The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Scale issues in hydrological modelling: A review
Abstract
A framework is provided for scaling and scale issues in hydrology. The first section gives some basic definitions. This is important as researchers do not seem to have agreed on the meaning of concepts such as scale or upscaling. ‘Process scale’, ‘observation scale’ and ‘modelling (working) scale’ require different definitions. The second section discusses heterogeneity and variability in catchments and touches on the implications of randomness and organization for scaling. The third section addresses the linkages across scales from a modelling point of view. It is argued that upscaling typically consists of two steps: distributing and aggregating. Conversely, downscaling involves disaggregation and singling out. Different approaches are discussed for linking state variables, parameters, inputs and conceptualizations across scales. This section also deals with distributed parameter models, which are one way of linking conceptualizations across scales. The fourth section addresses the linkages across scales from a more holistic perspective dealing with dimensional analysis and similarity concepts. The main difference to the modelling point of view is that dimensional analysis and similarity concepts deal with complex processes in a much simpler fashion. Examples of dimensional analysis, similarity analysis and functional normalization in catchment hydrology are given. This section also briefly discusses fractals, which are a popular tool for quantifying variability across scales. The fifth section focuses on one particular aspect of this holistic view, discussing stream network analysis. The paper concludes with identifying key issues and gives some directions for future research.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Daubechies, I. (1992) · doi:10.1137/1.9781611970104 · Cited by 15,979
BEVEN, K. J., & KIRKBY, M. J. (1979) · Hydrological Sciences Bulletin · doi:10.1080/02626667909491834 · Cited by 6,670
Cited by
Westra, S., Fowler, H. J., Evans, J. P., Alexander, L. V., Berg, P., Johnson, F., Kendon, E. J., Lenderink, G., & Roberts, N. M. (2014) · Reviews of Geophysics · doi:10.1002/2014rg000464 · Cited by 1,533
(2019) · doi:10.5194/hess-23-5089-2019 · Cited by 1,223
Wavelet analysis for geophysical applications
Kumar, P., & Foufoula‐Georgiou, E. (1997) · Reviews of Geophysics · doi:10.1029/97rg00427 · Cited by 992
What Role Does Hydrological Science Play in the Age of Machine Learning?
Nearing, G. S., Kratzert, F., Sampson, A. K., Pelissier, C. S., Klotz, D., Frame, J. M., Prieto, C., & Gupta, H. V. (2021) · Water Resources Research · doi:10.1029/2020wr028091 · Cited by 894
On the value of soil moisture measurements in vadose zone hydrology: A review
Vereecken, H., Huisman, J. A., Bogena, H., Vanderborght, J., Vrugt, J. A., & Hopmans, J. W. (2008) · Water Resources Research · doi:10.1029/2008wr006829 · Cited by 872
Metadata
- Authors
- Blöschl, G., & Sivapalan, M.
- Venue
- Hydrological Processes
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1995-04
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 3-4
- Pages
- 251-290
- ISSN
- 0885-6087 (ISSN-L)
- 1099-1085
- OpenAlex
- W2004609727
- Cited by
- 1,837
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 32.37
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Scale issues in hydrological modelling: A review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/hyp.3360090305
- The paper
- Blöschl, G., & Sivapalan, M. (1995). Scale issues in hydrological modelling: A review. Hydrological Processes. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.3360090305
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.