Groundwater modelling in decision support: Reflections on a unified conceptual framework;La modélisation de nappe comme support de décision: Réflexions sur un cadre conceptuel unifié

Hydrogeology Journal

Volumn 21, Issue 7, 2013, Pages 1531-1537

  Doherty, John ^a   Simmons, Craig T ^a  

^a FLINDERS UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Groundwater management; Inverse modeling; Model complexity; Numerical modeling

Indexed keywords

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; DECISION MAKING; FLOW MODELING; GROUNDWATER FLOW; INVERSE ANALYSIS; NUMERICAL MODEL; PARAMETERIZATION;

EID: 84885835687     PISSN: 14312174     EISSN: 14350157     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10040-013-1027-7     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Aster RC, Borchers B, Thurber CH (2005) Parameter estimation and inverse problems. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 301 pp.
2. Carle SF, Fogg GE (1997) Modeling spatial variability with one and multidimensional continuous-lag Markov chains. Math Geol 29(7): 891-918.
3. Cooley RL (2004) A theory for modeling ground-water flow in heterogeneous media. US Geol Surv Prof Pap 1679, 220 pp.
4. Cooley RL, Christensen S (2006) Bias and uncertainty in regression-calibrated models of groundwater flow in heterogeneous media. Adv Water Resour 29(5): 639-656.
5. Doherty J, Christensen S (2011) Use of paired simple and complex models in reducing predictive bias and quantifying uncertainty. Water Resour Res. doi: 10. 1029/2011WR010763.
6. Doherty J, Welter D (2010) A short exploration of structural noise. Water Resour Res 46(46): W05525. doi: 10. 1029/2009WR008377.
7. Freeze RA, Massmann J, Smith L, Sperling T, James B (1990) Hydrogeological decision analysis: 1, a framework. Ground Water 28(5): 738-766.
8. Gupta HV, Clark MP, Vrugt JA, Abramowitz G, Ye M (2012) Towards a comprehensive assessment of model structural adequacy. Water Resour Res. doi: 10. 1029/2011WR011044.
9. Mariethoz G, Renard P, Straubhaar J (2010) The direct sampling method to perform multiple-point geostatistical simulations. Water Resour Res 46: W11536. doi: 10. 1029/2008WR007621.
10. Moore C, Doherty J (2005) The role of the calibration process in reducing model predictive error. Water Resour Res 41(5): W05020. doi: 10. 1029/2004WR003501.
11. Nordstrom DK (2012) Models, validation and applied geochemistry: issues in science, communication, and philosophy. Appl Geochem 27: 1899-1919.
12. Simmons CT, Hunt RJ (2012) Updating the debate on model complexity. GSA Today 22(8): 28-29. doi: 10. 1130/GSATG150GW. 1.
13. Strebelle S (2002) Conditional simulation of complex geological structures using multiple-point geostatistics. Math Geol 34(1): 1-22.
14. Tonkin M, Doherty J (2009) Calibration-constrained Monte Carlo analysis of highly parameterized models using subspace techniques. Water Resour Res 45: W00B10. doi: 10. 1029/2007WR006678.
15. Voss CI (2011a) Editor's message: Groundwater modeling fantasies-part 1, adrift in the details. Hydrogeol J. doi: 10. 1007/s10040-011-0789-z.
16. Voss CI (2011b) Editor's message: groundwater modeling fantasies-part 2, down to earth. Hydrogeol J. doi: 10. 1007/s10040-011-0790-6.