Journal of Hydrology 600 (2021) 126561

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Hydrology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jhydrol

Research papers

Selecting hydrological models for developing countries: Perspective of

global, continental, and country scale models over catchment scale models
Pranesh Kumar Paul a, Yongqiang Zhang a, *, Ning Ma a, Ashok Mishra b, Niranjan Panigrahy c,
Rajendra Singh b
a
Key Laboratory of Water Cycle and Related Land Surface Processes, Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences,
Beijing 100101, China
b
AgFE Department, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, India
c
Sr. Scientist (SWCE), Coordination Unit, c/o the Dean of Research, Odisha University of Agriculture & Technology, Bhubaneswar, India

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

This manuscript was handled by Emmanouil Development and use of global, continental, and country scale hydrological models has attracted an increasing
Anagnostou, Editor-in-Chief attention over the last two decades. Though developed countries are a head in development and assessment of
these models, most developing countries, if not all, even do not have their own models. Therefore, an appropriate
Keywords: model selection process is necessary for these regions to improve the skill in hydrological modelling and pre­
Hydrological model selection
diction at the local-to-global scales. Therefore, a framework for model selection is provided to help hydrological
Developing countries
modelers from various skills. Keeping the framework in view, this paper reviews 70 representative models to
Spatio-temporal scales
Hydrological signatures provide a lucid pathway of selecting models at global, continental and country scales over catchment scale
Testing scheme models. In the process, strengths and weaknesses of models designed for each spatial extension are examined
depending on their spatio-temporal resolutions, the model parameterization schemes for representing multiple
hydrological processes, and the number of parameters. We summarize testing schemes to assess models to decide
among multiple similar models. Finally, we summarize the remaining challenges and discuss future research
directions.

1. Introduction pertaining to hydrological processes are pre-requisite for achieving the

Fresh water availability is getting stressed around the globe because
of continuously increasing population and accelerated socio-economic
growth (Webb et al., 2017; Wang and Yan, 2017). In particular, such
stress has led to a wide range of impacts on regional and/or global
climate because of the changes in soil moisture and terrestrial evapo­
transpiration (Seneviratne et al. 2010, Dirmeyer, 2011). For this reason,
the altered river discharge from contentinents to oceans results in
changes in the sea levels (Milly et al., 2010). Besides, land-use changes
in upstream affect the hydrology and water quality in the downstream
(Freeman et al., 2007), which leads to the notion of the ‘global water
system’ (Alcamo, 2009). This system is further complicated by the
interference from humans through water storage and withdrawals (Rost
et al., 2008). Therefore, it requires a thorough understanding of hy­
drological condition for efficient dealing with the stress via effective
water resources management strategy. While intensive observations
goal, they are often particularly scarce for varying eco-climatic condi­
tions, which is especially true for the developing countries in the world.
In this context, hydrological modelling becomes one of the powerful
tools to develop required scenarios for sustainable management of water
resources (Singh and Frevert, 2006; Beven, 2012; Beven and Young,
2013). Therefore, a wide range of hydrological models are developed
and used for broad range of environmental processes and spatio-
temporal scales (Beven and Kirkby, 1979; Refsgaard and Storm, 1990;
Irannejad and Henderson-Sellers, 2007; Tang et al., 2006; Zhang et al.,
2008, 2016a, 2016b, 2020; Zhang and Chiew, 2009; Schoener, 2010; de
Graaf et al., 2014; Bai et al., 2020; Paul et al., 2020; Nagdeve et al.,
2021).
It is not surprised that the developed countries usually have their
own hydrologic models. However, majority of developing countries
have limited hydrologic modelling capabilities due primarily to the
relatively poor ability in the model maintenance, computational costs

* Corresponding author at: Key Laboratory of Water Cycle and Related Land Surface Processes, Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research,
Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China.
E-mail address: zhangyq@igsnrr.ac.cn (Y. Zhang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.126561
Received 15 April 2021; Received in revised form 2 June 2021; Accepted 8 June 2021
Available online 10 June 2021
0022-1694/© 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
P.K. Paul et al. Journal of Hydrology 600 (2021) 126561

and technical capacity for model simulation. Fortunately, developing
countries has dedicated into the development of certain country-scale
models such as the Satellite based Hydrological Model (SHM) (Paul
et al., 2018, 2019a). Therefore, proper selection of a hydrological model
from representative hydrological models (developed for other areas)
could facilitate an improved skill in hydrological modelling, which
would be of help for decreasing vulnerabilities in water resources
management in developing countries. Nevertheless, every modeler has
their own perception of natural conditions such as landscape variability
and the components of hydrological cycle. In this context, the selection
of an appropriate model should depend on the adequacy for the research
questions including the study purpose, the landscape of the region, and
the spatio-temporal scales. However, previous studies focusing on ‘hy­
drological model selection’ are often chosen according to the legacy,
practicality, convenience, experience and habit (Table 1). Furthermore,
these studies only focus on a few models, which are not able to represent
comprehensive selection scenarios for global requirements.
Having recognized above needs, the aim of this paper is to represent
a pathway of model selection for application in developing countries by
comprehensively reviewing the representative hydrological models. In
the process, a framework for model selection is provided to help hy­
drological modelers from various skills. Besides, we keep in mind the
perspective of global, continental, and country scale models over
catchment scale models. In the process, strengths and weaknesses of
each model are examined depending on their spatio-temporal scales, the
way they represent the complex hydrological processes and the number
of parameters. We summarize a series of model testing schemes to
determine the most suitable one from multiple similar models, in case
there is a dilemma in selection. Finally, the remaining challenges are
summarized and future research directions are discussed. Thus, this
paper may serve as a comprehensive tool for hydrologists all over the
world to have quick and detailed information about 70 representative
models, prior to select an appropriate one.
2. Selection strategy of hydrological models
For appropriate selection of hydrological model, at first, the purpose
of the study should be very clear (Addor and Melsen, 2018). For
example, planning, design and engineering operation for the control and
use of water, study of hydrological cycle, interaction between organisms
and the hydrological cycle, presence and movement of groundwater,
adaptation of information technology to hydrology, study of the transfer
of water and energy, snow melt analysis along with cryosphere model­
ling, hydrologic processes that operate at or near earth’s surface, water
storage in the form of reservoir and flood protection, biosphere model­
ling and chemical characteristics of water in rivers and lakes, both of
pollutants and natural solutes. If the purpose is clear, then we should go
for identifying the appropriate model depending on the representation
of the processes, fluxes and credibility for different climatic conditions
and physiographic settings. Then, we should focus on availability of
model codes, requirements of data and spatio-temporal resolution of the
model. However, we should have model credibility testing to identify
the better model among a few similar ones. To be precise, if situation
comes when we have every data and requirements of a few models and
they also serve our objectives, we need to select only one. Then we must
go for a credibility testing of the models to determine the best one to use.
2.1. Representations of the hydrological processes and fluxes
Ideally, a complete hydrological model would represent the
following water balance components and fluxes: total precipitation
(including both snow and rain), interception storage, evaporation,
throughfall, transpiration, snowmelt, surface storage (e.g., micro de­
pressions, lake and reservoir storage), overland flow, soil storage,
recharge to shallow aquifer, capillary rise, and intermediate flow
(Trambauer et al., 2013). It is to be noted that a more complex model
may not necessarily lead to better results (Orth et al., 2015). For

Table 1
Summary of model selection studies.
Study Models’ Name of models Process Dependency of model selection Recommendations
number

Addor and Melsen, 7 HBV, VIC, mHM, Bibilographic study Legacy rather than adequacy Model comparisons and modular
2018 TOPMODEL, PRMS, GR4J, model framework
SAC
Onyutha, 2016 5 IHACRES, SAC, SIMHYD Auto calibration and model (1) Spatio temporal scales of inputs, Model should be selected on a case
TANK, AWBM evaluation for extreme flows (2) calibration method, (3) by case basis with respect to the
compatibility with data availability objectives and models’ comparison.
and catchments
Zhang et al., 2016a, 3 GR4J, HYDROLOG, H08, Comparison with CABLE Monthly and interannual runoff Models can be improved through
2016b model variability calibrating some of the more
sensitive and less physically based
parameters
Kovář et al., 2016 2 KINFIL physically-based 2D Model Calibration Ensembles of ANNs are a promising Use ANNs
model, and ANN model approach
Sun and Krajewski, 6 Combined rain loss and (1–3 Calibration scheme A preferred model structure alters A calibration objective should be
2013 reservoir structures), Horton with a calibration objective carefully chosen to reflect the aim
rain loss and (1–3 reservoir of a modelling practice
structures)
Gudmundsson 9 GWAVA, H08, H-TESSEL, Ability to capture the mean Annual runoff cycle simulation Model performance is related to the
et al., 2012 JULES, LPJmL, annual runoff cycle is model assumptions
MATSIRO, MPI-HM, assessed
ORCHIDEE, WATERGAP
Surfleet et al., 3 VIC, PRMS, GSFLOW Evaluation of prediction (a) Appropriate parameterization of Appropriate model
2012a, Surfleet uncertainty associated with the models and (b) estimates of parameterization and uncertainty
et al. 2012b climate change assessment uncertainty associated with the analysis is required
modelling approach.
Haddeland et al., 11 GWAVA, H08, HTESSEL, Model intercomparison Uncertainty of model simulation The results show that differences
2011 JULES, LPJmL, MacPDM, between models are a major source
MATSIRO, MPI-HM, of uncertainty
Orchidee, VIC, WaterGAP
Marshall et al., 4 Traditional AWBM, AWBM Bayesian process to decide Uncertainty of model simulation Model should be selected on
2005 structure with 2, 3 and 4 soil model structures uncertainty analysis results
moisture stores

