Journal of Hydrology 240 (2000) 45±61

www.elsevier.com/locate/jhydrol

Application of a geographic information system for conceptual

rainfall±runoff modeling
A.H. Schumann a,*, R. Funke b, G.A. Schultz a
a
Institute of Hydrology, Water Resources Management and Environmental Techniques, Ruhr University Bochum, 44780 Bochum, Germany
b
Kisters AG, Charlottenburger Allee 5, 52068 Aachen, Germany
Received 18 June 1999; revised 30 May 2000; accepted 25 August 2000

Abstract
Geographic information systems (GIS) offer many new opportunities for hydrological modeling. They can be used to form
spatially distributed models of watershed. However, some problems of this approach, e.g. the parameterization of physically
based models, are not resolved yet. Conceptual models of the meso-scale still have a great practical importance. In this paper
one approach is presented: how statistical descriptions of distributed catchment characteristics could be used to consider spatial
heterogeneity within conceptual models. Three semi-distributed modules are presented. The three components are combined to
a hydrological model including feedback components between surface ¯ow and in®ltration and between subsurface return ¯ow
and surface ¯ow in saturated areas. The model was set up to use spatially distributed information about catchment character-
istics for the estimation of its parameters. By a direct estimation of some model parameters from a GIS-based analysis of the
catchment characteristics, the number of calibration parameters can be reduced. In the second part it is shown how the
application of this model to different catchments within a region can bene®t from boundary conditions for optimization,
which are derived from a GIS considering the differences of catchment characteristics. q 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All
rights reserved.
Keywords: Hydrological modeling; Conceptual parameters; Geographic information system; Optimization; Regionalization

1. Introduction ing the composite runoff curve number for a drainage

The large amount of spatially detailed information
derived from remote sensing, ground surveys (e.g. digi-
tal maps, digital terrain models) or interpolation of point
measurements and handled within a geographic infor-
mation system (GIS), offers new opportunities for
hydrologic modeling. Some options are:
² The use of a GIS to improve the estimation of para-
meters in existing conceptual models, e.g. determin-
* Corresponding author. Fax: 149-234-32-14153.
E-mail address: andreas.schumann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de
(A.H. Schumann).
0022-1694/00/$ - see front matter q 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0022-169 4(00)00312-7
basin with the widely used SCS model (Pilgrim and
Cordery, 1992) from its land use data and digitized
soil maps.
² Estimation of lumped catchment characteristics
with a GIS considering spatial heterogeneity of a
catchment for parameterization of a lumped model.
Some examples for this approach will be discussed
later.
² The use of a distributed catchment characteristic as
a covariant mean to distribute a lumped state vari-
able. An example is the use of the topographic
index in the well-known TOP-model as a charac-
teristic of the spatial variability of the soil water
content (Beven et al., 1984).
46 A.H. Schumann et al. / Journal of Hydrology 240 (2000) 45±61
² Subdivision of the catchment into so-called ªhydro-
logic response unitsº (HRUs), which are similar
with regard to selected characteristics and which
are modeled separately, as in e.g. the precipita-
tion±runoff modeling system (PRMS) of Leavesley
et al. (1983).
² Subdivision of the catchment into equally spaced
square grid elements and representation of the
hydrologic processes in these units by a parameter
set in which the physical characteristics of the units
are considered. An example is the SHE model
(Abbott et al., 1986).
The last two options mentioned lead to distributed
hydrological models, in which the spatial heterogene-
ity of catchment characteristics is usually represented
by small area elements which are considered as homo-
genous. Subdividing a catchment into spatial units is
also useful with regard to the areal distribution of
meteorological inputs. Under the assumption of homo-
geneity of the area elements micro-scale-based
process models can be used. However, the physical
characteristics within each grid cell may be still
heterogeneous. By reducing the size of the grid
cells, this heterogeneity would be reduced, but the
disadvantages of a very detailed resolution consist
not only in an increase of computational requirements
but also in a very complex model structure owing to
the need to describe more interactions among the
resulting small spatial units. Physically based models
of micro- (or point-) scale processes were developed
for well-de®ned physical conditions. In distributed
modeling of the meso-scale they are used for spatial
units of some 100 m 2. As a result, the applicability of
these models at the meso-scale is limited by unre-
solved problems of their parameterization (Grayson
et al., 1993). The required model parameters (e.g.
soil characteristics) cannot be measured for catch-
ments in the order of hundreds of km 2 or larger,
they must be derived using transfer functions and
other assumptions from known catchment characteris-
tics, e.g. from soil texture classes. ªRepresentativeº or
ªeffectiveº values of parameters are commonly used
to bridge the gap between a micro-scale model and its
use at the meso-scale. Unfortunately, the transfer func-
tions depend not only on the used model type but also
on the heterogeneity of the catchment and on the
spatial scale used. Since they usually have to be deter-
mined by calibration, the parameters lose their precise
physical signi®cance and may be of a magnitude quite
different from measured values. Owing to this fact,
distributed hydrologic models are not truly physically
based but rather a special category of conceptual
models (Beven, 1989).
Considering these issues about physically based
models and parameter values in distributed models,
the question arises as to how GIS could be used as a
new base of conceptual hydrologic modeling. One
option is mentioned above: we can use the GIS to
improve the estimation of parameters in existing
conceptual models. This is a very limited use of the
available information and the power of the GIS. There
is no reason to limit ourselves to model parameteriza-
tions that were developed decades ago in an era with-
out the information and computing facilities available
today.
However, other options to develop or improve
conceptual models also exist. The main problem
consists in the consideration of the spatial variability
of physical characteristics which are relevant for the
non-linear behavior of a catchment. Examples of use
of spatial heterogeneity in lumped model parameters
or catchment characteristics from literature are the
Xinanjiang model, in which an uneven distribution
of tension water capacity in a catchment is approxi-
mated with a non-linear function (Zhao, 1992) or the
concept of the geomorphological instantaneous unit
hydrograph in connection with a parameterization
which is based on a lumped representation of the
river network with path probabilities and path lengths
(Snell and Sivapalan, 1994). Unfortunately, a GIS-
based consideration of heterogeneity within concep-
tual models also does not eliminate the general
problems to estimate the values of conceptual model
parameters.
Here an event-based rainfall±runoff model will be
presented in which the heterogeneity of certain catch-
ment characteristics is considered by lumped model
parameters, which describes averaged catchment
characteristics as well as their heterogeneity. The
parameters can be derived directly from a GIS-analy-
sis. This model consists of three components. For each
of these components a spatial differentiation with
regard to one physical characteristic which is seen
as most relevant for a speci®c hydrological process
is combined with a lumped description of the
 A.H. Schumann et al. / Journal of Hydrology 240 (2000) 45±61 47

Precipitation

Process: infiltration, runoff other soil texture

generation
Unit: soil texture
Catchment Characteristics: soil parameters soil storage capacity
Description: effective parameters distribution function
State Variables: saturated and non-saturated areas, soil water
content, surface water storage
Results: surface runoff, interflow, percolation

Disaggregation partitions of vegetation types

Process : runoff formation other vegetation types

Unit: soil vegetation
combination
Catchment Characteristics: slope surface roughness transmissivity
Description: distributed eff. Parameter saturated,
per unit non-saturated
State Variables: velocity of lateral flows,
drainage areas per time step
Results: lateral fluxes of water

Disaggregation transition frequencies, partition of runoff which flows from a

certain soil vegetation comb. to another or runs into the river
network

other soil vegetation combinations

Disaggregation partition of runoff from a certain area soil vegetation comb.

which drains into a certain pathway of the river network

Process: runoff concentration

Unit: River network,
resolved into pathways
Catchment Characteristics: dispersion advection length inflow
Description: effective effective value per distributed
parameter parameter pathway per pathway
State Variables: inflow per pathway in each time step

Fig. 1. Coupling three process models (runoff generation, runoff formation and concentration) to form the rainfall±runoff model.

heterogeneity of other characteristics which are also
important for this process. The model is based on a
GIS with data in a high spatial resolution
(50 m £ 50 m) in which the following catchment char-
acteristics are stored: soil type, land cover, slope,
elevation and drainage network estimated from the
digital elevation model. The main advantage of this
approach consists in the reduction of the number of
conceptual parameters.
2. Model structure and GIS-based model
components
2.1. General structure
The model structure is based on the classical
approach of three different hydrological processes:
runoff generation (vertical hillslope processes), runoff
formation on hillslopes (lateral hillslope processes)
48 A.H. Schumann et al. / Journal of Hydrology 240 (2000) 45±61
and runoff concentration within the river network. The
three model components are:
² a component describing the in®ltration and runoff
generation process in the upper soil layer applying
distribution functions of soil storage capacity
derived from an overlay of soil and land cover
maps;
² a component for lateral ¯ow on hillslopes under
consideration of the interactions of different soil±
vegetation combinations;
² a component for the runoff concentration process
within the river network applying a parameteriza-
tion of the geomorphological unit hydrograph,
proposed by Snell and Sivapalan (1994).
The subdivision into these components is process
related. For their combination the following problem
exists: in order to consider the spatial heterogeneity
for each component the catchment is subdivided into
speci®c spatial units which are chosen with regard to
the most relevant physical characteristics of the speci-
®c hydrological process. The heterogeneity of other
characteristics of relevance for the speci®c process
model is described in two different ways, i.e. by distri-
bution functions or by averaged (representative) para-
meter values. As the subdivision into spatial units
differs between the different process models the ¯uxes
of water from each spatial unit must be summarized at
the interface between the different modules and
distributed again among the spatial units of the next
model component. The general structure of the result-
ing model is shown in Fig. 1. The three tables within
this ®gure represent the units of the three process
components. In the following sections the three
model components and their interactions and feed-
back are explained with respect to their structure
and their parameterization.
The ®rst module is based on a subdivision of the
catchment into spatial units which are de®ned by the
soil texture. The heterogeneity of the soil storage
capacity which is caused (by de®nition) by the
depth of the root zone is considered in the form of a
distribution function. The second module describes
the lateral ¯ow of water at hillslopes. To consider
different characteristics of roughness the ¯ow compo-
nents of each soil texture unit are distributed among
the vegetation types which cover it. This distribution
is done according to the partial areas of the soil texture
unit which is covered by a speci®c type of vegetation.
The lateral ¯uxes of water between the resulting soil±
vegetation combinations which reach the river
network are again summarized according to the speci-
®c pathways of the drainage system which drains
them. In what follows the three modules are described
in detail.
2.2. Runoff generation and the soil storage
distribution
For the runoff generation the soil parameters, which
determine the in®ltration process, are seen as most
relevant physical characteristics. A physically based
in®ltration model (e.g. the used Green±Ampt model)
needs physical soil characteristics such as hydraulic
conductivity, porosity, ®eld capacity, and wetting
front suction. With respect to soil texture classes
these parameters can be assumed (Rawls et al.,
1983). As unit of the distributed in®ltration model
the soil texture class can be used. Another very impor-
tant characteristic of the soil which in¯uences the
runoff generation is the soil storage capacity. In
many models and also in the model discussed here
the out¯ow from the soil storage is related to the
relative storage content. Unfortunately, the depth of
the upper soil zone within a catchment is mostly
unknown. If we keep up the classical de®nition of
soil horizons we can estimate the depth of upper
(rooted) soil in relation to the type of vegetation.
Our hypothesis is that the storage capacity of upper,
non-saturated soil can be expressed by the product of
effective soil porosity above ®eld capacity and root
depth. We assume a jump in the vertical soil perme-
ability at the bottom of the root zone. First, our catch-
ment is subdivided into units of different soil textures.
After that, each of these units is overlaid by different
types of vegetation classi®ed according to rooting
depth. The heterogeneity of the storage capacity of
the upper soil, derived from an overlay of the soil
map with types of vegetation can be considered by a
distribution function SB(a) (Schumann, 1993). SB(a)
expresses the storage capacity of the upper soil layer
which is not exceeded for the relative partition a of the
total area of the soil texture. Such linear or non-linear
distribution functions are widely used in conceptual
hydrological models (Franchini and Pacciani, 1991;
 A.H. Schumann et al. / Journal of Hydrology 240 (2000) 45±61 49

INF(t)

SB(a)
SBMax

RO(t) SBact(t)
INF(t) ∆t
SBact(t-∆t)
SBMin
RH(t)

as(t)
a=0 a=1,0
PER(t)

Fig. 2. Bucket model for the upper soil layer with three-parametric distribution function SB(a) of soil storage capacity.

Wood et al., 1991). They are used to describe the percolation PER, which are the out¯ows from the soil
degree of saturation of the upper soil during a rainfall storage:
event by the saturated part of the area.
We use this distribution function of the soil storage Zt
SBact …t† ˆ SBact …t 2 Dt† 1 …INF…t† 2 RH…t†
capacity in the following three-parametric non-linear t 2 Dt
form (Funke, 1999)
2 PER…t†† dt: (2)
1=B
SB…a† ˆ SBMax 2 …SBMax 2 SBMin † £ …1 2 a† …1†
From the distribution function of the soil storage
The three parameters are the maximum storage capa- capacity SB(a) and the actual soil water level SBact
city SBMax the minimum capacity SBMin and the shape the saturated proportion of the area at simulation
parameter B describing the non-linear shape of the time t is de®ned for each soil texture by the following
distribution between minimum and maximum of condition:
each spatial unit. In this form it is possible to consider
minimum and maximum storage capacity. This is SBact …t† $ SB…a†: …3†
much closer to nature than the assumption of a mini-
mum storage capacity of zero (SBMin ˆ 0) used by The saturated part of the catchment as …t† at time t
Franchini and Pacciani (1991) or Wood et al. resulting from the actual storage content SBact(t) is:
(1991). The proportion of the catchment with an
equal or smaller soil storage capacity than SB is a. as …t† ˆ 0 for SBact …t† # SBMin
 B
The application of this function in a typical bucket SBMax 2 SBact …t†
as …t† ˆ 1 2 for SBMin , SBact …t† , SBMax
assumption of a conceptual model, is shown in Fig. 2. SBMax 2 SBMin
The temporally variable soil water level SBact as …t† ˆ 1 for SBact …t† ˆ SBMax
within the bucket model of every unit can be calcu- …4†
lated for every time t at the end of a simulation inter-
val with a duration of Dt from the in®ltration rate INF, The maximal amount of water, which can be stored in
computed by application of the Green and Ampt in®l- the upper soil WMax results from the integration of the
tration model minus the subsurface ¯ow RH and the distribution function SB ˆ SB(a) between a ˆ 0 and
50 A.H. Schumann et al. / Journal of Hydrology 240 (2000) 45±61

0.4 0.4
loam
capacityt [m]

capacityt [m]
0.3 0.3
SBmin = 0.04 m
storage

storage
SBmax = 0.25 m
0.2 loamy sand 0.2 B = 1.53
SBmin = 0.04 m
0.1 SBmax = 0.37 m 0.1
B = 0.44
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
rel. area [-] rel. area [-]

0.4 0.4
silty clay loam clay

capacityt [m]
capacityt [m]

SBmin = 0.03 m SBmin = 0.02 m

storage
0.3 0.3
storage

SBmax = 0.16 m SBmax = 0.12 m

0.2 B = 1.63 0.2 B = 1.49
0.1 0.1

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
rel. area [-] rel. area [-]
Fig. 3. Storage capacity distribution of the upper soil layer in the Alsdorf catchment (264 km 2) with ®tted distribution functions SB(a) for four
different soil texture classes.

a ˆ 1: For the computation of the amount of subsurface

Z1 Z1 ¯ow RH in the time step t of the duration Dt we use the
WMax ˆ SB…a† da ˆ SBMax 2 …SBMax 2 SBMin † following non-linear equation:
0 0
 
