© 2024 The Authors Water Practice & Technology Vol 19 No 11, 4647 doi: 10.2166/wpt.2024.

278

Evaluation of satellite rainfall products to estimate extreme flow events over

the Kulfo watershed in Ethiopia

Elias Gebeyehu Ayele *, Zinash Matewos Buba and Otoma Orkaido Garo
Faculty of Hydraulic and Water Resources Engineering, Arba Minch Water Technology Institute, Arba Minch University, P.O. Box 21,
Arba Minch, Ethiopia
*Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]

EGA, 0000-0002-8150-1610

ABSTRACT

Satellite rainfall products with high spatial and temporal resolution offer opportunities to monitor extreme climate events inten-
sities and trends on spatial different scales. A critical evaluation of the satellite precipitation data set is very important for both
the end users and data developers. Meanwhile, the evaluation may provide a benchmark for the product’s continued develop-
ment and future improvement. The main objective of this study is to evaluate the performance of globally gridded high–
resolution satellite rainfall products (TRMM, CMORPH and CHRIPS) under sparse ground-based data and complex topography
of Kulfo watershed through semi-distributed hydrological model (SWAT). The model is calibrated for the period of 1991–2008
and validated for the period of 2009–2015. Comparisons of the simulations to the observed stream flow at the outlet of
Kulfo Watershed form the basis for the conclusions of this study. The Nash-Sutcliffe Efficiency and Coefficient of Determination
were used to benchmark the model performance. The result indicated that all models underestimate the observed rainfall.
Accuracy of models is not the same in representing the rainfall of the study area with TRMM performing best (Bias¼–5.78)
while CMORPH performs worst (Bias¼–9.87). Overall, the satellite rainfall products tend to overestimate inter-annual rainfall
variability.

Key words: extreme climate events, extremes flow, Kulfo watershed, satellite rainfall products, SWAT model

HIGHLIGHTS

• To know the evaluation of satellite rainfall products (SRPs) to estimate extreme flow events over the Kulfo watershed.
• To evaluate the performance of SRPs at different time-scales against the observed data.
• To select the appropriate product types at the Kulfo watershed.
• To examine SWAT models’ performance using observed and SRPs.
• Capture the variability of extreme flow events.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence (CC BY 4.0), which permits copying,
adaptation and redistribution, provided the original work is properly cited (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wpt/article-pdf/19/11/4647/1514031/wpt2024278.pdf

by guest
 Water Practice & Technology Vol 19 No 11, 4648

GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION
The variability and changes in climate brought about by global warming have raised the uncertainty around
extreme hydrological occurrences on a global scale (Abbas et al. 2022a, b; 2023; Ullah et al. 2023). The escalating
global environmental crisis is marked by climate change and resource depletion through extreme climate events
(Jiang et al. 2024). Most of the developing countries are agriculture-based economies and have direct exposure to
climate change and extreme events (Waseem et al. 2022). The accelerated process of agricultural commercializa-
tion enhanced the amount of fossil fuel burnings both in grain and cash crops, which increased the agricultural
carbon share to 14% in net global emissions (Abbas et al. 2022a, b). This accelerated agricultural process leads to
changes in climate and also alters the volumes and patterns of rainfall, runoff, and runoff coefficient (Mehta et al.
2022; Mehta et al. 2023).
Rainfall is one of the main climate parameters associated with extreme climate events, and heavy or reduced
precipitation yields extreme precipitation or drought, respectively (Anvari et al. 2022; Masood et al. 2023;
Najafzadeh & Anvari 2023). Extreme precipitation and drought indexes are commonly used to monitor and
quantify the intensities and trends of these extreme climate events (ECEs) (Abbas et al. 2021; Vélez-Nicolás
et al. 2022). Precipitation is the main input parameter required to obtain these monitoring indexes; therefore, pre-
cipitation data with high spatial and temporal resolutions are prerequisites for ECE analysis. Also, precipitation is
an important hydrological parameter used for watershed management, flood forecasting, and climatological
assessment (Masood et al. 2023). Thus, monitoring and projection of precipitation changes are of great impor-
tance to both disaster prevention and ECE mitigation (Buttafuoco et al. 2014; Kumar et al. 2023a, b).
Runoff is an important hydrological process and can cause negative effects such as soil erosion and excessive
flooding over the river basin area. Changes in land use and land cover are dynamic processes and can strongly
influence runoff potential in the long run (Mehta et al. 2023; Verma et al. 2023). Floods have had an impact on
the natural environment even before humans arrived (Gohil et al. 2024). They are now considered natural
hazards and a major global problem that harms human lives (Skilodimou et al. 2021). Floods have historically
had significant implications on individuals and communities, including loss of life, damage to homes and infra-
structure, crop devastation, and disruption to social affairs, as well as livestock losses (Kumar & Mehta 2021;
Mangukiya et al. 2022; Kumar et al. 2023a, b).

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wpt/article-pdf/19/11/4647/1514031/wpt2024278.pdf

by guest
 Water Practice & Technology Vol 19 No 11, 4649

Rain gauges, radars, and satellites are common tools for precipitation measurement (Michaelides et al. 2009).
In situ gauge observations provide direct measurements of surface precipitation, but their areal coverage is small
and usually insufficient for the accurate characterization of the spatial variability of precipitation, which has high
spatial heterogeneity (Jongjin et al. 2016). Satellite remote sensing, which provides nearly global coverage, is a
satisfactory means of compensating for the above limitations. Many satellite-based rainfall products have been
generated to meet various hydro-meteorological needs. The current satellite precipitation products (SPPs) include
Climate Prediction Center Morphing (CMORPH), the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM), Integrated
Multi-Satellite Retrievals for Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM IMERG), Precipitation Estimation from
Remotely Sensed Information using Artificial Neural Networks (PERSIANN) series, and Climate Hazards
Group Infrared Precipitation with Station Data (CHRIPS) (Ashouri et al. 2016).
Because such products have global (or quasi-global) orientation, the performances of SPPs are expected to vary
from place to place. Satellite rainfall estimates offer several advantages compared to the conventional methods
but can also be prone to multiple errors. The rainfall detection capability of SPPs can be affected by local climate
and topography (Xu et al. 2013). Therefore, the performance of SPPs should be examined for a particular area
before using the products for any application (Hu et al. 2014; Tote et al. 2015; Kimani et al. 2017). In developing
countries, the availability of ground measuring stations is extremely limited with a scarce density of the hydro-
meteorological network and uneven distribution, making it challenging for water resource development. Rainfall
measurement is typically accomplished using rain gauge stations. However, there are small numbers of stations
available, especially in the mountainous regions of Ethiopia. In mountainous regions, rainfall is extremely vari-
able and changes in rainfall distribution can occur over short distances and within a short period of time (Gebere
et al. 2015). In addition to the sparse network distribution issue, gathering available information from the existent
surface observation network and performing ground surveys also are common problems. Among Ethiopian rivers
facing this problem, the Kulfo River encompasses a series of challenges. Existing basic data for the watershed is
very limited, and also, most of the available data are missing.
This study focused on the evaluation of satellite rainfall products (SRPs) to estimate extreme flow events over
the Kulfo watershed in Ethiopia. The specific aims of the present study are to assess the suitability of SRPs for the
Kulfo watershed, to evaluate the performance of SRPs at different time-scales against the observed data, select the
appropriate product types at the Kulfo watershed, and to examine SWAT models’ performance using observed
and SRPs in capturing the variability of extreme flow events over the Kulfo watershed. Most of the studies carried
out in different parts of the world, as well as in Ethiopia, to evaluate the performance of SRPs showed that SRPs
have potential use in prediction and modeling, but their performance depends on the type of SRP, watershed
area, hydro-climatic regions, length of study periods, spatial and temporal resolutions, and topography of the
area. However, these studies did not cover the Kulfo watershed and most of the studies are limited to short
periods (usually 3 to 9 years). Therefore, this study was intended to evaluate the performance of widely used,
easily available SRPs (namely, TRMM, CMORPH, and CHRIPS) in the Kulfo watershed to capture the gauged
data scarcity problem.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Description of the study area
The Kulfo watershed is located near Arba Minch city in the southern part of Ethiopia and at a distance of 500 km
from Addis Ababa, the capital city of Ethiopia. The basin area of the Kulfo watershed is about 367 km2 and it is
situated at the central part of Ethiopian rift valley lake basin between the geographic coordinates of 5°55″N–6°
15″N latitude and 37°18″E–37°36″E longitude. The Kulfo River is one of the dominant rivers in the Abaya–
Chamo sub-basin system. The elevation of the basin varies from 3,600 m above sea level at the peak of Wisha
Ridge to 1,100 m at the entrance to Lake Chamo. It is located in south Ethiopia at the border of the east
Africa rift valley and the west of Lake Abaya and Lake Chamo. The geographic location of the selected study
area is shown in Figure 1.
According to the Ethiopian Mapping Authority, the Kulfo River is formed from the junction of the Gulando
and Titika Rivers. The tributaries Baba, Gulando, and Yeremo drain the upper part of the basin, whereas the
tributaries Wombale and Majale drain the middle part of the watershed. The tributaries Korzha, Ambule,
Titika, and Kulfo make up the lower part of the catchment area.