2
P.K. Paul et al.
example, inclusion of the snow-water–ice dynamics may not be useful
for drought predictions, but incorporating the groundwater process does
so. However, snow-water–ice dynamics is an integrated part for cryo­
spheric modelling (Khadka et al., 2020). Because, water stored as snow
and ice is a critical contributor to the world’s available freshwater
supply and is essential to the sustenance of natural ecosystems, agri­
culture, and human societies (Amanambu et al., 2020). To be precise, it
models the distribution of water-mass due to movement of water be­
tween and within the atmosphere, hydrosphere, cryosphere, and ocean
(Dobslaw et al., 2010). Moreover, climate, ecology, the cryosphere, and
hydrology are interconnected in cold regions (Chen et al., 2014). In this
region, glacier is one of the primary climate indicators (Radić and Hock,
2011). The mass change of glaciers alters the hydrologic regime in these
areas. Besides, the long-term changes include thawing permafrost and
altered hydrology related to permafrost dynamics and changes in snow
regime that lead to landscape drying and plant water stress (Callaghan
et al., 2011). Therefore, clear understanding of connections between the
climate, cryosphere, and streamflow is necessary to make informed
decisions regarding water resources (Mosier et al., 2016). So, it requires
implementation of cryosphere hydrology models that are robust across
geographic domains and climatic conditions (Woolway et al., 2020). So,
cryosphere modelling becomes complex in comparison to usual hydro­
logical modelling (Azmat et al., 2016).
Due to relative balance of heat fluxes changes over time and loca­
tions, energy balance i.e. physically based cryosphere models are theo­
retically more robust under altered climate and geographic settings
(Kustas et al., 1994; Sicart et al., 2008; Huss et al., 2009). On the other
hand, conceptual cryosphere models require fewer input data than en­
ergy balance models. Therefore, these are often considered “good
enough” to implement for data-sparse regions (e.g., Hagg et al., 2007;
Jung and Chang, 2011; Lutz et al., 2014). However, several of the energy
balance inputs are even more sparsely measured in certain areas like
mountain environments than precipitation and temperature and often
vary significantly over short spatio-temporal scales. For example, wind
speed linearly scales each convective heat flux (i.e., sensible and latent)
and is therefore necessary for energy balance models. The spatial dis­
tribution of wind speed is, however, difficult to characterize even if
there are measurements of wind speed within the region (Marks et al.,
1992; Marks and Winstral, 2001). Therefore, it allows consideration of
whether including variables such as wind speed improves or reduces
model performance in a given application. Moreover, for model per­
formance to be robust, the means by which a model calculates output
must be representative of the entire range of physical conditions being
modeled (both climatic regimes and geographies). However, there can
be a compromise/addition between model complexity and efficiency, as
per objective. It is therefore important to consider the purpose of the
modelling at first when choosing an appropriate model.
2.2. Availability of codes, data requirements, spatio-temporal resolution
and parameters
The first criterion deals with the represented processes and fluxes of
the models, as discussed in previous sub-section. Meanwhile, we have to
check the availability of codes of the appropriate models before
advancing toward next steps (Kauffeldt et al., 2016). Because, if a model
is appropriate but with unavailable code; then there is no point to go
further with that model for obvious reason. Besides, including all the
possible processes does not necessarily lead to a better performance of
the model if the necessary data are not available (soil, elevation, land
use and land cover, rainfall, temperature, which may vary model to
model). In fact, this may result in a worse performance when comparing
with a simpler model (Orth et al., 2015). For example, a detailed rep­
resentation of groundwater flows and tables would be very relevant for
applications all over the world. However, the lack of information on the
hydrogeology and groundwater tables in any region makes this detail
representation pointless, thus a simpler representation may be
3
Journal of Hydrology 600 (2021) 126561
preferred. Similar concern is also true for models’ input since certain
input data can be scarce in many regions of the globe (Brocca et al.,
2020). For above reasons, it is suggested that there should be a trade-off
between the data availability and process representation (Jehn et al.,
2019). It should be worthwhile to highlight that the spatial resolution of
most of the input data for current hydrological models are typically
coarse (Reinecke et al., 2020). However, grid cell resolution is depen­
dent on computation time, simulation cost and machine capability (Paul
et al., 2018). While downscaling the input to finer scales to run the
model with finer grid size may lead to extra effort; they may still not
yield a better performance (Sen and Tarboton, 2016). At this point the
users should choose a suitable grid cell size for model simulation
maintaining the trade-off with computation time, simulation cost and
machine capability. The same may be the case with the temporal reso­
lution. Some models may have an hourly temporal resolution, but if the
required input meteorological data is available only at a daily resolu­
tion, then the use of the finer temporal resolution may only take extra
computation time without leading to meaningful/usable results.
Therefore, user should pay focus on this point as well. Moreover, user
should consider parameters (in number) into account in the process,
also. Because, a model consists of various parameters that define the
watershed characteristics and hydrological processes (Devia et al.,
2015). The lower the number of parameters will be, the easier the model
will be to calibrate, as the process will be less complex.
2.3. Model credibility
Keeping linkage with the previous two criteria, the processes and
spatio-temporal resolution that are the most meaningful for simulating
the objective wise conditions in respective climatic and physiographic
situations must be regarded. In spite of considering these criteria, we can
have two or more models in hand simultaneously which are appropriate
for application. However, we need only one for a particular case. In this
context, it is necessary to test all of them first for selecting a better one.
Thus, the testing results may ensure successful selection of a model from
a few pre-selected similar models. Meanwhile, thorough testing is
essential for different physiographic and climatic conditions to under­
stand the detailed credibility of any model (Klemeš, 1986). Therefore, at
the time of development every developer should perform a credibility
testing of the model to establish the developed model for a proper future
usage.
In short, we summarize a framework/flowchart for optimum model
selection (Fig. 1). This may help the modeler to select model, wisely.
3. Assessment of representative hydrological models for
selection
Global, continental, and country scale models have been applied
over varying spatio-temporal scales. It is therefore reliable to use one of
these models as per objective and related signatures in developing
countries. However, we can select other models also if their previous
applications do match the spatio-temporal scale of the selected study
area. Nevertheless, the availability of data and code, number of pa­
rameters and spatio-temporal scale will be the final criteria to select the
model. Therefore, we need to, at first, go through a robust classification
scheme.
3.1. Classification of hydrological models
There are many hydrological models with unique and common
characteristics that are being developed day by day (Wang et al., 1996;
Danish Hydraulic Institute (DHI), 2004). In this case, the unique and
common characteristics of many models make classifications of hydro­
logical models an important issue, which would be vital for an accurate
identification of the capabilities and limitations of each model. Proper
classification can be helpful for engineers, experts and researchers to
P.K. Paul et al.
Decide the purpose of the study
Filter models as per detailed classifications to match
with the objectives of the study
Check for process and signatures in
the model for further filter
Check for availability of codes
Check parameters and spatio-temporal
scale
Check for data availability
Routine testing or testing of selected/ filtered multiple similar
models
Make choice of the optimum one
Fig. 1. Flowchart for selecting an appropriate hydrological model.
understand the characteristics of models before deciding to use them for
their purposes. However, the categorizations of hydrological models can
be hammered by considerable overlapping characteristics among
various classes of models (Ma and Gourbesville, 2020). As a result, even
the classification of hydrological models may vary depending on justi­
fication (Wheater et al., 1993; Singh, 1995; Singh and Frevert, 2006).
Thus, classification of hydrological models highly effects the selection of
the appropriate one. In this circumstance, the classification scheme,
inspired by Wheater et al. (1993), is presented in Fig. 2.
Following the ‘space scale-based classification’ scheme shown in
Fig. 2, 70 representative hydrological models are classified for different
spatial classes in stacked Venn diagram (Fig. 3). This comprehensive
figure will help a hydrologic modeler, as a catalogue, to identify
different hydrological models depending on spatial scale.
The models other than of country, continental, and global scales are
usually applied at the catchment scale, and have many parameters that
need to be calibrated or estimated for a given region. Examples of such
models include the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) (Neitsch
et al., 2002), and the Hydrologiska Byråns Vattenbalansavdelning (HBV)
(Lindström et al., 1997). However, there is exception like GR4J model,
which has only four parameters to be used for catchment study.
Although some of these models can, in principle, be applied at the
4
Journal of Hydrology 600 (2021) 126561
country, continental, and global scales, this happens rarely in practice
due to severe information constraints. However, for distributed models
(Fig. 2), the number of parameters may be much more than those are
usually listed. The reason behind this is the consideration of spatial
variation in the soil, elevation data, and the land use and land cover
information. The parameter values usually depend on these varied
conditions. The simple example is the value of ‘SCS-CN’, which may be
regarded as a single parameter. However, in practice, we can see that it
(value) varies over the area in different grid cells/hydrological response
unit (HRUs) depending on the soil and the land use and land cover in­
formation. However, the nature of the parameter remains the same.
Therefore, we should consider these as a single entity.
Therefore, spatial discretization-based classification must be
considered during the selection of a model. However, spatially distrib­
uted parameters make the calibration process complex and time-
consuming. In this circumstance, Fig. 4 represents the spatial
discretization-based classification of the 70 representative models. It can
be seen that the development and use of global, continental, and country
scale models have increased, obviously, in the past two decades (Fig. 4).
Most of these models are semi-distributed models. In fact, the develop­
ment and use of distributed and semi-distributed models have increased
tremendously in comparison to the lumped ones (Fig. 4). For semi-
distributed and distributed models, the grid size selection is linked to
the spatial scale at which the model will be applied. For example, for a
continental scale model the grid cell resolution should be in the order of
several to dozens of kilometres. However, for a river basin scale study,
the grid resolution could be in the order of a few hundred meters. For
coarser grid cells, the processes that are only important at the local scale
(such as overland flow) may not be fully considered in the model
structure. As a result, some global models may not be easily downscaled
to a river basin scale without making significant changes in the structure
of the model. In the same way, it may not be possible to upscale a model
that has been developed for a catchment scale to the continental or
global scale. However, the selected model needs to be applied not only at
country, continental and global scales but also river basin scale without
important modifications in its formulation.
Among these models, most of them are conceptual. The number of
physically-based models and hybrid models are very low. Though, the
number of physically-based cryosphere models is high. Actually,
physically-based models can represent the detailed physical processes in
a deterministic way by representations of mass, momentum, and energy
conservation (Refsgaard, 1996; Singh and Frevert, 2006). However, it is
apparent that there are problems associated with the application of
physically based models such as extensive data and computational re­
quirements (Singh and Woolhiser, 2002; Singh and Frevert, 2006;
Beven, 2012). Therefore, future uses/developments in hydrological
modelling techniques face a dilemma. This leads to the use of conceptual
models, which require comparably lesser data, computational efforts
and time (Singh and Woolhiser, 2002; Singh and Frevert, 2006). This
interpretation supports Fig. 4. Although conceptual hydrological models
are less data and time intensive, global and country scale water re­
sources planning and management requires relatively voluminous input
information. The collection and availability of spatially extensive data
by using the traditional methods of data acquisition is a challenging task
for a large territory. Therefore, hybrid and metric models (the latter
were not shown in the present review) may also be an option. Never­
theless, we do not involve any empirical models because these models
are region- and/or problem-specific, which are unable to meet the global
requirements. Moreover, these 70 representative models are capable of
continuous simulation. Besides, all models are deterministic except
Macro-PDM, which is stochastic in nature. More importantly, most of
the global, continental, and country scale models are semi-distributed.
Only Macro-PDM, LISFLOOD, CROCUS, SNOWPACK, NSIDC-model,
SAST, OGGM and GloGEM models are distributed; whether, HBV is
lumped. So, it is to be noted that, most of the global, continental, and
country scale cryosphere models are of distributed structure.
P.K. Paul et al. Journal of Hydrology 600 (2021) 126561

Hydrological Models

Model structure Time scale based Space scale based Spatial discretization Stochasticity based
based Classification classification classification based classification classification

Continuous Small Size catchment

Metric Model

Catchment Scale models

simulation model model Lumped model
Stochastic model

Medium Size
Conceptual Model Distributed model
Event based model catchment model
Deterministic model

Large Size catchment Semi-distributed

Physics based Model
model Hydrological model

Continental Scale
Hybrid Model Country Scale Hydrological Model
Hydrological model

Global Scale
Hydrological model

Fig. 2. Classification scheme of hydrological models inspired by Wheater et al. (1993).