Wact …t† CHEX
SBMax 2 BSBMin RH…t† ˆ CH …7†
£ …1 2 a†1=B da ˆ (5) WMax
11B
It has two conceptual parameters, one exponent
The actual water content of the soil storage results CHEX and one factor CH. The factor CH describes
from a summation of the soil storage capacity of the the possible maximum subsurface ¯ow rate for the
saturated areas (area as …t†† and the actual soil water saturated soil in the spatial unit of simulation, the
content of the unsaturated areas: exponent CHEX the non-linear relationship between
Zas Z1 runoff formation and actual soil water content.
Wact …t† ˆ SB…a† da 1 SBact …t† da For the computation of the amount of percolated
0 as
water PER, a similar approach is used:
SBMax 2 SBMin  
ˆ SBMax as 2 ‰1 2 …1 Wact …t† CBEX
1 1 …1=B† PER ˆ CVSAT …8†
WMax
2 as …t†11…1=B† Š 1 SBact …t†…1 2 as …t†† …6†
In this equation two further conceptual parameters are
The relative water content of the soil storage (the used, the maximum percolation rate CVSAT of the
actual water content Wact …t† in relation to maximal saturated soil and the exponent CBEX.
soil storage content WMax) at time t (end of a simula- As shown above, the distribution function of the
tion time interval) is used to compute the actual rates soil storage capacity is a very important characteristic
of percolation and subsurface ¯ow. These rates are of the model. By our hypothesis (the soil storage
assumed to be constant during the duration Dt of the capacity is the product of root depth and effective
simulation time interval from t 2 Dt to t. soil porosity) this distribution can be estimated
 A.H. Schumann et al. / Journal of Hydrology 240 (2000) 45±61
directly for each soil texture class from a GIS-analysis
by an overlay of the soil texture map and land cover,
obtained e.g. from remote sensing data by satellites.
From these data one can construct a discrete function
SB ˆ SB(a), which can be approximated by analytical
functions to be used in the hydrological model as
described above. Fig. 3 shows, as an example, the
empirical distributions and the ®tted functions for
the four different soil texture classes in a catchment
together with the relevant model parameters SBMin,
SBMax and B. The shapes of the ®tted functions vary
according to the land cover within the different soil
texture classes. The values of SBMin and SBMax
decrease with decreasing effective porosity from coar-
ser soils like loamy sand to ®ner soils like clay. The
shape parameter B is related to the distribution of
different land covers and corresponding root depth.
With increasing forest areas with deep roots, the
shape of the function is convex and B smaller than
1. For increasing areas with shallow roots the shape is
concave and the value of B greater than 1. The value
of parameter B is estimated by a GIS-based analysis
for each soil texture directly. The exponents in Eqs.
(7) and (8) are conceptual parameters which have to
calibrated. Although their application within the
model to express non-linearities are similar, these
parameters are not related.
2.3. Lateral hillslope processes
For the runoff formation on hillslopes the type of
vegetation and the soil type seem to be of much rele-
vance. The vegetation determines the roughness of the
land surface as well as the depth of the soil storage. If
we further consider the in¯uence of soil texture on
subsurface ¯ow the resulting soil±vegetation combi-
nations are seen as most suitable units to describe
lateral hillslope processes. These units can be related
to the soil texture classes which were used previously
for runoff generation modeling. The surface runoff
and subsurface ¯ow from the different texture classes,
calculated in the runoff generation model, are distrib-
uted for the lateral hillslope processes among the
different vegetation types that belong to each speci®c
soil texture class. For this distribution the percentages
of the different vegetation types that cover every soil
texture class are used.
Within the next, more detailed spatial units, ªsoil±
51
vegetation typeº of the hillslope model, the physical
characteristics, soil and vegetation are homogeneous
but slope, a very relevant characteristic for lateral
¯ows, is still heterogeneous. As the slope varies
strongly within a small scale, a grid-based process
description was chosen. Each grid square with a
chosen width of 50 m is characterized by its slope,
¯ow direction, vegetation and soil type.
Under the assumption that we can use an approach
that is similar to Manning's formula (the ¯ow velocity
depends on the slope and on the depth of water at the
soil surface in a non-linear way) to estimate the velo-
city of surface ¯ow, we obtain:
p
v…t† ˆ kr H…t†2=3 I …9†
where kr is the roughness (which depends on land
cover), I the slope, H…t† the depth of water at the
soil surface and t the simulation time, and the Darcy
equation for subsurface ¯ow:
v…t† ˆ ks I …10†
where ks is the hydraulic conductivity, I the slope and t
the simulation time.
In the upper soil layer the water content varies over
time and we normally have unsaturated conditions in
most parts of the soil storage. According to these
conditions, we have to simulate the subsurface ¯ow
with an unsaturated hydraulic conductivity which
varies spatially, in time and also with water content
of the soil. An effective parameter, which describes
this behavior is the subsurface ¯ow rate RH(t) of the
non-linear soil storage. So, we made the assumption
that the Darcy equation can be rewritten as a linear
velocity equation with effective parameters as
v…t† ˆ RH…t†I …11†
tnjAs the slope is a temporal constant parameter it
becomes possible to describe its impact on lateral
surface ¯ow and on subsurface ¯ow by representative
¯ow times, which can be computed for each soil±
vegetation combination under consideration of their
speci®c surface roughness kr and effective dynamic
hydraulic conductivity RH(t). In relation to the
width Dx of the grid cells and the ¯ow direction w
in the grid cell, the representative ¯ow time tr can be
estimated in which the surface runoff or the subsur-
face ¯ow with a depth of one unit passes a grid cell.
For the surface runoff we can use the following
52 A.H. Schumann et al. / Journal of Hydrology 240 (2000) 45±61

1.0
a(Tr)

Σa (T )
i r

Tr Tr

Fig. 4. Example of a histogram of relative travel times for draining of a water droplet from a soil±vegetation combination; left hand side,
representative drainage times versus histogram of relative areas; right hand side, cumulative distribution function.

equations: combination in the catchment from the histogram of

Dx
tr ˆ p if utan wu , 1 …
kr I cos w
Dx
tr ˆ p if utan wu $ 1: …
kr I sin w
For the subsurface ¯ow:
Dx
tr ˆ if utan wu , 1 …
I cos w
Dx
tr ˆ if utan wu $ 1: …
I sin w
The heterogeneity of the slope can be considered
by a histogram of slope classes for each soil±
vegetation combination. With respect to its ¯ow
direction a representative time can be estimated
in which the surface runoff with a depth of one
unit passes a grid cell with a certain slope. The
total time after which a water droplet leaves a
certain soil±vegetation combination depends on
its ¯ow path. If we add up representative times
in which water passes the different grid cells in its
pathway we get the total representative time span
Tr, which is needed for water with the height of
one unit to ¯ow from one point within a soil±
vegetation combination to the border line with
any other soil±vegetation combination. Also,
these time spans have a distribution that can be
described empirically by a histogram of represen-
tative travel times for each soil±vegetation com-
bination.
As a result, two histograms of representative travel
times can be estimated for every soil±vegetation
slope frequency classes (see Fig. 4 for an example):
12†
² under the assumption of a speci®c roughness kr for
each vegetation type we receive a histogram of
13† travel times for the surface runoff;
² if we use the well-known Darcy equation with an
assumption of an effective hydraulic conductivity
ks ˆ RH…t† we obtain a histogram for the travel
times for subsurface ¯ow.
14†
With this approach, it becomes possible to estimate
the drained part of a soil±vegetation combination for
15†
a given simulation interval and to calculate the water
depth on the land surface …RO…t† £ Dt† and of the
subsurface ¯ow …RH…t† £ Dt† for each time step with-
out recalculation of all ¯ow paths directly from the
distribution function of thePrepresentative travel time
Tr versus the relative area a:
For an actual calculated surface runoff with the
height RO…t† £ Dt; the real travel time T has to be
smaller than the simulation time step Dt, if the water
should leave the soil±vegetation combination to
another one or ¯ows into a river. To work with
Manning's equation with the height h in m and typical
roughness parameters kr in m 1/3/s, we have to correct
for this equation the surface runoff rate to m/h by a
factor 0.001
Tr Tr
Tˆ 2=3
ˆ # Dt …16†
H …0:001RO…t†Dt†2=3
Solving this equation in terms of the representa-
tive travel times we get the maximum representa-
tive travel time for an actual surface runoff to
 A.H. Schumann et al. / Journal of Hydrology 240 (2000) 45±61 53

same way, with

1.0 adrained(t) Tr
Tˆ # Dt …18†
RH…t†Dt
as the maximum representative travel
Σa(Tr)

Tr;max …t† ˆ DtRH…t† …19†

The subsurface draining part of the soil±vegetation
combination aH;drained …t† can be estimated from the
Tr,max (t) T* i distribution function of the representative subsurface
¯ow times.
Fig. 5. Utilization of the distribution function of drainage time for a
In the last step of these computations, the partitions
soil±vegetation combination to estimate the draining partition.
of the ¯ows between soil±vegetation combinations
are calculated. The effective surface and subsurface
leave the soil±vegetation combination: ¯ow components draining a speci®c combination are

