Facets of uncertainty: Epistemic uncertainty, non-stationarity, likelihood, hypothesis testing, and communication

Hydrological Sciences Journal

Volumn 61, Issue 9, 2016, Pages 1652-1665

  Beven, Keith ^a,b  

^a LANCASTER UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Aleatory uncertainty; Disinformation; Epistemic uncertainty; Hydrological modelling; Non stationarity; Uncertainty estimation

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; SEMANTICS;

ALEATORY UNCERTAINTY; DISINFORMATION; EPISTEMIC UNCERTAINTIES; HYDROLOGICAL MODELLING; NON-STATIONARITIES; UNCERTAINTY ESTIMATION;

UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS;

CALIBRATION; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DATA PROCESSING; HYDROLOGICAL MODELING; HYDROLOGY; HYPOTHESIS TESTING; NUMERICAL MODEL; UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS;

EID: 84975299220     PISSN: 02626667     EISSN: 21503435     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/02626667.2015.1031761     Document Type: Article

References (85)

1. M.P.Anderson, and W.W.Woessner, 1992. The role of the post audit in model validation. Advances in Water Resources, 15, 167–173. doi:10.1016/0309-1708(92)90021-S
2. J.C.Ascough, et al., 2008. Future research challenges for incorporation of uncertainty in environmental and ecological decision-making. Ecological Modelling, 219 (3–4), 383–399. doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2008.07.015
3. J.C.Bathurst, et al., 2004. Validation of catchment models for predicting land-use and climate change impacts. 3. Blind validation for internal and outlet responses. Journal of Hydrology, 287 (1–4), 74–94. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2003.09.021
4. V.A.Bell, et al., 2012. How might climate change affect river flows across the Thames Basin? An area-wide analysis using the UKCP09 Regional Climate Model ensemble. Journal of Hydrology, 442, 89–104. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.04.001
5. K.J.Beven, 2002. Towards a coherent philosophy for modelling the environment. Proceedings of the Royal Society, London A, 458, 2465–2484. doi:10.1098/rspa.2002.0986
6. K.J.Beven, 2005. On the concept of model structural error. Water Science and Technology, 52 (6), 165–175.
7. K.J.Beven, 2006a. A manifesto for the equifinality thesis. Journal of Hydrology, 320, 18–36. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.07.007
8. K.J.Beven, 2006b. On undermining the science? Hydrological Processes, 20, 3141–3146. doi:10.1002/hyp.6396
9. K.J.Beven, 2008. On doing better hydrological science. Hydrological Processes, 22, 3549–3553. doi:10.1002/hyp.7108
10. K.J.Beven, 2009. Environmental modelling: an uncertain future? London: Routledge.
11. K.J.Beven, 2010. Preferential flows and travel time distributions: defining adequate hypothesis tests for hydrological process models. Hydrological Processes, 24, 1537–1547. doi:10.1002/hyp.7718
12. K.J.Beven, 2011. I believe in climate change but how precautionary do we need to be in planning for the future? Hydrological Processes, 25, 1517–1520. doi:10.1002/hyp.7939
13. K.J.Beven, 2012. Causal models as multiple working hypotheses about environmental processes. Comptes Rendus Geoscience, Académie de Sciences, 344, 77–88. Paris. doi:10.1016/j.crte.2012.01.005
14. K.J.Beven, 2013. So how much of your error is epistemic? Lessons from Japan and Italy. Hydrological Processes, 27 (11), 1677–1680. doi:10.1002/hyp.9648
15. K.J.Beven, and R.Alcock, 2012. Modelling everything everywhere: a new approach to decision making for water management under uncertainty. Freshwater Biology, 56, 10.1111/j.1365-2427.2011.02592.x
16. K.J.Beven, and A.M.Binley, 1992. The future of distributed models: model calibration and uncertainty prediction. Hydrological Processes, 6, 279–298. doi:10.1002/hyp.3360060305
17. K.J.Beven, and A.M.Binley, 2014. GLUE: 20 years on. Hydrological Processes, 28 (24), 5897–5918. doi:10.1002/hyp.10082
18. K.J.Beven, D.T.Leedal, and S.McCarthy, 2014. Framework for assessing uncertainty in fluvial flood risk mapping. CIRIA report C721 2014. Available from http://www.ciria.org/Resources/Free_publications/fluvial_flood_risk_mapping.aspx)
19. K.J.Beven, et al., 2012. Comment on ‘‘Pursuing the method of multiple working hypotheses for hydrological modeling’’ by P. Clark et al. Water Resources Research, 48, W11801. doi:10.1029/2012WR012282
