133: Rainfall-runoff Modeling of Ungauged

Catchments

GUNTER BLOSCHL
Institute for Hydraulic and Water Resources Engineering, Vienna University of Technology,
Vienna, Austria

Catchments where no runoff data are available are termed ungauged catchments. For these catchments, the
parameters of rainfall-runoff models cannot be obtained by the calibration on runoff data and hence need to
be obtained by other methods. Model parameters that require calibration are usually transposed from similar
gauged catchments. This article reviews concepts for identifying hydrologic similarity as well as methods for
transposing the parameters of both event models and explicit soil moisture accounting (ESMA) models. Model
parameters that are physically based are usually measured or inferred from other data within the ungauged
catchment of interest. This article summarizes the most important methods and discusses the issues of using
point scale field data in rainfall-runoff models. Alternatives to runoff data for model calibration are suggested.
The value of soft data and qualitative field observations is emphasized.

INTRODUCTION principles, so most of the model equations are empirical

Most catchments of the world are ungauged. Even though
more than 60 000 stream gauges are installed worldwide
(WMO, 1995), there are a couple of orders of magni-
tude more catchments where no runoff data are available.
These are termed ungauged catchments. In these catch-
ments, rainfall-runoff models must be used to calculate
runoff and other variables, given rainfall (and other cli-
mate variables) as an input. There are both operational and
academic drivers for pursuing rainfall-runoff modeling of
ungauged catchments. The former include design applica-
tions (of spillways, culverts, and embankments), forecasting
applications (flood warning and hydropower operation),
and catchment management applications (water allocation,
climate impact studies), the latter are geared toward under-
standing the catchment functioning and how the individual
processes combine to produce catchment response.
The main challenge with rainfall-runoff modeling in
ungauged catchments is the lack of local runoff data that
could be used for calibrating model parameters. Parameter
calibration is important for a number of reasons. First, with
the exception of the water balance equation, there is no
unique hydrological equation that can be derived from first
in nature and tend to depend on the hydrological setting
(Chapter 1 On the fundamentals of hydrological sciences.
Volume 1). Calibration can account for the effects of the
hydrological setting in a particular catchment. Second,
hydrological models are very much dependent on their
boundary conditions, and these are often poorly defined.
Calibration can adjust for biases in the inputs, for example,
as a result of orographic effects and instrument biases.
Third, and probably most important, the media properties
(both soil and vegetation) are highly heterogeneous and
essentially always unknown or at least poorly known. Soil
properties can change dramatically in space but change very
little with time, so parameter calibration can significantly
enhance the performance of rainfall-runoff models. This
led Beven (2000) to remark that: However such models
are constructed, they will have some parameters that will
need to be defined for each application site. While the
calibration on runoff data has served hydrology well in
the past, this is not an option in ungauged catchments.
Alternatives are needed which are the subject of this article.
The most efficient method of addressing the issue of
ungauged catchments is to glean the model parameters (and
perhaps the model structure) from analogue catchments in

Encyclopedia of Hydrological Sciences. Edited by M G Anderson.

2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
2 RAINFALL-RUNOFF MODELING
the region, that is, from one or more catchments that one can
expect to behave similarly to the catchment of interest. This
article therefore first discusses hydrological similarity in the
context of rainfall-runoff modeling (Section Hydrological
similarity in rainfall-runoff modeling). Rainfall-runoff
models use two broad categories of model parameters:
physically based parameters that in principle can be
observed or estimated directly from measurements in a
catchment; and calibration parameters that appear in empir-
ical relationships and need to be back-calculated from
rainfall and runoff data. The calibration parameters need to
be transposed from similar, gauged catchments and these
methods are reviewed in Section Transposing calibration
parameters from similar, gauged catchments. Physically
based parameters, on the other hand, can be observed in the
catchment of interest, although with some restrictions. This
is discussed in the Section Measuring or inferring physi-
cally based model parameters in an ungauged catchment.
Even though in an ungauged catchment no runoff data are
available, other hydrologic response data may be available
and could be used as an alternative for model calibration
and testing. This is dealt with in the Section Alternatives
to runoff data for model calibration.
HYDROLOGICAL SIMILARITY IN
RAINFALL-RUNOFF MODELING
If the rainfall-runoff processes in two catchments are
similar, their hydrologic responses will be similar too.
This is the notion of hydrologic similarity. Similarity of
hydrological processes can be defined in various ways.
Dunne (1978) suggested that runoff processes are mainly
controlled by physioclimatic controls and identified three
main types: Infiltration excess runoff which is generated
from partial areas where surface hydraulic conductivities
are low; saturation excess runoff which is generated in
areas with shallow water tables or near-channel wetlands;
and subsurface storm flow which is likely to be active and
dominant on steep, humid forested hillslopes with very
permeable surface soils. In two similar catchments, the
relative role of each of these processes would be similar.
The characteristics of these processes in natural catchments
are never known in full detail so a number of similarity
concepts have been proposed in the literature that attempt
to represent these processes to various degrees.
1. Spatial proximity: In the first concept, catchments that
are close to each other are assumed to behave in hydrolog-
ically similar manner. The rationale of this concept is that
the controls on the rainfall-runoff relationship are likely to
vary smoothly in space, so one can expect spatial proxim-
ity to be a good indicator of the similarity of catchment
response. This has been one of the traditional methods of
regionalizing rainfall-runoff model parameters and is usu-
ally based on delineating on a map, spatially contiguous
regions with approximately homogeneous model parame-
ters. The regions are found from an analysis of a small
number of gauged catchments in each of the regions (e.g.
Nathan and McMahon, 1990) by exercising expert judg-
ment supported by whatever hydrologic information that is
available. Hydrologic information may consist of hydrogeo-
logic maps, climate maps, soil and vegetation maps, and the
seasonality of hydrologic response as an indicator of hydro-
logic processes (e.g. Merz et al., 1999). The regions found
in this way will be plausible but it is not straightforward
to formalize the procedure. Also, the uncertainty associ-
ated with identifying the regions is not usually known. As
an alternative to contiguous regions, interpolation methods
such as kriging have been used more recently as one way
of exploiting spatial proximity as a similarity measure (e.g.
Merz and Bloschl, 2004, 2005).
2. Similar catchment attributes: The second similarity con-
cept consists of using measurable catchment attributes as
indicators of hydrological similarity. The assumption is that
if catchment attributes such as soil type, vegetation type,
and topographic characteristics of two catchments are simi-
lar, one would expect the hydrologic response to be similar.
Again, this is a plausible assumption, although few stud-
ies have conclusively demonstrated the predictive power of
catchment attributes. Catchment attributes can be used in
different ways. The first method is to use them to define
a group of hydrologically similar catchments. The similar-
ity between catchments is usually quantified by a distance
measure as a function of the differences of the catchment
attributes in the two catchments. The distance measure is
zero if the catchment attributes in the two catchments are
identical and increases as the attributes get more dissim-
ilar. From the matrix of distance measures, the grouping
can then be obtained by a range of statistical methods such
as cluster analysis, principal component analysis, and clas-
sification trees (Nathan and McMahon, 1990; Bates, 1994;
Breiman et al., 1984). One particular variant of this method
is the region of influence approach where for each catch-
ment of interest a separate pooling group is formed (Burn
and Boorman, 1993). Once the groups are identified, the
model parameters (and perhaps the model structure) can
be transferred from an analogue gauged catchment to an
ungauged catchment within the same group.
The second method of using catchment attributes consists
of defining relationships between model parameters and
catchment attributes. There is a wide spectrum of methods
ranging from multiple regression methods for calibration
parameters (see Section Explicit soil moisture account-
ing models) to empirical formulae in engineering design
(see Section Event models). The structure of these rela-
tionships is often dictated by parsimony and convenience
although some degree of process reasoning can come in.
The parameters of the relationships are usually based on
the analysis of a large number of gauged catchments. In

