation. AgriLife Res Texas A&M Syst Res Ext Cent

  • World Meteorological Organization (1975) Intercomparison of conceptual models used in operational hydrological forecasting. Oper Hydrol Rep 7:172

    Google Scholar 

  • World Meteorological Organization (1992) Simulated real-time intercomparison of hydrological models. Operational Hydrology Report No. 38, Geneva, Switzerland

  • Xu M, Han H, Kang S (2016) Modeling glacier mass balance and runoff in the Koxkar River basin on the South slope of the Tianshan Mts. during 1959 to 2009, China

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Hydraulic and Water Resource Engineering, Wolaita Sodo University, P.O. Box 138, Wolaita Sodo, Ethiopia

    Mudesir Nesru

Authors
  1. Mudesir Nesru
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mudesir Nesru.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author declares no competing interests.

Additional information

Responsible Editor: Broder J. Merkel

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nesru, M. A review of model selection for hydrological studies. Arab J Geosci 16, 102 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-023-11194-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-023-11194-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation