Hydrological data uncertainty and its implications

被引:130
作者
McMillan, Hilary K. [1 ]
Westerberg, Ida K. [2 ]
Krueger, Tobias [3 ]
机构
[1] San Diego State Univ, Dept Geog, San Diego, CA 92182 USA
[2] IVL Swedish Environm Res Inst, Stockholm, Sweden
[3] Humboldt Univ, IRI THESys, Berlin, Germany
来源
WILEY INTERDISCIPLINARY REVIEWS-WATER | 2018年 / 5卷 / 06期
关键词
Data; decision-making; error; hydrology; uncertainty; WATER-QUALITY DATA; QUANTITATIVE PRECIPITATION ESTIMATION; RATING CURVE UNCERTAINTY; QUANTIFYING UNCERTAINTY; 7; REASONS; RAINFALL; RIVER; STREAMFLOW; DISCHARGE; MODEL;
D O I
10.1002/wat2.1319
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Hydrologic data are at the core of our understanding of physical hydrologic processes, our simulation models and forecasts of water resources and hazards, and our monitoring of water quantity and quality. However, hydrologic data are subject to multiple sources of uncertainty that can introduce bias and error into our analyses and decision-making if not properly accounted for. In this article, we summarize five categories of data uncertainty: measurement uncertainty, derived data uncertainty, interpolation uncertainty, scaling uncertainty, and data management uncertainty. Hydrologic data uncertainty magnitudes are typically in the range 10-40%. To quantify data uncertainty, hydrologists should first construct a perceptual model of uncertainty that itemizes uncertainty sources. The magnitude of each source can then be estimated using replicates (repeated, nested or subsampled measurements), or information from the literature (in-depth uncertainty results from experimental catchments, colocated gauges or method comparisons). Multiple uncertainty sources can be combined using Monte Carlo methods to determine total uncertainty. Data uncertainty analysis improves hydrologic process understanding by enabling robust hypothesis testing and identification of spatial and temporal patterns that relate to true process differences rather than data uncertainty. By quantifying uncertainty in data used for input or evaluation of hydrologic models, we can prevent parameter bias, exclude disinformative data, and enhance model performance evaluation. In water management applications, quantifying data uncertainty can lead to robust risk analysis, reduced costs, and transparent results that improve the trust of the public and water managers. This article is categorized under: Science of Water > Hydrological Processes Science of Water > Methods Engineering Water > Planning Water
引用
收藏
页数:14
相关论文
共 90 条
[2]   Managing uncertainty in integrated environmental modelling: The UncertWeb framework [J].
Bastin, Lucy ;
Cornford, Dan ;
Jones, Richard ;
Heuvelink, Gerard B. M. ;
Pebesma, Edzer ;
Stasch, Christoph ;
Nativi, Stefano ;
Mazzetti, Paolo ;
Williams, Matthew .
ENVIRONMENTAL MODELLING & SOFTWARE, 2013, 39 :116-134
[3]   The epistemic, ethical, and political dimensions of uncertainty in integrated assessment modeling [J].
Beck, Marisa ;
Krueger, Tobias .
WILEY INTERDISCIPLINARY REVIEWS-CLIMATE CHANGE, 2016, 7 (05) :627-645
[4]  
Ben-Haim Y., 2006, Academic
[5]  
Berghuijs WR, 2014, NAT CLIM CHANGE, V4, P583, DOI [10.1038/NCLIMATE2246, 10.1038/nclimate2246]
[6]   On the colour and spin of epistemic error (and what we might do about it) [J].
Beven, K. ;
Smith, P. J. ;
Wood, A. .
HYDROLOGY AND EARTH SYSTEM SCIENCES, 2011, 15 (10) :3123-3133
[7]  
Beven K., 2010, Environmental modelling: An uncertain future?
[8]   On undermining the science? [J].
Beven, Keith .
HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES, 2006, 20 (14) :3141-3146
[9]   Facets of uncertainty: epistemic uncertainty, non-stationarity, likelihood, hypothesis testing, and communication [J].
Beven, Keith .
HYDROLOGICAL SCIENCES JOURNAL-JOURNAL DES SCIENCES HYDROLOGIQUES, 2016, 61 (09) :1652-1665
[10]   Concepts of Information Content and Likelihood in Parameter Calibration for Hydrological Simulation Models [J].
Beven, Keith ;
Smith, Paul .
JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING, 2015, 20 (01)