Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Toward Selection and Improving the Performance of the SWAT Hydrological Model: A Review

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Recent Advances in Civil Engineering for Sustainable Communities (IACESD 2023)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering ((LNCE,volume 459))

  • 34 Accesses

Abstract

In watershed hydrology, it is challenging to physically monitor various aspects that influence the hydrological processes. To quantify these watershed processes in a basin with changing spatial and temporal characteristics, public domain hydrological models incorporating inverse modeling are considered. The quantified processes aid in the decision-making, design, and development of hydrological units. But the first confusion that arises in modeling these processes is which hydrological model should be considered and what methods should be adopted to quantify the best hydrological parameters. Even though a best model is considered hydrologists assumption of parameter insensitivity and uniqueness over varying climatic conditions and space, the conditionality of model calibration with unique technique and performance indicator is prone to the poor performance of the model. Betterment of model performance can be achieved by switching parameters sensitive to varying climatic conditions and reprieving the conditionality of model calibration. Hence, the purpose of this paper is to review (i) different hydrological models available around the globe, (ii) the selection criteria for the hydrological model and the superiority of the SWAT model, (iii) the description of the SWAT model, followed by sensitivity analysis and calibration techniques involved in SWAT output, and (iv) summaries of season-based SWAT evaluation.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Te Chow V, Maidment DR, Mays LW (1988) Applied hydrology. McGraw-Hill, USA

    Google Scholar 

  2. Crawford NH, Linsley RK (1966) Digital simulation in hydrology: Stanford watershed model IV. In: Contemporary hydrology, pp 157–158

    Google Scholar 

  3. Arnold JG, Allen PM, Bernhardt G (1993) A comprehensive surface-groundwater flow model. J Hydrol 142(1–4):47–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(93)90004-S

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bhanja SN, Coon ET, Lu D, Painter SL (2022) Evaluation of distributed process-based hydrologic model performance using only a priori information to define model inputs. J Hydrol 618(June):129176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2023.129176

  5. van Griensven A, Meixner T, Grunwald S, Bishop T, Diluzio M, Srinivasan R (2006) A global sensitivity analysis tool for the parameters of multi-variable catchment models. J Hydrol 324(1–4):10–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.09.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Li Q, Yu X, Xin Z, Sun Y (2013) Modeling the effects of climate change and human activities on the hydrological processes in a semiarid watershed of Loess Plateau. J Hydrol Eng 18(4):401–412. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)he.1943-5584.0000629

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. White ED, Feyereisen GW, Veith TL, Bosch DD (2008) Improving daily water yield estimates in the little river watershed: SWAT adjustments. Am Soc Agric Biol Eng Annu Int Meet ASABE 7(January):4309–4327. https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.25948

  8. Cai Y et al (2023) Enhancing SWAT model with modified method to improve eco-hydrological simulation in arid region. J Clean Prod 403:136891. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136891

  9. Rafiei Emam A, Kappas M, Hoang Khanh Nguyen L, Renchin T (2016) Hydrological modeling in an ungauged basin of central Vietnam using SWAT model. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci Discuss 1–33. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2016-44

  10. Raju K, Nandagiri L (2015) Application and test of the SWAT model in the upper Cauvery river basin, Karnataka, India. In: 4th international engineering symposium, pp 2–8. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.1263.3129

  11. Adhikary PP et al (2019) Effect of calibration and validation decisions on streamflow modeling for a heterogeneous and low runoff-producing river basin in India. J Hydrol Eng 24(7):05019015. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)he.1943-5584.0001792

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Muleta MK (2012) Improving model performance using season-based evaluation. J Hydrol Eng 17(1):191–200. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)he.1943-5584.0000421

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Shin MJ, Guillaume JHA, Croke BFW, Jakeman AJ (2013) Addressing ten questions about conceptual rainfall-runoff models with global sensitivity analyses in R. J Hydrol 503:135–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2013.08.047

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Box G, Jenkins G (1976) Time series analysis: forecasting and control. In: Holden Day, revised edn. San Francisco, p 575

    Google Scholar 

  15. Van Griensven A, Francos A, Bauwens W (2002) Sensitivity analysis and auto-calibration of an integral dynamic model for river water quality. Water Sci Technol 45(9):325–332. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2002.0271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Devak M, Dhanya CT (2017) Sensitivity analysis of hydrological models: review and way forward. J Water Clim Change 8(4):557–575. https://doi.org/10.2166/wcc.2017.149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Khalid K et al (2016) Sensitivity analysis in watershed model using SUFI-2 algorithm. Proc Eng 162:441–447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2016.11.086

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Santos L, Andersson JCM, Arheimer B (2022) Evaluation of parameter sensitivity of a rainfall-runoff model over a global catchment set. Hydrol Sci J 67(3):342–357. https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2022.2035388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Chang CH, Cai LY, Lin TF, Chung CL, Van Der Linden L, Burch M (2015) Assessment of the impacts of climate change on the water quality of a small deep reservoir in a humid-subtropical climatic region. Water 7(4):1687–1711. https://doi.org/10.3390/w7041687

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Jahanshahi A, Golshan M, Afzali A (2017) Simulation of the catchments hydrological processes in arid, semi-arid and semi-humid areas. Desert 22(1):1–10. https://doi.org/10.22059/jdesert.2017.62295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Zettam A, Taleb A, Sauvage S, Boithias L, Belaidi N, Sánchez-Pérez JM (2017) Modelling hydrology and sediment transport in a semi-arid and anthropized catchment using the swat model: the case of the Tafna River (Northwest Algeria). Water 9(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/w9030216

