Do we need a Community Hydrological Model?

Abstract

We believe that there are too many models in hydrology and we should ask ourselves the question, if we are currently wasting time and effort in developing another model again instead of focusing on the development of a Community Hydrological Model. In other fields, this kind of models has been quite successful, but due to several reasons, no single community model has been developed in the field of hydrology yet. The concept, strength, and weakness of a community model were discussed at the Chapman Conference on Catchment Spatial Behaviour and Complex Organisation held in Luxembourg in September 2014. This discussion as well as our own opinions about the potential of a community models or at least the necessary discussion to establish one are debated in this commentary. There are Too Many Models in HydrologyThis is partly because every generation of PhD students thinks they could do better, partly because there is a wide range of different types of applications with different needs in hydrology, and partly because there is no agreement on a common set of concepts for the process representations. However, many of those models are similar in structure (for both the ''bucket'' model and the ''physically based'' model cases) so that the same, or very similar, concepts have been programmed and tested over and over again. There are advantages to this when models are simple, of course, but as model and data implementations get more and more complex this could be considered a waste of community effort and resources.In the atmospheric modeling domain, there have been initiatives to have community models, both for the atmosphere itself (e.g., CESM [Hurrell et al., 2013] and WRF [Skamarock and Klemp, 2008]) and for the land surface boundary condition, including a representation of the hydrology (e.g., NOAH-MP within WRF [Niu et al., 2011] and CLM [Lawrence et al., 2011]). These models have structured version release and development test bed programs. The Community Land Model (CLM) is widely used as a land surface parameterization in the hydrometeorological community but has not made much impact on the hydrological modeling community. It is not even mentioned in Beven [2012], because it is aimed at partitioning the surface energy balance for different surfaces within a grid, rather than getting better predictions of river discharges. Indeed, it would not pass scrutiny as a satisfactory hydrological model for many hydrologists. Some models developed within the hydrological modeling community have also been released in open source form with a view to building up a large user community (e.g., SWAT, HYPE, or different model codes in R and MATLAB for HBV, TOPMODEL, or Dynamic TOPMODEL (see R codes for both models at http://cran. r-project.org) [e.g., Str€ omqvist et al., 2012;Buytaert, 2013;Fuka et al., 2014;Metcalfe et al., 2015]), and a number of model repositories also exist (e.g., at CSDMS, http://csdms.colorado.edu).The trend in hydrology has rather been to create even more new models, or to provide metamodeling fr...

The evolution of process-based hydrologic models: historical challenges and the collective quest for physical realism

“…We need to expand our prominence in community hydrologic modeling (Wood et al, 2005;Weiler and Beven, 2015), both by providing accessible and extensible modeling tools, and also providing key research datasets and model test cases to scrutinize alternative modeling approaches. Such community activities will result in greater engagement of field scientists in model development and greater collaboration across diverse modeling groups, resulting in substantial improvements in the physical realism and predictive capabilities of hydrologic models.…”

HESS Opinions: Advocating process modeling and de-emphasizing parameter estimation

“…Reasoning can be used to establish constraints and relational rules between parameters, in accordance with relevant organizing principles (this needs to be elaborated via future modeling research), and in accordance with a higher level (global or regional) water balance model. These latter two (conformity with organizing principles and water balance scheme) are particularly relevant when attempting to develop a community hydrological model (Weiler and Beven, 2015) or a hyper-resolution model of everywhere (Beven, 2007;Beven et al, 2015;Beven and Alcock, 2012). Such constraints and relational rules can either be applied manually or by some computer-based procedure (see Gharari et al, 2014;Vidal et al, 2007).…”

Multiple domain evaluation of watershed hydrology models

“…20 SWAT benefits from an enormous user and developer base that has struck a synergistic balance of encouraging grassroots innovation and adaptation (e.g., (Chen and Wu, 2012)), while maintaining model stability and version control. In many ways, it is a Community Hydrologic Model called for by Weiler and Beven (2015). In 2015 alone, 437 journal articles were published based on the SWAT model (CARD and ISU of Science and Technology, 2016).…”