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wpt/article-pdf/19/11/4647/1514031/wpt2024278.pdf

by guest
 Water Practice & Technology Vol 19 No 11, 4650

Figure 1 | Description of the study area: (a) basins of Ethiopia, (b) rift valley basin, and (c) Kulfo watershed.

Historical records of daily datasets were collected from the available meteorological stations (Table 1). In this
study, the daily precipitation data during 1988–2015 was used as a benchmark for the evaluation of SRPs.

Table 1 | The meteorological station found nearby the Kulfo watershed

S. no. Station name Latitude Longitude Elevation

1 Daramalo 6.32 37.3 1,183

2 Chencha 6.22 38 2,632
3 Dorze 6.19 37.8 2,513
4 Zigit 6.15 37.6 2,413
5 Arba Minch 6.1 37.4 1,206
6 Geresse 5.6 37.2 2,329

Data collection
In order to have reliability in this research work, having relevant information or data was mandatory. These data
are meteorological data (rainfall, temperature, relative humidity, wind speed, and sunshine hour) from the Ethio-
pian Meteorological Institute (EMI) of Ethiopia, hydrological data (stream flow) from the Ministry of Water
Irrigation and Energy (MoWIE) of Ethiopia, SPP data from TRMM, CMORPH, and CHRIPS and other spatial
data, which means a digital elevation model (DEM) of 30  30 m SRTM was obtained from the USGS (earth
explorer.usgs.gov) website in raster form. Geographical coordinates, catchment area, and other related spatial
data were processed and delineated from the 30  30 m DEM using arc GIS 10.3 version. The land use/land
cover data were collected from the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) of Ethiopia and GIS department.

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wpt/article-pdf/19/11/4647/1514031/wpt2024278.pdf

by guest
 Water Practice & Technology Vol 19 No 11, 4651

Checking of data quality

A time series of hydrological data may exhibit jumps and trends owing to what (Yevjevich & Jeng 1969) called as
inconsistency and non-homogeneity. Inconsistency is a change in the amount of systematic error associated with
the recording of data. It can arise from the use of different instruments and methods of observation. Homogeneity
is a change in the statistical properties of the time series. Its causes can be either natural or manmade. These
include alterations to land use, relocation of the observation station, and implementation of flow diversions.

Test for homogeneity of data

Homogeneity analysis is used to identify a change in the statistical property of the time-series data, which is either
natural or manmade. These include alterations to include and relocation of the observe station. According to
Peterson et al. (1998), the recommended method to apply homogeneity has been tested with respect to the neigh-
boring station. Graphical comparison and visual examination of the rainfall data were done by plotting the time
series of monthly rainfall data. The selected stations show a similar periodic pattern of records (Figure 2).

Figure 2 | Homogeneity of the selected rainfall stations.

Extraction of satellite precipitation products

In order to extract the satellite rainfall data of the study area and to export the data in to Excel for each pixel,
MATLAB R2013a and Panoply for NetCDF, HDF, and GRIB data viewer version 4.5.1 were used. MATLAB
R2013a was used to extract and export the rainfall data of the study area and the period for satellite rainfall esti-
mates in to Excel. Finally, with the use of these software and computer programs, daily satellite-based rainfall
estimates were extracted in a suitable format for further analysis.

MATLAB R2013a
MATLAB is an abbreviation for ‘matrix laboratory’ and R2013a was the model number. MATLAB is a proprietary
multi-paradigm programming language and numeric computing environment developed by MathWorks.
MATLAB can be used as a tool for simulating various electrical networks, but the recent developments in
MATLAB make it a very competitive tool for artificial intelligence, robotics, image processing, wireless communi-
cation, machine learning and data analytics. The MATLAB configuration for a processor desktop with a 64 bit
processor CPU will be minimum 2-core with AVX2 instruction set support, the RAM of the computer will be
minimum 8 GB, and the free disk space will be minimum 6 GB. The MATLAB setting is to open the preferences
window to view and change; reproducible computation is the one that gives the same results every time it runs.
The limitations of MATLAB is that compiled applications can run only on operating systems that run MATLAB,
can be used only under control sources, and accessibly for Enter commands is only at the command line.
Panoply is a NASA-developed data viewer for netCDF, HDF, and GRIB files. It allows users to quickly and
easily open a satellite data file, examine the contents, and make a very basic plot of the data. It is helpful for trou-
bleshooting if you encounter errors when using Python to work. Panoply is a cloud-based, end-to-end managed
data platform that allows you to start getting insights from your data in a matter of minutes.

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wpt/article-pdf/19/11/4647/1514031/wpt2024278.pdf

by guest
 Water Practice & Technology Vol 19 No 11, 4652

Validation processes SRPs

The spatial patterns of the SPPs were evaluated and compared with rain gauge data at daily, monthly, and sea-
sonal scales. Both the satellite and gauge rainfall data were collected at different temporal scales, and first, the
daily data were aggregated to monthly and seasonal scales. As more than 85% of the total annual rainfall
occurs during the wet season (June–September), seasonal comparison was considered only for this period
(Gebremichael & Bitew 2011). The ability to replicate the observed rainfall by the products was done during
this common period between all satellite and station rainfall. Considering the given climatic variability, complex
topographical characteristics, and hydrological working units of the watershed, the performance of these pro-
ducts was evaluated using two approaches, namely point-to-pixel and aerial-averaged rainfall comparison.
Rainfall over a complex topography like the Kulfo watershed is largely subjected to small-scale variability,
which implies that the evaluation of such satellite products should be at the smallest possible spatial and temporal
scales (Thiemig et al. 2013). Accordingly, in the first approach, all SRPs from the corresponding grid cell were
compared to the ground observed data within the satellite box. The variance of SPPs was smoother in space
and time as these products were represented by spatial averages over the pixels. For this analysis, the SPPs
were extracted for the location of each rainfall station and their performance was evaluated using statistical indi-
ces. It was assumed that the amount of point rainfall was uniform in the area of the pixel, which may not be
necessarily true.
The second approach was based on the aerial rainfall comparison at different spatial scales. Representative sub-
watersheds from lowland and highland areas with an average elevation of 1,400 and 3,000 m.a.s.l. were con-
sidered in order to account for the effect of topography. Satellite products will be validated at sub-watershed
and watershed levels by comparing the spatially aggregated pixel values against the corresponding interpolated
observed rainfall from gauge stations using the inverse distance weighting (IDW) method (Ruelland et al. 2008).

Performance evaluation metrics of SPPs

The performance of different products was evaluated using quantitative, categorical, and graphical measures. Sev-
eral statistical indicators were used to quantify the consistency between the SPPs and observation data on
different temporal scales: the Pearson linear correlation coefficient (R), root-mean-square error (RMSE), bias
(Bias), relative RMSE (RRMSE), centralized RMSE (CRMSE), relative bias (RB), false alarm ratio (FAR), prob-
ability of detection (POD), frequency bias index (FBI), normalized missed rainfall volume (NRMV),
normalized false alarm satellite rainfall volume (NFASRV), and equitable threat score (ETS) (Wilks 2011). The
rain occurrence of each SPP was evaluated by comparing the probability density function (pdf) occurrence of
daily precipitation of SPP to the rain gauges for the Kulfo watershed.
Daily detection capability and SPP accuracy on a daily scale were evaluated using a set of categorical skill
metrics, i.e., NRMV, NFASRV, FAR, POD, FBI, and ETS; these metrics are widely used to evaluate the consist-
ency between observation and SPPs for rainy event occurrences. The Pearson linear correlation coefficient (R),
RMSE, RRMSE, Bias, CRMSE, and RB were employed to estimate the SPP accuracy on annual and monthly
scales. These error metrics were represented by conditioning to the rain gauge and SPP average quantile intervals:
less than the 20th quantile; from the 20th to the 40th quantile; from the 40th to the 60th quantile; from the 60th to
the 80th quantile; from the 80th to the 95th quantile; and greater than the 95th quantile to analyze SPP perform-
ance for different precipitation amounts (Su et al. 2008; Shrestha et al. 2012; Parida et al. 2017; Masood et al.
2023). These metrics were calculated by Equations (1)–(6) as follows:

P
n
 i  S) 
(Gi  G)(S
i¼1
R ¼ sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffisffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi (1)
P n
 2 P (Si  S)
n
2
(Gi  G)
i¼1 i¼1

vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
u n
u1 X
RMSE ¼ t (Si  Gi )2 (2)
n i¼1

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wpt/article-pdf/19/11/4647/1514031/wpt2024278.pdf

by guest
 Water Practice & Technology Vol 19 No 11, 4653

sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1X n
(Si  Gi )2
n i¼1
RRMSE ¼   100% (3)
G
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1X n
1X 2
(Si  Gi  (Si  Gi ))
n i¼1 n
CRMSE ¼ (4)
1 X n
(Gi )
n i¼1

1Xn
(Si  Gi )
n
RBias ¼ i¼1   100% (5)
G
P
n
(Si  Gi )
i¼1
Bias ¼  100% (6)
P
n
(Gi )
i¼1

where Si and Gi are the values of the satellite precipitation data and rain gauge observations for the ith rain
 and G
station, respectively; S  are the mean values of the satellite precipitation data and rain gauge observations,
respectively, and n is the total number of rain gauges. H represents the observed and correctly detected rain
events. M indicates the observed rain events undetected by the SPP. F indicates the detected rain events that
were not observed; Total represents the total number of rain and ‘not rain’ events. The rain event was the rain
above the threshold.
R measures the linear agreement between rain gauge observations and satellite precipitation. RMSE measures
the absolute average error magnitude and assigns a greater weight to larger errors. RRMSE normalizes RMSE
when daily precipitation estimates are the mean daily precipitation observed on the ground. When RRMSE is
more than 50%, such precipitation estimates are considered unreliable. This particular threshold was used in pre-
vious studies. RB denotes the degree of overall overestimation or underestimation. For more detailed information
about these statistical indices, the reader can refer to Moriasi et al. 2007; Anjum et al. 2016; and Chen & Li 2016.

Categorical technique
The categorical technique is an assessment technique of satellite estimation/model forecast using a contingency
table that reflects the frequency of ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ of the satellite estimation/forecast model (see Table 2).

Table 2 | Contingency table to evaluate precipitation occurrence by satellite products

Satellite/model

Rain gauge Yes No Total

Yes Hits or TP (a) Misses or FP (c) aþc

No False alarms or FN (b) Correct negative or TN (d) bþd
Total aþb cþd
TP, true positive; FP, false positive; FN, false negative; TN, true negative.

A dichotomous estimate says, ‘Yes, an event will happen’, or ‘No, the event will not happen’. By using this table
for daily precipitation, a set of statistical indices are shown as follows: POD responds to the question of what frac-
tion of the observed ‘Yes’ events was correctly estimated/forecasted. The perfect score is 1.
These capability metrics are also calculated as follows, according to (Sharifi et al. 2016; Taye et al. 2023) from
Equations (7)–(18).

a
POD ¼ (7)
a þ c

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wpt/article-pdf/19/11/4647/1514031/wpt2024278.pdf

by guest
 Water Practice & Technology Vol 19 No 11, 4654

FAR deals with the question of what fraction of the estimated/forecasted ‘Yes’ events did not occur. The ideal
score is 0.

b
FAR ¼ (8)
a þ b

A critical success index (CSI) or threat score (TS) answers the question of how well the estimated/forecasted
‘Yes’ events corresponded to the observed ‘Yes’ events. The perfect score is 1.

a
CSI ¼ (9)
a þ b þ c

Accuracy (fraction correct) measures the fraction of correct estimates/forecasts and its perfect score is 1.

a þ d
Accuracy ¼ (10)
total

Bias (frequency bias) answers the question of how the estimated/forecasted frequency of ‘Yes’ events compares
to the observed frequency of ‘Yes’ events. The range of values is 0 to ∞ with a perfect score of 1.

a þ b
Bias ¼ (11)
a þ c

The probability of false detection deals with the question of what fraction of observed ‘No’ events was incor-
rectly estimated/forecasted as ‘Yes’. The range varies from 0 to 1 and the perfect score is 0.

b
POFD ¼ (12)
d þ b

Success ratio (SR) responds to the question of what fraction of estimated/forecasted ‘Yes’ events was correctly
observed. The range is 0 to 1 and the perfect score is 1.

a
SR ¼ (13)
a þ b

An equitable threat score (ETS) or Gilbert skill score answers the question of how well the estimated/fore-
casted ‘Yes’ events corresponded to the observed ‘Yes’ events. The range is 1/3 to 1 and the perfect score is 1.

a  arandom
ETS ¼ (14)
a þ b þ c  arandom

Odds ratio (OR) deals with the ratio of the odds of ‘Yes’ estimates/forecasts being correct over the odds of ‘Yes’
estimates/forecasts being wrong. The odds ratio range is 0 to ∞, 0 indicates no skill, and the perfect score is ∞.

ad
OR ¼ (15)
cb

Hanssen and Kuiper discriminant or true skill statistic (TSS) covers the question of how well the estimates/fore-
cast separated the ‘Yes’ events from the ‘No’ events. The range is 1 to 1, while 0 indicates no skill and 1 is the
perfect score.

a b
TSS ¼  (16)
a þ c b þ d
ad  cb
ORSS ¼ (17)
ad þ cb

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wpt/article-pdf/19/11/4647/1514031/wpt2024278.pdf

by guest
 Water Practice & Technology Vol 19 No 11, 4655

where a represents the number of times that observed rain is correctly detected, b is the number of times that rain
is detected but not observed, c is the number of times that observed rain is not detected, d is the number of times
that observed and estimated rain did not occur and total is the sample size.

(a þ c)  (a þ b)
arandom ¼ (18)
total

Model calibration and validation

Calibration is an effort to better parameterize a model to a given set of local conditions, thereby reducing the predic-
tion uncertainty. Model calibration is performed by carefully selecting values for model input parameters (within their
respective uncertainty ranges) by comparing model predictions (output) for a given set of assumed conditions with
observed data for the same conditions (Arnold et al. 2012). The complex processes occurring in watersheds coupled
with the uncertainty inherent in hydrologic modeling parameters, inputs, and measured data require that hydrologic
models be calibrated and validated to minimize the predictive errors (Abbaspour et al. 2015). To calibrate and vali-
date the hydrologic setup of the SWAT model, the parameters are automatically calibrated by using SUFI2 for the first
10 years until the model simulation result is within the acceptable range of the model performance measures.
A split sample procedure using the monthly stream flow data from the Kulfo watershed gauging station for the
periods 1991–2008 and 2009–2015 is used for calibration and validation, respectively. The first 3 years were
used as the warm up period to mitigate unknown initial conditions. As a result, the first 3 years were excluded
from this analysis. For the same period of time, independent calibrations and validations were undertaken for sat-
ellite rainfall estimates.

Model performance evaluation

The performance of a model must be judged by the extent to which it satisfies its objective of simulating the real
world phenomena (accuracy), or the extent to which the achieved level of accuracy persists through different
samples of data (consistency), and to the extent to which it can sustain the achieved level of accuracy when sub-
jected to diverse application tests other than those used for calibrating the model (versatility). The performance of
the SWAT model was evaluated using statistical measures to determine the quality and reliability of predictions
when compared to the observed values. Regression coefficient (R 2) and Nash and Sutcliff simulation efficiency
(ENS) were used to evaluate the model performance for both simulation cases (satellite rainfall-based and in situ
rainfall-based) (Nash & Sutcliffe 1970).
The regression coefficient (R 2) is the square of the Pearson product–moment correlation coefficient and
describes the proportion of total variance in the observed data that was explained by the model. The closer
the value of R 2 is to 1, the higher is the agreement between the simulated and measured flows. It was calculated
by Equation (19) as follows:

P 2
(Qo )i  (Qo )  ((Qs )i  (Qs ))
R2 ¼ P 2 P 2 (19)
(Qs )i  (Qs ) (Qo )i  (Qo )

where Qo is the observed flow, Qo is the observed mean flow, Qs is the simulated flow, Qs is the simulated mean
flow, and N is the number of compared values.
The model was considered as a good performing model when the Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE) is from
0.80 to 0.9 and a fair to good performing model when the NSE is from 0.6 to 0.8, and it was calculated by
Equation (20):

P
[(Q0 )i  (Qs )i]2
NSE ¼ 1  P 2
(20)
[(Q0 )i  (Qo )i]

Uncertainty analysis
Uncertainty analysis was performed to quantify the uncertainty associated with model simulations. During the
initialization of model parameters, SUFI2 assumes a large parameter uncertainty and then decreases this uncer-
tainty through the p-factor and the r-factor performance statistics. The range of the p-factor varies from 0 to 1,

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wpt/article-pdf/19/11/4647/1514031/wpt2024278.pdf

by guest
 Water Practice & Technology Vol 19 No 11, 4656

with values close to 1 indicating a very high model performance and efficiency (Yong et al. 2014; Abbaspour et al.
2015).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Accuracy assessment of the SRPs
The SRPs were evaluated using statistical measures such as Bias, RMSE, CV, and the annual cycle of rainfall. The
areal mean annual, observed rainfall amount of the catchment is 1,207.23 mm. When comparing the observed
mean annual rainfall to the SRPs, there subsist some differences confirming underestimations for all models
having 840 mm for the climate model (see table below). All models underestimate the observed rainfall. Accuracy
of the models is not the same in representing the rainfall of the study area, with TRMM performing the best
(Bias ¼ 5.78) and CMORPH performing the worst (Bias ¼ 9.87). Overall, SRPs tend to overestimate the
inter-annual rainfall variability. CMORPH performs the best (RMSE ¼ 19.54 mm per month), while CHRIPS per-
forms the worst (RMSE ¼ 13.43 mm per month). Table 3 shows the statistical test parameters, indicating the
correspondence of the uncorrected climate model.

Table 3 | Accuracy of SRPs

Observed TRMM CMORPH CHRIPS

Annual rainfall (mm) 1,207.23 899.7 840.2 844.5

RMSE (mm) – 17.66 19.54 13.43
MAE (mm) – 13.89 13.25 10.65
Bias (mm) – 5.78 9.87 6.27
Mbias – 1.343 2.65 0.768
Rbias – 0.145 1.23 0.213
Correlation coefficient (CC) – 0.8804 0.8984 0.9236
MAE, mean absolute error

The study result is reliable with other results conducted in the catchment. Thiemann & Förch (2005) showed
the bimodal rainfall pattern for the observed rainfall (Figure 3), and station wise, it showed some deviation with this
result, but that is because of the infilling method and the number of years they used was different from this author and
they showed it station wise.

Figure 3 | Evaluation of dichotomous estimates/forecasts.

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wpt/article-pdf/19/11/4647/1514031/wpt2024278.pdf

by guest
 Water Practice & Technology Vol 19 No 11, 4657

The 45° line on the receiver operation characteristics (ROC) curve indicates the line of equal false positive rate
and true positive rate. The coincidence of SRPs increases (due to non-random relationships) when points fall in
the upper triangular portion shown in Figure 4. The point (0,100) indicates a perfect coincidence (i.e., 100% of
the time) between the SRPs. As almost all points fall in the upper triangle, a reasonably strong, non-random
relationship between the observed and SRPs can be ascertained, regardless of the SRPs.

Figure 4 | ROC curve of observed rainfall at the Arba Minch station.