  22. Gao X, Chen X, Biggs TW, Yao H (2018) Separating wet and dry years to improve calibration of SWAT in Barrett watershed, Southern California. Water 10(3):1–13. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10030274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Zhang D, Chen X, Yao H, Lin B (2015) Improved calibration scheme of SWAT by separating wet and dry seasons. Ecol Modell 301:54–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2015.01.018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Yang J, Reichert P, Abbaspour KC, Xia J, Yang H (2008) Comparing uncertainty analysis techniques for a SWAT application to the Chaohe Basin in China. J Hydrol 358(1–2):1–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2008.05.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Abbaspour KC et al (2007) Modelling hydrology and water quality in the pre-alpine/alpine Thur watershed using SWAT. J Hydrol 333(2–4):413–430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2006.09.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Brooks KN, Ffolliott PF, Magner JA (1998) Hydrology and the management of watersheds, vol 27, no. 6

    Google Scholar 

  27. Wagener T et al (2010) The future of hydrology: an evolving science for a changing world. Water Resour Res 46(5). https://doi.org/10.1029/2009WR008906

  28. Feldman AD (2000) Hydrologic modeling system technical reference manual. Hydrol Model Syst HEC-HMS Tech Ref Man 148

    Google Scholar 

  29. Metcalf and Eddy (1971) Storm water management model, vol I—final report, p 338

    Google Scholar 

  30. Mastin MC, Thanh L (2002) User’s guide to SSARRMENU

    Google Scholar 

  31. Liang X, Lettenmaier DP, Wood EF, Burges SJ (1994) A simple hydrologically based model of land surface water and energy fluxes for general circulation models. J Geophys Res 99(D7). https://doi.org/10.1029/94jd00483

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 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 

  34. DHI (2002) MIKE II: a modelling system for rivers and channels. reference manual, DHI software 2002. Horsholm, Denmark

    Google Scholar 

  35. Refsgaard JC, Storm B (1995) MIKE SHE. In: Singh VP (ed), Computer models of watershed hydrology. Water Resources Publications Color., pp 809–847

    Google Scholar 

  36. M. G. McDonald and A. W. Harbaugh, “A modular three-dimensional finite-difference ground-water flow model,” 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Kauffeldt A, Wetterhall F, Pappenberger F, Salamon P, Thielen J (2016) Technical review of large-scale hydrological models for implementation in operational flood forecasting schemes on continental level. Environ Model Softw 75(January):68–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2015.09.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. US Soil Conservation Service and U. D. of Agriculture (1985) National engineering handbook. Section 4, Hydrology. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C

    Google Scholar 

  39. Monteith JL (1965) Evaporation and environment. The stage and movement of water in living organisms. In: 19th symposia of the society for experimental biology. Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  40. Priestley CHB, Taylor RJ (1972) On the assessment of surface heat flux and evaporation using large-scale parameters. Mon Weather Rev 100(2):81–92. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1972)100%3c0081:otaosh%3e2.3.co;2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Green W, Ampt G (1911) Studies on soil physics. J Agric Sci 4(1):1–24. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-agricultural-science/article/abs/studies-on-soil-phyics/6EE03D61E70FCEFD6EAE4D59BFCC1FF9

  42. Seibert J, Staudinger M, van Meerveld HJ (2019) Validation and over-parameterization—experiences from hydrological modeling. Springer International Publishing

    Google Scholar 

  43. Morris MD (1991) Factorial sampling plans for preliminary computational experiments. Technometrics 33(2):161–174. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872086700900503

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Mckay MD, Beckman RJ, Conover WJ (1979) A comparison of three methods for selecting values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code. Technometrics 42(1):55–61. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1271432

  45. Medina Y, Muñoz E (2020) Analysis of the relative importance of model parameters in watersheds with different hydrological regimes. Water 12(9). https://doi.org/10.3390/W12092376

  46. Beven K, Binley A (1992) The future of distributed models: model calibration and uncertainty prediction. Hydrol Process 6(3):279–298. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.3360060305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Duan Q, Sorooshian S, Gupta V (1992) Effective and efficient global optimization. Water Resour Res 28(4):1015–1031

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Metropolis N, Rosenbluth AW, Rosenbluth MN, Teller AH, Teller E (1953) Equation of state calculations by fast computing machines. J Chem Phys 21(6):1087–1092. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1699114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Sharannya TM, Mudbhatkal A, Mahesha A (2018) Assessing climate change impacts on river hydrology—a case study in the Western Ghats of India. J Earth Syst Sci 127(6):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12040-018-0979-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. van Werkohoven K, Wagener T, Reed P, Tang Y (2008) Rainfall characteristics define the value of streamflow observations for distributed watershed model identification. Geophys Res Lett 35(11):1–6. https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GL034162

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Water Resources and Ocean Engineering, National Institute of Technology Karnataka, Surathkal, Mangalore, India

    Hanumapura Kumaraswamy Yashas Kumar & Varija Kumble

Authors
  1. Hanumapura Kumaraswamy Yashas Kumar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Varija Kumble
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hanumapura Kumaraswamy Yashas Kumar .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Kollam, Kerala, India

    N. Vinod Chandra Menon

  2. Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Mangalore, Karnataka, India

    Sreevalsa Kolathayar

  3. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal

    Hugo Rodrigues

  4. Department of Civil Engineering, Jyothy Institute of Technology, Bangalore, Karnataka, India

    K. S. Sreekeshava

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Kumar, H.K.Y., Kumble, V. (2024). Toward Selection and Improving the Performance of the SWAT Hydrological Model: A Review. In: Menon, N.V.C., Kolathayar, S., Rodrigues, H., Sreekeshava, K.S. (eds) Recent Advances in Civil Engineering for Sustainable Communities. IACESD 2023. Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering, vol 459. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-0072-1_28

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-0072-1_28

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-97-0071-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-97-0072-1

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation