The accuracy of the models was evaluated based on these performance indicators according to the ranges and interpretations recommended by Moriasi et al. (2007, 2015) as shown in Table 2.
The statistical evaluations used to assess the accuracy of the hydrologic models (Moriasi et al. 2015)
| Performance rating . | NSE . | R2 . | PBIAS (%) . | RSR . |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unsatisfactory | ≤50 | ≤60 | ≥± 15 | <0.7 |
| Satisfactory | 50 < NSE ≤ 70 | 60 < R2 ≤ 75 | ±10 ≤ PBIAS < ±15 | 0.6 < RSR ≤ 0.7 |
| Good | 70 < NSE ≤ 80 | 75 < R2 ≤ 85 | ±5 ≤ PBIAS < ±10 | 0.5 < RSR ≤ 0.6 |
| Very good | >80 | >85 | <± 5 | 0 < RSR ≤ 0.5 |
| Performance rating . | NSE . | R2 . | PBIAS (%) . | RSR . |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unsatisfactory | ≤50 | ≤60 | ≥± 15 | <0.7 |
| Satisfactory | 50 < NSE ≤ 70 | 60 < R2 ≤ 75 | ±10 ≤ PBIAS < ±15 | 0.6 < RSR ≤ 0.7 |
| Good | 70 < NSE ≤ 80 | 75 < R2 ≤ 85 | ±5 ≤ PBIAS < ±10 | 0.5 < RSR ≤ 0.6 |
| Very good | >80 | >85 | <± 5 | 0 < RSR ≤ 0.5 |