HYMOD
TANK
AWBM
(B) SAC model
SIMHYD
(C) XAJ
WRF-Hydro
GR4J
(D) HL-RDHM
PCR-GLOBWB HBV SHM SPHY
W3RA TOPLATS NWM HYDROLOG
Macro-PDM PRMS
E-HYPE MODCOU TOPMODEL
WaterGAP AWRA-L
G2G HEC-HMS
WASMOD-M DK Model MIKE-SHE
GWAVA
(MaRIUS)
NSIDC-model ParFlow
NOAH-MP SWIM PIHM
WBMplus SNTHERM ISBA-TRIP
H08 (H07) CROCUS
JULES IHACRES
MPI-HM SNOWPACK PREVAH
CLM LISFLOOD SHI-model DHSVM
VIC MATSIRO FEST-WB
SWAT SAST GSM-SOCONT
ITGG 2.0-R
OGGM PROMET
GloGEM SNOWMOD
TOPKAPI
WASIM-ETH
WATFLOOD
abcd
WEB-DHM
DBHM
BETHY
LEAF-2
UAF-GIPL 2.0
ISNOBAL

Fig. 3. Spatial scale wise classification of selected hydrological models in stacked Venn diagram. (A) Catchment scale (B) Country scale, (C) Continental, (D) Global
models. It is considered that all coarser scaled models can be applied in finer scaled conditions.

Also, models are becoming more complex and resolute as more
functionality is added to these. Besides, finer global spatial datasets are
becoming available. In this manner, issues of the sensitivity of models to
varying spatial and temporal scales of input data have become promi­
nent (Döll et al., 2008). In addition, calibration processes has also
become more and more challenging because of the spatially distributed
parameters. To solve the problem, different automatic calibration
schemes are being used. However, clear knowledge of the auto cali­
bration processes, computational facility and cost do play a big role in
the process. However, global, continental, and country scale models may

5
P.K. Paul et al. Journal of Hydrology 600 (2021) 126561

Fig. 4. Year wise evolution and different variations of representative hydrological models. ‘Blue’ line indicates recent model development window. (For inter­
pretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

provide valuable spatial and temporal estimates of worldwide water
resources (at least of considerable parts), which is conducive to analyze
the possible projections/scenarios of changes of those estimates. In
addition, these multi-scale estimates of water resources obtained
through the models may be an improvement over those data, which are
simply based on the statistical analysis of ground-based observed data,
the latter remains limited and, hence, contains a lot of uncertainty at a
large scale (Rodda, 1995).
3.2. Summary of the signatures of selected hydrological models
The complexities of the models vary based on the objectives. Struc­
tural issues, such as the number of soil layers, the number of land use
classifications, irrigation water applications and reservoir storage are
dealt differently in different models (Sood and Smakhtin, 2015). The
structural differences are also related to inclusion of vegetation growth
models, different types of bucket model (such as leaky bucket, non-leaky
bucket), snow-water–ice dynamics i.e. water phases, liquid treatment,

6
P.K. Paul et al.
physical equations, snow density, layering and permafrost/glacier
treatment, calibration process and number of parameters (Sood and
Smakhtin, 2015).
Therefore, their technical features such as simulation capability of
reservoirs, snow dynamics, irrigation, crop/vegetation setup, ground­
water have been summarized in Fig. 5 and more details are provided in
Table s1 in the supplementary document. With the information of
technical features, a user will be able to select a model he/she wants to
use. However, it needs to be noted that the ‘TANK’ model does not pass
any requirements for the selection. Therefore, it becomes an easy choice
to avoid at the time of model selection. Along with these regular fea­
tures, a few unique features (water phases, liquid treatment, physical
equations, snow density, layering and permafrost/glacier treatment) of
ten selected cryosphere models are summarized in Table 2.
In this circumstance, details of code availability are summarized in
Table 3. It is evident that only 30 models have open source codes among
the 70 selected models. Besides, GWAVA, G2G (MaRIUS), LISFLOOD
only provide the executable programs. Meanwhile, MATSIRO and SWIM
codes are available upon request. On the other hand, PCR-GLOBWB code
is under preparation for being available.
Among the models with available codes, Variable Infiltration Ca­
pacity (VIC) and SWAT models have not only their codes available for
the user but also with good documentation and discussion forum of
users. Thus, the number of users of VIC and SWAT has been greatly
increasing over last few years in comparison to other models, which is
especially evident in developing countries (Wi et al., 2017). However,
use of HEC-HMS and MIKE-SHE is much limited. This is because the user
needs to purchase the codes. In addition, most of country-scale models’
codes are not freely available, which is a major restriction in the way of
their usage. Due to unavailability of codes, 31 models (Table 3) are
comparably limitedly used.
3.3. Comparison of Spatio-temporal scales and the number of parameters
Generally, distributed hydrologic models comprise of large number
of unknown parameters, and model’s efficacy in simulating the hydro­
logical processes depends heavily on the accurate estimation of these
Snow
Reservoirs
Irrigation
Crop/vegetation
Groundwater
Fig. 5. Summary of available information of selected hydrological models.
7
Journal of Hydrology 600 (2021) 126561
parameters through calibration (Krishna and Sudheer, 2020). The pa­
rameters in any distributed hydrological models exist at different spatial
scales. In fact, some parameters are at watershed level, while some are at
sub-basin level or at HRU level (Her et al., 2015). On the other hand,
when we consider them we only identify them as a single parameter.
Because depending on spatial heterogeneity the values of that particular
parameter changes, not the nature of the parameter. Ideally, all of them
are to be calibrated, but it increases the complexity of the optimization
during calibration (Her et al., 2015; Krishna and Sudheer, 2020).
Therefore, a generic procedure is to uniformly perturb the parameters
across the watershed (at different spatial scales) from their default
values to maintain the spatial heterogeneity (Her et al., 2015). So, we
should be careful at the time of calibration of those parameters. In this
condition, we compare the number of parameters and temporal scales of
global, continental, and country scale models.
Comparison of all global scale models against the number of pa­
rameters and temporal scales clearly helps in decision making on their
usage (Fig. 6). In particular, all models simulate at a daily scale except
for H08 (H07) and OGGM models which simulate at 3 h and monthly
scale, respectively. On the other hand, their parameter numbers vary
from 3 (MPI-HM and OGGM) to 42 (NOAH-MP). Depending on the in­
formation, users may choose the optimum models for application. Thus,
the analysis proves to be truth for the increased use of SWAT and VIC
models.
Comparison of all country-scale models against the number of pa­
rameters and temporal scales shows that all models simulate in the daily
scale except for G2G (Marius) (0.25 h/15 min), NWM (6 h), JULES (1 h),
and SNTHERM (0.01 h/900 s) (Fig. 7). On the other hand, their numbers
of parameters vary from 5 (G2G (Marius), and NWM) to 35 (CROCUS)
(Fig. 7). Depending on the information, user may select the optimum
models for application in this case. However, the compatibility of the
database and available data over the countries may play an important
role in the model selection.
The comparison of all continental-scale models (other than the
global and country scale models in Figs. 6 and 7) are performed in Fig. 8
against the number of parameters and temporal scale. The figure depicts
that all the models simulate in the daily scale. On the other hand, their
PCR-GLOBWB, W3RA, HBV, SHM, WaterGAP, WASMOD-M,
GWAVA, NOAH-MP, PREVAH, XAJ, H08 (H07), MPI-HM, E-HYPE,
G2G (MaRIUS), SWIM, NWM, WRF-Hydro, GR4J, HL-RDHM, SPHY,
WBMplus, VIC, PRMS, TOPMODEL, JULES, HEC-HMS, MIKE-SHE,
LISFLOOD, DHSVM, DK Model, ParFlow, PIHM, SWAT, MATSIRO,
FEST-WB, GSM-SOCONT, ITGG 2.0-R, PROMET, SNOWMOD,
TOPKAPI, WASIM-ETH, WATFLOOD, OGGM, GloGEM, SAST,
NSIDC-model, SNTHERM, CROCUS, SNOWPACK, UAF-GIPL 2.0, SHI-
model, ISNOBAL
WaterGAP, GWAVA, H08 (H07), SWIM, NWM, SPHY, WBMplus,
HEC-HMS, MIKE- SHE, LISFLOOD, DK Model, SWAT, IHACRES
WaterGAP, GWAVA, H08 (H07), NWM, SPHY, WBMplus, MIKE-
SHE, DK Model, ParFlow, SWAT, MATSIRO, IHACRES
PCR-GLOBWB, W3RA, TOPLATS, Macro-PDM, WaterGAP,
GWAVA, NOAH-MP, H08 (H07), SWIM, WBMplus, AWARA-L, VIC,
DHSVM, ParFlow, ISBA-TRIP, SWAT, IHACRES, abcd, WEB-DHM,
DBHM, BETHY, LEAF-2
PCR-GLOBWB, W3RA, TOPLATS, HYMOD, SIMHYD, Macro-PDM, SHM,
WaterGAP, WASMOD-M, GWAVA, NOAH-MP, XAJ, H08 (H07), CLM, E-
HYPE, G2G (MaRIUS), SWIM, NWM, MODCOU, WRF- Hydro, SPHY,
WBMplus, HYDROLOG, AWRA-L, VIC, PRMS, TOPMODEL, MIKE- SHE,
LISFLOOD, DHSVM, DK Model, ParFlow, PIHM, ISBA-TRIP, SWAT,
MATSIRO, IHACRES, FEST-WB, GSM-SOCONT, ITGG 2.0-R, PROMET,
SNOWMOD, TOPKAPI, WASIM-ETH, abcd, WEB-DHM, DBHM, LEAF-2,
OGGM, SAST, NSIDC-model, CROCUS, UAF-GIPL 2.0, SHI-model, ISNOBAL
P.K. Paul et al. Journal of Hydrology 600 (2021) 126561

Table 2
Summary of unique signatures of selected cryosphere models.
Model Physical Water phases Layering Liquid water treatment Snow density Permafrost/
equations Glacier treatment

OGGM Mass-balance Ice, Liquid water Single Gravitational flow Function of mass balance Yes
GloGEM Energy-mass Air, Ice, Liquid 10 layers Temperature based treatment Function of mass balance Yes
balance water
SAST Energy-mass Dry air, Ice, 3 layers Liquid water–holding capacity Function of mass balance and compaction None
balance Liquid water as function of snow density
NSIDC- Energy- Ice, Liquid water 3 layers Temperature based treatment Calibration Parameter Yes
model balance
SNTHERM Energy-mass Ice, Liquid water, Multilayers/3 Gravitational flow Function of mass balance and compaction None
balance Vapor layers
CROCUS Energy-mass Ice, Liquid water, Multilayers Function of weather condition Function of weather condition Yes
balance Vapor
SNOWPACK Energy-mass Air, Ice, Liquid Multilayers As a function of viscosity As microstructure with the size, shape and None
balance water, Vapor bonding of the grains composing the ice
lattice
UAF-GIPL Energy- Dry air, Ice, Multilayers Temperature based treatment Function of energy/mass balance Yes
2.0 balance Liquid water
SHI-model Energy- Dry air, Ice, 4 layers Temperature based treatment Function of energy balance Yes
balance Liquid water
ISNOBAL Energy- Dry air, Ice, 2 layers Function of snow cover Function of temperature None
balance Liquid water, saturation
Vapor

Table 3
Summary of code availability of different models.

