Ignorance is bliss: Or seven reasons not to use uncertainty analysis

Abstract

[1] Uncertainty analysis of models has received increasing attention over the last two decades in water resources research. However, a significant part of the community is still reluctant to embrace the estimation of uncertainty in hydrological and hydraulic modeling. In this paper, we summarize and explore seven common arguments: uncertainty analysis is not necessary given physically realistic models; uncertainty analysis cannot be used in hydrological and hydraulic hypothesis testing; uncertainty (probability) distributions cannot be understood by policy makers and the public; uncertainty analysis cannot be incorporated into the decision-making process; uncertainty analysis is too subjective; uncertainty analysis is too difficult to perform; uncertainty does not really matter in making the final decision. We will argue that none of the arguments against uncertainty analysis rehearsed are, in the end, tenable. Moreover, we suggest that one reason why the application of uncertainty analysis is not normal and expected part of modeling practice is that mature guidance on methods and applications does not exist. The paper concludes with suggesting that a Code of Practice is needed as a way of formalizing such guidance.Citation: Pappenberger, F., and K. J. Beven (2006), Ignorance is bliss: Or seven reasons not to use uncertainty analysis, Water Resour. Res., 42, W05302,

Modelling climate impact on floods with ensemble climate projections

“…This simple formulation of evapotranspiration has been found to be robust when applied in climate impact studies (Oudin et al, 2005). The HBV model (as all other hydrological models) is best used together with an uncertainty analysis framework (Seibert, 1997;Pappenberger and Beven, 2006). The model has a number of free parameters (Table 2).…”

Application of the Bayesian calibration methodology for the parameter estimation in CoupModel

“…Uncertainties in model parameterization and measurement have to be considered, but in practice rigorous uncertainty analysis is still rare (Stow et al, 2007). Model applications often fail to do an uncertainty assessment because many "competing methods" make it difficult to choose the most appropriate method and interpret the results (Pappenberger and Beven, 2006). Stochastic optimization can help to diminish the difficulties in terms of parameter estimation.…”

“…Only robust parameterization techniques allow for plausible explanations of system behavior in physically based models. Due to complex transformations of soil N and carbon, many models express this complexity by a high number of input parameters, which implicates the need for a careful model optimization (Pappenberger and Beven, 2006). Until recently, calibration of highly parameterized models was performed by an intensive sensitivity analysis and fitting modeling results to measurements by "trial and error" procedure until observed values were reproduced well.…”

Nitrogen and phosphorus transformations and balance in a pond-ditch circulation system for rural polluted water treatment

“…Currently, research on uncertainty analysis has significantly increased (Refsgaard and Henriksen, 2004;Rosbjerg and Madsen, 2005). Pappenberger and Beven (2006) have furthermore emphasized that "uncertainty assessment is today a mandatory element of a good modeling practice." In order to better meet that need, MIKE SHE provides several alternative physical and conceptual approaches for each component of the model (Butts et al, 2004).…”