Stream flow modeling

Model sensitivity analyses
Twenty-seven SWAT parameters were considered for model parameterization sensitivity analysis and the most
sensitive parameters were identified using the global sensitivity analysis method in SWAT-CUP SUFI2, by follow-
ing (Abbaspour et al. 2015) the SWAT-CUP user manual. Only eight (top eight) of them were effective for
monthly flow simulation analysis.
Eight most sensitive parameters were selected based on t-stat and p-values as shown in Table 4. A t-stat provides
a measure of sensitivity (larger in the absolute value is more sensitive), whereas p-values give the significance of
sensitivity, a value close to zero is more significant.

Table 4 | Sensitive parameters of the Kulfo watershed (sensitive parameters: t-stat, P-value and sensitivity rank using SUFI2)

Parameter name Description t-Stat P-value Sensitivity rank

CN2.mgt SCS runoff curve number 17.519 0 1

ALPHA_BF.gw Baseflow alpha factor 8.9 0 2
CH_K2.rte Effective hydraulic conductivity in the main channel (mm/h) 8.026 0 3
GW_DELAY.gw Groundwater delay (days) 0.043 0.239 4
ESCO.hru Soil evaporation compensation factor 1.158 0.247 5
SOL_AWC.sol Available water content of soil 0.339 0.735 6
GWQMN.gw Threshold water depth in shallow aquifer 0.008 0.753 7
REVAPMN.gw Threshold water depth in shallow aquifer for revap (mm) 0.084 0.933 8
SCS, soil conservation service.

Based on t-stat and p-value, from the model output, the first three most sensitive parameters are the SCS runoff
curve number (CN2), baseflow alpha factor (ALPHA_BF), and effective hydraulic conductivity of the main chan-
nel (CH_K2). Ground water delay (GW_DELAY), soil evaporation compensation factor (ESCO), soil available

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wpt/article-pdf/19/11/4647/1514031/wpt2024278.pdf

by guest
 Water Practice & Technology Vol 19 No 11, 4658

water capacity (SOL_AWC), the threshold depth of water in shallow aquifer required for return flow (GWQMN),
and the threshold depth of water in the shallow aquifer for ‘revap’ to occur (REVAPMN) are the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th,
and 8th sensitive parameters, respectively.

Assessment of the performance of the SWAT model in simulating stream flow of the Kulfo watershed
Monthly calibration and validation of stream flow. The historical hydrological data for SWAT model calibration
and validation include the river stream flow data from hydrological stations. The observed stream flow data of the
Kulfo watershed from 1991 to 2015 were used for the calibration and validation of the SWAT model. The SWAT
model was calibrated for the period 1991–2008 and validated for 2009–2015 based on the principle that 70% of
stream flow for calibration and 30% for validation use the monthly stream flow observation data from gauging
stations within the study area.

Calibration and validation analyses. After sensitive parameters’ identification, calibration of the model was
executed to evaluate the performance of model simulation using automatic calibration tool (SWAT-CUP
SUFI2) algorithms. The calibration processes considered the eight most sensitive parameters, as shown in
Table 3, and their values were varied iteratively within the allowable ranges until a satisfactory agreement
between the measured and simulated stream flows was obtained.
The SWAT model was calibrated from 1991 to 2008, and the simulated flow was compared with the observed
stream flow data from one gauging station within the study area and a 3-year warm up (initialization) period of
the model (1988–1990). The model was calibrated using a monthly stream flow of the observed data from the
Kulfo hydrological station. The calibration results show that the coefficient of determination and the NSE are
0.792 and 0.692, respectively. These are according to Moriasi et al.’s (2007) suggestion that the performance
rating is very good and good, respectively. The comparison of the observed and simulated discharges for the
Kulfo watershed during the calibration period is presented in Figure 5. The time-series data of the observed
and simulated flows on a monthly basis were plotted for visual comparison.

Figure 5 | Average monthly observed and simulated stream flows of the Kulfo watershed during calibration and validation
periods (1988–2015).

Validation is the evaluation of the model outputs with an independent dataset without making further adjust-
ments. The process is to confirm that the simulation is good enough that the validation was carried out using the
calibrated parameters. For model validation, the observed stream flow of the Kulfo hydrological station from

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wpt/article-pdf/19/11/4647/1514031/wpt2024278.pdf

by guest
 Water Practice & Technology Vol 19 No 11, 4659

2009 to 2015 was used. In the validation process, the model was run with a parameter set without any change of
parameters during the calibration process as shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6 | Regression plot that shows a comparison of simulated data with observed data during the calibration period.

The validation period has also shown a good agreement between the monthly measured and simulated flows as
shown in Figure 7. The validation result showed that the coefficient of determination (R 2) and the NSE are 0.723
and 0.643, respectively. These are according to Moriasi et al.’s (2007) suggestion that the performance rating is
very good for both R 2 and NSE. The coefficient of determination (R 2) during calibration was found to be 0.792.
The calibration result showed that there is a very good agreement between the simulated and observed monthly
flows.

Figure 7 | Regression plot that shows a comparison of simulated data with observed data during the validation period.

The validation result showed that the coefficient of determination (R 2) was 0.723 as shown in Figure 7. The
validation result showed that there is a very good agreement between the simulated and observed monthly flows.

Satellite rainfall simulation of stream flow

According to Figure 8, the comparison of model simulation using rainfall input from various rainfall inputs (i.e.
TRMM, CMORPH, and CHRIPS) with the observed monthly stream flow for the Kulfo watershed is presented in
Figure 8.

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wpt/article-pdf/19/11/4647/1514031/wpt2024278.pdf

by guest
 Water Practice & Technology Vol 19 No 11, 4660

Figure 8 | Comparison of simulated stream flow based on SPPs and observed stream flow during the calibration period.

Figure 9 shows the statistical comparisons of simulations of the Arc SWAT model from various rainfall inputs.
The simulations of stream flow from TRMM, CHRIPS, and CMORPH inputs showed comparatively good per-
formance. Simulations based on CHRIPS and CMORPH have nearly similar NSE and R 2 values (0.69 and
0.853 for CHRIPS and 0.652 and 0.8072 for CMORPH, respectively). There were fair values of NSE (0.61)
and R 2 (0.7752) in the TRMM-based simulation of stream flow. The result showed that CHRIPS overestimates
the large flood peaks in some years (1999, 2001, and 2002), while CMORPH overestimates the large flood
peaks in two years (1997 and 2007).

Changes in extreme flow in the Kulfo watershed

The impact of climate change extreme flow was analyzed using high- and low-flow analyses. The Q10 value is a
robust indicator for high flows and designates a value of river discharge, which only exceeds 10% of the time. A
negative trend in Q10 means a reduction in flood risk, and a positive trend represents an increase. A Q90 value is
used for identifying low flows, indicating that 90% of the time, the value exceeds. If the value shows a negative
trend, it implicates that the low flow is further decreasing and river droughts are likely to occur more often.
The main factors that influence the extreme flows, even the total flow volume, are rainfall and temperature.
Extreme flows (low flow and high flow) have great importance in water resource systems. Therefore, the
impact of this parameter on extreme flows is analyzed for both scenarios under four climate models, as shown
in Figure 10.
In the catchment, the simulated stream flow based on the SPPs of CHRIPS and CMORPH show an increase by
17.923 and 17.829 m3/s, respectively, from observed precipitation (17.4 m3/s), whereas the TRMM SPPs show a
decrease from observed precipitation for the high flow (Q10). The same is true for the low flow, CHRIPS and
CMORPH show an increase by 9.045 and 8.203 m3/s, respectively, from observed precipitation (1.75 m3/s),
whereas the TRMM SPPs show a decrease from observed precipitation for the high flow (Q90).