Note: ‘Green’, ‘Blue’ and ‘Red’ colours represent global, continental and country scale models respectively. The others are catchment scale models.

numbers of parameters vary from 4 (WBMplus) to 80 (SWIM).
Depending on the information, user may choose optimum models for
application.
We further compare the spatial scales of all global, continental, and
country scale models in Table 4. It shows that global scale models
simulate in coarser resolutions than the country-scale models. Though,
the cryosphere models namely OGGM and GloGEM are the exceptions in
comparison to their country and continental scale counter parts. How­
ever, the database compatibility in different regions may be an issue to
use a-country scale model over a global scale model for regional studies.
Moreover, the explosion of global data availability from satellites in the
last two decades has an influence on the development of global hydro­
logical model (Tang et al., 2009). Although some global models are
applied at different range of scales, they have been developed for global
scale studies (Beck et al., 2016). Meanwhile, they would not be the
preferred choice in basin-scale applications, due to their coarser reso­
lution and poor local applicability.
3.4. Testing of hydrological models
Any model should be tested against observations to check its appli­
cability, capacity, and capability in different spatio-temporal scales
(Klemeš, 1986). It may help in selecting the best model for a specific
purpose from multiple eligible models. With increasing number of newly
developed models, several contradictions have emerged regarding the
various claims of model applicability and lack of documentation for

8
P.K. Paul et al. Journal of Hydrology 600 (2021) 126561

GloGEM

SHI-model

500 m
SAST
<1 km

0.5◦
OGGM

SNOWPACK

200–250 m
′
5
SWAT

E-HYPE
HRU

HRU
CROCUS

1 km
◦
VIC
Fig. 6. Comparison of the number of parameters and temporal scales of global

0.1
scale models. Note: Size of the 2D-bubbles indicates the time scale of the
models. All models are of 24 h scale except H08 (H07) and OGGM, which are of

SNTHERM
Watershed
3 h and monthly scales, respectively.

3.125 km
CLM

30 arc s-1 km
TOPLATS
NSIDC-model
MPI-HM
◦
0.5

25 km
H08 (H07)
◦
1 /0.5

DK Model

500 m
◦

SWIM

HRU
NOAH-MP
Fig. 7. Comparison of the number of parameters and temporal scales of

JULES

1 km
◦
country-scale models. Note: Size of the 2D-bubbles indicates the time scale of

1/8
the models. All models are of 24 h scale except G2G (Marius) (0.25 h/15 min),
NWM (6 h), JULES (1 h) and SNTHERM (0.01 h/900 s).

Any resolution
0.5 /0.1
GWAVA
◦

MATSIRO
AWRA-L

Sub-grid
Summary of spatial resolution currently used for different global scale and country scale models.

WASMOD-M

MODCOU

Note: The spatial resolution of models may vary depending on the input data resolution
1–8 km
◦
0.5
WaterGAP

250 m
NWM

LISFLOOD

Sub-grid
◦
0.5

Continental Scale model (Other than above global and country scale model)

Fig. 8. Comparison of the number of parameters and temporal scales of

G2G (MaRIUS)
Macro-PDM

continental-scale models (other than global and country scale models). Note:
Size of the 2D-bubbles indicates the time scale of the models. All models are of
24 h scale.
◦
0.5

1 km

these claims. For example, a developer or an institute always tries to

highlight their model and represent it as the best. Therefore, their
W3RA

WBMplus
1–5 km

credibility is often questionable for valid reasons. Generalized termi­

◦

SHM
1

0.5◦

nology regarding credibility is given by Schlesinger et al. (1979). The

credibility of a site-specific model is the capability to make predictions
PCR-GLOBWB

about reality and the model must be evaluated against independent data
Catchment

(Refsgaard and Henriksen, 2004). Testing of model is synonymous with

model verification. Verification is ‘‘an assertion or establishment of
HBV
◦
0.5

truth’’ i.e. verify a model means to demonstrate its truth (Oreskes et al.,
Country scale model

1994). The model is proved to be validated if its accuracy and predictive

Global scale model

capability in the validation period have been shown to lie within

Grid resolution

Grid resolution

Grid resolution

acceptable limits (Refsgaard, 1997). Hence, generalized validation

methodologies which are widely accepted in hydrology have been
Table 4

Name

Name

Name

extensively studied (Klemeš, 1986; Andréassian et al., 2009; Krause

9
P.K. Paul et al.
et al., 2005; Schaefli and Gupta, 2007; Gupta et al., 2009). Along with
that, important guidelines for the validation process are given by
strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) analysis (Hill
and Westbrook, 1997), a tool for strategic planning that can be used to
evaluate these four aspects associated with a model and its application.
However, Klemeš (1986) represented a scheme for the credibility of any
model over different spatial and temporal conditions, i.e. for stationary
and transient conditions. Depending on these studies and inspired by the
testing scheme of Klemeš (1986), credibility testing of the multiple
global, continental, and country scale hydrological models is summa­
rized in Fig. 9.
The previous studies using hierarchical operational testing and
comparison of a model with other well-established models have been
summarized in Tables 5 and 6, respectively, to represent the validity of
the summarized classification scheme. The two tables also show the path
on how to identify a single model from multiple similar models. Besides,
it is clear that there are very rear applications of all the steps of hier­
archical operational testing, altogether. In theory, it is highly important
to apply all the steps altogether; but in practice, most of the steps are
separately applied in different studies, since current hydrological model
applications often consist of split sample test (Refsgaard and Knudsen,
1996; Loague and Freeze, 1985; Paul et al., 2019a). Then only the real
credibility of a model will be identified for data available condition.
Consequently, Table 6 shows that in most of the cases, SWAT is
considered as the widely-used model when comparing with other
models (Mannschatz et al., 2016). However, there is no available study
which has performed hierarchical operational testing and comparison
with other established models for a complete model testing. Therefore,
application of this testing scheme may be helpful for selecting an
appropriate hydrological model from multiple similar models.
4. Challenges and future Research directions
4.1. Challenges
A comprehensive review of 70 representative hydrological models
has been conducted in this study surrounding year of development,
objectives, and different signatures along with spatial and temporal
resolutions of the models to compare with each other to underpin a
selection way-out for developing countries keeping global, continental,
Testing of a single
model
Stationary Conditions
Same Situation Different situation Same Situation
Proxy basin test/
Split -Sample Test
Regionalization study
Combinedly known as Hierarchical Operational Testing (V. Klemes, 1986)
Fig. 9. Classification showing the credibility testing processes of a hydrological model.
10
Journal of Hydrology 600 (2021) 126561
country, and catchment scale models in view. It shows that there is a
breadth of issues to consider when undertaking a model selection
process.
• No model is error free and is subject to update. This is due to
compromise in model structures to balance with computation capa­
bility and objective (Mcmillan et al., 2011). Nevertheless, a newly
updated/developed model for a specific area can improve upon the
previous models. Therefore, if required and if possible, it may be
better to develop a new model for a new study in a particular country
or region rather than selecting a model which has been developed for
other places. In that case, balancing of complexities of model inputs,
model structure, and the number of parameters is a challenge
(Refsgaard and Knudsen, 1996).
• Model selection is difficult due to unavailability of model input,
model structure complexity and complicated parameterization (Xie
and Lian, 2013). Moreover, a complex model does not mean it could
provide better results (Orth et al., 2015). For this reason, a simpler
model is still preferable if the study purpose does not require detailed
representation of the complex hydrological processes such as irri­
gation and groundwater dynamics. However, the data availability in
particular format and resolution is of utmost importance and chal­
lenging to deal with.
• It is challenging yet necessary to balance user skills for selecting a
suitable model. As there are different levels of hydrological modelers
and their skills also vary from beginner to experienced; model se­
lection process gets biased. The beginners, first of all, may not have
sufficient knowledge to understand the capability of a model for a
particular study. On the other hand, experienced modelers will have
surely that idea. Besides, the beginners may be interested in using
graphical user interface based models. Meanwhile, experienced
modelers will focus on the modelling processes and parameteriza­
tion. Thus, a popularity index may help to solve the issue, which is a
challenging task for the researchers (Mannschatz et al., 2016).
• All models are not available in a single platform with listed advan­
tages, disadvantages and other details. Moreover, certain model
manuals are also not available. The manuals are written sometimes
in local languages other than English. Therefore, the best solution
may be to organize all the models and related information in a single
platform (preferably web inventory), which will facilitate the inter-
Testing for credibility
of hydrological models
Testing among
multiple models
Comparison of the
outputs of respective
Transient Conditions
models for similar
conditions
Different situation
Proxy basin
Differential Split
differential split
Sample Test
sample test
P.K. Paul et al. Journal of Hydrology 600 (2021) 126561

Table 5 developing countries, to make choice of appropriate models.

