  Regional Climate Models (RCMs) are an essential tool for analysing regional
climate change impacts as they provide simulations with more small-scale
details and expected smaller errors than global climate models. There has been
much effort to increase the spatial resolution and simulation skill of RCMs,
yet the extent to which this improves the projection of hydrological change is
unclear. Here, we evaluate the skill of five reanalysis-driven Euro-CORDEX RCMs
in simulating precipitation and temperature, and as drivers of a hydrological
model to simulate river flow on four UK catchments covering different physical,
climatic and hydrological characteristics. We test whether high-resolution RCMs
provide added value, through analysis of two RCM resolutions, 50 km and 12.5
km, which are also bias-corrected employing the parametric quantile-mapping
(QM) method, using the normal distribution for temperature, and the Gamma (GQM)
and Double Gamma (DGQM) distributions for precipitation. In a small catchment
with complex topography, the 12.5 km RCMs outperform their 50 km version for
precipitation and temperature, but when used in combination with the
hydrological model, fail to capture the observed river flow distribution. In
the other (larger) catchments, only one high-resolution RCM consistently
outperforms its low-resolution version, implying that in general there is no
added value from using the high-resolution RCMs in those catchments. GQM
decreases most of the simulation biases, except for extreme precipitation and
high flows, which are further decreased by DGQM. Bias correction does not
improve the representation of daily temporal variability, but it does for
monthly variability, in particular when applying DGQM. Overall, an increase in
RCM resolution does not imply a better simulation of hydrology and
bias-correction represents an alternative to ease decision-making.