Tr;max …t† ˆ Dt…0:001RO…t†Dt†2=3 …17† ROdrained …t† ˆ RO…t†aO;drained …t† …20†

By utilization of the distribution function of the soil± RHdrained …t† ˆ RH…t†aH;drained …t† …21†
vegetation combination, we can estimate the partition
aO;drained …t† of the soil±vegetation combination which The remaining parts of runoff are
drains on the surface to other combinations (Fig. 5). ROrem …t† ˆ RO…t†…1 2 aO;drained …t†† …22†
For an actual calculated subsurface ¯ow the maxi-
mum representative travel time is calculated in the RHrem …t† ˆ RH…t†…1 2 aH;drained …t†† …23†

K Outflow Frequencies from combination i to

total
j=1 2 3 River outflow
Out- 1 - 0 2 8 10
flow
from 2 1 - 1 7 9
i 3 3 3 - 8 14
Sum
inflow 4 3 3 23 33
2. Estimation of Transition Frequencies
soil-vegetation- combination 1
soil-vegetation- combination 2
soil-vegetation- combination 3
river
flow direction κ Relative Outflow Frequencies from
combinations i to j
1. Grid-based Estimation of:
-flow direction j=1 2 3 River Tota l
-slope i
-borders between different
Out- 1 - 0 0.20 0.80 1.00
combinations
flow
from 2 0.11 - 0.11 0.78 1.00
i 3 0.21 0.21 - 0.57 1.00

3. Relative Transition Frequencies

Fig. 6. Estimation of transition frequencies for soil±vegetation combinations.

54 A.H. Schumann et al. / Journal of Hydrology 240 (2000) 45±61
In the next time interval the remaining surface runoff
will be added to the precipitation and the remaining
subsurface runoff will be added to the actual soil water
level.
The draining parts of the runoff ¯ow into other
soil±vegetation combinations. In order to describe
these interactions between different soil±vegetation
combinations, we count the number of grid elements
for each soil±vegetation combination i, which drain
into another soil±vegetation combination j by a GIS-
based analysis (i.e. we count grid cells of type i, which
have a common border with every other combination j
in the ¯ow direction). The ¯ow direction of each grid
cell within a raster-based GIS can be estimated from a
digital elevation model. We obtain a matrix of transi-
tion numbers with n runoff-producing soil±vegetation
combinations in its columns and …n 1 1† runoff-
receiving elements (all other soil±vegetation combi-
nations plus the river network) in its rows. The
elements Kij of this matrix are the number of grid
cells which drain directly from combination i into
combination j. The relative transition frequencies
can be estimated as the quotient of transition numbers
divided by the total number of drainage elements of a
certain soil±vegetation combination
Ki;j
ki;j ˆ X
n : …
Ki;j
jˆ1
The methodology for estimating these frequencies is
shown in Fig. 6.
Using the drained ¯ows and the transition frequen-
cies kij , the in¯ow rates into other soil±vegetation
combinations j can be estimated as
X
n
Ai
ROinflow;j …t† ˆ ROdrained;i kij …
iˆ1
Aj
X
n
Ai
RHinflow;j …t† ˆ RHdrained;i kij …
iˆ1
Aj
where ROinflow;j …t† is the lateral in¯ow rate of surface
runoff into combination j, ROdrained;i …t† the drained
surface runoff from soil±vegetation combination i,
RHinflow;j …t† the lateral in¯ow rate of subsurface runoff
into combination j, RHdrained;i …t† the drained subsur-
face runoff from soil±vegetation combination i, kij the
transition frequency from i to j, Ai the area of soil±
vegetation combination i, Aj the area of soil±vegeta-
tion combination j, and n the number of water draining
combinations.
The runoff reaching the river network is calculated
by
X
n
ROinflow;River …t† ˆ ROdrained;i ki;River Ai …27†
iˆ1
X
n
RHinflow;River …t† ˆ RHdrained;i ki;River Ai …28†
iˆ1
In the next simulation step t 1 Dt, the in¯ow at the
soil surface into a soil±vegetation combination
ROinflow …t† can be in®ltrated together with new preci-
pitation P…t 1 Dt† and the remaining surface runoff of
the same soil±vegetation combination ROrem …t†: The
potential in®ltration rate for the runoff generation
model, which operates with the soil types as spatial
units of simulations is estimated as areal weighted
mean of all potential in®ltration rates of the different
soil±vegetation combinations inside that soil type.
Also, the actual soil water level of the non-linear
bucket has to be corrected for the next simulation step
by lateral subsurface in¯ow from neighboring combi-
24† nations, the remaining subsurface runoff and the new
in®ltration. If this correction is higher than the free
partition of the storage bucket of the soil type, the part
of the subsurface ¯ow that has not been stored returns
to the soil surface (the so-called return ¯ow). This
return ¯ow will be routed together with new surface
runoff and can in®ltrate together with the precipitation
of the next time step if the soil is not further saturated
or if it ¯ows to an area with unsaturated soil.
With the coupled models for runoff generation and
25† the lateral ¯ows on and in hillslopes to rivers, the
interesting parts of the water ¯uxes for a rainfall±
runoff model are described. The percolation from
the upper soil layer into deep soil is considered as a
26†
loss since our model estimates only direct ¯ow
components. The base ¯ow in the river is not consid-
ered here.
2.4. GIS-based estimation of a two-dimensional
system function for channel ¯ow
The linear advection±dispersion equation is an
 A.H. Schumann et al. / Journal of Hydrology 240 (2000) 45±61 55

often-used model for single-channel ¯ow: pathway g to the outlet can be computed using:

2Q 2Q 22 Q Av VY 21

1c ˆD 2 …29† pg ˆ p j . i and j # V; …i; j† [ g

2t 2x 2x Atotal iˆv ij
…32†
where c is the advective velocity, D the dispersion
coef®cient, Q the discharge, t the time, and x the where A v is the area which drains directly into a
distance along the longitudinal axis of the water- stream with the initial order v of this pathway, pij
course. the probability that a stream of order i runs into a
It can be shown that the solution of this differential stream of order j (where i and j are elements of path-
equation gives a two-dimensional response function way g ), Atotal the area of the catchment, and V the
on a Dirac impulse: order of the stream at the outlet.
The average length of the streams of an order v can
!
x …x 2 ct†2 be computed from the total lengths of the pathways of
h…x; t† ˆ p exp 2 …30† the same order:
2t pDt 4Dt
1X n