Summary of studies using hierarchical operational testing.
Name of the Author (s) Remarks • The scientist from developing countries should think about projects
Model for development of hydrological models for their own countries
Split Sample Test Commonly Refsgaard and The key validation (Souffront Alcantara et al., 2019). It can have different versions as
used for each Knudsen, 1996; concept in Split- per different objectives. They may need help from scientists who
model from Loague and Freeze, sample test is that have developed hydrological models earlier in developed countries.
long past 1985; Paul et al., the model makes They can imply their own learning and capabilities, also, to develop a
2019a accurate predictions
outside the
model with own technology.
calibration period • A well-prepared database platform (for various input information) is
Proxy basin Test/ Quasi- Jakeman and Proxy-basin (PB) required to simulate hydrological models full of copious information
Regionalization distributed Hornberger, 1993; test, second level of spreading across various spatio-temporal scale. Because detailed
study models Bloschl and operational testing,
input information lead to meaningful model simulation, depending
Sivapalan, 1995; claims for
Parajka et al., 2005; geographic on modelling objective and model characteristics. However, there
Kim and transposability but are different techniques for hydrological simulation in data scarce
Kaluarachchi, at the same time conditions. But, a well-prepared and comprehensive database plat­
2008; Jin et al., testing basin should form, containing different input information, will make hydrological
2009; Li et al., lie in geographic
2009; Zhang and similarity with the
model selection and hence hydrological modelling easier. As,
Chiew, 2009; proxy basin. If different model needs different spatio-temporal input information
Samuel et al., 2011; catchment models (Devia et al., 2015). The platform can be online so that user from
Pereira et al., 2016; are merely required various level and institute can access it easily. Therefore, this will be
Paul et al., 2019a to simulate
a great field for future research and improving confidence on several
streamflow under
conditions similar to models to be applied in developing countries.
those during • Model selection should be keeping balance with the thinking of both
calibration, then one beginners and experienced researchers so that global hydrology
can select one of gains the most. Therefore, it should be taken seriously as a future
many suitably
research direction. For example, webinar and conferences can be
parameterized
transfer functions to organized to know each other’s view, as done by SWAT model de­
perform the task velopers, regularly. We may focus on developing a popularity index
Differential Split Gleick, 1987; Xu In third level of to compare the view of all sides, numerically (Mannschatz et al.,
Sample Test and Halldin, 1997; testing, catchment is
2016).
Seiller et al., 2015; subjected to non-
Paul et al., 2019a stationary • Preparation of a single web inventory for all hydrological models and
conditions i.e. either their related detailed information should be taken as a future
catchment is research direction very seriously (Mannschatz et al., 2016). Since, it
experiencing can be an easier way to find all models together before selection from
significant LULC
a lot. All scientists from all over the world should contribute in this
change or significant
long-term climate platform to make it as easy to understand as possible.
change, then • It is interesting to test the transferability of lumped catchment model
Differential Split- to gridded hydrological model (Meng et al., 2018). Lumped models
sample test (DSS) is
are used for simple and focused modelling purpose (Liu et al., 2021).
used.
Proxy basin Refsgaard and Fourth level of the
However, a lumped model may provide better results in complex
Differential Knudsen, 1996; Xu, scheme is Proxy- scenario and suit a study area well, if it is transferred to gridded
Split Sample 1999; Paul et al., basin Differential structure (Meng et al., 2018). Therefore, interchange of lumped
test 2019a Split-sample test, models into gridded structure may be an option for future research.
which is applied for
In the process, we may know the capability of model in different
universal
transposability. resolution and area.
• Testing of a model with different resolution is of utmost importance
in future (Paul et al., 2020). This test should be done from regional to
comparisons of global, continental, and country scale models before global scale (Valentina et al., 2020). Most importantly, this is a must
applying them for a specific purpose (Mannschatz et al., 2016). This for country scale model. Because every model has its own structure
remains one of the major challenges in hydrological modelling. and performance may vary depending on different grid cell resolu­
• It is challenging to identify optimum spatial resolution for a partic­ tions (Paul et al., 2018). Coarser grid cell resolution may ignore
ular study. Identification of spatial resolution is a vital issue and details in land use and land cover, overland flow networks but finer
remains one of the key research gaps in the current model selection grid cell resolution may increase model simulation time (Paul et al.,
studies. A coarser resolution may provide acceptable results in the 2018). Depending on the purpose of study, model structure and
global scale, but may be not adequate for studies at the regional model simulation time, the final spatial resolution of model should
scales; as the latter typically requires a finer resolution. It should be be decided.
noted that, however, different spatial resolution would lead to
different model simulation time, computational capability, and costs. 5. Concluding Remarks
Therefore, identification of the optimum resolution always remains a
great challenge. This study scrutinize 70 representative hydrological models, to
explore the selection procedure keeping focus on global, continental and
4.2. Future Research directions country scale models in view. Here, we discuss the advantages and
limitations of the models to be used for different spatial extensions,
Keeping the challenges in mind, following future directions are dis­ following a general framework of model selection. We summarize model
cussed for helping hydrologists, particularly those coming from testing schemes to determine the most suitable one among multiple

11
P.K. Paul et al. Journal of Hydrology 600 (2021) 126561

Table 6
Summary of studies carrying on to compare a model with other well-established model/models.
Name of the models Number of Difference in structure Authors Purpose of study Remarks
compared models
compared

SWAT-HRU and 2 SWAT with HRU and grid Manguerra and Hydrologic parameterization of Differences in discretization scheme
SWAT-grid configuration Engel, 1998 watershed for runoff prediction did not result into any significant
discrepancies in estimated
streamflow hydrographs
HSPF and SWAT 2 Grid-based models with HRU- Singh et al., 2004 To verify the simulation abilities of the Both models show poor simulation
based SWAT model models on monthly and annual basis for low flows
MIKE-SHE and SWAT 2 Fully distributed, grid-based El-Nasr et al., Modelling the hydrology of a catchment Both models are equally able to
MIKE SHE and the semi- 2005 using a distributed and a semi- simulate the hydrology in the basin,
distributed, HRU-based SWAT distributed model despite MIKE SHE predicted the
overall variation of streamflow
slightly better.
HSPF and SWAT 2 Grid-based models with HRU- Im et al., 2007 For runoff and sediment yield prediction Both the SWAT and HSPF watershed
models based SWAT model models performed sufficiently well
in the simulation of stream flow and
sediment yield with HSPF
performing moderately better than
SWAT for simulation time-steps
greater than a month
SWAT, HSPF and 3 Grid-based models with HRU- Nasr et al., 2007 For modelling exported phosphorus A high resolution grid approach
SHETRAN/GOPC based SWAT model would include the impact of an
upslope grid cell on a downslope grid
cell and provide accurate spatial
detailed output.
Modified SWAT with 4 Modified SWAT model, with Arnold et al., To identify an appropriate spatially The advantage of the catena and grid
four discretization landscape routing method, to 2010 distributed representation of basin models is that the impacts of spatial
schemes: lumped, compare model simulation hydrology and nutrient transport changes in land use and BMPs on the
HRU, catena and results with four subdivision processes for sustainable river basin hillslope valley continuum can now
grid methods: lumped, HRU, catena management. be more realistically assessed
and grid
WASMOD and SWAT 2 Grid-based models with HRU- Li et al., 2011 To simulate the runoff and actual Both WASMOD and SWAT are
based SWAT model evapotranspiration (AET) in Yingluoxia proved to be suitable and
watershed, the upper reaches of Heihe satisfactory tools in simulating
River basin in northwest of China, to hydrological processes in the study
validate their performances in area, although both of them have
simulating hydrological processes strengths and limitations in
applications. WASMOD model may
be one of the promising alternatives
in hydrological modelling.
PRMS and GSFLOW 3 Two HRU-based models (PRMS Surfleet et al., For future climate change analysis The future changes can
with VIC model and GSFLOW) with grid-based 2012a, Surfleet quantitatively be attributed not only
VIC model (grid cell resolution et al. 2012b to the scale of the models but also to
( )◦
1 the ability of the models to represent
of ) the hydrological processes.
16
WaSim, SWAT, UHP- 4 Grid-based models with HRU- Cornelissen et al., For assessing the impact of land use and The major weakness of the
HRU, GR4J based SWAT model 2013 climate change on discharge in a hydrological models are the poor
tropical catchment representation of catchment soil
characteristics and their processes
related to runoff generation
SWAT and HSPF 2 Grid-based models with HRU- Hua and Lian, Uncertainty-based evaluation SWAT may have some advantage
based SWAT model 2013 when calibration data are lacking or
scarce.
HIT, RUSLE2 and 3 Grid-based models with HRU- Sommerlot et al., To evaluate the capabilities of The results of this study suggest
SWAT based SWAT model 2013 watershed-scale models in estimating caution should be exercised when
sediment yield using watershed-scale models for
field level decision-making, while
field specific data is of paramount
importance.
SWAT and DLBRM 2 Grid-based models with HRU- Zhang et al., For hydrological modelling of a Because of simplicity DLBRM seems
based SWAT model 2016a, 2016b mountainous watershed more suitable for hydrological
modelling
HRU and grid-based, 2 HRU and grid-based, SWAT Pignotti et al., Comparative analysis of HRU and grid- Grid-based structure under predicts
SWAT model model 2017 based SWAT models. streamflow by 5% to 50% with
respect to HRU-based model
SWAT and SHM 2 Grid-based models with HRU- Paul et al., 2019b Comparative Study of Two State-of-the- The analysis confirms the superiority
based SWAT model Art Semi-Distributed Hydrological of SHM over its counterpart.
Models
NSIDC-model, SHI- 3 Production of gridded active (Shiklomanov To compare gridded active layer No simple answer to the question
model and UAF- layer thickness (ALT) fields et al., 2007) thickness (ALT) fields ‘‘which model produced active layer
GIPL 2.0 field is better?’’