Goodness-of-fit tests
The goodness-of-fit (GOF) tests measure the compatibility of a random sample with a theoretical probability dis-
tribution function. In other words, these tests show how well the selected distribution fits to the data. Based on
the GOF tests, general extreme value distribution was confirmed. The parameters of distribution were estimated
and are shown in Table 5.

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wpt/article-pdf/19/11/4647/1514031/wpt2024278.pdf

by guest
 Water Practice & Technology Vol 19 No 11, 4661

Figure 9 | Inter-comparison of simulated monthly stream flow (based on TRMM, CHRIPS, and CMORPH rainfall input data) and
observed monthly stream flow during the calibration period.

Figure 10 | Extreme flow events in the Kulfo catchment.

Quartile estimation
In order to study the occurrence of flood in the Kulfo River, flood frequency analysis undertaken on the annual
maximum (AM) flood of the generated 26 years is plotted in Figure 11.
The AM generated series (26 years of data) are fitted to the above selected probability distributions and general
extreme value distribution is the best fit distribution for the watersheds near Sikela. Stream flow predictions for

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wpt/article-pdf/19/11/4647/1514031/wpt2024278.pdf

by guest
 Water Practice & Technology Vol 19 No 11, 4662

Table 5 | Summary of selected distribution and estimated parameters

Selected distribution Parameters

Observed General extreme value Қ ¼ 0.068, σ ¼ 9.77, μ ¼ 3.055

CHRIPS General extreme value Қ ¼ 0.1, σ ¼ 7.93, μ ¼ 3.64
CMORPH General extreme value Қ ¼ 0.0652, σ ¼ 8.697, μ ¼ 3.01
TRMM General extreme value Қ ¼ 0.062, σ ¼ 8.52, μ ¼ 2.703

Figure 11 | Relative frequency curve of peak discharge of the Kulfo watershed.

different return periods can be calculated on the basis of the selected distributions. Statistical analyses were per-
formed for the peak yearly discharges of the stations, and the best fit distribution is the general extreme value
according to the test carried out above and as plotted in Figure 12.
According to the result, the recurrent flood magnitude increase as recurrent year in studied period. AM
included only one flood from each water year and excluded significantly large floods if several occur in a
single water year; this would have the advantages of taking into account other major floods in flood-rich years
and preventing the analysis of small or non-flood events in other years.
It is important to take into account about how much magnitude of flow occurs in the given recurrence period
while designing any hydraulic structure across the river, particularly near Arba Minch town.

Limitations of the study

The domain of the study is the Kulfo watershed; for this study, the scope has been limited with respect to the
stated objectives. Thus, we evaluate and assess the SRPs, considering gauged rainfall as the reference. Simulating
each of the SRPs irrespective of the ground data, comparing each, and finally, selecting the reliable rainfall esti-
mation over the basin were the main targets of the study. The SWAT-2012 model is applied to simulate the stream
flow in the basin.

CONCLUSION
Satellite-based rainfall products with high spatial and temporal resolution and wide coverage provide a potential
alternative source of forcing data for hydrological models in regions where conventional in situ precipitation
measurements are not readily available. The Kulfo watershed is a good example of a case where the use of

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wpt/article-pdf/19/11/4647/1514031/wpt2024278.pdf

by guest
 Water Practice & Technology Vol 19 No 11, 4663

Figure 12 | Peak yearly discharge prediction of the Kulfo watershed.

satellite-based rainfall can be useful. To overcome the limitations of robust station data, this study uses some of
the globally available online high-resolution precipitation data to simulate runoff using the SWAT model. Ana-
lyses were limited to the following details: semi-distributed SWAT hydrological model, Kulfo basin (367 km2),
and three types of SRPs (TRMM, CHRIPS, and CMORPH). Hydrologic simulation models are a very important
way to assess the hydrologic characteristics of a watershed. They are powerful tools for assessing the effects and
impacts on a hydrological environment. They can be used to know, predict, and interpret what happened and is
happening in the entire basin in time and space. They can be used to learn about the effects of various environ-
mental and other pool-related factors, as well as their effects and adverse effects when threatened. The
results show that the usefulness of SPPs as input to the SWAT for monthly stream flow simulation is
highly dependent on the product type. The simulation of each precipitation captured the observed hydro-
graphic trend. The simulation based on the new versions of CHRIPS and CMORPH showed consistent
and modest skills in their simulations but slightly overestimated the large flood peaks in some years
(1997, 1999, 2001, 2002, and 2007). On the other hand, the TRMM simulation showed a reasonable ability
in reproducing the hydrograph at the watershed outlet. The Kulfo watershed faced the problem of a good
metrological station; this leads to extreme floods that can cause soil erosion, and the destruction of agricul-
tural crops and hydraulic structures. Due to that reason, satellite-based rainfall products’ study was
incorporated to estimate an extreme flow event.
The calibration results show that the coefficient of determination (R 2) and the NSE are 0.792 and 0.692,
respectively. The coefficient of determination (R 2) during calibration was found to be 0.792. The calibration
result showed that there is a very good agreement between the simulated and observed monthly flows. These
performance ratings are very good and good, respectively. The validation period has also shown a good
agreement between the monthly measured and simulated flows. The validation result showed that the coef-
ficient of determination (R 2) and the NSE are 0.723 and 0.643, respectively. The statistical comparisons of
simulations of the Arc SWAT model from various rainfall inputs and the simulations of stream flow from
TRMM, CHRIPS, and CMORPH inputs showed comparatively good performance. Simulations based on
CHRIPS and CMORPH have nearly similar NSE and R 2 values (0.69 and 0.853 for CHRIPS and 0.652
and 0.8072 for CMORPH, respectively). There were fair values of NSE (0.61) and R 2 (0.7752) in the
TRMM-based simulation of stream flow. The result showed that CHRIPS overestimates the large flood
peaks in some years (1999, 2001, and 2002), while CMORPH overestimates the large flood peaks in two
years (1997 and 007). The current results can be useful for agriculture and water management and to
know how it contributes to World Climate Research Program’s (WCRP’s) grand challenges on climate
extremes, in order to estimate extreme climate change, extreme flood event to save agriculture land, and
the loss of life and structure.

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wpt/article-pdf/19/11/4647/1514031/wpt2024278.pdf

by guest
 Water Practice & Technology Vol 19 No 11, 4664

In general, the results show that although there are some uncertainties in these gridded data series (CHRIPS
and CMORPH), the use of these satellite precipitations is useful for hydrological studies in the absence of station
data. This strongly demonstrates the increasing potential of satellite precipitation forecasting accuracy in repro-
ducing hydrological features. The SWAT model also proves to be a good tool for this type of modeling.
The domain of the study is the Kulfo watershed; for this study, the scope has been limited with respect to the
stated objectives. In addition, weather stations must be improved both qualitatively and quantitatively to promote
hydrological model performance. Therefore, it is strongly recommended to establish good weather stations and
obtain high quality flow data.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Data cannot be made publicly available; readers should contact the corresponding author for details.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors declare there is no conflict.