As the distance x from an in¯ow point to the outlet is Lv ˆ L : …33†

n iˆ1 v;i
considered as a second dimension of the impulse
response function (besides time), the out¯ow from The typical length of a pathway g is estimated by
the system can be derived from the following double summation
integral:
X
V

ZLmax Zt Lg ˆ Lv …34†
vˆ1;v[g
Q…t† ˆ qz …x; t†h…x; t 2 t† dt dx …31†
0 0
The runoff from the soil±vegetation combinations is
With this two-dimensional model, the in¯ow qz into distributed (time variant) among the pathways that are
the river network resulting from surface and subsur- different in their distance to the outlet Lg : The impulse
face hillslope runoff can be distributed along the river response function of the river network can be
channel network. This in¯ow distribution is time described by:
variant. Following a suggestion from Snell and Siva- !
1 X …Lg 2 ct†2
palan (1994) the river network was resolved into f …t† ˆ p pg Lg exp 2 …35†
2t pDt g 4Dt
different pathways as spatial units of the runoff
concentration model. Each of these pathways is repre- A time variant description of the spatial runoff distri-
sented by its drainage area and its length. The runoff bution can be obtained if the probability of a pathway
from a certain soil±vegetation combination g (the relation between the drainage area of this path-
…ROinflow;River …t† 1 RHinflow;River …t††; which reaches way ag and the total drainage area Atotal) is weighted
the river network, is distributed among the different with the relation between the actual runoff Rg …t† of the
pathways taking into consideration their speci®c drai- area ag and the mean runoff height Rtotal …t† of the total
nage area characteristics. The pathways are generated catchment Rtotal …t† :
with the aid of the Strahler ordering scheme (Strahler,
1957). All ¯ow paths are divided into a limited ag Rg …t†
pg ˆ …36†
number of ways describing the transition of water Atotal Rtotal …t†
between the initial order v into which a droplet is
injected and higher-ordered streams, until the outlet
with order V is reached. Each of these pathways 3. GIS-based parameterization strategy of the
drains a certain portion of the total catchment. The model
probability of a droplet of runoff produced at any
point within the catchment ¯owing via a certain The main advantage of the three model components
56 A.H. Schumann et al. / Journal of Hydrology 240 (2000) 45±61

Start of parameterization in the

first catchment

Optimization Basic relationships

Start values transfer functions
Physical or
numerical Boundary conditions
boundary Calibration from formerly handled
conditions catchments

Comparison/Analysis
Sensitivity and regression analysis Parameters from
formerly handled
catchments
Contradictions Dependencies No
to parameters of between Contradictions
other catchments parameters

Transfer
New New calibration
All catchments functions between
boundary under consideration
parameterized? catchment
conditions of the dependencies
no yes characteristics
and model
Next catchment parameters
Decision

End of parameterization

Fig. 7. Flow chart of the used parameterization strategy.

presented above, which were combined into a rain-
fall±runoff model, consists in the options to estimate
at least some model parameters directly from a GIS.
However, there is also another option to use a GIS in
conceptual modeling, which has not been mentioned
yet. The information provided by the GIS about catch-
ment characteristics can be used also for optimization
of model parameters, e.g. to de®ne boundary condi-
tions. With a GIS-based parameterization of the
model components also, the internal heterogeneity
of catchment characteristics can be considered. The
remaining conceptual model parameters cannot be
estimated directly from GIS-analysis and still have
to be quanti®ed by calibration. If several gauged
catchments within a region are available, we can esti-
mate regional valid relationships between catchment
characteristics and conceptual model parameters.
Therefore, an iterative procedure was developed to
calibrate different catchments of a region in a consis-
tent way. The single steps of the procedure are numer-
ical optimization, comparison and analyses of the
results from different catchments and a decision
about the change of parameter values in concert
with the relevant catchment characteristics (Fig. 7).
In the ®rst step, all conceptual model parameters
are simultaneously optimized by a global optimiza-
tion strategy until a best ®t parameter set was identi-
®ed for every catchment. If we assume that our model
parameters have a physical explanation they are
related to speci®c catchment characteristics, but
mostly in a relationship that is not known quantita-
tively. This relationship is hidden by the random char-
acter of the results of the numerical optimization. We
can use, e.g. regression analysis to identify these rela-
tionships between optimized conceptual model para-
meters and the most relevant catchment
 A.H. Schumann et al. / Journal of Hydrology 240 (2000) 45±61
7,0
CBEX vs. 7,0
CBEX vs. ψ
CBEX
CBEX
5,5 5,5
4,0 4,0
13,0 23,0 33,0 13,0 23,0
ψ ψ
Fig. 8. Relationship between the conceptual parameter CBEX and wetting front suction c : left, after numerical optimization of CBEX and
CVSAT without consideration of the dependency between the two parameters; center, after replacement of parameter CVSAT by the hydraulic
conductivity of saturated soil (distributed for every soil texture in the catchment) and a second optimization of CBEX; right, after a third
optimization of CBEX with changed boundary conditions for outliers.
characteristics for a speci®c process. Also, sensitivity
analyses are used to identify the impact of the differ-
ent parameters on simulation results in the different
catchments or to identify interdependencies between
different conceptual model parameters. At the end of
the ®rst parameterization, a decision has to be made
about the parameter consistency under consideration
of interdependencies and outliers.
Then, in the second parameterization step, the
model parameters are optimized again but with utili-
zation of the new knowledge about interdependencies
and boundary conditions. Particularly for catchments
with outlying parameters in the regression curves,
these parameters were optimized again with new
boundary conditions. These new boundary conditions
are de®ned taking into consideration the expected
relationship between model parameters and catch-
ment characteristics, which was identi®ed for every
optimized parameter by the regression analysis
between optimized parameters and catchment charac-
teristics before. The relationship between catchment
characteristics and model parameters ®ts now in a
better way into a new repression curve than in the
®rst step.
This procedure of parameter optimization and
regression adjustment can be repeated until signi®cant
and stable transfer functions between catchment char-
acteristics and model parameters are received. The
estimated regression functions then have the meaning
of a regional transfer function, which can be used to
estimate model parameters from catchment character-
57
7,0
CBEX vs. ψ
CBEX
5,5
4,0
33,0 13,0 23,0 33,0
ψ
istics also for ungauged catchments of the same
region. Finally, the problem of unknown concep-
tual parameters is solved by empirically estimated
regional relationships between catchment charac-
teristics and model parameters. A restriction of
this approach consists in its limited transferability
of catchments which are different from the used
sample.
4. A case study in the Pruem river basin/Germany
In order to demonstrate the ability and the different
steps of model parameterization with the aid of GIS-
based catchment information, the rainfall±runoff
model described above was applied to seven gauged
catchments (areas between 18 and 576 km 2) within
the river basin of the Pruem river (840 km 2), a tribu-
tary of the Mosel river in the western part of Germany.
Most of the model parameters were estimated by GIS-
based analysis from the catchment characteristics. Six
conceptual model parameters out of 16 for each catch-
ment could not be estimated directly and had to be
calibrated.
Altogether 56 ¯ood events were used for calibration
and validation. Model calibration and validation were
done by split sampling of these historical events. The
antecedent soil moisture was optimized as a state vari-
able. The objective function used for minimizing the
overall simulation error F 2 of the m calibration storms
in a single catchment is the ªmean square simulation
58 A.H. Schumann et al. / Journal of Hydrology 240 (2000) 45±61

