Parameter Sensitivity Test of SWAT Hydrological Model On Two Different Resolutions (A Case Study of Upper Cisadane Subbasin, West Java)

Nurmaranti Alim, Suria Darma Tarigan, Dwi Putro Tejo Baskoro, Enni Dwi Wahjunie


A sensitivity analysis of SWAT parameters was conducted on different spatial resolutions. The sensitivity analysis aimed to determine the input parameters that have the most impact on the of output of the model. Resolution of different inputs in the SWAT analysis can produce different input parameters that can affect the output. The purpose of this study was to identify the level of sensitivity of the parameters used in the SWAT model simulated on two different resolutions, i.e. 1: 100,000 and 1: 250,000. A sensitivity test was conducted manually using the absolute sensitivity method, i.e. a method to test the sensitivity of the parameters of SWAT model that can change (either increase or decrease) one by one while the other parameters are constant. The results show that the Nash-Sutcliffe Efficiency (NSE) coefficients derived after calibration of the SWAT models on both resolutions of maps indicate similar performance of the models, with the category for the daily simulation of excellent (NSE coefficients of 0.55 and 0.54), while the monthly simulation is categorized as very satisfactory (NSE coefficients of 0.80 and 0.82). The sensitive parameters of the SWAT model identified in the current study include CN2 (initial SCS runoff curve number for moisture condition II), Alpha_BNK (flow recession constant or recession proportional to the banks of the river), CH_K2 (effective hydraulic conductivity in main channel alluvium), CH_N2 (Manning’s “n” value for the main channel), ESCO (soil evaporation compensation factor), GW_Delay (groundwater delay), and GW_Revap (groundwater “revap” coefficient).




Absolute sensitivity method; parameter sensitivity; daily simulation and monthly simulation; SWAT

Full Text:



Cibin R, KP Sudheer and I Chaubey. 2010. Sensitivity and identifiability of stream flow generation parameters of the SWAT model. Hydrol Process 24: 1133-1148. doi: 10.1002/hyp.7568.

Indarto. 2010. Hidrologi, Watershedar Teori dan Contoh Aplikasi Model Hidrologi. Bumi Aksara. Jakarta.

Nash JE and JV Sutcliffe. 1970. River Flow Forecasting Through Conceptual Models Part I – Discussion of Principles. J Hydrol 10: 282-190

Neitsch SL, JG Arnold, JR Kiniry, JR Williams and KW King. 2005. Soil and Water assessment tool: theoretical documentatioan Version 2005.

Rinaldi A. 2010. Pemodelan hidrograf satuan universal (H2U) pada berbagai skala peta watershedar berbasis sistem informasi geografis.[Magister Thesis]. Institut Pertanian Bogor. Bogor.

Xiaomeng S, Z Chesheng, X Jun and K Fanzhe. 2012. An efficient global sensitivity analysis approach for distributed hydrological model. J Geogr Sci 22: 209-222.

Zhang P, R Liu, Y Bao, J Wang, W Yu and Z Shen. 2014. Uncertainty of SWAT model at different DEM resolutions in a large mountainous watershed. Water Res 53: 132-144. doi:10.1016/j.watres.2014.01.018



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Department of Soil Science, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Lampung
Jl. Soemantri Brojonegoro No.1, Bandar Lampung 35145, Lampung
Phone/fax: +62-721-781822

e-ISSN 2086-6682