12
P.K. Paul et al.
similar ones though testing. Finally, the challenges and future research
directions are summarized. Thus, this paper may serve as a compre­
hensive inventory of representative models, for hydrologists all over the
world, to have quick and detailed information. However, this study
should be carried on further by considering other models and focusing
on the discussed challenges and future perspectives.
6. Acronyms used in the paper
ParFlow, A parallel watershed flow model
TOPMODEL, A TOPography based hydrological MODEL
Artificial Neural Networks (ANN)
Australian Water Balance Model (AWBM)
Biosphere Energy Transfer Hydrology Model (BETHY)
CASCade Two Dimensional (CASC2D)
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization
(CSIRO)
Community Land Model (CLM)
Danish Hydraulic Institute (DHI)
Distributed biosphere hydrological model (DBHM)
Distributed Hydrological Soil Vegetation Model (DHSVM)
Dynamic Watershed Simulation Model (DWSM)
European Hydrological Predictions for the Environment (E-HYPE)
Flash-Flood Event–Based Spatially Distributed Rainfall–Runoff
Transformation–Water Balance (FEST-WB)
Glacier and SnowMelt-SOil CONTribution (GSM-SOCONT)
Global Glacier Evolution Model (GloGEM)
Global Hydrological Routing Algorithm (HYDRA)
Global Water Availability Assessment model (GWAVA)
Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE)
Gridded Surface Subsurface Hydrologic Analysis (GSSHA)
Grid-to-Grid (G2G)- Managing the Risks, Impacts and Uncertainties
of drought and water Scarcity (MaRIUS) model Great Britain
Groundwater and Surface-water FLOW (GSFLOW)
HydroDynamic Model (HDTM 1.0)/Water Balance Model(WBM)
plus/Water Balance Model-Water Transport Model (WBM-WTM)
Hydrologic Engineering Centre-Hydrological Modeling System
(HEC-HMS)
Hydrologic Simulation Model (HYSIM)
Hydrological Simulation Program Fortran (HSPF)
Hydrologiska Byråns Vattenavdelning (HBV)
Hydrology tiled ECMWF scheme of Surface Exchanges over land
(HTESSEL)
Identification of Unit Hydrographs and Component Flows from
Rainfall, Evaporation and Stream (IHACRES)
Interactions between Soil, Biosphere and Atmosphere- Total Runoff
Integrating pathways (ISBA-TRIP)
Lund-Postdam-Jena managed Land model (LPJmL)
Macro-scale Probability Distributed Moisture Model (Macro-PDM)
Max Planck Institute Hydrology Model (MPI-HM)
Mesoscale Hydrologic Model (mHM)
MIKE-Systeme Hydrologique Europeen (SHE)
Minimal Advanced Treatments of Surface Interaction and Runoff
(MATSIRO)
Modèle du Génie Rural à 4 paramètres Journalier (GR4J)
MODélisation COUplée (MODCOU)
Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NOAH)
National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC)-model
National Water Model (NWM)
National Water Resources Model for Denmark (DK Model)
Nedbør-Afstrømnings Model (NAM) (Danish Hydraulic Institute DHI)
NAM
NOAH Land Surface Model Multi-Physics (NOAH-MP)
Open Global Glacier Model (OGGM)
Parameter Solution (Parasol)
13
Journal of Hydrology 600 (2021) 126561
PCRaster GLOBal Water Balance model (PCR-GLOBWB)
Penman-Monteith (P-M)
Penn State Integrated Hydrologic Model (PIHM)
Pennsylvania State University (PSU)
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK)
Precipitation-Runoff Modeling System (PRMS)
PREcipitation-Runoff-EVApotranspiration HRU model (PREVAH)
Processes of Radiation, Mass and Energy Transfer (PROMET)
River-Transfer Hydrological Model (RiTHM)
SACRAMENTO (SAC) model
Satellite based hydrological model (SHM)
SIMplified HYDrolog (SIMHYD)
SNow THERmal Model (SNTHERM)
Snow–Atmosphere–Soil Transfer (SAST)
Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT)
Soil and Water Integrated Model (SWIM)
Soil Conservation Service-Curve Number (SCS-CN)
Soil Moisture Active Passive (SMAP)
Spatial Processes in Hydrology (SPHY)
State Hydrological Institute (SHI)-model
Surface water area model (SWAM)
Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute (SMHI)
The Atmosphere and Ocean Research Institute (AORI), University of
Tokyo
The Australian Water Resource Assessment Landscape (AWRA-L)
The Bureau of Meteorology (BoM), Australia
The Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH)
The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization
(CSIRO)
The Engineer Research and Development Center of the United States
Army Corps of Engineers (ERDC-USAE)
The Institute of Hydrology (IH), UK
The Joint UK Land Environment Simulator (JULES)
The National Institute of Environmental Studies (NIES)
The Soil Conservation Service (SCS)
The TOPmodelbased Land–Atmosphere Transfer Scheme (TOPLATS)
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
TOPographic Kinematic APproximation and Integration (TOPKAPI)
United State Department of Agriculture-Agriculture Research Service
(USDA-ARS)
United States Geological Survey (USGS)
University of Alaska Fairbanks–Geophysical Laboratory (UAF-GIPL)
2.0
Variable Infiltration Capacity (VIC)
Washington State University (WSU)
WASIM-ETH (Water Balance Simulation Model)
Water and energy budget-based distributed hydrological model
(WEB-DHM)
Water And Snow balance MODeling system (WASMOD-M)
Water-Global Analysis and Prognosis (WaterGAP)
Weather Research and Forecasting Model (WRF)-Hydro
World-Wide Water Resources Assessment (W3RA)
Xinanjiang (XAJ)
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Pranesh Kumar Paul: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal
analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Validation, Visualiza­
tion, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing. Yongqiang
Zhang: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Meth­
odology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Writing - re­
view & editing. Ning Ma: Validation, Visualization, Writing - review &
editing. Ashok Mishra: Writing - review & editing. Niranjan Pani­
grahy: Writing - review & editing. Rajendra Singh: Writing - review &
editing.
P.K. Paul et al.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
This study is supported by CAS Talents Program, the National Nat­
ural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 41971032), the Second
Tibetan Plateau Scientific Expedition and Research Program
(2019QZKK0208), the “Science for a Better Development of Inner
Mongolia” Program of the Bureau of Science and Technology of the
Inner Mongolia Province and CAS-CSIRO drought propagation collab­
oration project. The authors thank anonymous reviewers and editors for
their critical and constructive reviews for improving the paper quality.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.126561.
References
Addor, N., Melsen, L.A., 2018. Legacy, rather than adequacy, drives the selection of
hydrological models. Water Resour. Res. 55 (1), 378–390. https://doi.org/10.1029/
2018WR022958.
Alcamo, J., 2009. Managing the global water system. In: Levin, S. (Ed.), Princeton guide
of ecology. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Amanambu, A.C., Obarein, O.A., Mossa, J., Li, L., Ayeni, S.S., Balogun, O., Oyebamiji, A.,
Ochege, F.U., 2020. Groundwater system and climate change: present status and
future considerations, 125163 J. Hydrol. 589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jhydrol.2020.125163.
Andréassian, V., Perrin, C., Berthet, L., Le Moine, N., Lerat, J., Loumagne, C., Oudin, L.,
Mathevet, T., Ramos, M.-H., Valéry, A., 2009. HESS opinions crash tests for a
standardized evaluation of hydrological models. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 13,
1757–1764.
Arnold, J.G., Allen, P.M., Volk, M., Williams, J.R., Bosch, D.D., 2010. Assesment of
different representations of spatial variability on SWAT model performance. Trans.
Am. Soc. Agric. Biol. Eng. (ASABE) 53 (5), 1433–1443. https://doi.org/10.13031/
2013.34913.
Azmat, M., Choi, M., Umar, T.K., Liaqat, W., Kim, T., 2016. Hydrological modeling to
simulate streamflow under changing climate in a scarcely gauged cryosphere
catchment. Environ. Earth Sci. 75 (3), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-015-
5059-2.
Bai, P., Liu, X., Zhang, Y., Liu, C., 2020. Assessing the impacts of vegetation greenness
change on evapotranspiration and water yield in China. Water Resour. Res.
Beck, H.E., van Dijk, A.I.J.M., de Roo, A.d., Miralles, D.G., McVicar, T.R., Schellekens, J.,
Bruijnzeel, L.A., 2016. Global-scale regionalization of hydrologic model parameters.
Water Resour. Res. 52 (5), 3599–3622. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015WR018247.
Beven, K.J., 2012. In: Rainfall-runoff modeling: the primer, second ed. Wiley-Blackwell,
pp. 1–18.
Beven, K.J., Kirkby, M.J., 1979. A physically based variable contributing area model of
basin hydrology. Hydrol. Sci. Bull. 24 (1), 43–69.
Beven, K., Young, P., 2013. A guide to good practice in modeling semantics for authors
and referees. Water Resour. Res. 49 (8), 5092–5098. https://doi.org/10.1002/
wrcr.20393.
Bloschl, G., Sivapalan, M., 1995. Scale issues in hydrological modelling- a review.
J. Hydrol. 9, 251–290.
Brocca, L., Massari, C., Pellarin, T., Filippucci, P., Ciabatta, L., Camici, S., Kerr, Y.H.,
Fernández-Prieto, D., 2020. River flow prediction in data scarce regions: soil
moisture integrated satellite rainfall products outperform rain gauge observations in
West Africa. Sci. Rep. 10 (1) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-69343-x.
Callaghan, T. V, Johansson, M., Key, J., Prowse, T., Ananicheva, M., & Klepikov, A.
(2012). Feedbacks and Interactions: From the Arctic Cryosphere to the Climate
System. (2011), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-011-0215-8.
Chen, R.S., Song, Y.X., Kang, E.S., Han, C.T., Liu, J.F., Yang, Y., Qing, W.W., Liu, Z.W.,
2014. A Cryosphere-hydrology observation system in a small alpine watershed in the
Qilian mountains of china and its meteorological gradient. Arct. Antarct. Alp. Res. 46
(2), 505–523.
Cornelissen, T., Diekkruger, B., Giertz, S., 2013. A comparison of hydrological models for
assessing the impact of land use and climate change on discharge in a tropical
catchment. J. Hydrol. 498 (19), 221–236.
Danish Hydraulic Institute (DHI), 2004. In: The MIKE SHE User Reference. DHI Water
and Environment, Horsholm, Denmark, p. 462.
de Graaf, I.E.M., van Beek, L.P.H., Wada, Y., Bierkens, M.F.P., 2014. Dynamic attribution
of global water demand to surface water and groundwater resources: effects of
abstractions and return flows on river discharges. Adv. Water Resour. 64, 21–33.
14
Journal of Hydrology 600 (2021) 126561
Devi, G.K., Ganasri, B.P., Dwarakish, G.S., 2015. A Review on Hydrological Models. 4
(Icwrcoe), 1001–1007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aqpro.2015.02.126.
Dirmeyer, P.A., 2011. The terrestrial segment of soil moisture–climate coupling. L16702
Geophys. Res. Lett. 38 (16). https://doi.org/10.1029/2011GL048268.
Dobslaw, H., Dill, R., Grötzsch, A., Brzezi, A., Thomas, M., 2010. Seasonal polar motion