20. K.J.Beven, and P.J.Smith, 2014. Concepts of information content and likelihood in parameter calibration for hydrological simulation models. ASCE Journal of Hydrologic Engineering. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0000991
21. K.J.Beven, P.J.Smith, and A.Wood, 2011. On the colour and spin of epistemic error (and what we might do about it). Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 15, 3123–3133. doi:10.5194/hess-15-3123-2011
22. K.J.Beven, and I.Westerberg, 2011. On red herrings and real herrings: disinformation and information in hydrological inference. Hydrological Processes, 25 (10), 1676–1680. doi:10.1002/hyp.7963
23. K.J.Beven, and P.Young, 2013. A guide to good practice in modeling semantics for authors and referees. Water Resources Research, 49, 5092–5098. doi:10.1002/wrcr.20393
24. S.Blazkova, and K.J.Beven, 2009. A limits of acceptability approach to model evaluation and uncertainty estimation in flood frequency estimation by continuous simulation: Skalka catchment, Czech Republic. Water Resources Research, 45, W00B16. doi:10.1029/2007WR006726
25. I.Boyd, 2003. Making science count in government. Elife, 2, e01061. doi:10.7554/eLife.01061
26. R.E.Brazier, et al., 2000. Equifinality and uncertainty in physically-based soil erosion models: application of the GLUE methodology to WEPP, the Water Erosion Prediction Project – for sites in the UK and USA. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 25, 825–845. doi:10.1002/1096-9837(200008)25:8<825::AID-ESP101>3.0.CO;2-3
27. N.Cartwright, 1999. The dappled world: a study of the boundaries of science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
28. H.T.Choi, and K.J.Beven, 2007. Multi-period and multi-criteria model conditioning to reduce prediction uncertainty in an application of TOPMODEL within the GLUE framework. Journal of Hydrology, 332 (3–4), 316–336. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2006.07.012
29. M.P.Clark, D.Kavetski, and F.Fenicia, 2011. Pursuing the method of multiple working hypotheses for hydrological modeling. Water Resources Research, 47, W09301. doi:10.1029/2010WR009827
30. H.L.Cloke, et al., 2010. Climate impacts on river flow: projections for the Medway catchment, UK, with UKCP09 and CATCHMOD. Hydrological Processes, 24, 3476–3489. doi:10.1002/hyp.7769
31. R.T.Cox, 1946. Probability, frequency and reasonable expectation. American Journal of Physics, 14, 1–13. doi:10.1119/1.1990764
32. S.Dean, et al., 2009. Uncertainty assessment of a process-based integrated catchment model of phosphorus (INCA-P). Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, 23, 991–1010. doi:10.1007/s00477-008-0273-z
33. Environment Agency, 2013, Benchmarking the latest generation of 2D hydraulic modelling packages. Report SC120002, Environmental Agency: Bristol.
34. H.Faulkner, et al., 2007. Developing a translational discourse to communicate uncertainty in flood risk between science and the practitioner. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment, 36 (8), 692–704. doi:10.1579/0044-7447(2007)36[692:DATDTC]2.0.CO;2
35. J.E.Freer, et al., 2004. Constraining dynamic TOPMODEL responses for imprecise water table information using fuzzy rule based performance measures. Journal of Hydrology, 291, 254–277. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2003.12.037
36. H.V.Gupta, and G.S.Nearing, 2014. Debates—the future of hydrological sciences: A (common) path forward? Using models and data to learn: A systems theoretic perspective on the future of hydrological science. Water Resources Research, 50, 5351–5359. doi:10.1002/2013WR015096
37. J.Hall, E.O’Connell, and J.Ewen, 2007. On not undermining the science: coherence, validation and expertise. Discussion of invited commentary by Keith Beven Hydrological Processes, 20, 3141–3146 (2006). Hydrological Processes, 21 (7), 985–988. doi:10.1002/hyp.6639
38. S.Hamilton, 2007. Just say NO to equifinality. Hydrological Processes, 21 (14), 1979–1980. doi:10.1002/hyp.6800
39. Intellectual Property Office, 2011. Good evidence for policy, UK Government. Available from http://www.ipo.gov.uk/consult-2011-copyright-evidence.pdf
40. I.Iorgulescu, K.J.Beven, and A.Musy, 2005. Data-based modelling of runoff and chemical tracer concentrations in the Haute-Mentue research catchment (Switzerland). Hydrological Processes, 19, 2557–2573. doi:10.1002/hyp.5731