REFERENCES

Abbas, A., Waseem, M., Ullah, W., Zhao, C. & Zhu, J. (2021) Spatiotemporal analysis of meteorological and hydrological
droughts and their propagations, Water, 13 (16), 1–15. doi:10.3390/w13162237.
Abbas, A., Ullah, S., Ullah, W., Waseem, M., Dou, X., Zhao, C., Karim, A., Zhu, J., Hagan, D. F. T., Bhatti, A. S. & Ali, G. (2022a)
Evaluation and projection of precipitation in Pakistan using the coupled model intercomparison project phase 6 model
simulations, 42 (13), 6665–6684. doi:10.1002/joc.7602.
Abbas, A., Waseem, M., Ahmad, R., Ahmed khan, K., Zhao, C. & Zhu, J. (2022b) Sensitivity analysis of greenhouse gas
emissions at farm level: Case study of grain and cash crops, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29,
82559–82573. doi:10.1007/s11356-022-21560-9.
Abbas, A., Bhatti, A. S., Ullah, S., Ullah, W., Waseem, M., Zhao, C., Dou, X. & Ali, G. (2023) Projection of precipitation
extremes over south Asia from CMIP6 GCMs, Journal of Arid Land, 15 (3), 274–296. doi:10.1007/s40333-023-0050-3.
Abbaspour, K. C., Rouholahnejad, E., Vaghefi, S., Srinivasan, R., Yang, H. & Kløve, B. (2015) A continental-scale hydrology and
water quality model for Europe: Calibration and uncertainty of a high-resolution large-scale SWAT model, Journal of
Hydrology, 524, 733–752. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.03.027.
Anjum, M. N., Ding, Y., Shangguan, D., Ijaz, M. W. & Zhang, S. (2016) Evaluation of high-resolution satellite-based real-time
and post-real-time precipitation estimates during 2010 extreme flood event in Swat River Basin, Hindukush Region,
Advances in Meteorology, 2016 (1), 1–8. doi:10.1155/2016/2604980.
Anvari, S., Rashedi, E., Lotfi, S., Technology, H., Macroplanning, W. & Water, W. (2022) A coupled metaheuristic algorithm
and artificial intelligence for long-lead stream flow forecasting keywords :, International Journal of Optimization In Civil
Engineering, 12 (January), 91–104.
Arnold, J. G., Moriasi, D. N., Gassman, P. W., Abbaspour, K. C., White, M. J., Srinivasan, R., Santhi, C., Harmel, R. D., Van
Griensven, A., Van Liew, M. W., Kannan, N. & Jha, M. K. (2012) SWAT: Model use, calibration, and validation, American
Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, 55 (4), 1491–1508.
Ashouri, H., Nguyen, P., Thorstensen, A., Sorooshian, S. & Braithwaite, D. (2016) American Meteorological Society, Journal of
Hydrometeorology, 17 (7), 2061–2076. doi:10.1175/JHM-D-15-0192.1.
Buttafuoco, G., Caloiero, T. & Coscarelli, R. (2014) Analyses of drought events in Calabria (Southern Italy) using standardized
precipitation index, Water Resources Management, 29, 557–573. doi:10.1007/s11269-014-0842-5.
Chen, F. & Li, X. (2016) Evaluation of IMERG and TRMM 3b43 monthly precipitation products over mainland China, Remote
Sensing, 8 (6), 1–18. doi:10.3390/rs8060472.
Gebere, S. B., Alamirew, T., Merker, B. J. & Melesse, A. M. (2015) Performance of high-resolution satellite rainfall products over
data scarce parts of eastern Ethiopia, Remote Sens, 7 (9), 11639–11663. doi:10.3390/rs70911639.
Gebremichael, M. & Bitew, M. M. (2011) Assessment of satellite rainfall products for streamflow simulation in medium
watersheds of the Ethiopian highlands, Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 15, 1147–1155. doi:10.5194/hess-15-1147-
2011.
Gohil, M., Mehta, D. & Shaikh, M. (2024) Results in engineering and integration of geospatial and fuzzy-logic techniques for
multi-hazard mapping, Results in Engineering, 21, (November 2023), 101758. doi:10.1016/j.rineng.2024.101758.
Hu, Q., Yang, D., Li, Z., Mishra, A. K., Wang, Y. & Yang, H. (2014) International journal of remote multi-scale evaluation of six
high-resolution satellite monthly rainfall estimates over a humid region in China with dense rain gauges, International
Journal of Remote Sensing, 35 (4), 1272–1294. doi:10.1080/01431161.2013.876118.
Jiang, H., Elahi, E., Gao, M., Huang, Y. & Liu, X. (2024) Digital economy to encourage sustainable consumption and reduce
carbon emissions, Journal of Cleaner Production, 443. doi:10.1016j.jclepro.2024.140867.

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wpt/article-pdf/19/11/4647/1514031/wpt2024278.pdf