multiple regressions, one may encounter problems with
multicollinearity if one or more of the catchment attributes
is highly correlated with another catchment attribute or with
some linear combination of them. Multicollinearity will
reduce the reliability of the regression coefficients (Hirsch
et al., 1992). One therefore limits the number of catchment
attributes used in the regression, sometimes combining a
number of attributes into an index that is deemed represen-
tative of one particular aspect of the rainfall-runoff model
(such as a baseflow index, IH, 1999). Sequential regression
may assist in identifying robust parameter estimates (Calver
et al., 2004; Lamb and Kay, 2004). The extension of this
general approach of using catchment attributes are methods
that derive physically based model parameters from land-
scape or catchment attributes (see Sections Local scale
measurements and relation to landscape attributes and
Upscaling local measurements to catchment/model ele-
ment scale). Sometimes, the first and second methods are
combined in using relationships between model parameters
and catchment attributes only within regions that are homo-
geneous with respect to a certain set of catchment attributes
(e.g. Burn and Boorman, 1993). A formal way of combining
the two methods results in the CART model (Breiman et al.,
1984; Laaha and Bloschl, 2005a). In CART models, the
independent variables are the catchment attributes and the
dependent variables are the model parameters. Regression
trees then divide a heterogeneous domain into a number of
more homogeneous regions by maximizing the homogene-
ity of model parameters and catchment attributes within
each group simultaneously. Regression trees have a number
of advantages over other models. Their structure is non-
parametric, small trees are readily interpretable, there is no
global sensitivity to outliers, and they are able to handle
nonlinear relationships well. However, big trees are diffi-
cult to interpret, there is a lack of smoothness, and there
are potential problems with overfitting the data, so the trees
need to be pruned (see, e.g. Breiman et al., 1984).
The third method of using catchment attributes in defin-
ing hydrological similarity has originated from the use of
geographical information systems in hydrological model-
ing. In this method, patches of the landscape are classified
into groups of similar topographic slope, aspect, elevation,
vegetation type, soil type, and precipitation distribution,
for example, by overlaying maps of the different types of
information. Each group is termed a hydrological response
unit (HRU) and all the elements in a group are assumed
to exhibit the same hydrological response characteristics
(Leavesley and Stannard, 1995). This again is based on
the assumption that similar catchment attributes would
be associated with similar hydrologic processes. The way
the layers of information are combined can have various
degrees of process representation. Flugel (1995), for exam-
ple, combined the layers by reasoning such as rangeland
on gley soil at the valley floor with shallow groundwater
RAINFALL-RUNOFF MODELING OF UNGAUGED CATCHMENTS 3
over impervious bedrock. HRUs are often the method
of choice when inferring physically based model param-
eters from landscape attributes. The main difficulties with
the use of HRUs is that the estimation of parameters for
multiple HRUs in a catchment is not simple, either in cal-
ibration or for ungauged catchments (see Chapter 122,
Rainfall-runoff Modeling: Introduction, Volume 3), and
that measurable landscape attributes and model parameters
are often poorly correlated (see Sections Limitations and
challenges and Local scale measurements and relation to
landscape attributes).
3. Similarity indices: Similarity indices are based on some
understanding of the structure of runoff generation and
runoff routing and are usually defined as a dimensionless
number. Two catchments or two parts of the landscape
would then behave hydrologically similar if they are
associated with the same value of the similarity index
(Bloschl and Sivapalan, 1995; Aryal et al., 2002; see
also Chapter 3, Hydrologic Concepts of Variability and
Scale, Volume 1). Similarity indices differ in terms of
the processes they aim to represent. Similarity in climate
can be quantified by the aridity index of Budyko (1974),
for example, which is the ratio of long-term potential
evaporation to precipitation. Atkinson et al. (2002) and
Farmer et al. (2003) used this type of climatic index for
analyzing suitable rainfall-runoff model complexities as a
function of timescale and climate characteristics. Similarity
in channel flow processes can be quantified by the stream
ordering and other characteristics of the map view of the
channel topology (e.g. Rodrguez-Iturbe and Valdes, 1979;
Rinaldo et al., 1995). Similarity in catchment processes
can be quantified by topographic indices (Moore et al.,
1991). Examples include the topographic wetness index
of Beven and Kirkby (1979), which is a function of the
area drained per unit contour length at a given point
and the local slope gradient. Catchment characteristics
such as soil depths may be incorporated in the index.
Each patch in the landscape exhibiting the same value of
the index is considered to produce the same hydrologic
response. Two catchments are then deemed similar if their
distributions of the index are identical. On the basis of
this similarity index, Sivapalan et al. (1987) identified five
nondimensional similarity parameters that represented the
interrelationships of topography, soil, and rainfall, which
lead to similar catchment responses. Larsen et al. (1994)
and Robinson and Sivapalan (1995) extended this work
concentrating on the relative dominance of the infiltration
excess and saturation excess mechanisms. The advantage
of this type of index is that they are not purely empirical
so their structure may be more defendable than that of
the empirical relationships between model parameters and
catchment attributes discussed previously. The drawback is
that the inputs needed for the indices are often difficult
to specify in ungauged catchments. Also, tests of some
4 RAINFALL-RUNOFF MODELING
of these indices against spatial soil moisture data have
given mixed results, as their applicability depends on
catchment conditions and climate (e.g. Lamb et al., 1998;
Western et al., 1999; Blazkova et al., 2002). Similarity
indices are therefore currently not widely used in practice
although they constitute an active and promising area of
research.
The various concepts of hydrological similarity are
potentially useful for inferring a suitable model structure
in ungauged catchments, but their main application lies
in transposing model parameters in space. The following
section focuses on the case of calibration parameters.
TRANSPOSING CALIBRATION PARAMETERS
FROM SIMILAR, GAUGED CATCHMENTS
Methods
Calibration parameters are those that cannot be measured or
inferred from measurements but need to be transposed from
gauged catchments in the region. These gauged catchments
should be hydrologically similar to the catchment of interest
in the sense discussed earlier. Rainfall-runoff models can
be either event models or ESMA models (see Beven 2001a
and Chapter 122, Rainfall-runoff Modeling: Introduc-
tion, Volume 3). Event models require initial conditions
on the soil moisture status of the catchment and are usually
run over several hours. ESMA models, in contrast, account
for the changes of soil moisture stores in a catchment
through taking stock of evapotranspiration, precipitation,
and runoff and are usually run over several years. Different
model parameters exist in each type of model: runoff coef-
ficient (or loss) parameters and lag time (or time to peak)
parameters in the case of event models; and evaporation
parameters, runoff generation parameters and storage coef-
ficients in the case of ESMA models. The procedures for
transposing these parameters from similar, gauged catch-
ments in the region to an ungauged catchment are, however,
similar for the two model types. The transposition typically
involves the following steps:
1. Delineation of homogeneous regions and/or identifi-
cation of one or more gauged catchments, termed
donor catchments, based on any of the similarity mea-
sures discussed in Section Hydrological similarity in
rainfall-runoff modeling.
2. Estimation of model parameters for the donor catch-
ments by manual or automatic calibration on observed
runoff data (see Chapter 131, Model Calibration and
Uncertainty Estimation, Volume 3).
3. Selection of catchment attributes that are deemed to
affect catchment response to rainfall. This is either
based on an a priori understanding of what attributes
may be relevant to a particular model parameter or on
some goodness-of-fit measure.
4. Setting up models relating each rainfall-runoff model
parameter to a set of catchment attributes. In this
step, commonly, multiple linear regressions are used
(see Section Hydrological similarity in rainfall-runoff
modelling), and some or all of the catchment attributes
are (e.g. logarithmically) transformed.
5. Testing the strength of the relationship of (4), for
example, by some goodness-of-fit measure such as a
correlation coefficient.
6. Estimating each parameter of the rainfall-runoff model
for the ungauged catchment from the (regression)
model.
7. Simulating runoff for the ungauged catchment of inter-
est by applying the same model as in (2), using the
regionally transposed model parameters.
8. Testing the transposition by cross-validation. A gauged
catchment is assumed to be ungauged, runoff is sim-
ulated as in (7) and then compared with the locally
observed runoff.
Some of these steps can be skipped depending on the
data availability and the similarity concept chosen. In the
simplest case of using model parameters from one or more
donor catchments directly in the ungauged catchment, steps
(3 6) can be skipped. Alternatively, results from the lit-
erature can be used for any of the steps. The less the
information available in the region of interest, the fewer
the steps that can be carried out, but this is likely at the
cost of decreasing model performance. In each of these
steps it is prudent to not only find the best relationships or
parameters but also to find some measure of the uncertainty
associated with the estimates. In step (1) alternative regions
and/or donor catchments can be examined and their suitabil-
ity can be tested by cross-validation (step 5); in step (2) for-
mal methods of parameter uncertainty analysis can be used
or less formal sensitivity analyses and split sample methods
(see Chapter 131, Model Calibration and Uncertainty
Estimation, Volume 3); in step (3) alternative catchment
attributes or combinations of catchment attributes can be
used and tested in a similar way; and in step (4) alternative
transposition models can be tested. The advantage of the
cross-validation test in step (5) over other methods of
assessing uncertainty, such as sensitivity analyses, is that it
examines a combination of a number of sources of uncer-
tainty including the data, the model parameters, and the
structure of both the runoff model and the transposition
model.
Event Models
As an example for estimating model parameters for event-
based rainfall-runoff models, the procedure recommended
in the UK Flood Estimation Handbook (FEH) (IH, 1999:
http://www.nwl.ac.uk/ih/feh/) will be very briefly
summarized. The general recommendation in the FEH is to

use runoff data wherever possible including records as short
as a year. In ungauged catchments, this is obviously not
possible. The preferred method for ungauged catchments is
to use the parameters from a similar (donor) catchment in
the region. As a last resort, relationships between model
parameters and catchment attributes can be used. These
involve the largest errors. It is also recommended to
combine the last two methods and scale the parameters
from the donor catchment by the ratio of the parameter
estimates from catchment attributes in the catchment of
interest and those in the donor catchment. It is suggested
to estimate the time-to-peak parameter, if needed, from the
following catchment attributes: mean drainage path slope,
mean drainage path length, extent of urban land cover,
and a parameter representing the proportion of time when
soil moisture deficit was below 6 mm during a standard
period. The runoff coefficient can be estimated as the sum
of three terms. The first represents the normal capacity of a
catchment to generate runoff. It varies between catchments
but does not vary between storms and is estimated from the
Hydrology of Soil Types (HOST) soil classes (Boorman
et al., 1995). The second term represents the variation in
runoff depending on the antecedent soil moisture and can
be estimated from mean annual precipitation. The third
term depends on the storm rainfall depth and represents the
nonlinearity in runoff generation. There is also a correction
for urbanization.
There are numerous recommendations in the engineering
hydrology literature of how to obtain model parameters
in ungauged catchments, but they all fall into one of
the two categories of transpositions from similar, gauged
catchments and empirical formulae (e.g. USACE, 1994;
Bates, 1994). In the empirical formulae, lag time parameters
are often a function of morphometric parameters such
as topographic slope, stream slope, and flow length (e.g.
USACE, 1994). Loss parameters are often a function
of land cover, soil type, and antecedent soil moisture
(such as in the Curve Number method of the US Soil
conservation service (SCS, 1973; Mishra and Singh, 2003;
Merz et al., 2005). There is also the option of making use
of the structure of the empirical equations and adjusting
their coefficients by analyzing runoff data in the region
which, from a practical perspective, is probably more
meaningful than applying any of the (black box) regression
equations in use. In most studies, the emphasis is on
finding a best-fit curve between the runoff model parameters
and their controls. The uncertainty around these best-fit
curves is often immense (Cordery and Pilgrim, 1983).
Because of this, similar to the suggestion of the FEH,
the general recommendation is to analyze runoff data
from similar gauged catchments in the region whenever
possible and use them by one method or another for
estimating the model parameters in the ungauged catchment
of interest.
RAINFALL-RUNOFF MODELING OF UNGAUGED CATCHMENTS 5
Explicit Soil Moisture Accounting Models
Little is known on the process relationships between the
parameters of conceptual ESMA models and the measurable
catchment attributes. Because of this, the most widely used
method of estimating ESMA model parameters is either by
using uniform zones or regions (e.g. lithological zones in
Drogue et al., 2002), or by multiple regressions from catch-
ment attributes. However, most of the case studies pub-
lished in the literature have found rather low correlations.
Sefton and Howarth (1998), for example, compared cali-
brated parameters of the IHACRES model with attributes of
60 catchments in England and Wales. The best correlations
they obtained were R 2 = 0.59 between a routing param-
eter and percentage of aquifers, and R 2 = 0.69 between
an evaporation parameter and mean annual precipitation.
For the storage parameters no significant correlations were
obtained. Seibert (1999) related the model parameters of the
HBV model (Bergstrom, 1976) to attributes of 11 Swedish
catchments within the NOPEX area. The relationships
between forest percentage and snow parameters could be
interpreted on hydrological grounds but other relationships
could not. The rank correlation coefficient between a non-
linearity parameter of runoff generation and catchment area
was R 2 = 0.87 but most other parameters exhibited hardly
any significant correlations with catchment attributes. These
typically low correlations are likely to translate into rather
low model performances for the ungauged catchment case.
In Seiberts (1999) study, the median Nash and Sutcliffe
(1970) model efficiency decreased from 0.81 to 0.79 when
moving from calibrated parameters to regionalized param-
eters for the same set of 11 catchments, but the median
efficiencies decreased to 0.67 for a separate set of 7 catch-
ments. A model efficiency of 1 indicates a perfect fit while
smaller values indicate poorer fits. In a Norwegian study,
Beldring et al. (2002) used 141 catchments for calibrating
a version of the HBV model. They then treated 43 addi-
tional catchments as ungauged and regionalized the model
parameters as a function of land use classes. For both sets
of catchments they found median NashSutcliffe efficien-
cies of 0.68 and concluded that the regionalization method
represented the main features of the landscape well. How-
ever, for 20% of the second set of stations the efficiencies
were less than 0.3.
In a recent study, Merz and Bloschl (2004) simulated
the water balance dynamics of 308 catchments in Aus-
tria using a lumped ESMA model involving 11 calibration
parameters. The parameters were calibrated separately on
two nonoverlapping 11 year periods of daily runoff data to
assess the reliability of the calibrated model parameters.
Figure 1 shows two of the parameters. Figure 1(a) gives
the calibrated beta parameter, which is the nonlinearity
parameter in the function relating runoff generation to the
soil moisture state. There are distinct patterns of low val-
ues in the West and high values in the East. The regional
6 RAINFALL-RUNOFF MODELING

