A framework for dealing with uncertainty due to model structure error

Although uncertainty about structures of environmental models (conceptual uncertainty) is often acknowledged to be the main source of uncertainty in model predictions, it is rarely considered in environmental modelling. Rather, formal uncertainty analyses have traditionally focused on model parameters and input data as the principal source of uncertainty in model predictions. The traditional approach to model uncertainty analysis, which considers only a single conceptual model, may fail to adequately sample the relevant space of plausible conceptual models. As such, it is prone to modelling bias and underestimation of predictive uncertainty. In this paper we review a range of strategies for assessing structural uncertainties in models. The existing strategies fall into two categories depending on whether field data are available for the predicted variable of interest. To date, most research has focussed on situations where inferences on the accuracy of a model structure can be made directly on the basis of field data. This corresponds to a situation of ‘interpolation’. However, in many cases environmental models are used for ‘extrapolation’; that is, beyond the situation and the field data available for calibration. In the present paper, a framework is presented for assessing the predictive uncertainties of environmental models used for extrapolation. It involves the use of multiple conceptual models, assessment of their pedigree and reflection on the extent to which the sampled models adequately represent the space of plausible models. � 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

[1]  G. Fogg,et al.  Transition probability-based indicator geostatistics , 1996 .

[2]  M. Franchini,et al.  Comparative analysis of several conceptual rainfall-runoff models , 1991 .

[3]  Stephen C. Hora,et al.  Acquisition of Expert Judgment: Examples from Risk Assessment , 1992 .

[4]  Arthur C. Petersen,et al.  Uncertainty assessment of the IMAGE/TIMER B1 CO2 emissions scenario, using the NUSAP method , 2002 .

[5]  V. Klemeš,et al.  Operational Testing of Hydrological Simulation Models , 2022 .

[6]  Igor Linkov,et al.  Model Uncertainty and Choices Made by Modelers: Lessons Learned from the International Atomic Energy Agency Model Intercomparisons † , 2003, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[7]  Jens Christian Refsgaard,et al.  Modelling guidelinesterminology and guiding principles , 2004 .

[8]  Günter Blöschl,et al.  Spatial Patterns of Catchment Hydrology: Observations and Modelling , 2000 .

[9]  W Ogana,et al.  Contribution of Working Group 1 to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , 2001 .

[10]  P. McCullagh.  Tensor Methods in Statistics , 1987 .

[11]  J. Refsgaard,et al.  Operational Validation and Intercomparison of Different Types of Hydrological Models , 1996 .

[12]  J C Refsgaard,et al.  Model uncertainty--parameter uncertainty versus conceptual models. , 2005, Water science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research.

[13]  H. Visser,et al.  Identifying Key Sources of Uncertainty in Climate Change Projections , 2000 .

[14]  David Anderson,et al.  Multimodel Ranking and Inference in Ground Water Modeling , 2004, Ground water.

[15]  Henrik Madsen,et al.  An evaluation of the impact of model structure on hydrological modelling uncertainty for streamflow simulation , 2004 .

[16]  B. B. Zellner.  Policy Studies: Review Annual , 2018 .

[17]  Claudia Pahl-Wostl,et al.  Towards sustainability in the water sector – The importance of human actors and processes of social learning , 2002, Aquatic Sciences.

[18]  N Oreskes,et al.  Verification, Validation, and Confirmation of Numerical Models in the Earth Sciences , 1994, Science.

[19]  Karel J. Keesman,et al.  Uncertainty propagation and speculation in projective forecasts of environmental change - a lake eutrophication example. , 1991 .

[20]  L. Aller,et al.  Drastic: A Standardized System to Evaluate Groundwater Pollution Potential using Hydrogeologic Setting , 1987 .

[21]  M. B. Beck,et al.  Environmental foresight and structural change , 2005, Environ. Model. Softw..

[22]  Anthony M. Hodgson,et al.  Hexagons for systems thinking , 1992 .

[23]  Keith Beven,et al.  The future of distributed models: model calibration and uncertainty prediction. , 1992 .

[24]  David W. Keith,et al.  When is it appropriate to combine expert judgments? , 1996 .

[25]  Ann van Griensven,et al.  Dealing with unidentifiable sources of uncertainty within environmental models , 2004 .

[26]  Jac A. M. Vennix,et al.  Group model-building: tackling messy problems , 1999 .

[27]  L. Troldborg,et al.  The influence of conceptual geological models on the simulation of flow and transport in Quaternary aquifer systems , 2004 .

[28]  S. F. Mousavi,et al.  An approach to the design of experiments for discriminating among alternative conceptual models , 1992 .

[29]  C. Diks,et al.  Improved treatment of uncertainty in hydrologic modeling: Combining the strengths of global optimization and data assimilation , 2005 .

[30]  Jerome R. Ravetz,et al.  Uncertainty and Quality in Science for Policy , 1990 .

[31]  I. Dubus,et al.  Sources of uncertainty in pesticide fate modelling. , 2003, The Science of the total environment.

[32]  V. Singh,et al.  Computer Models of Watershed Hydrology , 1995 .

[33]  Jacob Birk Jensen.  Parameter and Uncertainty Estimation in Groundwater Modelling , 2003 .

[34]  S. P. Neuman,et al.  Combined Estimation of Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model and Parameter Uncertainty , 2004 .

[35]  Jens Christian Refsgaard,et al.  Towards a Formal Approach to Calibration and Validation of Models Using Spatial Data , 2004 .

[36]  G. Fogg,et al.  Modeling Spatial Variability with One and Multidimensional Continuous-Lag Markov Chains , 1997 .

[37]  S. P. Neuman,et al.  A comprehensive strategy of hydrogeologic modeling and uncertainty analysis for nuclear facilities a , 2003 .

[38]  Jeroen P. van der Sluijs,et al.  A Reflexive Approach to Dealing with Uncertainties in Environmental Health Risk Science and Policy. , 2005 .

[39]  Hans Jørgen Henriksen,et al.  Capture zone, travel time, and solute-transport predictions using inverse modeling and different geological models , 2003 .

[40]  Ângela Guimarães Pereira,et al.  RIVM/MNP Guidance for Uncertainty Assessment and Communication: Detailed Guidance , 2003 .

[41]  J. Sluijs,et al.  The Inclusion of Stakeholder Knowledge and Perspectives in Integrated Assessment of Climate Change , 2006 .

[42]  Jan-Olof Selroos,et al.  Comparison of alternative modelling approaches for groundwater flow in fractured rock , 2002 .

[43]  S. Funtowicz,et al.  Combining Quantitative and Qualitative Measures of Uncertainty in Model‐Based Environmental Assessment: The NUSAP System , 2005, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[44]  P. Willems,et al.  Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis for river quality modelling , 2004 .

[45]  Warren E. Walker,et al.  Defining Uncertainty: A Conceptual Basis for Uncertainty Management in Model-Based Decision Support , 2003 .

[46]  Jan Seibert,et al.  On the need for benchmarks in hydrological modelling , 2001 .

[47]  K. Beven.  Towards a coherent philosophy for modelling the environment , 2002, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[48]  M. B. Beck,et al.  Uncertainty and forecasting of water quality , 1983 .

[49]  Anthony J. Jakeman,et al.  Integrated assessment and modelling: features, principles and examples for catchment management , 2003, Environ. Model. Softw..