Quantifying Uncertainty in Runoff Simulation According to Multiple Evaluation Metrics and Varying Calibration Data Length

• Published in: Water (Basel) Vol. 16; no. 4; p. 517
• Main Authors: Ziarh, Ghaith Falah, Kim, Jin Hyuck, Song, Jae Yeol, Chung, Eun-Sung
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Basel MDPI AG 01.02.2024
• Subjects: Accuracy; Analysis; Calibration; calibration data length; evaluation metrics; Geospatial data; Hydrology; Optimization; Precipitation; Runoff; Simulation; Simulation methods; uncertainty quantification; South Korea
• ISSN: 2073-4441; 2073-4441
• DOI: 10.3390/w16040517

In this study, the uncertainty in runoff simulations using hydrological models was quantified based on the selection of five evaluation metrics and calibration data length. The calibration data length was considered to vary from 1 to 11 years, and runoff analysis was performed using a soil and water assessment tool (SWAT). SWAT parameter optimization was then performed using R-SWAT. The results show that the uncertainty was lower when using a calibration data length of five to seven years, with seven years achieving the lowest uncertainty. Runoff simulations using a calibration data length of more than seven years yielded higher uncertainty overall but lower uncertainty for extreme runoff simulations compared to parameters with less than five years of calibration data. Different uncertainty evaluation metrics show different levels of uncertainty, which means it is necessary to consider multiple evaluation metrics rather than relying on any one single metric. Among the evaluation metrics, the Nash–Sutcliffe model efficiency coefficient (NSE) and normalized root-mean-squared error (NRMSE) had large uncertainties at short calibration data lengths, whereas the Kling–Gupta efficiency (KGE) and Percent Bias (Pbias) had large uncertainties at long calibration data lengths.