9
Beta ()
8
7
6
5 Period: 198797 Period: 197686
4
3
2
1
0
(a)

20
k1 (days)
18
16
14 Period: 198797 Period: 197686
12
10
8
6
4 100 km
(b)

Figure 1 Patterns of calibrated model parameters (left: calibration period 1987 1997, right: calibration period
1976 1986). (a) Nonlinearity parameter, beta (). (b) Fast storage coefficient k1 (days) (From Merz and Bloschl, 2004 by
permission of Elsevier). A color version of this image is available at http://www.mrw.interscience.wiley.com/ehs

differences in beta imply a relatively linear rainfall-runoff
relationship and large runoff coefficients in the wetter alpine
catchment in the West, and a nonlinear rainfall-runoff rela-
tionship and small runoff coefficients in the dryer lowland
catchments in the East. Figure 1 (b) shows the spatial pat-
terns of the fast storage coefficient. There is a tendency for
faster responses in the prealpine catchments of the North
than in the alpine catchments of the South. The regional
patterns of the parameters for the two periods are similar
although large local differences occur. This suggests that the
calibrated parameters are able to represent the regional or
large-scale differences in the hydrological conditions. One
would therefore assume that it is possible to derive regional
relationships between the calibrated parameter values and
catchment attributes. Merz and Bloschl (2004), however,
found that the correlation coefficients were relatively low
with maximum values of R 2 = 0.27. They then compared
various methods for estimating the model parameters in
ungauged catchments in terms of their ability of simulating
runoff, judged against runoff data (i.e. a cross-validation;
Table 1, Figure 2). The regionalization methods signifi-
cantly increased the predictive performance from the cases
of preset parameters (Figure 2a) and global average param-
eters (Figure 2b). The increase in performance depended on
the regionalization method. Average parameters of imme-
diate upstream and downstream neighbors (Figure 2f) and
regionalization by kriging (Figure 2 g) performed somewhat
better than multiple regressions with catchment attributes
(Figure 2d). For the calibration period, the median of the
NashSutcliffe model efficiency decreased from 0.67 to
0.57 when moving from gauged to ungauged catchments
(Table 1, using kriging for regionalization). For the veri-
fication period, the median decreased from 0.63 to 0.56.
This means that the uncertainty introduced by moving from
gauged to ungauged catchments is about twice the uncer-
tainty of moving from the calibration to the verification
period. Of particular interest is the change in the bias of
simulated runoff (i.e. volume errors). While the median val-
ues are always small, the scatter between catchments (quan-
tified by the difference of the 75% and 25% quantiles) dou-
bles when moving from the calibration to the verification
period, but increases by a factor of 5 when moving from
gauged to ungauged catchments. This illustrates the value
of model calibration in reducing bias in gauged catchments
and the uncertainties in ungauged catchments where calibra-
tion is not an option Parajka et al. 2005a extended the anal-
ysis of Merz and Bloschl (2004) by modifying the model
structure and testing additional regionalisation methods.
Their model efficiencies were higher than those of Merz and
Bloschl (2004) but their main findings remained similar.
Limitations and Challenges
There are three potential explanations of the relatively
poor correlations between model parameters and catchment
attributes, and the relatively poor performance of both
event-based and ESMA models when parameters estimated
from catchment attributes are used.
 RAINFALL-RUNOFF MODELING OF UNGAUGED CATCHMENTS 7

1 1 1

ME-global regression
ME-preset values

ME-global mean
0.8 0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2 0.2
0 0 0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
(a) ME-calibration 198797 (b) ME-calibration 198797 (c) ME-calibration 198797

ME-opt. local regression

ME-nested neighbours
1 1 1
ME-local regression

0.8 0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2 0.2
0 0 0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
(d) ME-calibration 198797 (e) ME-calibration 198797 (f) ME-calibration 198797

1 1
ME-kriging not nested

0.8 0.8
ME-kriging

0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
0 0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
(g) ME-calibration 198797 (h) ME-calibration 198797

Figure 2 Nash Sutcliffe model efficiencies of regionalized versus calibrated parameters for the period 1987 1997.
(a) preset parameters, (b) global mean of all catchments, (c) global regression with catchment attributes using all
catchments, (d) local regression within a 50 km neighborhood, (e) optimized local regression, (f) average parameters
of immediate upstream and downstream (nested) neighbours, (g) kriging, (h) kriging without nested neighbours (From
Merz and Bloschl, 2004 by permission of Elsevier)

Table 1 Model performance for gauged catchments
and ungauged catchments (kriging regionalization) by
cross-validation, both for the calibration and the verifi-
cation periods. ME: median Nash Sutcliffe efficiency of
runoff plus or minus difference of 75% and 25% quantiles
of efficiencies, that is, a measure of scatter. Bias: Median
relative volume errors of runoff plus or minus difference of
75% and 25% quantiles of relative volume errors. Statistics
are for 308 catchments in Austria. (From Merz and Bloschl,
2004 by permission of Elsevier)
Gauged
catchment
ME Calibration period 0.67 0.10
ME Verification period 0.63 0.11
Bias Calibration period 0.00 0.04
Bias Verification period 0.01 0.10
1. One explanation is that the measurable catchment
attributes may not be very relevant for catchment
response. This is certainly the case for soil type
as reflected by the usually low predictive power
of pedotransfer functions (see Section Local scale
measurements and relation to landscape attributes).
Catchment attributes are usually static indicators and
may therefore not be very representative of the hydro-
logic functioning of catchments. Also, much of what
is of interest in rainfall-runoff modeling happens
beneath the surface while most measurable catch-
ment attributes (such as topographic characteristics and
vegetation) may be representative of the surface but
Ungauged
catchment
are not normally representative of the hydrologically
active zone in the subsurface. This will be expanded
0.57 0.18 in Section Measuring or inferring physically based
0.56 0.18
0.04 0.21 model parameters in an ungauged catchment of this
0.04 0.21 article. One avenue to proceed would be to identify
catchment attributes that are more representative of the
processes relevant to rainfall-runoff modeling, perhaps
based on similarity indices, but so far it is not quite
clear how to define them at the regional scale.
2. The second explanation is that there may be signif-
icant uncertainty in the calibrated parameter values,
8 RAINFALL-RUNOFF MODELING
which may cloud the underlying relationship between
calibrated model parameters and catchment attributes
(e.g. Gottschalk, 2002). There are methods of account-
ing for parameter uncertainty in the regionalization of
model parameters (see, e.g. Campbell and Bates (2001),
in the case of an event scale rainfall-runoff model illus-
trated on 39 catchments in southwestern Australia). The
examples in Figure 1 suggest that the uncertainty is
not very large in this case, but it does seem important
to better constrain model parameters in the calibra-
tion process. There are two possibilities. The first is
to use additional data on state variables in the calibra-
tion procedure (Gupta et al., 1998; Mroczkowski et al.,
1997; also see Chapter 131, Model Calibration and
Uncertainty Estimation, Volume 3). For the study
area of Figure 1, Parajka et al. (2005b) used snow
depth measurements in a multiobjective calibration pro-
cedure which lead to better constrained parameters.
The second possibility is regional calibration in which
the model parameters of a number of catchments are
calibrated simultaneously (e.g. Fernandez et al., 2000;
Szolgay et al., 2002; Engeland and Gottschalk, 2002).
Regional calibration will provide more robust param-
eters that are likely to translate into a reduction in
uncertainty when transposing them to ungauged catch-
ments. Merz et al. (2004) also showed that regional
calibration may increase the correlations between cali-
brated model parameters and catchment attributes.
3. The third explanation is that the structure of the model
relating catchment attributes and model parameters
may not be suitable. Indeed, the choice of a linear
regression model is one of convenience rather than one
based on know relationships. An additional complica-
tion with the linear regression model is that it is an
unbiased linear estimator of the model parameters but
because the rainfall-runoff models are nonlinear, the
regression model results in biased runoff simulations
in the ungauged catchment. Also, estimating the model
parameters independently from catchment attributes
may lead to parameter combinations that are not
very realistic. Nonlinear models (such as CART mod-
els, Section Hydrological similarity in rainfall-runoff
modelling) exist, and thresholds or bounding condi-
tions may be introduced. For example, in the United
Kingdom, the baseflow index (IH, 1999) may take on
a full range of values in low rainfall areas of the country
but is always low in high rainfall areas of the country.
There have been a number of other attempts to include
process reasoning into the estimation of calibration
parameters of ESMA models. Schumann et al. (2000),
for example, imposed the structure on some of the
equations of estimating the model parameters. Another
attempt is that of Koren et al. (2003) who derived
parameters of the Sacramento model from catchment
attributes on the basis of hydrologic reasoning.
There are additional sources of uncertainty including
errors in the structure of the rainfall-runoff model and
data errors. These are discussed in more detail in Beven
(2001a) and also in Chapter 122, Rainfall-runoff Model-
ing: Introduction, Volume 3, Chapter 131, Model Cali-
bration and Uncertainty Estimation, Volume 3.
MEASURING OR INFERRING PHYSICALLY
BASED MODEL PARAMETERS IN AN
UNGAUGED CATCHMENT
Methods
Physically based parameters are those that can be observed
in the field or estimated directly from measurements of
catchment or channel characteristics without the use of
runoff data. They possess a physical meaning beyond the
particular model used. Examples include roughness parame-
ters such as Mannings n, hydraulic conductivity, soil depth,
and surface albedo. There are, however, two types of dif-
ficulties with using measured parameters in rainfall-runoff
models that are related to scale (Western and Bloschl, 1999;
Bloschl, 1999). The first difficulty is that the measurement
volume (or support scale) is usually much smaller than the
model element size. The second is that in most cases there
are only a few measurement locations within a catchment
and the spacing between the measurements (the spacing
scale) is hence large. This means that the measured param-
eter is not defined in exactly the same way as in the model
even if it shares the same name (Beven, 1989). In principle,
both scale disparities can be addressed by upscaling proce-
dures. In practice, there is no generally accepted upscal-
ing theory (see Section Upscaling local measurements to
catchment / model element scale) and one often neglects
the incompatibility related to the support and addresses
the incompatibility related to the spacing by some sort of
interpolation procedure (see Section Upscaling local mea-
surements to catchment / model element scale). In many
instances, particularly when remote sensing data are used,
model parameters are inferred from surrogates (e.g. rough-
ness from land use). As the model parameters are often
not very well correlated with the surrogate, this introduces
additional uncertainties.
Because of these difficulties, in gauged catchments phys-
ically based parameters are often allowed some degree
of calibration within a physically justifiable range to
adjust some of the measurement or estimation biases. For
ungauged catchments, it may therefore be of value to
transfer physically based parameters from similar catch-
ments in the region by one of the methods outlined in
Section Transposing calibration parameters from similar,
gauged catchments, in addition to measuring the param-
eters in the field (or estimating them from remote sensing

