Assessment of conceptual model uncertainty for the regional aquifer Pampa del Tamarugal – North Chile

Abstract. In this work we assess the uncertainty in modelling the groundwater flow for the Pampa del Tamarugal Aquifer (PTA) – North Chile using a novel and fully integrated multi-model approach aimed at explicitly accounting for uncertainties arising from the definition of alternative conceptual models. The approach integrates the Generalized Likelihood Uncertainty Estimation (GLUE) and Bayesian Model Averaging (BMA) methods. For each member of an ensemble M of potential conceptualizations, model weights used in BMA for multi-model aggregation are obtained from GLUE-based likelihood values. These model weights are based on model performance, thus, reflecting how well a conceptualization reproduces an observed dataset D. GLUE-based cumulative predictive distributions for each member of M are then aggregated obtaining predictive distributions accounting for conceptual model uncertainties. For the PTA we propose an ensemble of eight alternative conceptualizations covering all major features of groundwater flow models independently developed in past studies and including two recharge mechanisms which have been source of debate for several years. Results showed that accounting for heterogeneities in the hydraulic conductivity field (a) reduced the uncertainty in the estimations of parameters and state variables, and (b) increased the corresponding model weights used for multi-model aggregation. This was more noticeable when the hydraulic conductivity field was conditioned on available hydraulic conductivity measurements. Contribution of conceptual model uncertainty to the predictive uncertainty varied between 6% and 64% for ground water head estimations and between 16% and 79% for ground water flow estimations. These results clearly illustrate the relevance of conceptual model uncertainty.

[1]  Keith Beven,et al.  Equifinality, data assimilation, and uncertainty estimation in mechanistic modelling of complex environmental systems using the GLUE methodology , 2001 .

[2]  Ming Ye,et al.  Combined Estimation of Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model, Parameter, and Scenario Uncertainty with Application to Uranium Transport at the Hanford Site 300 Area , 2006 .

[3]  Daniel Gianola,et al.  "Likelihood, Bayesian, and Mcmc Methods in Quantitative Genetics" , 2010 .

[4]  Luk Peeters,et al.  Application of a multimodel approach to account for conceptual model and scenario uncertainties in groundwater modelling , 2010 .

[5]  David Draper,et al.  Assessment and Propagation of Model Uncertainty , 2011 .

[6]  F. Risacher,et al.  The origin of brines and salts in Chilean salars: a hydrochemical review , 2003 .

[7]  Adrian E. Raftery,et al.  Bayesian model averaging: a tutorial (with comments by M. Clyde, David Draper and E. I. George, and a rejoinder by the authors , 1999 .

[8]  W. Gilks Markov Chain Monte Carlo , 2005 .

[9]  Daniel Wallach,et al.  Using a Bayesian approach to parameter estimation; comparison of the GLUE and MCMC methods , 2002 .

[10]  Arlen W. Harbaugh,et al.  MODFLOW-2000, The U.S. Geological Survey Modular Ground-Water Model - User Guide to Modularization Concepts and the Ground-Water Flow Process , 2000 .

[11]  S. P. Neuman,et al.  On model selection criteria in multimodel analysis , 2007 .

[12]  John D Bredehoeft From models to performance assessment: the conceptualization problem. , 2003, Ground water.

[13]  Okke Batelaan,et al.  On the value of conditioning data to reduce conceptual model uncertainty in groundwater modeling , 2010 .

[14]  Keith Beven,et al.  Stochastic capture zone delineation within the generalized likelihood uncertainty estimation methodology: Conditioning on head observations , 2001 .

[15]  A. Brix Bayesian Data Analysis, 2nd edn , 2005 .

[16]  K. Jensen,et al.  The importance of alternative conceptual models for simulation of concentrations in a multi-aquifer system , 2007 .

[17]  W. K. Hastings,et al.  Monte Carlo Sampling Methods Using Markov Chains and Their Applications , 1970 .

[18]  N. Metropolis,et al.  Equation of State Calculations by Fast Computing Machines , 1953, Resonance.

[19]  C. Galli,et al.  Geology and ground-water resources of the Pica area, Tarapaca Province, Chile , 1965 .

[20]  Jeroen P. van der Sluijs,et al.  A framework for dealing with uncertainty due to model structure error , 2004 .

[21]  Ming Ye,et al.  Expert elicitation of recharge model probabilities for the Death Valley regional flow system , 2008 .

[22]  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.

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

[24]  Ming Ye,et al.  Maximum likelihood Bayesian averaging of spatial variability models in unsaturated fractured tuff , 2003 .

[25]  Wasserman,et al.  Bayesian Model Selection and Model Averaging. , 2000, Journal of mathematical psychology.

[26]  J. Bredehoeft The conceptualization model problem—surprise , 2005 .

[27]  J. Houston Groundwater recharge through an alluvial fan in the Atacama Desert, northern Chile: mechanisms, magnitudes and causes , 2002 .

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

[29]  J. Houston The great Atacama flood of 2001 and its implications for Andean hydrology , 2006 .

[30]  R. Aravena,et al.  Source of Ground Water in the Deserts of Northern Chile: Evidence of Deep Circulation of Ground Water from the Andes , 1990 .

[31]  Alain Dassargues,et al.  Groundwater flow modelling of the regional aquifer of the Pampa del Tamarugal, northern Chile , 2007 .

[32]  Alain Dassargues,et al.  Conceptual model uncertainty in groundwater modeling: Combining generalized likelihood uncertainty estimation and Bayesian model averaging , 2008 .

[33]  T. Sonnenborg,et al.  Use of alternative conceptual models to assess the impact of a buried valley on groundwater vulnerability , 2008 .

[34]  Alain Dassargues,et al.  Sensitivity analysis of prior model probabilities and the value of prior knowledge in the assessment of conceptual model uncertainty in groundwater modelling , 2009 .

[35]  J. Ghosh,et al.  An Introduction to Bayesian Analysis: Theory and Methods , 2006 .

[36]  J. Chilès,et al.  Geostatistics: Modeling Spatial Uncertainty , 1999 .

[37]  R. Aravena Isotope hydrology and geochemistry of Northern Chile groundwaters , 1995, Bulletin de l’Institut français d’études andines.

[38]  S. P. Neuman,et al.  Maximum likelihood Bayesian averaging of uncertain model predictions , 2003 .

[39]  Keith Beven,et al.  A manifesto for the equifinality thesis , 2006 .

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

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

[42]  R. Aravena,et al.  Isotopic composition and origin of the precipitation in Northern Chile , 1999 .

[43]  Keith Beven,et al.  Vadose Zone Flow Model Uncertainty as Conditioned on Geophysical Data , 2003, Ground water.

[44]  Peter A. Vanrolleghem,et al.  Uncertainty in the environmental modelling process - A framework and guidance , 2007, Environ. Model. Softw..

[45]  S. Chib,et al.  Understanding the Metropolis-Hastings Algorithm , 1995 .

[46]  P. Fritz,et al.  Isotope hydrology of groundwaters in the Pampa del Tamarugal, Chile , 1981 .

[47]  David B. Dunson,et al.  Bayesian Data Analysis , 2010 .

[48]  Makoto Ono,et al.  Evaluation of uncertainties originating from the different modeling approaches applied to analyze regional groundwater flow in the Tono area of Japan. , 2009, Journal of contaminant hydrology.