excitation from numerical models of atmosphere, ocean, and continental
hydrosphere. 115, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JB007127.
Döll, P., Berkhoff, K., Bormann, H., Fohrer, N., Gerten, D., Hagemann, S., Krol, M., 2008.
Advances and visions in large-scale hydrological modelling: findings from the 11th
Workshop on LargeScale Hydrological Modelling. Adv. Geosci. 18, 51–61. https://
doi.org/10.5194/adgeo-18-51-2008.
El-Nasr, A.A., Arnold, J.G., Feyen, J., Berlamont, J., 2005. Modelling the hydrology of a
catchment using a distributed and a semi-distributed model. Hydrol. Process. 19 (3),
573–587.
Freeman, M.C., Pringle, C.M., Jackson, C.R., 2007. Hydrologic connectivity and the
contribution of stream headwaters to ecological integrity at regional scales. JAWRA
J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 43 (1), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-
1688.2007.00002.x.
Gleick, P.H., 1987. The development and testing of a water balance models for climate
impact assessment: modelling the Sacramento basin. Water Resour. Res. 23,
1049–1061.
Gudmundsson, L., Wagener, T., Tallaksen, L.M., Engeland, K., 2012. Evaluation of nine
large-scale hydrological models with respect to the seasonal runoff climatology in
Europe. Water Resour. Res. 48, W11504. https://doi.org/10.1029/2011WR010911.
Gupta, H.V., Kling, H., Yilmaz, K.K., Martinez, F.G., 2009. Decomposition of the mean
square error and NSE performance criteria: implications for improving hydrological
modelling. J. Hydrol. 377, 80–91.
Haddeland, I. et al., 2011. Multimodel estimate of the global terrestrial water balance:
Setup and first results. Journal of Hydrometeorology, 12, 869–884, http://dx.oi.
org/10.1175/2011JHM1324.1.
Hagg, W., Braun, L.N., Kuhn, M., Nesgaard, T.I., 2007. Modelling of hydrological
response to climate change in glacierized Central Asian catchments. J. Hydrol. 332
(1-2), 40–53.
Her, Y., Frankenberger, J., Chaubey, I., 2015. Threshold effects in HRU definition of the
soil and water assessment tool. Trans. ASABE 367–378. https://doi.org/10.13031/
trans.58.10805.
Hill, T., Westbrook, R., 1997. SWOT analysis: it’s time for a product recal. Long Range
Plan. 30 (1), 46–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-6301(96)00095-7.
Hua, X., Lian, Y., 2013. Uncertainty-based evaluation and comparison of SWAT and
HSPF applications to the Illinois River Basin. J. Hydrol. 481, 119–131.
Huss, M., Funk, M., Ohmura, A., 2009. Strong Alpine glacier melt in the 1940s due to
enhanced solar radiation. L23501 Geophys. Res. Lett. 36. https://doi.org/10.1029/
2009GL040789.
Im, S.J., Brannan, K.M., Mostaghimi, S., Kim, S.M., 2007. Comparison of HSPF and SWAT
models performance for runoff and sediment yield prediction. J. Environ. Sci.
Health, Part A: Environ. Sci. Eng. 42 (11), 1561–1570.
Irannejad, P., Henderson-Sellers, A., 2007. Evaluation of AMIP II global climate model
simulations of the land surface water budget and its components over the GEWEX-
CEOP regions. J. Hydrometeorol. 8 (3), 304–326. https://doi.org/10.1175/
JHM579.1.
Jakeman, A.J., Hornberger, G.M., 1993. How much complexity is warranted in a rainfall-
runoff model? Water Resour. Res. 29 (8), 2637–2649.
Jehn, F.U., Chamorro, A., Houska, T., Breuer, L., 2019. Trade-offs between parameter
constraints and model realism : a case study. Sci. Rep. 9 (1), 1–12. https://doi.org/
10.1038/s41598-019-46963-6.
Jin, X., Xu, C.Yu, Zhang, Q., Chen, Y.D., 2009. Regionalization study of a conceptual
hydrological model in Dongjiang basin, south China. Quat. Int. 208 (1–2), 129–137.
Jung, I.-W., Chang, H., 2011. Assessment of future runoff trends under multiple climate
change scenarios in the Willamette River Basin, Oregon, USA. Hydrol. Process. 25
(2), 258–277. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.7842.
Kauffeldt, A., Wetterhall, F., Pappenberger, F., Salamon, P., Thielen, J., 2016.
Environmental Modelling & Software Technical review of large-scale hydrological
models for implementation in operational flood forecasting schemes on continental
level. Environ. Modell. Software 75, 68–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envsoft.2015.09.009.
Khadka, M., Kayastha, R.B., Kayastha, R., 2020. Future projection of cryospheric and
hydrologic regimes in Koshi River basin, Central Himalaya, using coupled glacier
dynamics and glacio-hydrological models. J. Glaciol. 66 (259), 831–845. https://doi.
org/10.1017/jog.2020.51.
Kim, U., Kaluarachchi, J.J., 2008. Application of parameter estimation and
regionalization methodologies to ungauged basins of the upper Blue Nile river basin,
Ethiopia. J. Hydrol. 362, 39–56.
Klemeš, V., 1986. Operational testing of hydrological simulation models. Hydrol. Sci. J.
31 (1), 13–24.
Kovář, P., Hrabalíková, M., Neruda, M., Neruda, R., Šrejber, J., Jelínková, A.,
Bačinová, H., 2015. Choosing an appropriate hydrological model for rainfall-runoff
extremes in small catchments. Soil Water Res. 10 (3), 137–146. https://doi.org/
10.17221/16/2015-SWR.
Krause, P., Boyle, D., Bse, F., 2005. Comparison of different efficiency criteria for
hydrological model assessment. Adv. Geosci. J. 5, 89–97.
Krishna, V., Sudheer, K.P., 2020. Towards quick parameter estimation of hydrological
models with large number of computational units. J. Hydrol. 587 (December 2019)
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.124983, 124983.
Kustas, W.P., Rango, A., Uijlenhoet, R., 1994. A simple energy budget algorithm for the
Snowmelt Runoff Model. Water Resour. Res. 30 (5), 1515–1527. https://doi.org/
10.1029/94WR00152.
P.K. Paul et al.
Li, H., Zhang, Y., Chiew, F.H.S., Shiguo, X., 2009. Predicting runoff in ungauged
catchments by using Xinanjiang model with MODIS leaf area index. J. Hydrol. 370
(1–4), 155–162.
Li, Z., Xu, Z., Li, Z., 2011. Performance of WASMOD and SWAT on hydrological
simulation in Yingluoxia watershed in northwest of China. Hydrol. Process. 25,
2001–2008.
Lindström, G., Johansson, B., Persson, M., Gardelin, M., Bergström, S., 1997.
Development and test of the distributed HBV-96 hydrological model. J. Hydrol. 201
(1-4), 272–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(97)00041-3.
Liu, Y., Zhang, J., Elmahdi, A., Yang, Q., Guan, X., Liu, C., et al., 2021. model based on
similarity in climate and geography. 1–11. https://doi.org/10.2166/ws.2021.055.
Loague, K.M., Freeze, R.A., 1985. A comparison of rainfall–runoff modeling techniques
on small upland catchments. Water Resour. Res. 21, 229–248.
Lutz, A.F., Immerzeel, W.W., Shrestha, A.B., Bierkens, M.F.P., 2014. Consistent increase
in High Asia’s runoff due to increasing glacier melt and precipitation. Nat. Clim.
Change 4, 587–592. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate223.
Ma, Q., Gourbesville, P., 2020. Modelling Strategy of Deterministic Distributed
Hydrological Model Development at Catchment Scale. In: Gourbesville, P.,
Caignaert, G. (Eds.), Advances in Hydroinformatics. Springer Water. Springer,
Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5436-0_47.
Manguerra, H.B., Engel, B.A., 1998. Hydrologic parameterization of watershed for runoff
prediction using SWAT. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 34 (5), 1149–1162.
Mannschatz, T., Wolf, T., Hülsmann, S., 2016. Environmental Modelling & Software
Nexus Tools Platform: web-based comparison of modelling tools for analysis of
water-soil-waste nexus. Environ. Modell. Software 76, 137–153. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.envsoft.2015.10.031.
Marks, D., Dozier, J., Davis, R.E., 1992. Climate and energy exchange at the snow surface
in the alpine region of the Sierra Nevada: 1. Meteorological measurements and
monitoring. Water Resour. Res. 28, 3029–3042.
Marks, D., Winstral, A., 2001. Comparison of snow deposition, the snow cover energy
balance, and snowmelt at two sites in a semiarid mountain basin. J. Hydrometeorol.
2 (3), 213–227.
Marshall, L., Nott, D., Sharma, A., 2005. Hydrological Model Selection : A Bayesian
Alternative. 41, W10422, https://doi.org/10.1029/2004WR003719.
Mcmillan, H., Jackson, B., Clark, M., Kavetski, D., Woods, R., 2011. Rainfall uncertainty
in hydrological modelling: an evaluation of multiplicative error models. J. Hydrol.
400 (1–2), 83–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.01.026.
Meng, C., Zhou, J., Zhong, D., Wang, C., Guo, J., 2018. An improved grid-Xinanjiang
model and its application in the Jinshajiang Basin, China. Water 10 (9), 1265.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w10091265.
Milly, P.C.D., et al., 2010. Terrestrial water-storage contributions to sea-level rise and
variability. In: Church, J.A. (Ed.), Understanding Sea-level Rise and Variability.
WileyBlackwell, Oxford.
Mosier, T.M., Hill, D.F., Sharp, K.V., 2016. How much cryosphere model complexity is
just right ? Exploration using the conceptual cryosphere hydrology framework. The
Cryosphere 10, 2147–2171. https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-10-2147-2016.
Nagdeve, M., Paul, P.K., Zhang, Y., Singh, R., 2021. Continuous Contour Trench (CCT):
understandings of hydrological processes after standardization of dimensions and
development of a user friendly software. Soil Tillage Res. 205 (C), 104792 https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2020.104792.
Nasr, A., Bruen, M., Jordan, P., Moles, R., Kiely, G., Byrne, P., 2007. A comparison of
SWAT, HSPF and SHETRAN/GOPC for modeling phosphorus export from three
catchments in Ireland. Water Res. 41 (5), 1065–1073.
Neitsch, S.L., et al., 2002. Soil and Water Assessment Tool Theoretical Documentation,
Version 2000. Grassland, Soil and Water Research Laboratory, Temple, Texas and
Blackland Research Center, Temple, Texas. Texas Water Resources Institute, College
Station, Texas.
Onyutha, C., 2016. Influence of hydrological model selection on simulation of moderate
and extreme flow events: a case study of the Blue Nile Basin. Adv. Meteorol. 2016,
28. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/7148326.
Oreskes, N., Shrader-Frechette, K., Belitz, K., 1994. Verification, validation and
confirmation of numerical models in the earth sciences. Science 264, 641–646.
Orth, R., Staudinger, M., Seneviratne, S.I., Seibert, J., Zappa, M., 2015. Does model
performance improve with complexity? A case study with three hydrological models.
J. Hydrol. 523, 147–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.01.044.
Parajka, J., Merz, R., Bloschl, G., 2005. A comparison of regionalization methods for
catchment model parameters. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 9 (3), 157–171.
Paul, P.K., Gaur, S., Kumari, B., Mishra, A., Panigrahy, N., Singh, R., 2020. Application of
a newly developed large-scale conceptual hydrological model in simulating
streamflow for credibility testing in data scarce condition. Nat. Resour. Model. 33