Predictive performance
Deg
ree
of c
alibr t of aram
ten
atio
n Ex del p
mo
Figure 3 Schematic of the value of calibration model
parameters versus measuring model parameters for a
typical rainfall-runoff application
data). In fact, estimating the parameters from two or more
different sources will always increase their reliability. The
distinction between calibration parameters and physically
based parameters is hence not a sharp one, there is a gradual
transition from what one would call a calibration parameter
and a physically based parameter, depending on the type
and extent of information available in any particular case.
Figure 3 shows a schematic of the relative value of the
calibration and the measurement of model parameters for
a typical rainfall-runoff model application. Both calibrat-
ing and measuring a model parameter tend to enhance the
predictive performance of the model. Ideally one should
pursue both avenues. The schematic also indicates that,
while it is useful to measure physically based parameters, it
is even more useful to have access to runoff data in a par-
ticular catchment to calibrate or adjust one or more of the
model parameters. The following section reviews methods
of inferring model parameters from measurements in the
catchment of interest.
Local Scale Measurements and Relation to
Landscape Attributes
Physically based model parameters can be inferred from
field measurements or from remote sensing data. The
former are usually local scale measurements and hence
best suited for small catchments while the latter are more
appropriate for large catchments. Often, parameters are
inferred from qualitative information or surrogates. In the
following, a brief summary is given of the three main
categories of model parameters as used in rainfall-runoff
models and how they can be related to surrogates that
are more widely available than the model parameters
themselves. A practical discussion of some of the parameter
estimation methods is given in Duan et al. (2001) and Vieux
(2001).
RAINFALL-RUNOFF MODELING OF UNGAUGED CATCHMENTS 9
1. Soil hydraulic characteristics: Soil hydraulic character-
istics such as the saturated conductivity, porosity, and soil
water release characteristics are usually estimated from
infiltration experiments at the plot scale in the field or,
alternatively, from laboratory core tests. If no or only a
few measurements are available, they are sometimes esti-
mated from relationships to soil type (often defined by
% sand, silt, clay, organic matter, and perhaps bulk den-
sity). These relationships are termed pedotransfer functions.
An excellent review of pedotransfer functions and their
d use in hydrology is given in Wosten et al. (2001). The
ure
m eas ters appeal of pedotransfer functions is that soil texture data
e
are now widely available in databases such as the State
Soil Geographic Data Base (STATSGO) in North America
(USDA, 1991) and the European soil database (Jamagne
et al., 2002). The justification of using pedotransfer func-
tions is that the grain-size distribution (defined by the soil
type) should also be relevant to the pore-size distribution
(which in turn is related to soil hydraulic properties). Unfor-
tunately, this is not often the case because peds and cracks,
rather than the grain-size distribution, tend to dominate
the hydraulic properties. It is therefore not uncommon for
the soil properties to vary as much between soil types as
within a soil type (e.g. Warrick et al., 1990) and for other
influences such as terrain to be important to soil hydraulic
properties (Gessler et al., 1995). This makes Wosten et al.
(2001) conclude that pedotransfer functions are sufficiently
accurate for interpolation purposes between soil hydraulic
measurements in the catchment of interest whereas they are
not recommended to be used in catchments where no mea-
surements are available. If no measurements are available,
a minimum requirement for the use of pedotransfer func-
tions would seem to be that the conditions in the catchment
of interest are similar to those in the catchments in which
they were derived (see Section Hydrological similarity in
rainfall-runoff modeling), though it is worth noting that
the pedotransfer functions are generally derived from mea-
surements on small soil cores or samples.
2. Surface roughness: Surface roughness parameters such
as Mannings n are usually determined by in situ exper-
iments on irrigation plots (e.g. Hessel et al., 2003). If no
measurements are available, tabulated values in the litera-
ture are often used, which are a function of land cover and
sometimes topographic slope (Engman, 1986). Land-cover
type can be obtained either from field surveys or from anal-
yses of satellite data. Roughness can also change with the
flow rate (e.g. Sepaskhah and Bondar, 2002). Again, ide-
ally, the conditions of the application should be similar to
those where the roughness values were measured.
3. Vegetation characteristics: The Leaf Area Index (LAI),
the Fraction of Green Vegetation (FGV), and the Fraction
of Absorbed Photosynthetic Active Radiation (fAPAR ) are
vegetation characteristics that can be used in rainfall-runoff
10 RAINFALL-RUNOFF MODELING
models to estimate evapotranspiration. These vegetation
characteristics can be related to land-cover classes although
the relationships are not always unique (Hall et al., 1995;
Gorte, 2000; Kite and Droogers, 2000). Land-cover classes,
in turn, can be estimated from a range of satellite data
on the basis of indices such as the normalized difference
vegetation index (ndvi). There exist numerous satellite-
(e.g. AVHRR and Landsat) based land-cover maps such as
the European CORINE land-cover data set (Buttner et al.,
2002), data sets for North America (see, e.g. Gallo et al.,
2001), as well as global data sets (e.g. Hansen et al., 2000;
Tucker et al., 2004). Scale incompatibilities may be less
stringent with satellite data than with ground data although
scale issues do remain (e.g. Brunsell and Gillies, 2003).
Upscaling Local Measurements to
Catchment/Model Element Scale
As mentioned previously, the support scale incompati-
bility is usually neglected but some sort of interpolation
is often used to bridge the spacing scale incompatibil-
ity (Bloschl and Sivapalan, 1995; see also Chapter 6,
Principles of Hydrological Measurements, Volume 1).
The interpolation procedures usually build on the surrogate
variables, discussed in the section Local scale measure-
ments and relation to landscape attributes, either based
on different classes of the surrogates (land-cover class,
soil type class, etc.) or on regression relationships or a
combination of the two. The classification approach is
closely related to the Hydrologic Response Unit concept
(Section Hydrological similarity in rainfall-runoff model-
ing) where each HRU is a unique combination of attribute
classes (land cover, soil type, terrain slope, etc.). Both
regressions and classifications based on HRU concepts are
widely used in the literature to upscale measurements (see,
Bloschl and Grayson, 2000; see also Chapter 11, Upscal-
ing and Downscaling Dynamic Models, Volume 1).
Examples include Busch et al. (1999) and Bormann et al.
(1999) who identified HRUs based on a cluster analysis of
actual evapotranspiration, groundwater recharge, and sur-
face runoff, and then performed one single simulation for
each HRU. Upscaling methods based on remotely sensed
data are summarized in Stewart et al. (1996). Upscaling
methods based on geostatistical concepts are reviewed in
Bierkens et al. (2000) and also in Chapter 9, Statistical
Upscaling and Downscaling in Hydrology, Volume 1.
There is considerable uncertainty associated with any of
these upscaling methods and the magnitude of the uncer-
tainty is not always clear. While the standard procedure is to
relate the model parameters to landscape attributes either by
classification or regression methods (which are both black
box methods), there are also initial attempts at incorpo-
rating hydrological understanding. An excellent example
is presented in Peschke et al. (1999a,b) who, based on
many years of field experience, mapped the type of runoff
generation mechanism that occurred for a given catchment
state in the 4.6 km2 Wernersbach catchment in Germany.
They then developed an expert system, known as FLAB,
that estimates the dominant runoff mechanism for a given
point in the landscape and a given event size. The mech-
anisms included were Hortonian overland flow, saturation
area overland flow, interflow, recharge, and storage. The
expert system is based on rules. For example, potentially
contributing areas are identified on the basis of connectivity
to the stream, terrain slope, and soil characteristics includ-
ing layering. If, for a given event, the saturation deficit is
exceeded, these areas become active saturation areas and
contribute to saturation area overland flow. The rules are
based both on hydrologic reasoning and field mapped runoff
mechanisms for certain event types. Figure 4 shows a test
of the FLAB model against the field mapped areas for two
runoff mechanisms, saturation area runoff (Figure 4 (a)),
and interflow (Figure 4 (b)). Each figure is a composite of
the observed and FLAB simulated binary pattern of the
presence/absence of the given runoff mechanism. Black
indicates areas where both model and field observations
identify the mechanism, grey indicates areas where pres-
ence of the mechanism is modeled but not observed, and
light grey indicates areas where the presence of the mecha-
nism is observed but not modeled. Overall, there is a close
match. Saturation areas mainly occur close to the stream,
interflow occurs at some distance from the stream, and this
general pattern is modulated by soils and terrain slope. The
strength of the FLAB approach is that the rules are based on
field scale observations rather than on laboratory-scale mea-
surements. This general method has the potential of being
used in ungauged catchments for identifying runoff mech-
anisms and hence upscaling local measurements. Although
the rules are not likely to be universal, identifying these
rules for certain catchment regime types seems a promising
area of research (Scherrer and Naef, 2003; Woods, 2003).
Soft Data and Qualitative Field Observations
Strategies of upscaling such as those of Peschke et al.
(1999a,b) are partly based on qualitative information which
one may term soft data. In addition to upscaling local
measurements, this type of soft information can be used
for estimating or, at least, for making an educated guess
on the magnitude of model parameters in ungauged catch-
ments. Clearly, site visits will be instrumental in this type
of assessment. The value of qualitative information is illus-
trated by an example from the Austrian Alps. Wienerbruck
and Mitterbach are two adjacent catchments that are similar
in size and are similar in terms of their catchment attributes
as available at the regional scale (Table 2). Wienerbruck
is slightly steeper which would suggest somewhat faster
response but the channel lengths are slightly larger, so
most empirical equations suitable for ungauged catch-
ments would give similar estimates of time-to-peak model
 RAINFALL-RUNOFF MODELING OF UNGAUGED CATCHMENTS 11