41. IPCC, 2010. Guidance note for lead authors of the 5th IPCC Assessment on Consistent Treatment of Uncertainties. Available from: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/supporting-material/uncertainty-guidance-note.pdf
42. IPCC, 2013. Headline statements from the summary for policymakers. Available from: http://www.ipcc.ch/news_and_events/docs/ar5/ar5_wg1_headlines.pdf
43. A.Jain, and R.Dubes, 1998. Algorithms for clustering data. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
44. A.Kauffeldt, et al., 2013. Disinformative data in large-scale hydrological modelling. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 17, 2845–2857. doi:10.5194/hess-17-2845-2013
45. A.L.Kay, and R.G.Jones, 2012. Comparison of the use of alternative UKCP09 products for modelling the impacts of climate change on flood frequency. Climatic Change, 114 (2), 211–230. doi:10.1007/s10584-011-0395-z
46. L.F.Konikow, and J.D.Bredehoeft, 1992. Groundwater models cannot be validated? Advances in Water Resources, 15, 75–83. doi:10.1016/0309-1708(92)90033-X
47. D.Koutsoyiannis, 2010. HESS opinions: “A random walk on water”. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 14 (3), 585–601. doi:10.5194/hess-14-585-2010
48. D.Koutsoyiannis, and A.Montanari, 2015. Negligent killing of scientific concepts: the stationarity case. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 60, 7–8. doi:10.1080/02626667.2014.959959
49. T.Krueger, et al., 2009. Uncertainties in data and models to describe event dynamics of agricultural sediment and phosphorus transfer. Journal ofEnvironmentalQuality, 38 (3), 1137–1148. doi:10.2134/jeq2008.0179
50. G.Kuczera, et al., 2010. There are no hydrological monsters, just models and observations with large uncertainties! Hydrological Sciences Journal, 55 (6), 980–991. doi:10.1080/02626667.2010.504677
51. D.T.Leedal, et al., 2010. Visualization approaches for communicating real-time flood forecasting level and inundation information. Journal of Flood Risk Management, 3, 140–150. doi:10.1111/j.1753-318X.2010.01063.x
52. Y.-L.Liu, et al., 2009. Towards a limits of acceptability approach to the calibration of hydrological models: extending observation error. Journal of Hydrology, 367 (1–2), 93–103. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.01.016
53. P.Mantovan,. and E.Todini, 2006. Hydrological forecasting uncertainty assessment: incoherence of the GLUE methodology. Journal of Hydrology, 330, 368–381. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2006.04.046
54. A.B.McBratney, 1992. On variation, uncertainty and informatics in environmental soil management. Australian Journal ofSoil Research, 30 (6), 913–935. doi:10.1071/SR9920913
55. H.McMillan, et al., 2010. Impacts of uncertain river flow data on rainfall‐runoff model calibration and discharge predictions. Hydrological Processes, 24 (10), 1270–1284.
56. H.McMillan, T.Krueger, and J.Freer, 2012. Benchmarking observational uncertainties for hydrology: rainfall, river discharge and water quality. Hydrological Processes, 26, 4078–4111. doi:10.1002/hyp.9384
57. S.Mitchell, et al., 2011. Processes influencing model-data mismatch in drought-stressed, fire-disturbed, eddy flux sites. JGR-Biosciences, 116, 10.1029/2009JG001146
58. A.Montanari, 2007. What do we mean by ‘uncertainty’? The need for a consistent wording about uncertainty assessment in hydrology. Hydrological Processes, 21, 841–845. doi:10.1002/hyp.6623
59. Montanari, A. and Brath, A., 2004. A stochastic approach for assessing the uncertainty of rainfall–runoff simulations. Water Resources Research, 40, W01106. doi:10.1029/2003WR002540
60. A.Montanari, and D.Koutsoyiannis, 2012. A blueprint for process-based modeling of uncertain hydrological systems. Water Resources Research, 48, W09555. doi:10.1029/2011WR011412
61. J.Neal, et al., 2013. Probabilistic flood risk mapping including spatial dependence. Hydrological Processes, 27, 1349–1363. doi:10.1002/hyp.9572
62. D.J.Nott, L.Marshall, and J.Brown, 2012. Generalized likelihood uncertainty estimation (GLUE) and approximate Bayesian computation: what’s the connection? Water Resources Research, 48, 10.1029/2011WR011128
63. T.Page, et al., 2007. Modelling the chloride signal at Plynlimon, Wales, using a modified dynamic TOPMODEL incorporating conservative chemical mixing (with uncertainty). Hydrological Processes, 21, 292–307. doi:10.1002/hyp.6186