(4), e12283 https://doi.org/10.1111/nrm.12283.
Paul, P.K., Gaur, S., Yadav, B., Panigrahy, N., Mishra, A., Singh, R., 2019a. Diagnosing
credibility of a large-scale conceptual hydrological model in simulating streamflow,
4019004 J. Hydrol. Eng. (ASCE) 24 (4). https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-
5584.0001766.
Paul, P.K., Kumari, N., Panigrahy, N., Mishra, A., Singh, R., 2018. Implementation of cell-
to-cell routing scheme in a large scale conceptual hydrological model. Environ.
Modell. Software 101 (C), 23–33.
Paul, P.K., Zhang, Y., Mishra, A., Panigrahy, N., Singh, R., 2019b. Impact of spatial
discretization on streamflow simulation: a comparison of grid and HRU based
hydrologic models. Water (Switzerland) 1 (5), 871. https://doi.org/10.3390/
w11050871.
Pereira, D.R., Martinez, M.A., Pruski, F.F., Silva, D.D., 2016. Hydrological simulation in a
basin of typical tropical climate and soil using the SWAT model part I: calibration
and validation tests. J. Hydrol. 7, 14–37.
15
Journal of Hydrology 600 (2021) 126561
Pignotti, G., Rathjens, H., Cibin, R., Chaubey, I., Crawford, M., 2017. Comparative
analysis of HRU and grid-based SWAT models. Water 9 (4), 272. https://doi.org/
10.3390/w9040272.
Radic, V., Hock, R., 2011. Regionally differentiated contribution of mountain glaciers
and ice caps to future sea-level rise. 4(February), 91–94. https://doi.org/10.1038
/ngeo1052.
Refsgaard, J.C., 1996. Terminology, modeling protocol and classification of hydrologic
model codes. In: Abbott, M.B., Refsgaard, J.C. (Eds.), Distributed hydrological
modeling, Water Science and Technology Library. Springer, Dordrecht, The
Netherlands, pp. 17–39.
Refsgaard, J.C., 1997. Parameterisation, calibration and validation of distributed
hydrological models. J. Hydrol. 198 (1), 69–97.
Refsgaard, J.C., Henriksen, H.J., 2004. Modelling guidelines––terminology and guiding
principles. Adv. Water Resour. 27, 71–82.
Refsgaard, J.C., Knudsen, J., 1996. Operational validation and intercomparison of
different types of hydrological models. Water Resour. Res. 32 (7), 2189–2202.
Refsgaard, J.C., Storm, B., 1990. Construction, calibration and validation of hydrological
models. In: Abbott, M.B., Refsgaard, J.C. (Eds.), Distributed hydrological modeling,
Water Science and Technology Library. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands,
pp. 41–54.
Reinecke, R., Wachholz, A., Mehl, S., Foglia, L., Niemann, C., Döll, P., 2020. Importance
of spatial resolution in global groundwater modeling. Groundwater 58 (3), 363–376.
https://doi.org/10.1111/gwat.12996.
Rodda, J.C., 1995. Guessing or assessing the World’s water resources? Water Environ. J.
9 (4), 360–368. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-6593.1995.tb00953.x.
Rost, S., Gerten, D., Heyder, U., 2008. Human alterations of the terrestrial water cycle
through land management. Adv. Geosci. 18, 43–50. https://doi.org/10.5194/adgeo-
18-43-2008.
Samuel, J., Coulibaly, P., Metcalfe, R.A., 2011. Estimation of continuous streamflow in
Ontario ungauged basins: comparison of regionalization methods. J. Hydrol. Eng. 16
(5), 447–459.
Schaefli, B., Gupta, H.V., 2007. Do Nash values have value? Hydrol. Processes 21 (15),
2075–2080.
Schlesinger, S., Crosbie, R. E., Gagné, R. E., Innis, G. S., Lalwani, C. S., Loch, J., Sylvester,
J., Wright, R. D., Kheir, N., Bartos, D., (1979). Terminology for model credibility.
SCS Technical Committee on Model Credibility Simulation, 32: 103–104.
Schoener, G., 2010. Comparison of AHYMO and HEC-HMS for Runoff Modeling in New
Mexico Urban Watersheds. https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/wr_sp/29.
Seiller, G., Hajji, I., Anctil, F., 2015. Improving the temporal transposability of lumped
hydrological models on twenty diversified U.S. watersheds. J. Hydrol.: Reg. Stud. 3,
379–399.
Sen, A., Tarboton, D.G., 2016. Environmental Modelling & Software A tool for
downscaling weather data from large-grid reanalysis products to fi ner spatial scales
for distributed hydrological applications. Environ. Modell. Software 84, 50–69.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2016.06.014.
Seneviratne, S.I., et al., 2010. Investigating soil moisture-climate interactions in a
changing climate: a review. Earth Sci. Rev. 99 (3–4), 125–161. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.earscirev. 2010.02.004.
Shiklomanov, N.I., Anisimov, O.A., Zhang, T., Marchenko, S., Nelson, F.E., Oelke, C.,
2007. Comparison of model-produced active layer fields: Results for northern
Alaska. J. Geophys. Res. 112, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JF000571.
Sicart, J.E., Hock, R., Six, D., 2008. Glacier melt, air temperature, and energy balance in
different climates: the Bolivian Tropics, the French Alps, and northern Sweden.
J. Geophys. Res.: Atmos. 113, D24113. https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JD010406.
Singh, J., Knapp, H. V., Demissie, M., 2004. Hydrologic modeling of the Iroquois river
watershed using HSPF and SWAT, Illinois Department of Natural Resources and the
Illinois State Geological Survey, IllInois State Water Survey Contract Report 2004-
08.
Singh, V.P. (Ed.), 1995. Computer Models of Watershed Hydrology. Water Resources
Publications, Colorado, USA, p. 1130.
Singh, V. P., Frevert, D. K., (Eds.), 2006. Watershed Models. Taylor and Francis group, 3-
14 pp.
Singh, V.P., Woolhiser, D.A., 2002. Mathematical modeling of watershed hydrology.
J. Hydrol. Eng. 7, 270–292.
Sommerlot, A.R., Nejadhashemi, A.P., Woznicki, S.A., Giri, S., Prohaska, M.D., 2013.
Evaluating the capabilities of watershed-scale models in estimating sediment yield at
field-scale. J. Environ. Manage. 127, 228–236.
Sood, A., Smakhtin, V., 2015. Global hydrological models: a review. Hydrol. Sci. J. 60
(4), 549–565. https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2014.950580.
Souffront Alcantara, M.A., Nelson, E.J., Shakya, K., Edwards, C., Roberts, W.,
Krewson, C., Ames, D.P., Jones, N.L., Gutierrez, A., 2019. Hydrologic modeling as a
service (HMaaS): a new approach to address hydroinformatic challenges in
developing countries. Front. Environ. Sci. 7, 158. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fenvs.2019.00158.
Sun, S., Krajewski, J.L.B., 2013. Parsimonious conceptual hydrological model selection
with different modeling objectives. NOVATECH 2013, 1–5.
Surfleet, C.G., Tullos, D., Chang, H., Jung, I.W., 2012a. Selection of Hydrologic modeling
approaches for climate change assessment: aa comparison of model scale and
structures. J. Hydrol. 464–465, 233–248.
Surfleet, C.G., Tullos, D., Chang, H., Jung, I.-W., 2012b. Selection of hydrologic modeling
approaches for climate change assessment : A comparison of model scale and
structures. J. Hydrol. 464–465, 233–248.
Tang, Q., Gao, H., Lu, H., Lettenmaier, D.P., 2009. Remote sensing: hydrology. Prog.
Phys. Geogr. 33 (4), 490–509. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309133309346650.
Tang, Q., Oki, T., Kanae, S., 2006. A distributed biosphere hydrological model (DBHM)
for large river basin. Proc. Hydraul. Eng. 50, 37–42.
P.K. Paul et al.
Trambauer, P., Maskey, S., Winsemius, H., Werner, M., Uhlenbrook, S., 2013. A review of
continental scale hydrological models and their suitability for drought forecasting in
(sub-Saharan) Africa. Phys. Chem. Earth. 66, 16–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
pce.2013.07.003.
Valentina, K., et al., 2020. How evaluation of global hydrological models can help to
improve credibility of river discharge projections under climate change. Clim.
Change 163, 1353–1377.
Wang, Y., Yan, X., 2017. Climate change induced by Southern Hemisphere
desertification. Phys. Chem. Earths, Parts A/B/C 102, 40–47. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.pce.2016.03.009.
Wang, Z., Batelaan, O., de Smedt, F., 1996. A distributed model for water and energy
tranfer between soil, plants and atmosphere (WetSpa). Phys. Chem. Earth, Parts A/
B/C 21, 189–193.
Webb, N., Marshall, N., Stringer, L., Reed, M., Chappell, A., Herrick, J., 2017. Land
degradation and climate change: Building resilience in agriculture. Front. Ecol.
Environ. 15, 450–459. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1530.
Wheater, H.S., Jakeman, A.J., Beven, K.J., 1993. Chapter 5 –Progress and directions in
rainfall-runoff modeling. In: Jakeman, A.J., Beck, M.B., McAleer, M.J. (Eds.),
Modelling Change in Environmental Systems. Wiley, Chichester, UK, pp. 101–132.
Wi, S., Ray, P., Demaria, E.M.C., Steinschneider, S., Brown, C., 2017. Environmental
Modelling & Software A user-friendly software package for VIC hydrologic model
development. Environ. Modell. Software 98, 35–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envsoft.2017.09.006.
Woolway, R.I., Kraemer, B.M., Lenters, J.D., Merchant, C.J., O’Reilly, C.M., Sharma, S.,
2020. Global lake responses to climate change. Nat. Rev. Earth & Environ. 1 (8),
388–403. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-020-0067-5.
16
Journal of Hydrology 600 (2021) 126561
Xie, H., Lian, Y., 2013. Uncertainty-based evaluation and comparison of SWAT and HSPF
applications to the Illinois River Basin. J. Hydrol. 481, 119–131. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.12.027.
Xu, C.-yu., 1999. Operational testing of a water balance model for predicting climate
change impacts. Agric. For. Meteorol. 98-99, 295–304.
Xu, C.-Y., Halldin, S., 1997. The effects of climate change on river flow and snow cover in
the NOPEX area simulated by a simple water balance model. Nord. Hydrol. 28,
273–282.
Zhang, J., Zhang, Y., Song, J., Cheng, L., Kumar Paul, P., Gan, R., Shi, X., Luo, Z.,
Zhao, P., 2020. Large-scale baseflow index prediction using hydrological modelling,
linear and multilevel regression approaches. J. Hydrol. 585, 124780. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.124780.
Zhang, L., Jin, X., He, C., Zhang, B., Zhang, X., Li, J., Zhao, C., Tian, J., DeMarchi, C.,
2016a. Comparison of SWAT and DLBRM for hydrological modeling of a
mountainous watershed in arid northwest China. J. Hydrol. Eng. 21 (5), 04016007.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0001313.
Zhang, Y.Q., Chiew, F.H.S., Zhang, L., Leuning, R., Cleugh, H.A., 2008. Estimating
catchment evaporation and runoff using MODIS leaf area index and the Penman-
Monteith equation. Water Resour. Res. 44, W10420. https://doi.org/10.1029/
2007WR006563.
Zhang, Y., Chiew, F.H.S., 2009. Relative merits of different methods for runoff
predictions in ungauged catchments. Water Resour. Res. 45 (W07412) https://doi.
org/10.1029/2008WR007504.
Zhang, Y., Zheng, H., Chiew, F.H., Arancibia, J.P., Zhou, X., 2016b. Evaluating Regional
and Global Hydrological Models against Streamflow and Evapotranspiration
Measurements. J. Hydrometeorol. 17, 995–1010. https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-
15-0107.1.