by guest
 Water Practice & Technology Vol 19 No 11, 4665

Jongjin, B., Jongmin, J., Dongryeol, R. & Minha, C. (2016) Geospatial blending to improve spatial mapping of precipitation with
high spatial resolution by merging satellite-based and ground-based data, Hydrological Process, 30, 2789–2803. doi:10.
1002/hyp.10786.
Kimani, M. W., Hoedjes, J. C. B. & Su, Z. (2017) An assessment of satellite-derived rainfall products relative to ground
observations over east Africa. Remote Sens. 9 (5), 430. doi:10.3390/rs9050430.
Kumar, V., Kedam, N., Sharma, K. V., Mehta, D. J. & Caloiero, T. (2023a) Advanced machine learning techniques to improve
hydrological prediction: A comparative analysis of streamflow prediction models, Water, 15 (14), 2572. doi:10.3390/w15142572.
Kumar, V., Sharma, K. V., Caloiero, T., Mehta, D. J. & Singh, K. (2023b) Comprehensive overview of flood modeling
approaches: A review of recent advances, Hydrology, 10 (7), 141. doi:10.3390/ hydrology10070141.
Kumar, Y. V. & Mehta, D. J. (2021) Water productivity enhancement through controlling the flood inundation of the
surrounding region of Navsari Purna River, India, Water Productivity Journal, 1 (2), 11–20.
Mangukiya, N. K., Mehta, D. J. & Jariwala, R. (2022) Flood frequency analysis and inundation mapping for lower Narmada
basin, India, Water Practice & Technology, 17 (2), 612–622. doi:10.2166/wpt.2022.009.
Masood, M., Naveed, M., Iqbal, M., Nabi, G., Kashif, H. M., Jawad, M. & Mujtaba, A. (2023) Evaluation of satellite precipitation
products for estimation of floods in data-scarce environment, Advances in Meteorology, 2023 (1), 1–17. doi:10.1155/2023/
1685720.
Mehta, D., Prajapati, K. & Islam, M. N. (2022) Watershed delineation and land use land cover (LULC) study of Purna River in
India, In: Islam, M. N. & van Amstel, A. (eds) Earth and Environmental Science, pp. 169–181. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-
94395-0_7.
Mehta, D., Dhabuwala, J., Yadav, S. M., Kumar, V. & Azamathulla, H. M. (2023) Results in engineering improving flood
forecasting in Narmada River Basin using hierarchical clustering and hydrological modelling, Results in Engineering,
20, 101571. doi:10.1016/j.rineng.2023.101571.
Michaelides, S., Levizzani, V., Anagnostou, E., Bauer, P., Kasparis, T. & Lane, J. E. (2009) Precipitation: Measurement, remote
sensing, climatology and modeling, Atmospheric Research, 94 (4), 512–533. doi:10.1016/j.atmosres.2009.08.017.
Moriasi, D. N., Arnold, J. G., Van Liew, M. W., Bingner, R. L., Harmel, R. D. & Veith, T. L. (2007) Model evaluation guidelines
for systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations, American Society of Agricultural and Biological
Engineers, 50 (3), 885–900.
Najafzadeh, M. & Anvari, S. (2023) Long-lead streamflow forecasting using computational intelligence methods while
considering uncertainty issue, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30 (35), 84474–84490. doi:10.1007/s11356-
023-28236-y.
Nash, J. E. & Sutcliffe, J. V. (1970) River flow forecasting through conceptual models part I – A discussion of principles, Journal
of Hydrology, 10, 282–290.
Parida, B. R., Behera, S. N., Bakimchandra, O., Pandey, A. C. & Nilendu, N. S. (2017) Evaluation of satellite-derived rainfall
estimates for an extreme rainfall event over Uttarakhand, Hydrology, 4 (2), 22. doi:10.3390/hydrology4020022.
Peterson, T. C., Easterling, D. R., Karl, T. R., Groisman, P., Nicholls, N., Plummer, N., Torok, S., Auer, I., Boehm, R., Gullett, D.,
Vincent, L., Heino, R., Tuomenvirta, H., Mestre, O., Salinger, J., Hanssen-bauer, I., Alexandersson, H., Jones, P. & Parker,
D. (1998) Homogeneity adjustments of in situ atmospheric climate data: A review, International Journal of Climatology,
1517, 1493–1517. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0088(19981115)18.
Ruelland, D., Ardoin-Bardin, S., Billen, G. & Servat, E. (2008) Sensitivity of a lumped and semi-distributed hydrological model
to several methods of rainfall interpolation on a large basin in West Africa, Journal of Hydrology, 361 (1–2), 96–117. doi:10.
1016/j.jhydrol.2008.07.049.
Sharifi, E., Steinacker, R. & Saghafian, B. (2016) Assessment of GPM-IMERG and other precipitation products against gauge
data under different topographic and climatic conditions in Iran: Preliminary results, Remote Sensing, 8 (2), 135. doi:10.
3390/rs8020135.
Shrestha, D., Singh, P. & Nakamura, K. (2012) Spatiotemporal variation of rainfall over the central Himalayan Region revealed
by TRMM precipitation radar, Journal of Geophysical Research, 117 (November), 1–14. doi:10.1029/2012JD018140.
Skilodimou, H. D., Bathrellos, G. D. & Alexak, D. E. (2021) Flood hazard assessment mapping in burned and urban areas,
Sustainability, 13 (8), 4455. doi:10.3390/su13084455.
Su, F., Hong, Y. & Lettenmaie, R. P. (2008) Evaluation of TRMM multisatellite precipitation analysis (TMPA) and its utility in
hydrologic prediction in the La Plata basin, Journal of Hydrometeorology, 9, 622–640. doi:10.1175/2007JHM944.1.
Taye, M., Mengistu, D. & Sahlu, D. (2023) Performance evaluation of multiple satellite rainfall data sets in Central Highlands of
Abbay Basin, Ethiopia, European Journal of Remote Sensing, 56 (1), 1–14. doi:10.1080/22797254.2023.2233686.
Thiemann, S. & Förch, G. (2005) ‘Water resources assessment in the bilate river catchment – Precipitation variability.’ Lake
Abaya Research Symposium 2004 –Proceedings.
Thiemig, V., Rojas, R., Zambrano-bigiarini, M. & De Roo, A. (2013) Hydrological evaluation of satellite-based rainfall estimates
over the Volta and Baro-Akobo Basin, Journal of Hydrology, 499, 324–338. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2013.07.012.
Tote, C., Patricio, D., Boogaard, H., van der Wijngaart, R., Tarnavsky, E. & Funk, C. (2015) Evaluation of satellite rainfall
estimates for drought and flood monitoring in Mozambique, Remote Sens., 7 (2), 1758–1776. doi:10.3390/rs70201758.
Ullah, W., Karim, A., Ullah, S., Rehman, A.-U., Hussain, A., Bibi, T., Wang, G., Ullah, S., Bhatti, A. S., Ali, G., Abbas, A., Hagan,
D. F. T., Nooni, I. K. & Zhu, C. (2023) An increasing trend in daily monsoon precipitation extreme indices over Pakistan
and its relationship with atmospheric circulations, Frontiers in Environmental Science, 8 (September), 1–21. doi:10.3389/
fenvs.2023.1228817.

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wpt/article-pdf/19/11/4647/1514031/wpt2024278.pdf

by guest
 Water Practice & Technology Vol 19 No 11, 4666

Vélez-Nicolás, M., García-López, S., Ruiz-Ortiz, V., Zazo, S. & Molina, J. L. (2022) Precipitation variability and drought
assessment using the SPI: Application to long-term series in the strait of Gibraltar, Water, 14 (6), 884. doi:10.3390/
w14060884.
Verma, S., Verma, M. K., Prasad, A. D., Mehta, D., Azamathulla, H. M., Muttil, N. & Rathnayake, U. (2023) Simulating the
hydrological processes under multiple land use/land cover and climate change scenarios in the Mahanadi Reservoir
Complex, Chhattisgarh, India, Water, 15 (17), 3068. doi:10.3390/w15173068.
Wilks, D. S. (2011) Statistical Methods in the Atmospheric Sciences, 3rd edn. edited by D. H. and H. T. R. Renata Dmowska.
International geophysics series; v. 100.
Xu, H., Xu, C.-y., Chen, H., Zhang, Z. & Li, L. (2013) Assessing the influence of rain gauge density and distribution on
hydrological model performance in a humid region of China Hongliang, Journal of Hydrology, 505 (15), 1–12. doi:10.1016/
j.jhydrol.2013.09.004.
Yevjevich, V. & Jeng, R. I. (1969) Properties of Non-Homogeneous Hydrologic Time Series (April).
Yong, B., Chen, B., Gourley, J. J., Ren, L., Hong, Y., Chen, X., Wang, W., Chen, S. & Gong, L. (2014) Intercomparison of the
version-6 and version-7 TMPA precipitation products over high and low latitudes basins with independent gauge networks:
Is the newer version better in both real-time and post-real-time analysis for water resources and hydrologic extremes?
Journal of Hydrology, 508, 77–87. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2013.10.050.

First received 29 July 2024; accepted in revised form 24 October 2024. Available online 5 November 2024

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wpt/article-pdf/19/11/4647/1514031/wpt2024278.pdf

by guest