On the complexity of model complexity: Viewpoints across the geosciences

被引:15
作者
Baartman, Jantiene E. M. [1 ,3 ,4 ]
Melsen, Lieke A. [2 ]
Moore, Demie [1 ]
van der Ploeg, Martine J. [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Wageningen Univ, Soil Phys & Land Management Grp, Wageningen, Netherlands
[2] Wageningen Univ, Hydrol & Quantitat Water Management Grp, Wageningen, Netherlands
[3] POB 47, NL-6700 AA Wageningen, Netherlands
[4] Droevendaalsesteeg 4, NL-6708 PB Wageningen, Netherlands
关键词
Model complexity; Geosciences; Perception; Questionnaire; CATCHMENT SCALE; SOIL-EROSION; WATER; UNCERTAINTY;
D O I
10.1016/j.catena.2019.104261
中图分类号
P [天文学、地球科学];
学科分类号
07 ;
摘要
It is the core task of geoscientists to gain insight into the complex systems of nature. Yet, complexity may be perceived very differently and a plethora of models with different degrees of complexity is available. How do we, geoscientists, decide what model complexity is warranted? Does this differ among disciplines? And, how do we even define model complexity? We developed a short questionnaire to investigate the geoscientific community's views on complexity in models. The response was overwhelming, with 618 completed responses. The results show that the number of processes explicitly included and the number of interactions / feedbacks incorporated were seen as important determinants of complexity. Confidence was not per se higher in the simulations of a complex model compared to a simple one. Interestingly, neither gender, the discipline within the geosciences, nor career stage or work sector, explained the characterization of model complexity. The results of the questionnaire demonstrate that there is no general consensus on how model complexity is perceived or should be defined, and that formal definitions are not broadly or generally accepted. In an environment seeking greater collaboration and interdisciplinarity, these results indicate the need for conscious dialogue about this topic among different model users.
引用
收藏
页数:9
相关论文
共 39 条
  • [31] Seibert J., 2019, Computer Simulation Validation, P811, DOI [DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-70766-2_33, 10.1007/978-3-319-70766-2, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-70766-2, 10.1007/978-3-319-70766-2_33, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-70766-233]
  • [32] Hydrologic system complexity and nonlinear dynamic concepts for a catchment classification framework
    Sivakumar, B.
    Singh, V. P.
    [J]. HYDROLOGY AND EARTH SYSTEM SCIENCES, 2012, 16 (11) : 4119 - 4131
  • [33] Evaluating modelling uncertainty for model selection
    Snowling, SD
    Kramer, JR
    [J]. ECOLOGICAL MODELLING, 2001, 138 (1-3) : 17 - 30
  • [34] COMPETITION AND BIODIVERSITY IN SPATIALLY STRUCTURED HABITATS
    TILMAN, D
    [J]. ECOLOGY, 1994, 75 (01) : 2 - 16
  • [35] Biophysical landscape interactions: Bridging disciplines and scale with connectivity
    van der Ploeg, Martine J.
    Baartman, Jantiene E. M.
    Robinson, David A.
    [J]. LAND DEGRADATION & DEVELOPMENT, 2018, 29 (04) : 1167 - 1175
  • [36] Two decades of numerical modelling to understand long term fluvial archives: Advances and future perspectives
    Veldkamp, A.
    Baartman, J. E. M.
    Coulthard, T. J.
    Maddy, D.
    Schoorl, J. M.
    Storms, J. E. A.
    Temme, A. J. A. M.
    van Balen, R.
    van De Wiel, M. J.
    van Gorp, W.
    Viveen, W.
    Westaway, R.
    Whittaker, A. C.
    [J]. QUATERNARY SCIENCE REVIEWS, 2017, 166 : 177 - 187
  • [37] Wainwright J., 2013, Environmental Modelling, DOI DOI 10.1002/9781118351475
  • [38] Moving to a World Beyond "p<0.05"
    Wasserstein, Ronald L.
    Schirm, Allen L.
    Lazar, Nicole A.
    [J]. AMERICAN STATISTICIAN, 2019, 73 : 1 - 19
  • [39] Estimation of predictive hydrological uncertainty using quantile regression: examples from the National Flood Forecasting System (England and Wales)
    Weerts, A. H.
    Winsemius, H. C.
    Verkade, J. S.
    [J]. HYDROLOGY AND EARTH SYSTEM SCIENCES, 2011, 15 (01) : 255 - 265