Fig. 9. Result of the sensitivity analysis of the percolation equation (8).

errorº F 2 parameter CBEX and the catchment characteristic

ªmean wetting front suction c º).
100 X
m
This fact is caused mainly by internal dependencies
F2 ˆ …1 2 EFFj †2 …37†
m jˆ1 between the two model parameters CH and CHEX of
the non-linear subsurface ¯ow computation formula
based on the simulation ef®ciency criterion EFF (Eq. (7)) and between the model parameters CVSAT
(Beven et al., 1984) for every storm j (optimum for and CBEX of the corresponding percolation function
EFF ˆ 1.0). The ef®ciency criterion is calculated from (8). These interrelationships between the parameters
the ordinates Qmeas;i and Qsim;i of the measured and can be described by sensitivity analyses. As an exam-
simulated direct runoff hydrographs and the mean ple, Fig. 9 shows a small ridge, where for each value
measured direct runoff QÅ meas of every storm: of parameter CVSAT, an exponent CBEX exists with
X
n X
n an optimal ef®ciency value. With the assumption that
…Q meas 2 Qmeas;i †2 2 …Qmeas;i 2 Qsim;i †2 the percolation depends mainly on the hydraulic
EFFj ˆ iˆ1 iˆ1
: conductivity of the saturated soil, we can replace the
X
n
conceptual parameter CVSAT with the ªphysicalº
…Q meas 2 Qmeas;i †2
iˆ1
parameter hydraulic conductivity ks
…38† CVSAT ˆ k s …39†
At the beginning of the GIS-supported parameter esti- The values of the hydraulic conductivity are estimated
mation the best ®t parameter values for all catchments from the GIS (from the digital soil map) for each soil
were estimated by a global gradient algorithm without texture in the catchment. As a result of this reparame-
taking catchment characteristics into consideration. terization it becomes possible to replace the concep-
By comparison of these ®tted parameter values, no tual parameter values of CVSAT for each soil texture.
correlation to any catchment characteristic could be We can now estimate the optimal values of a uniform
found (e.g. Fig. 8, left hand side for the model exponent CBEX for the whole catchment in Eq. (8),
 A.H. Schumann et al. / Journal of Hydrology 240 (2000) 45±61 59

Table 1
Results of an application of the developed model on some catchments in Germany, all mean errors were calculated with the calibration and
validation sets of ¯ood events

Gauge River Catchment Number Computational Computational error

area (km 2) of ¯ood error of peak ¯ow of runoff volume
events (mean in %) (mean in %)

Pruem Pruem 53 8 14.0 5.4

Sinspelt Enz 101 9 13.5 8.2
Echterhausen Pruem 323 11 10.3 7.4
Pruemzurlay Pruem 574 9 7.2 8.1
Giesdorf Nims 17 5 10.0 7.7
Seffern Nims 136 5 6.4 6.1
Alsdorf Nims 264 9 9.1 6.1

which belongs to these distributed values of CVSAT
(Fig. 8 center). Obviously, after this optimization, the
parameter values CBEX show a relationship to the
wetting front suction c , which was estimated as a
weighted average of the different soil types within
each catchment. In a third optimization with changed
boundary conditions for these catchments, which are
outliers of the regression between the conceptual
model parameter CBEX and the catchment character-
istic c , the residuals of the regional regression were
reduced (Fig. 8 right hand side).
In Eq. (7), the parameter CH can be interpreted as
the lateral transmissivity of the upper soil, which we
de®ne as the product of the hydraulic conductivity of
saturated soil ks and the actual water level within the
soil storage SBact(t). Now CH can be distributed to
the soil units in the same way as CVSAT before.
Then the exponent CHEX, which is used for the
computation of the subsurface ¯ow can also be related
to the wetting front suction c .
As result of this parameterization of Eqs. (7) and
(8), the conceptual model re¯ects soil physics more
closely and the set of conceptual model parameters is
reduced from six to four parameters. The parameters
CHEX and CBEX correlate physically correctly and
strongly with the parameter ªwetting front suction c º
(Rawls et al., 1983) of the Green and Ampt in®ltration
model. This relation can be described by a regression.
Now the general relationship ªwith increasing wetting
front suction c the values of CHEX and CBEX
increaseº is de®ned quantitatively by transfer func-
tions in a regional speci®c way. With these two trans-
fer functions the parameter set could be reduced from
fourteen different values of the two parameters CHEX

Table 2
Utilization of GIS-procedures for model parameterizations

Parameterization Used catchment characteristics GIS-procedure

Estimation of distribution functions of Digital soil map land cover Overlay-procedure

soil storage capacity classi®cation

Estimation of drainage area±time Digital elevation model; digital soil Estimation of grid-based values of slope and ¯ow
functions on and in the hill slopes map land cover classi®cation direction; overlaying of soil and vegetation classes