64. F.Pappenberger, et al., 2007. Grasping the unavoidable subjectivity in calibration of flood inundation models: a vulnerability weighted approach. Journal of Hydrology, 333, 275–287. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2006.08.017
65. G.Parkin, et al., 1996. Validation of catchment models for predicting land-use and climate change impacts. 2. Case study for a Mediterranean catchment. Journal of Hydrology, 175 (1–4), 595–613. doi:10.1016/S0022-1694(96)80027-8
66. G.T.Raadgever, et al., 2011. Uncertainty management strategies: lessons from the regional implementation of the Water Framework Directive in the Netherlands. Environmental Science & Policy, 14 (1), 64–75. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2010.11.001
67. H.M.Regan, M.Colyvan, and M.A.Burgman, 2002. A taxonomy and treatment of uncertainty for ecology and conservation biology. Ecological Applications, 12 (2), 618–628. doi:10.1890/1051-0761(2002)012[0618:ATATOU]2.0.CO;2
68. P.Reggiani, et al., 1999. A unifying framework for watershed thermodynamics: constitutive relationships. Advances in Water Resources, 23, 15–39. doi:10.1016/S0309-1708(99)00005-6
69. B.Renard, et al., 2010. Understanding predictive uncertainty in hydrologic modeling: the challenge of identifying input and structural errors. Water Resources Research, 46, W05521, 22pp. doi:10.1029/2009WR008328
70. R.Romanowicz, and K.J.Beven, 2003. Bayesian estimation of flood inundation probabilities as conditioned on event inundation maps. Water Resources Research, 39 (3), W01073. doi:10.1029/2001WR001056
71. J.Rougier, and K.J.Beven, 2013. Model limitations: the sources and implications of epistemic uncertainty. In: J.Rougier, S.Sparks, and L.Hill, eds. Risk and uncertainty assessment for natural hazards. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 40–63.
72. M.Sadegh, and J.A.Vrugt, 2013. Bridging the gap between GLUE and formal statistical approaches: approximate Bayesian computation. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 17, 4831–4850. doi:10.5194/hess-17-4831-2013
73. M.Sadegh, and J.A.Vrugt, 2014. Approximate Bayesian Computation using Markov Chain Monte Carlo simulation: DREAM(ABC). Water Resources Research, 50, 6767–6787. doi:10.1002/2014WR015386
74. G.Schoups, and J.A.Vrugt, 2010. A formal likelihood function for parameter and predictive inference of hydrologic models with correlated, heteroscedastic and non-Gaussian errors. Water Resources Research, 46, W10531. doi:10.1029/2009WR008933
75. A.E.Sikorska, A.Montanari, and D.Koutsoyiannis, 2014. Estimating the uncertainty of hydrological predictions through data-driven resampling techniques. ASCE Journal of Hydrology Engineering, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0000926
76. B.Sivakumar, 2008. Undermining the science or undermining Nature? Hydrological Processes, 22, 893–897. doi:10.1002/hyp.7004
77. P.J.Smith, K.J.Beven, and J.A.Tawn, 2008. Informal likelihood measures in model assessment: theoretic development and investigation. Advances in Water Resources, 31, 1087–1100. doi:10.1016/j.advwatres.2008.04.012
78. J.R.Stedinger, et al., 2008. Appraisal of the generalized likelihood uncertainty estimation (GLUE) method. Water Resources Research, 44, W00B06. doi:10.1029/2008WR006822
79. E.Todini, and P.Mantovan, 2007. Comment on: “On undermining the science?” by Keith Beven. Hydrological Processes, 21 (12), 1633–1638. doi:10.1002/hyp.6670
80. J.A.Vrugt, and M.Sadegh, 2013. Toward diagnostic model calibration and evaluation: approximate Bayesian computation. Water Resources Research, 49, 4335–4345. doi:10.1002/wrcr.20354
81. J.A.Vrugt, et al., 2008. Treatment of input uncertainty in hydrologic modeling: doing hydrology backward with Markov chain Monte Carlo simulation. Water Resources Research, 44 (12), W00B09. doi:10.1029/2007WR006720
82. I.Westerberg, et al., 2011a. Stage-discharge uncertainty derived with a non-stationary rating curve in the Choluteca River, Honduras. Hydrological Processes, 25, 603–613. doi:10.1002/hyp.7848
83. I.K.Westerberg, et al., 2011b. Calibration of hydrological models using flow-duration curves. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 15 (7), 2205–2227. doi:10.5194/hess-15-2205-2011
84. J.M.Wicks, M.Adamson, and M.Horritt, 2008. Communicating uncertainty in flood maps—a practical approach. Defra Flood and Coastal Management Conference, Manchester.
85. Wilby, R. L. and Dessai, S., 2010. Robust adaptation to climate change. Weather, 65 (7), 180–185.