Difference between revisions of "Modelling tool documentation"
m |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | links to websites | + | This is the page for you if you are looking for links to websites, manuals and downloads. We also provide a table that compares the usability of these models (in terms of ease of use of the interface, the documentation and the support) based on user ratings. Finally, we include a link that you can go to if you have a burning hydrological modelling question, but no way to answer it. If you notice that we are missing any manual or key document, please let us know by using the discussion, so that we can keep this page up to date. |
=== SWAT === | === SWAT === | ||
Revision as of 20:26, 31 May 2021
This is the page for you if you are looking for links to websites, manuals and downloads. We also provide a table that compares the usability of these models (in terms of ease of use of the interface, the documentation and the support) based on user ratings. Finally, we include a link that you can go to if you have a burning hydrological modelling question, but no way to answer it. If you notice that we are missing any manual or key document, please let us know by using the discussion, so that we can keep this page up to date.
SWAT
- Homepage: https://swat.tamu.edu/
Documentation across tools
User ratings across tools
In 2021, we surveyed the South African hydrological modelling community to ask them about their modelling background and level, which tools they used, and what their perceptions about these tools were. Specifically we asked them to rate the user interface, the documentation and the support of each modelling tool on a scale of 1-5, 1 being poor, 3 being satisfactory, and 5 being excellent. On 31 May 2021 we had 45 responses, and we summarised results here for any modelling tools that were reviewed by more than two people (i.e. sample size greater than 2). If you are choosing a modelling tool for your project, perhaps this table, as well as those on capabilities and specific use cases, would help you make a decision on which to select.
| Modelling tool | Interface | Documentation | Support | Sample Size | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ACRU | 3.4 | 3.6 | 3.9 | 19 | |
| WRSM-Pitman | 3.6 | 3.5 | 3.5 | 14 | |
| SPATSIM-Pitman | 3.3 | 3.3 | 3.5 | 11 | |
| SWAT | 3.6 | 3.9 | 3.8 | 9 | |
| MIKE-SHE | 3.0 | 2.1 | 2.3 | 7 | |
| WEAP | 3.4 | 3.9 | 4.0 | 7 | |
| SCS-SA | 3.5 | 3.7 | 3.4 | 4 | |
| WRYM | 3.7 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 3 | |
| HYDRUS | 1.5 | 2.5 | 2.5 | 2 |
Are you a South African hydrological modeler? Would you like to have your say? Feel free to participate in our survey here. We will update this page from time to time to reflect new data.
How to get help for your modelling question?
Lets try to get stack exchange going for the South African (or even global!) hydrological community. If you have a question about any of these modelling tools, please add them to stack overflow on site “earth science”, using the following tags: “hydrology” and “models”. If you find the answer elsewhere you are allowed to answer your own question. This would create a track record for others after you who may have the same questions. Click here to visit the Earth Science stack exchange site.