Saturation area runoff Interflow

Modeled only
500 m
Observed only
Observed and modeled
(a) (b)

Figure 4 Comparison of the FLAB model estimates against field mapped areas of the presence of two runoff
mechanisms (a): saturation area runoff, (b): interflow, for a 5 h, 25 mm event and wet antecedent soil moisture
status (Peschke et al., (1999b). Reproduced with permission of IHI Zittau). A color version of this image is available at
http://www.mrw.interscience.wiley.com/ehs

parameters in the two catchments. Similarly, surrogate-
based estimates of physically based model parameters
would give similar values, as land use and soil types are
similar. Since these two catchments are gauged, one can
test this assessment. Table 3 shows the event characteris-
tics of the largest event on record (August 2, 1991). While
runoff coefficients in the two catchments were similar, the
response time (here in terms of the recession constant near
peak) in the Mitterbach was almost 10 times that of the
Wienerbruck catchment. It would be clearly impossible to
predict the differences in catchment response between the
two catchments on the basis of the quantitative catchment
attributes. In contrast, soft information obtained through
a visual examination of the catchments during site vis-
its may help tremendously. Figure 5 shows photographs
that are representative of the landforms in each of the
catchments. In the slow response catchment (Mitterbach,
(a)) the stream channel is mossy. Quite clearly, there is
very little hydrologic activity. In contrast, the fast-response
catchment (Wienerbruck, (b)) exhibits signs of erosion rills
and deeply incised channels, that is, this is a hydrologi-
cally highly active catchment. From the visual assessment
it would not be impossible to predict the magnitude differ-
ences in response timing. It is clear that physical controls
do lead to these differences in catchment response but these
are not apparent in the quantitative catchment attributes
usually available in rainfall-runoff analyses. The geologic
database available at the regional scale indicates limestone
as the dominant geologic formation in both catchments.
A more detailed survey indicates that the difference in
response is likely a function of a number of factors, includ-
ing topography, geology, and the valley bottom infill. In
both catchments, dolomites from the Upper Trias prevail
although in slightly different variants (Dachsteindolomit in
Mitterbach and Wettersteindolomit in Wienerbruck). In Mit-
terbach, moraines have accumulated on some of the valley
bottoms while in Wienerbruck the valley bottoms are nar-
row without infill. In a small part of the upper Mitterbach
catchment, karstic limestone appears to exist giving rise to
karstic springs. Soils tend to be deeper in Mitterbach than
in Wienerbruck. In a post hoc analysis one can speculate
that the steeper slopes along with more rainfall have lead
to feedback effects between runoff processes, soil devel-
opment, and vegetation development through some sort of
coevolution (see e.g. Hoosbeek and Bryant, 1993; Lucas,
2001; see also, Chapter 12, Co-evolution of Climate, Soil
and Vegetation, Volume 1). In an a priori mode, as needed
in ungauged catchments, there is clearly a very important
role of this type of field assessment.
There have been few attempts at formalizing the soft
information from an expert assessment of the catchment
functioning of the type in the above example. One notable
exception is presented in Seibert and McDonnell (2002).
They proposed a method where qualitative knowledge from
field surveys is made useful through defining a fuzzy
membership function that can be used in calibrating a
12 RAINFALL-RUNOFF MODELING

Table 2 Catchment attributes of two adjacent catchments ALTERNATIVES TO RUNOFF DATA FOR
in the Austrian Alps MODEL CALIBRATION
Otscherbach Groe Erlauf
at Wienerbruck at Mitterbach
So far this article has focused on methods of parameter
estimation that do not use any runoff data for calibration
Catchment area (km2 ) 36.1 29.7 in the catchment of interest as the article is concerned with
Mean topographic 1013 984 the case of ungauged catchments. Even if no runoff data are
elevation (m)
Mean topographic 30.0 22.3 available there may exist other hydrologic response data
slope (%) that can be used to calibrate some or all of the model
Maximum channel 10.2 8.7 parameters. In the following, two examples are given to
length (km) illustrate the potential of hydrologic response data. The first
Geology Limestone Limestone example is set in the 90 km2 Schneealpe area in the Austrian
Soils Rendzina Rendzina
Forest (%) 84.0 81.0 Alps (Bloschl et al., 2002). In this study, calibration of
Grass (%) 14.2 16.7 model parameters on runoff data was not possible because
Rock (%) 1.9 0.0 the catchment was highly Karstic and it was unclear what
Mean annual 1680 1415 the hydrologic catchment area was. The catchment was
precipitation (mm) therefore treated as ungauged and the model parameters
were calibrated on alternative response data. The main
Table 3 Characteristics of the largest flood event on interest in the study was on snow processes, so snow cover
record of the two catchments of Table 2 and recession patterns were deemed to be suitable response data. Snow
constants of five largest events cover patterns for the years 19982000 were derived from
Otscherbach at Groe Erlauf Systeme Probatoire pour lObservation de la Terre SPOT
Wienerbruck at Mitterbach XS images based on an unsupervised isodata technique
Event rainfall depth (mm) 255 167 (Jensen, 1996), separately for different illumination classes.
of event on August 2, The classification produced three class patterns of snow,
1991 no-snow, and partial coverage. The rainfall-runoff model
Runoff coefficient ( ) of 0.78 0.73 focused on the snow component and simulated the snow
event on August 2, 1991 pack evolution and snow melt for each grid cell on the
Recession constant near 3.8 36.1
peak (h) of event on basis of an energy balance approach. Wind drift of snow
August 2, 1991 was represented by a wind drift factor, which was a
Recession constant near 6.4 1.8 35.9 7.9 function of terrain elevation, slope, and curvature. For the
peak (average of 5 calibration of the model parameters, four SPOT-derived
largest events cover patterns were chosen from each of the years 1998
standard deviation) (h)
and 1999. These eight patterns were compared with the
simulated patterns for the same dates. The calibration
rainfall-runoff model. Seibert and McDonnell tested their proceeded in two steps. In the first step, snow albedo
method in the Maimai research catchment in New Zealand. and the threshold air temperature for separating snowfall
They achieved very good fits for a three-box model and rainfall were calibrated. The objective function was
when optimizing the parameter values with only runoff based on differences in the snow-covered area of simulation
data, but parameter sets obtained in this way showed in and observation, both lumped for the entire study area
general a poor goodness of fit for other criteria such and stratified by terrain slope and aspect. This made it
as the simulated new water contributions to peak runoff. possible to separate the effects of albedo from those of
Inclusion of soft data criteria in the model calibration the threshold temperature through differential melting on
process resulted in lower runoff model efficiency values north and south facing slopes. In the second step, the
but led to a better overall performance, as interpreted by the wind drift factor was refined. To this end, a combined
experimentalists view of catchment runoff dynamics. One error map of cover for the eight patterns was calculated
of the difficulties with this type of analysis is that normally (Figure 6a). This map represents the average percent error
it will be necessary to introduce additional parameters in snow cover estimation and it was assumed that this
to make use of tracer data (be it artificial tracers or error stemmed largely from the representation of snow
natural tracers including geochemical data) because wave drift. The parameters of the snow-drift model were then
velocities and flow velocities are not necessarily the same as individually calibrated for each pixel to minimize the error.
assumed in their study. However, this general approach of Figure 6(b) shows the error pattern for the calibrated model
including soft information does appear to have considerable and illustrates the significant improvement over the pattern
potential for application in ungauged catchments provided in Figure 6(a). Remaining error is due to sources other than
soft information in the catchment of interest is available. wind drift, or that cannot be explained by the structure
 RAINFALL-RUNOFF MODELING OF UNGAUGED CATCHMENTS 13

(a) (b)
70

60

50
Discharge (m3s1)

40

30

20

10

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
(c) Time (hrs)