Estimation of transition frequencies for
water ¯uxes from one soil±vegetation
combination to another
Estimation of the distribution of
drainage areas on different ¯ow paths in
the rivers
Digital elevation model; digital soil
map land cover classi®cation
Digital elevation model
Identi®cation of transitions between different soil±
vegetation combinations
Computation of the river network; stream ordering;
estimation of ¯ow lengths along different pathways;
estimation of the drainage areas of initial-order streams of
the different pathways
60 A.H. Schumann et al. / Journal of Hydrology 240 (2000) 45±61
and CBEX in seven catchments to four parameters of
the regressions, which are valid for all catchments
within this region. Using this form of parameteriza-
tion, only two conceptual parameters remain for each
catchment (the parameters c and D in Eq. (29) of the
runoff concentration model for the river network). In
Table 1, the satisfactory results of the model applica-
tion after a regional estimation of the conceptual para-
meters CVSAT, CH, CBEX, CHEX from catchment
characteristics are presented. By a lack of precipita-
tion data, it was not possible to test the model
approach which was presented here also for continu-
ous simulations.
5. Summary and conclusions
In this paper two different applications of GIS-
based information were presented. In the ®rst applica-
tion, a GIS was used to derive lumped catchment
characteristics, which describe the spatial heterogene-
ity within a catchment. These characteristics, which
are listed in Table 2, can be used directly in model
components which were developed with the aim to
make good and effective use of the distributed infor-
mation base. The second application of the GIS is
dedicated to the regional model parameter estimation
taking catchment characteristics into consideration.
Here the model parameters for different catchments
in a region should be calibrated in accordance to their
physical explanation and related characteristics. To
reach this target a hydrological model was needed,
in which all model parameters have a physical expla-
nation and which can deal with the hydrological
heterogeneity of a catchment. Such a rainfall±runoff
model was developed, for which it was possible to
estimate the majority of model parameters from
GIS-based catchment characteristics and to regiona-
lize the remaining conceptual parameters in accor-
dance to the catchment characteristics in the region
by an iterative procedure of numerical parameter opti-
mization taking their physical meaning into consid-
eration. As a result we obtain not only a model which
is calibrated for different catchments within a region,
but also transfer functions between catchment char-
acteristics and model parameters which can be used
for a model parameterization of ungauged catchments
within the same region.
Some ideas about new GIS-based model compo-
nents and their possibilities and limitations to consider
spatial heterogeneity of catchment characteristics
within the meso-scale were presented in the paper.
A problem of semi-distributed conceptual models
consists in the different spatial units which result
from the need to differentiate between vertical and
lateral processes (soil bucket, hillslope, river
network). Here an aggregation and distribution of
water ¯uxes from or into different units became neces-
sary. Some tools for consideration of spatial hetero-
geneity of relevant physical characteristics within
these units were presented.
A GIS offers new ways to handle and use informa-
tion about catchment characteristics with a high
spatial resolution. These opportunities demand new
approaches in modeling. Some ideas regarding how
conceptual models can bene®t from the new possibi-
lities were presented here.
Acknowledgements
The authors express their gratitude to the German
Research Foundation for ®nancial support.
References
Abbott, M.B., Bathurst, J.C., Cunge, J.A., O'Connel, P.E., Rasmus-
sen, J., 1986. An introduction to the European Hydrological
System Ð Systeme Hydrologique ªSHEº. Journal of Hydrol-
ogy 87, 45±59.
Beven, K., 1989. Changing ideas in hydrology Ð the case of physi-
cally-based models. Journal of Hydrology 105, 157±172.
Beven, K.J., Kirkby, M.J., Scho®eld, N., Togg, A.F., 1984. Testing
a physically-based ¯ood forecasting model (TOPMODEL) for
three U.K. catchments. Journal of Hydrology 69, 119±143.
Franchini, M., Pacciani, M., 1991. Comparative analysis of several
conceptual rainfall±runoff models. Journal of Hydrology 122,
161±219.
Funke, R., 1999. Parameterization and regionalization of a runoff
generation model for heterogeneous catchments. Physics and
Chemistry of the Earth, Part B: Hydrology, Oceans and Atmo-
sphere 24 (1±2), 49±54.
Grayson, R.B., BloÈschl, G., Barling, R.D., Moore, I.D., 1993.
Process, scale and constraints to hydrological modelling in
GIS. In: HydroGIS'93: Application of Geographic Information
Systems in Hydrology and Water Resources (Proceedings of the
Vienna Conference), IAHS Publication No. 211, pp. 83±92.
Leavesley, G.H., Lichty, R.W., Troutman, B.M., Saindon, L.G.,
1983. Precipitation±runoff modeling system Ð user's manual.
 A.H. Schumann et al. / Journal of Hydrology 240 (2000) 45±61
US Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigations Report
83-4238.
Pilgrim, D.H., Cordery, I., 1992. Flood runoff. In: Maidment, D.R.
(Ed.). Handbook of Hydrology. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp.
9.21±9.26 (chap. 9).
Rawls, W.J., Brakensiek, L., Miller, N., 1983. Green±Ampt in®l-
tration parameters from soil data. Journal of Hydraulic Engi-
neering 109 (1), 62±70.
Schumann, A.H., 1993. Development of conceptual semi-distribu-
ted hydrological models and estimation of their parameters with
the aid of GIS. Hydrological Sciences Journal 38, 519±528.
Snell, J.D., Sivapalan, M., 1994. On geomorphological dispersion in
61
natural catchments and the geomorphological unit hydrograph.
Water Resources Research 30, 2311±2323.
Strahler, A.N., 1957. Quantitative analysis of watershed geomor-
phology, EOS Transactions, AGU 38, pp. 913±920.
Wood, E.F., Lettenmaier, D.P., Wallis, J.R., 1991. Comparison of
an Alternative Land Surface Parameterization with the GDFL
High Resolution Climate Model. Proceedings of the Vienna
Symposium, IAHS Publication No. 204. IAHS Press, Walling-
ford.
Zhao, R.-J., 1992. The Xinanjiang model applied in China. Journal
of Hydrology 135, 371±381.