Methods to quantify and identify the sources of uncertainty for river basin water quality models

Ann van Griensven, Thomas Meixner

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

132 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Worldwide, the application of river basin water quality models is increasing, often imposed by law. It is, thus, important to know the degree of uncertainty associated with these models and their application to a specific watershed. These uncertainties lead to errors that are revealed when model outputs are compared to observations. Such uncertainty is typically described by calculating the residuals. However, residuals should not be seen as an estimate of total uncertainty, since through the calibration process, the residuals may be reduced by over-adjustment to the data, which is typically the case for over-parameterised models. Over-adjustment during a calibration period can also lead to highly biased results when the model is applied to other periods or environmental conditions. The total model uncertainties are, therefore, assessed by four components: the sum of the squares of the residuals (SSQ), parameter uncertainties (that can be ignored when their error is much smaller than SSQ), input data uncertainties, and an additional predictive uncertainty that is expressed when the model appears to be biased when it is applied for data other than the data used for calibration. The sources are ranked according to a quantification criterion (magnitude) as well as an identification criterion that depends on the number of observations that are covered by the confidence region. This approach is illustrated with SWAT2003 simulations for flow and sediment of Honey Creek, a tributary of the Sandusky River basin (Ohio). The results show the dominance of the model uncertainty. The input data uncertainty is less important.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)51-59
Number of pages9
JournalWater Science and Technology
Volume53
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - 2006
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Catchments
Water quality
river basin
Rivers
water quality
calibration
Calibration
Uncertainty
method
honey
tributary
Watersheds
environmental conditions
watershed
Sediments
sediment
simulation

Keywords

  • Modelling
  • River basin
  • Uncertainty
  • Water quality

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Water Science and Technology

Cite this

Methods to quantify and identify the sources of uncertainty for river basin water quality models. / van Griensven, Ann; Meixner, Thomas.

In: Water Science and Technology, Vol. 53, No. 1, 2006, p. 51-59.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{7d9bad7d0e784cac80df1319bde50288,
title = "Methods to quantify and identify the sources of uncertainty for river basin water quality models",
abstract = "Worldwide, the application of river basin water quality models is increasing, often imposed by law. It is, thus, important to know the degree of uncertainty associated with these models and their application to a specific watershed. These uncertainties lead to errors that are revealed when model outputs are compared to observations. Such uncertainty is typically described by calculating the residuals. However, residuals should not be seen as an estimate of total uncertainty, since through the calibration process, the residuals may be reduced by over-adjustment to the data, which is typically the case for over-parameterised models. Over-adjustment during a calibration period can also lead to highly biased results when the model is applied to other periods or environmental conditions. The total model uncertainties are, therefore, assessed by four components: the sum of the squares of the residuals (SSQ), parameter uncertainties (that can be ignored when their error is much smaller than SSQ), input data uncertainties, and an additional predictive uncertainty that is expressed when the model appears to be biased when it is applied for data other than the data used for calibration. The sources are ranked according to a quantification criterion (magnitude) as well as an identification criterion that depends on the number of observations that are covered by the confidence region. This approach is illustrated with SWAT2003 simulations for flow and sediment of Honey Creek, a tributary of the Sandusky River basin (Ohio). The results show the dominance of the model uncertainty. The input data uncertainty is less important.",
keywords = "Modelling, River basin, Uncertainty, Water quality",
author = "{van Griensven}, Ann and Thomas Meixner",
year = "2006",
doi = "10.2166/wst.2006.007",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "53",
pages = "51--59",
journal = "Water Science and Technology",
issn = "0273-1223",
publisher = "IWA Publishing",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Methods to quantify and identify the sources of uncertainty for river basin water quality models

AU - van Griensven, Ann

AU - Meixner, Thomas

PY - 2006

Y1 - 2006

N2 - Worldwide, the application of river basin water quality models is increasing, often imposed by law. It is, thus, important to know the degree of uncertainty associated with these models and their application to a specific watershed. These uncertainties lead to errors that are revealed when model outputs are compared to observations. Such uncertainty is typically described by calculating the residuals. However, residuals should not be seen as an estimate of total uncertainty, since through the calibration process, the residuals may be reduced by over-adjustment to the data, which is typically the case for over-parameterised models. Over-adjustment during a calibration period can also lead to highly biased results when the model is applied to other periods or environmental conditions. The total model uncertainties are, therefore, assessed by four components: the sum of the squares of the residuals (SSQ), parameter uncertainties (that can be ignored when their error is much smaller than SSQ), input data uncertainties, and an additional predictive uncertainty that is expressed when the model appears to be biased when it is applied for data other than the data used for calibration. The sources are ranked according to a quantification criterion (magnitude) as well as an identification criterion that depends on the number of observations that are covered by the confidence region. This approach is illustrated with SWAT2003 simulations for flow and sediment of Honey Creek, a tributary of the Sandusky River basin (Ohio). The results show the dominance of the model uncertainty. The input data uncertainty is less important.

AB - Worldwide, the application of river basin water quality models is increasing, often imposed by law. It is, thus, important to know the degree of uncertainty associated with these models and their application to a specific watershed. These uncertainties lead to errors that are revealed when model outputs are compared to observations. Such uncertainty is typically described by calculating the residuals. However, residuals should not be seen as an estimate of total uncertainty, since through the calibration process, the residuals may be reduced by over-adjustment to the data, which is typically the case for over-parameterised models. Over-adjustment during a calibration period can also lead to highly biased results when the model is applied to other periods or environmental conditions. The total model uncertainties are, therefore, assessed by four components: the sum of the squares of the residuals (SSQ), parameter uncertainties (that can be ignored when their error is much smaller than SSQ), input data uncertainties, and an additional predictive uncertainty that is expressed when the model appears to be biased when it is applied for data other than the data used for calibration. The sources are ranked according to a quantification criterion (magnitude) as well as an identification criterion that depends on the number of observations that are covered by the confidence region. This approach is illustrated with SWAT2003 simulations for flow and sediment of Honey Creek, a tributary of the Sandusky River basin (Ohio). The results show the dominance of the model uncertainty. The input data uncertainty is less important.

KW - Modelling

KW - River basin

KW - Uncertainty

KW - Water quality

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33644628226&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33644628226&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2166/wst.2006.007

DO - 10.2166/wst.2006.007

M3 - Article

C2 - 16532735

AN - SCOPUS:33644628226

VL - 53

SP - 51

EP - 59

JO - Water Science and Technology

JF - Water Science and Technology

SN - 0273-1223

IS - 1

ER -