Figure 5 (a) Photographs that are representative of the landforms in the Mitterbach (a) and the Wienerbruck
(b) catchments (Tables 2 and 3). (c) Hydrograph of the largest flood on record (thick line: Mitterbach; thin line:
Wienerbruck). A color version of this image is available at http://www.mrw.interscience.wiley.com/ehs

of the wind drift representation. The model was then
applied to a different snow season (2000) in a classical
split sample test. Figure 6(c) shows the error map for this
year and illustrates that, while there is some deterioration
in simulation compared to the fully calibrated year, the
revised snow-drift model is a major improvement over
the original form (Figure 6a). While subsurface parameters
of the rainfall-runoff model cannot be estimated from a
comparison with observed snow patterns, the snow related
parameters clearly can.
The second example is taken from Bauer (2004). His
study is set in the Okavango Delta which is a large alluvial
fan situated in northwestern Botswana. This wetland is
fed by the Okavango River, which flows from the tropical
14 RAINFALL-RUNOFF MODELING

(a)

(b)

(c)
50% 0% 50%
Underestimation Overestimation

Figure 6 Bias in snow cover patterns based on residuals of comparisons between observed and simulated
patterns for the Schneealpe region. (a) precalibration using eight observed patterns in 1998 1999, (b) postcalibration
using eight observed patterns in 1998 1999, (c) validation using four observed patterns in 2000 (Bloschl
et al. (2002). Reproduced with permission of Spinger-Verlag Wien). A color version of this image is available at
http://www.mrw.interscience.wiley.com/ehs

highlands of Angola into the Kalahari basin. The core wet-
land, which is permanently flooded, is around 6000 km2
in size; the surrounding seasonal floodplains add another
6000 km2 . Runoff data would be extremely difficult to
acquire as the flow occurs in numerous channels and on
the marsh land. The catchment was therefore treated as
ungauged and the model parameters were calibrated on
alternative response data. The main interest in the study
was on the runoff processes in the wetland, so inunda-
tion patterns were deemed to be suitable response data.
The inundation patterns (either land or water) were derived
from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer
(AVHRR), and Landsat satellite images by unsupervised
classification (McCarthy et al., 2003). A total of 150 inun-
dation patterns over the period of 19702000 was available
for calibration. The hydrological model used was physically
based and represented surface routing by Mannings equa-
tion, infiltration into the unsaturated and saturated zones
by a simple leakage approach, two-dimensional regional
groundwater flow, and evaporation from the saturated and
unsaturated zones. The main calibration parameters were
Mannings roughness of surface flow, the hydraulic con-
ductivity of the swamp cells, the transmissivity of the sand

aquifer, and the vertical leakance between the surface and
the subsurface layer (i.e. an infiltration parameter). Three
objective functions were used in a manual calibration pro-
cedure and they all involved a comparison of simulated
and observed inundation patterns for the same date. The
first objective function was based on the total size of the
flooded area, the second on a pixel-by-pixel comparison,
and the third attempted to match the number of fringe
points of the observed and simulated inundation patterns.
Resulting parameters were all within a physically plausible
range.
There are more alternatives to runoff that can be used
for calibrating rainfall-runoff models in ungauged catch-
ments. Suitable variables depend on the type of hydrologi-
cal process of interest (Grayson et al., 2002). Observed soil
moisture would be an obvious choice for explicit soil mois-
ture accounting models, but it is difficult to obtain spatially
representative soil moisture measurements in catchments
(Western et al., 2002, 2004). Ground measurements may
be representative of the entire root zone but are usually
limited to a few spots in a catchment. Spaceborne esti-
mates of soil moisture can be retrieved for large areas
(e.g. Wagner et al., 2003) but their main limitations are
the shallow penetration depths, which are much smaller
than the root depth represented in many hydrologic models.
Although there are methods of dealing with this incom-
patibility in a simplified way (Houser et al., 2000; Walker
et al., 2001; Schuurmans et al., 2003), challenges remain.
Various types of field based soft data, as discussed in
Section Soft data and qualitative field observations, are
also potentially useful for assisting in model calibration as
demonstrated in Seibert and McDonnell (2002). Soft data
include saturation areas as mapped in the early work of
Dunne and Black (1970) and Dunne et al. (1975). There
is renewed interest in saturation patterns as illustrated by
a number of mapping projects occurring (e.g. Kirnbauer
et al., 2005) and their application in constraining param-
eter estimation in rainfall-runoff modeling (e.g. Franks
et al., 1998).
CONCLUDING REMARKS
In ungauged catchments, no runoff data are available for
calibrating model parameters, so alternative methods are
needed. This article has reviewed numerous methods that
depend on the type of parameters, whether they are cal-
ibration parameters associated with one particular model,
or physically based parameters with some meaning beyond
the model used. Calibration parameters are preferably trans-
posed from similar, gauged catchments in the same region.
Estimating calibration parameters from catchment attributes
is generally not recommended for a number of reasons.
Physically based parameters can be inferred from measure-
ments, often based on widely available surrogates such
RAINFALL-RUNOFF MODELING OF UNGAUGED CATCHMENTS 15
as land use and soil type but, again, there are signifi-
cant uncertainties and comparisons with adjusted param-
eters from similar, gauged catchments in the same region
are extremely useful. As an alternative, or in addition to
these parameter estimation methods, hydrologic response
data other than runoff may be available in the catch-
ment of interest and these may assist in calibrating model
parameters.
Some guidance for selecting the model structure may
also be needed in ungauged catchments. Similar to gauged
catchments, model structure choice depends on the problem
at hand, data availability, and the runoff processes one is
to represent (see Chapter 122, Rainfall-runoff Modeling:
Introduction, Volume 3). An analysis of similar, gauged
catchments in the same region can provide some assis-
tance in the latter step. Acquiring confidence in the model
through model tests is not straightforward in the ungauged
catchment case but pursuing more than one avenue of
parameter estimation can be of assistance. For example,
transposing parameters from similar gauged catchments,
inferring them from measurements in the ungauged catch-
ment, and testing the model against hydrologic response
data that may be available in the ungauged catchment
may provide some indications on model reliability through
complimentary information. Cross-validation is also use-
ful as it tests a number of uncertainties in a combined
way. Additionally, some of the methods of uncertainty
assessment reviewed in Chapter 131, Model Calibra-
tion and Uncertainty Estimation, Volume 3 are appli-
cable to the ungauged catchment case. In all these steps
there is a very important role of qualitative field obser-
vations, if only by visual examination of the landforms.
Qualitative field observations may greatly assist in judg-
ing the catchment functioning and hence in testing the
plausibility of model parameters and the model struc-
ture.
It may seem strange to end a review of rainfall-
runoff modeling in ungauged catchments with a note
on the value of runoff data, but that in my opinion
is the state of the science. As highlighted throughout
this article, there are methods for dealing with rainfall-
runoff modeling in ungauged catchments, but signifi-
cant uncertainties remain. Short-runoff data series may
contain very valuable information (Vogel and Kroll,
1991; Laaha and Bloschl, 2005b) so the single best
recommendation on the issue of rainfall-runoff model-
ing of ungauged catchments may be to install a stream
gauge!
Acknowledgment
I am grateful to Ralf Merz for providing valuable comments
on an early draft of this manuscript and to Keith Beven
and an anonymous reviewer for comments that helped
improve the manuscript. I would also like to thank Dieter
16 RAINFALL-RUNOFF MODELING
Gutknecht, Rodger Grayson, and Siva Sivapalan for the
numerous insightful discussions on the subject matter over
the years. Financial assistance from the Austrian Academy
of Sciences and the Austrian Science Foundation (project
no P14478-TEC) is gratefully acknowledged.
FURTHER READING
Beven K.J. (2001b) How far can we go with distributed
hydrological modelling? Hydrology and Earth Systems
Sciences, 5(1), 1 12.
REFERENCES
Aryal S.K., OLoughlin E.M. and Mein R.G. (2002) A similarity
approach to predict landscape saturation in catchments. Water
Resources Research, 38(10), 1208, doi:10.1029/2001WR00
0864.
Atkinson S.E., Woods R.A. and Sivapalan M. (2002) Climate and
landscape controls on water balance model complexity over
changing timescales. Water Resources Research, 38(12), 1314,
doi:10.1029/2002WR001487.
Bates B.C. (1994) Regionalisation of hydrologic data: a
review. Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology,
Monash University: Victoria, p. 61.
Bauer P. (2004) Flooding and Salt Transport in the Okavango
Delta, Botswana: Key Issues for Sustainable Wetland Manage-
ment, Diss., Naturwissenschaften, Eidgenossische Technische
Hochschule ETH Zurich, Nr. 15436.
Beldring S., Roald L.A. and Voks A. (2002) Avrenningskart for
Norge (Runoff map for Norway, in Norwegian), Report No. 2,
Norwegian Water and Energy Directorate, Oslo.
Bergstrom S. (1976) Development and Application of a
Conceptual Runoff Model for Scandinavian Catchments,
Department of Water Resources Engineering, Lund Institute of
Technology, Bulletin Series A-52, Swedish Meteorological and
Hydrological Institute: Norrkoping, p. 134.
Beven K. (1989) Changing ideas in hydrology the case of
physically based models. Journal of Hydrology, 105, 157 172.
Beven K.J. (2000) Uniqueness of place and process representa-
tions in hydrological modelling. Hydrology and Earth Systems
Sciences, 4(2), 203 213.
Beven K.J. (2001a) Rainfall-runoff Modelling The Primer, John
Wiley and Sons, p. 360.
Beven K.J. and Kirkby M.J. (1979) A physically-based, variable
contributing area model of basin hydrology. Hydrological
Sciences Bulletin, 24, 43 69.
Bierkens M.F.P., Finke P.A. and de Willigen P. (2000) Upscaling
and Downscaling Methods for Environmental Research, Kluwer
Academic Publishers: p. 190.
Blazkova S., Beven K., Tacheci P. and Kulasova A.
(2002) Testing the distributed water table predictions of
TOPMODEL (allowing for uncertainty in model calibration):
the death of TOPMODEL? Water Resources Research, 38(11),
10.1029/2001WR000912.
Bloschl G. (1999) Scaling issues in snow hydrology. Hydrological
Processes, 13, 2149 2175.
Bloschl G. and Grayson R. (2000) Spatial observations and
interpolation. In Spatial Patterns in Catchment Hydrology:
Observations and Modelling, Chap. 2, Grayson R. and
Bloschl G. (Eds.), Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, pp.
17 50.
Bloschl G., Kirnbauer R., Jansa J., Kraus K., Kuschnig G.,
Gutknecht D. and Reszler Ch. (2002) Einsatz von Fern-
erkundungsmethoden zur Eichung und Verifikation eines
flachendetaillierten Schneemodells (Using remote sensing
methods for calibrating and verifying a spatially distributed
snow model). Osterreichische Wasser- und Abfallwirtschaft, 54,
1 16.
Bloschl G. and Sivapalan M. (1995) Scale issues in hydrological
modelling a review. Hydrological Processes, 9, 251 290.
Boorman D.B., Hollis J.M. and Lilly A. (1995) Hydrology of Soil
Types: A Hydrologically Based Classification of the Soils of the
United Kingdom, IH Report No. 126, Institute of Hydrology,
Wallingford.
Bormann H. Diekkruger B. and Renschler C. (1999)
Regionalisation concept for hydrological modelling on different
scales using a physically based model: results and evaluation,
Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Part B: Hydrology, Oceans
and Atmosphere, 24(7), 799 804.
Breiman L., Friedman J.H., Olshen R. and Stone C.J. (1984)
Classification and Regression Trees, Wadsworth International
Group: Belmont.
Brunsell N.A. and Gillies R.R. (2003) Scale issues in land-
atmosphere interactions: implications for remote sensing of the
surface energy balance. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology,
117, 203 221.
Budyko M.I. (1974) Climate and Life, Academic Press: Orlando,
p. 508.
Burn D.H. and Boorman D.B. (1993) Estimation of hydrological
parameters at ungauged catchments. Journal of Hydrology, 143,
429 454.
Busch G., Sutmoller J., Kruger J.-P. and Gerold G. (1999)
Regionalization of runoff formation by aggregation of
hydrological response units: a regional comparison. In
Regionalization in Hydrology, Diekkruger B., Kirkby M.J. and
Schroder U. (Ed.), IAHS Publication No. 254, IAHS Press: pp.
45 53.
Buttner G., Feranec J. and Jaffrain G. (2002) Corine Land Cover
Update 2000: Technical Guidelines, Technical Report No. 89,
European Environment agency, Copenhagen.
Calver A., Kay A.L., Jones D.A., Kjeldsen T., Reynard N.S. and
Crooks S. (2004) Flood frequency quantification for ungauged
sites using continuous simulation: a UK approach. In Com-
plexity and Integrated Resources Management, Transactions of
the 2nd Biennial iEMSs Meeting, Pahl-Wostl C., Schmidt S.,
Rizzoli A.E. and Jakeman A.J. (Eds.), International Environ-
mental Modelling and Software Society (iEMSs): Manno, pp.
1214 1218.
Campbell E. and Bates B. (2001) Regionalization of rainfall-
runoff model parameters using Markov Chain Monte Carlo
samples. Water Resources Research, 37(3), 731 739.
Cordery I. and Pilgrim D.H. (1983) On the Lack of Dependence
of Losses from Flood Runoff on Soil and Cover Characteristics,
Proceedings of the Hamburg Symposium, IAHS Publication No.
140, IAHS: Wallingford, pp. 187 195.

Drogue G., El Idrissi A., Pfister L., Leviandier T., Iffly J.-F. and
Hoffmann L. (2002) Calibration of a parsimonious rainfall-
runoff model: a sensitivity analysis from local to regional scale.
Proceedings of iEMSs 2002 Integrated Assessment and Decision
Support 24 27 June 2002 Lugano, Vol. 1, International
Environmental Modelling and Software Society: pp. 464 469.
Duan Q., Schaake J. and Koren V. (2001) A priori estimation
of land surface model parameters. In Land Surface Hydrology,
Meteorology, and Climate: Observations and Modeling. Water
Science and Application, Vol. 7, American Geophysical Union:
pp. 77 94.
Dunne T. (1978) Field studies of hillslope flow processes. In
Hillslope Hydrology, Kirkby M.J. (Ed.), Wiley: Chichester, pp.
227 293.
Dunne T. and Black R.D. (1970) Partial area contributions
to storm runoff in a small New England watershed. Water
Resources Research, 6(5), 1296 1311.
Dunne T., Moore T.R. and Taylor C.H. (1975) Recognition
and prediction of runoff-producing zones in humid regions.
Hydrological Sciences Bulletin, 20, 305 327.
Engeland K. and Gottschalk L. (2002) Bayesian estimation of
parameters in a regional hydrological model. Hydrological
Earth System Sciences, 6(5), 883 898.
Engman E.T. (1986) Roughness coefficients for routing surface
runoff. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, 112,
39 53.
Farmer D., Sivapalan M. and Jothityangkoon C. (2003) Climate,
soil and vegetation controls upon the variability of water
balance in temperate and semiarid landscapes: downward
approach to water balance analysis. Water Resources Research,
39(2), 1035, SWC 1 21.
Fernandez W., Vogel R.M. and Sankarasubramanian A. (2000)
Regional calibration of a watershed model. Hydrological
Sciences Journal, 45(5), 689 708.
Flugel W.A. (1995) Delineating hydrological response units
by geographical information system analyses for regional
hydrological modelling using PRMS/MMS in the drainage
basin of the River Brol, Germany. Hydrological Processes, 9,
423 436.
Franks S.W., Gineste P., Beven K.J. and Merot P.h (1998)
On constraining the predictions of a distributed model: the
incorporation of fuzzy estimates of saturated areas into the
calibration process. Water Resources Research, 34(4), 787 797.
Gallo K., Tarpley D., Mitchell K., Csiszar I., Owen T. and Reed B.
(2001) Monthly fractional green vegetation cover associated
with land cover classes of the conterminous USA. Geophysical
Research Letters, 28(10), 2089 2092.
Gessler P.E., Moore I.D., McKenzie N.J. and Ryan P.J. (1995)
Soil landscape modelling and spatial prediction of soil
attributes. International Journal of Geographical Information
Systems, 9(4), 421 432.
Gorte B.G.H. (2000) Land-use and catchment characteristics. In
Remote Sensing in Hydrology and Water Management, Schultz
G.A. and Engman E.T. (Eds.), Springer: Berlin, pp. 133 156.
Gottschalk L. (2002) Advances in observational hydrology
field experiments and modelling. In Proceedings of Workshop
on the Prediction of Ungauged Basins (PUBs) held at 28 29
March 2002 at the Yamanashi University, Takeuchi K. (Ed.),
International Association of Hydrological Sciences: Kofu.
RAINFALL-RUNOFF MODELING OF UNGAUGED CATCHMENTS 17
Grayson R., Bloschl G., Western A. and McMahon T. (2002)
Advances in the use of observed spatial patterns of catchment
hydrological response. Advances in Water Resources, 25,
1313 1334.
Gupta H.V., Sorooshian S. and Yapo P.O. (1998) Toward
improved calibration of hydrologic models: multiple and
noncommensurable measures of information. Water Resources
Research, 34(4), 751 763.
Hall F.G., Townshend J.R. and Engman E.T. (1995) Status of
remote sensing algorithms for estimation of land surface state
parameters. Remote Sensing of Environment, 51(1), 138 156.
Hansen M., DeFries R., Townshend J.R.G. and Sohlberg R.
(2000) Global land cover classification at 1 km resolution
using a decision tree classifier. International Journal of Remote
Sensing, 21, 1331 1365.
Hessel R., Jetten V. and Guanghui Z. (2003) Estimating
Mannings n for steep slopes. Catena, 54(1 2), 77 91.
Hirsch R.M., Helsel D.R., Cohn T.A. and Gilroy E.J. (1992)
Statistical analysis of hydrological data. In Handbook of
Hydrology, Maidment R. (Ed.), McGraw-Hill: New York, pp.
17.1 17.55.
Hoosbeek M.R. and Bryant R.B. (1993) Towards the quantitative
modeling of pedogenesis: a review. Geoderma, 55, 183 210.
Houser P.R., Goodrich D. and Syed K. (2000) Runoff,
precipitation, and soil moisture at Walnut Gulch. In Spatial
Patterns in Catchment Hydrology: Observations and Modelling,
Chap. 6, Grayson R. and Bloschl G. (Eds.), Cambridge
University Press: Cambridge, pp. 125 157.
Institute of Hydrology (IH) (1999) Flood Estimation Handbook.
Institute of Hydrology: Wallingford.
Jamagne M., Deroussin J., Eimberck M., King D., Lambert
J.J., Lebas C. and Montanarella L. (2002) Soil geographical
data base of Eurasia and Mediterranean countries at 1:1m,
Transcations of the 17th World Congress of Soil Science, The
International Union of Soil Sciences, Symposium 44 , Bangkok,
paper no 494, 14 20 August.
Jensen J.R. (1996) Introductory Digital Image Processing. A
Remote Sensing Perspective, Second Edition, Prentice-Hall.
Kirnbauer R., Bloschl G., Haas P., Muller G. and Merz B.
(2005) Identifying space-time patterns of runoff generation A
case study from the Lohnersbach catchment, Austrian Alps. In
Global Change and Mountain Regions, Huber U., Reasoner M.
and Bugmann H. (Eds.), Springer Wien: New York, pp.
309 320.
Kite G. and Droogers P. (Eds.) (2000) Comparing actual
evapotranspiration from satellite data, hydrological models
and field data. Special Issue Journal of Hydrology, 229(1 2),
1 100.
Koren V., Smith M. and Duan Q. (2003) Use of a priori parameter
estimates in the derivation of spatially consistent parameters
sets of rainfall-runoff modes. In Calibration of Watershed
Models. Water Science and Application, Vol. 6, American
Geophysical Union: pp. 239 254.
Laaha G. and Bloschl G. (2005a) A comparison of low flow
regionalisation methods catchment grouping. Journal of
Hydrology, in press.
Laaha G. and Bloschl G. (2005b) Low flow estimates from short
stream flow records a comparison of methods. Journal of
Hydrology, 306(1 4), 264 286.
18 RAINFALL-RUNOFF MODELING
Lamb R., Beven K.J. and Myrab S. (1998) Use of spatially
distributed water table observations to constrain uncertainty in
a rainfall-runoff model. Advances in Water Resources, 22(4),
305 317.
Lamb R. and Kay A.L. (2004) Confidence intervals for a spatially
generalized, continuous simulation flood frequency model
for Great Britain. Water Resources Research, 40, W07501,
doi:10.1029/2003WR002428.
Larsen J.E., Sivapalan M., Coles N.A. and Linnet P.E.
(1994) Similarity analysis of runoff generation processes
in real-world catchments. Water Resources Research, 30(6),
1641 1652.
Leavesley G.H., and Stannard L.G. (1995) The Precipitation-
Runoff Modeling System PRMS. In Computer Models
of Watershed Hydrology, Singh V.P. (Ed.), Water Resources
Publications, Highlands Ranch, pp. 281 310.
Lucas Y. (2001) The role of plants in controlling rates and
products of weathering. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary
Sciences, 29, 135 163.
McCarthy J.M., Gumbricht Th.R., McCarthy T.S., Frost Ph.E.,
Wessels K. and Seidel F. (2003) Flooding patterns of the
Okavango Wetland in Botswana between 1972 and 2000.
AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment, 32(7), 453 457.
Merz R. and Bloschl G. (2004) Regionalisation of catchment
model parameters. Journal of Hydrology, 287, 95 123.
Merz R. and Bloschl G. (2005) Flood frequency regionalisation
spatial proximity vs. catchment attributes. Journal of
Hydrology, 302(1 4), 283 306.
Merz R., Bloschl G. and Parajka J. (2005) Raum-zeitliche
Variabilitat von Ereignisabflussbeiwerten in Osterreich (Spatio-
temporal variability of event runoff coefficients in Austria).
Hydrologie und Wasserbewirtschaftung, in press.
Merz R., Parajka J. and Bloschl G. (2004) Raumliche
Muster in der konzeptionellen Wasserbilanzmodellierung
Parameteridentifikation. Proceedings Tag der Hydrologie in
Potsdam, Universitat Potsdam.
Merz R., Piock-Ellena U., Bloschl G. and Gutknecht D.
(1999) Seasonality of flood processes in Austria. In
Hydrological Extremes: Understanding, Predicting, Mitigating,
Gottschalk L., Olivry J.C., Reed D. and Rosbjerg D. (Eds.),
Proceedings of the Birmingham Symposium, IAHS Publication
No. 255, IAHS: pp. 273 278, July 1990.
Mishra S.K. and Singh V.P. (2003) Soil Conservation Service
Curve Number (SCS-CN) Methodology, Book Series: Water
Science And Technology Library, Volume 42 , Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Moore I.D., Grayson R.B. and Ladson A.R. (1991) Digital
terrain modelling: a review of hydrological, geomorphological,
and biological applications. Hydrological Processes, 5,
3 30.
Mroczkowski M., Raper G.P. and Kuczera G. (1997) The quest
for more powerful validation of conceptual catchment models.
Water Resources Research, 33(10), 2325 2335.
Nash I.E. and Sutcliffe I.V. (1970) River flow forecasting through
conceptual models, part I. Journal of Hydrology, 10, 282 290.
Nathan R.J. and McMahon T.A. (1990) Identification of
homogeneous regions for the purpose of regionalization.
Journal of Hydrology, 121, 217 238.
Parajka J., Merz R. and Bloschl G. (2005a) A comparison
of regionalisation methods for catchment model parameters.
Hydrology and Earth Systems Sciences Discuss., 2, 509 542.
www.copernicus.org/EGU/hess/hessd/2/509/ SRef-ID:
1812-2116/hessd/2005-2-509.
Parajka J., Merz R. and Bloschl G. (2005b) Regionale
Wasserbilanzkomponenten fur Osterreich auf Tagesbasis
(Regional water balance components in Austria on a daily
basis). Osterreichische Wasser- und Abfallwirtschaft, 57(3/4),
43 56.
Peschke G., Etzenberg C., Topfer J., Zimmermann S. and
Muller G. (1999a) Runoff generation regionalization: analysis
and a possible approach to a solution. In Regionalization
in Hydrology, Diekkruger B., Kirkby M.J. and Schroder U.
(Eds.), IAHS Publication No. 254, IAHS Press: pp.
147 156.
Peschke G., Etzenberg C., Muller G., Topfer J. und
Zimmermann S. (1999b) Das wissensbasierte System FLAB
ein Instrument zur rechnergestutzten Bestimmung von Land-
schaftseinheiten mit gleicher Abflubildung, IHI-Schriften,
H.10, Internat. Hochschulinstitut Zittau.
Rinaldo A., Vogel G.K., Rigon R. and Rodriguez-Iturbe I. (1995)
Can one gauge the shape of a basin? Water Resources Research,
31, 1119 1128.
Robinson J.S. and Sivapalan M. (1995) Catchment-scale model
of runoff generation by aggregation and similarity analysis.
Hydrological Processes, 9(5 6), 555 574.
Rodrguez-Iturbe I. and Valdes J.B. (1979) The geomorphologic
structure of hydrologic response. Water Resources Research, 15,
1409 1420.
Scherrer S. and Naef F. (2003) The identification of dominant
runoff processes on plot-scale based on field information used
to define hydrologic response units on the catchment-scale.
Geophysical Research Abstracts, 5, 14 393.
Schumann A.H., Funke R. and Schultz G.A. (2000) Applications
of a Geographic Information System for conceptual rainfall-
runoff modeling. Journal of Hydrology, 240(1,2), 45 61.
Schuurmans J.M., Troch P.A., Veldhuizen A.A., Bastiaanssen
W.G.M. and Bierkens M.F.P. (2003) Assimilation of remotely
sensed latent heat flux in a distributed hydrological model.
Advances in Water Resources, 26, 151 159.
SCS Soil Conservation Service (1973) A Method for Estimating
Volume and Rate of Runoff in Small Watersheds, Technical paper
149, U.S. Department of Agriculture: Washington.
Sefton C.E.M. and Howarth S.M. (1998) Relationships between
dynamic response characteristics and physical descriptors of
catchments in England and Wales. Journal of Hydrology, 211,
1 16.
Seibert J. (1999) Regionalisation of parameters for a conceptual
rainfall-runoff model. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology,
98 99, 279 293.
Seibert J. and McDonnell J.J. (2002) On the dialog between
experimentalist and modeler in catchment hydrology: use of
soft data for multicriteria model calibration. Water Resources
Research, 38(11), 1241, doi:10.1029/2001WR000978.
Sepaskhah A.R. and Bondar H. (2002) Estimation of manning
roughness coefficient for bare and vegetated furrow irrigation.
Biosystems Engineering, 82(3), 351 357.

Sivapalan M., Beven K.J. and Wood E.F. (1987) On hydrologic
similarity. 2. A scaled model of storm runoff production. Water
Resources Research, 23(12), 2266 2278.
Stewart J.B., Engman E.T., Feddes R.A. and Kerr Y. (1996)
Scaling up in Hydrology Using Remote Sensing, John Wiley:
p. 255.
Szolgay J., Hlavkova K., Kohnova S. and Kubes R. (2002)
Regional calibration of a water balance model for estimating
mean monthly flow in small ungauged catchment, ERB
and Northern European FRIEND Project 5 Conference,
Demanovska dolina.
Tucker C.J., Grant D.M. and Dykstra J.D. (2004) NASAs global
orthorectified landsat data set. Photogrammetric Engineering
and Remote Sensing, 70(3), 313 322.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) (1991) State
Soil Geographic Data Base (STATSGO) Data Users Guide,
Miscellaneous Publication No. 1492, USDA-Soil Conservation
Service: Washington, p. 88.
USACE (1994) Engineering and Design Flood-Runoff Analysis,
Publication Number EM 1110 2-1417, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers: Washington.
Vieux B.E. (2001) Distributed Hydrologic Modeling Using GIS:
Water Science And Technology Library, Vol. 38, Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Vogel R.M. and Kroll C.N. (1991) The value of streamflow record
augmentation procedures in low-flow and flood-flow frequency
analysis. Journal of Hydrology, 125(3 4), 259 276.
Wagner W., Scipal K., Pathe C., Gerten D., Lucht W. and
Rudolf B. (2003) Evaluation of the agreement between the
first global remotely sensed soil moisture data with model
and precipitation data. Journal of Geophysical Research-
Atmospheres, 108(D19), 4611, doi: 10.1029/2003JD003663.
RAINFALL-RUNOFF MODELING OF UNGAUGED CATCHMENTS 19
Walker J.P., Willgoose G.R. and Kalma J.D. (2001) One-
dimensional soil moisture profile retrieval by assimilation of
near-surface observations: a comparison of retrieval algorithms.
Advances in Water Resources, 24(6), 631 650.
Warrick A.W., Zhang R., Moody M.M. and Myers D.E. (1990)
Kriging versus alternative interpolators: errors and sensitivity
to model inputs. In Field-scale Water and Solute Flux in Soils,
Roth K. etal (Eds.), Birkhauser Verlag: Basel, pp. 157 164.
Western A.W. and Bloschl G. (1999) On the spatial scaling of
soil moisture. Journal of Hydrology, 217, 203 224.
Western A.W., Grayson R.B., Bloschl G., Willgoose G.R. and
McMahon T.A. (1999) Observed spatial organisation of soil
moisture and its relation to terrain indices. Water Resources
Research, 35(3), 797 810.
Western A.W., Grayson R.B. and Bloschl G. (2002) Scaling of
soil moisture a hydrological perspective. Annual Review of
Earth and Planetary Sciences, 30, 149 180.
Western A.W., Zhou S.-L., Grayson R.B., McMahon T.A.,
Bloschl G. and Wilson D.J. (2004) Spatial correlation of soil
moisture in small catchments and its relationship to dominant
spatial hydrological processes. Journal of Hydrology, 286(1 4),
113 134.
WMO (1995) INFOHYDRO Manual, Second Edition, Operational
Hydrology Report, No. 28, WMO Report No. 683, World
Meteorological Organisation, Geneva.
Woods R.A. (2003) The role of catchment classification in
Hydrology science. Geophysical Research Abstracts, Vol. 5,
08 192, European Geophysical Society.
Wosten J.H.M., Pachepsky Y.A. and Rawls W.J. (2001)
Pedotransfer functions: bridging the gap between available
basic soil data and missing soil hydraulic characteristics.
Journal of Hydrology, 251(3 4), 123 150.