On Hydrological Models and their choice (and a use of the AboutHydrology mailing list)

Initially, I was captivated by the visuals that I could incorporate into my presentations. To my pleasant surprise, I discovered that the AboutHydrology mailing list served as a valuable data source. Remarkably, this platform has been active for approximately a decade (I need to verify the exact date of its inception) and has amassed a wealth of information.

Reproduced from Melsen, 2022

Subsequently, I came across two intriguing papers authored by Melsen, delving into the "sociology of selecting a hydrological model." These papers proved to be quite engaging. Additionally, there are other noteworthy publications exploring similar themes. Notably, among the more recent works, Hamilton et al., 2022, and Horton et al., 2023, deserve special mention.  Please find their citation below. In the paper you can easily recover previous relevant literature. 

References

Hamilton, Serena H., Carmel A. Pollino, Danial S. Stratford, Baihua Fu, and Anthony J. Jakeman. 2022. “Fit-for-Purpose Environmental Modeling: Targeting the Intersection of Usability, Reliability and Feasibility.” Environmental Modelling & Software 148 (February): 105278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2021.105278.

Horton, Pascal, Bettina Schaefli, and Martina Kauzlaric. 2022. “Why Do We Have so Many Different Hydrological Models? A Review Based on the Case of Switzerland.” WIREs. Water 9 (1). https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1574.

Melsen, Lieke A. 2023. “The Modeling Toolkit: How Recruitment Strategies for Modeling Positions Influence Model Progress.” Frontiers in Water 5 (May). https://doi.org/10.3389/frwa.2023.1149590.