Next Article in Journal
Assessing the Influence of Compounding Factors to the Water Level Variation of Erhai Lake
Next Article in Special Issue
Investigating Hydrological Variability in the Wuding River Basin: Implications for Water Resources Management under the Water–Human-Coupled Environment
Previous Article in Journal
Treatment of Wastewaters by Microalgae and the Potential Applications of the Produced Biomass—A Review
Previous Article in Special Issue
Quantitative Lasting Effects of Drought Stress at a Growth Stage on Soybean Evapotranspiration and Aboveground BIOMASS
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Review: Sources of Hydrological Model Uncertainties and Advances in Their Analysis

1
Department of Geography, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94709, USA
2
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Washington State University, Richland, WA 99354, USA
3
Global Institute for Water Security, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK S7N 5A2, Canada
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Water 2021, 13(1), 28; https://doi.org/10.3390/w13010028
Submission received: 27 November 2020 / Revised: 18 December 2020 / Accepted: 22 December 2020 / Published: 25 December 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Hydrological Modeling in Water Cycle Processes)

Abstract

Despite progresses in representing different processes, hydrological models remain uncertain. Their uncertainty stems from input and calibration data, model structure, and parameters. In characterizing these sources, their causes, interactions and different uncertainty analysis (UA) methods are reviewed. The commonly used UA methods are categorized into six broad classes: (i) Monte Carlo analysis, (ii) Bayesian statistics, (iii) multi-objective analysis, (iv) least-squares-based inverse modeling, (v) response-surface-based techniques, and (vi) multi-modeling analysis. For each source of uncertainty, the status-quo and applications of these methods are critiqued in gauged catchments where UA is common and in ungauged catchments where both UA and its review are lacking. Compared to parameter uncertainty, UA application for structural uncertainty is limited while input and calibration data uncertainties are mostly unaccounted. Further research is needed to improve the computational efficiency of UA, disentangle and propagate the different sources of uncertainty, improve UA applications to environmental changes and coupled human–natural-hydrologic systems, and ease UA’s applications for practitioners.
Keywords: hydrological model uncertainty; sources of model uncertainty; review of uncertainty analysis; methods of uncertainty analysis; uncertainty analysis in ungauged basins hydrological model uncertainty; sources of model uncertainty; review of uncertainty analysis; methods of uncertainty analysis; uncertainty analysis in ungauged basins

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Moges, E.; Demissie, Y.; Larsen, L.; Yassin, F. Review: Sources of Hydrological Model Uncertainties and Advances in Their Analysis. Water 2021, 13, 28. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13010028

AMA Style

Moges E, Demissie Y, Larsen L, Yassin F. Review: Sources of Hydrological Model Uncertainties and Advances in Their Analysis. Water. 2021; 13(1):28. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13010028

Chicago/Turabian Style

Moges, Edom, Yonas Demissie, Laurel Larsen, and Fuad Yassin. 2021. "Review: Sources of Hydrological Model Uncertainties and Advances in Their Analysis" Water 13, no. 1: 28. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13010028

APA Style

Moges, E., Demissie, Y., Larsen, L., & Yassin, F. (2021). Review: Sources of Hydrological Model Uncertainties and Advances in Their Analysis. Water, 13(1), 28. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13010028

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop