Articles | Volume 27, issue 13
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-2523-2023
© Author(s) 2023. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-2523-2023
© Author(s) 2023. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Technical note
| 
11 Jul 2023
Technical note |
| 11 Jul 2023
| 11 Jul 2023
Technical note: The CREDIBLE Uncertainty Estimation (CURE) toolbox: facilitating the communication of epistemic uncertainty
Trevor Page
Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
Paul Smith
Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
waternumbers, Lancaster, UK
Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
Francesca Pianosi
Department of Civil Engineering, Bristol University, Bristol, UK
Fanny Sarrazin
Department of Computational Hydrosystems, Helmholtz Centre for
Environmental Research (UFZ), Leipzig, Germany
Susana Almeida
Atkins Global, Warrington, UK
Liz Holcombe
Department of Civil Engineering, Bristol University, Bristol, UK
Jim Freer
School of Geographical Sciences, Bristol University, Bristol, UK
Global
Institute for Water Security, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatchewan, Canada
Nick Chappell
Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
Thorsten Wagener
Institute for Environmental Science and Geography, University of
Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany
Related authors
No articles found.
Pia Ebeling, Alexander Hubig, Alexander Wachholz, Ulrike Scharfenberger, Sarah Haug, Tam Nguyen, Fanny Sarrazin, Masooma Batool, Andreas Musolff, and Rohini Kumar
Earth Syst. Sci. Data Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2025-450, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2025-450, 2025
Preprint under review for ESSD
Short summary
Short summary
This update of the water quality dataset QUADICA for 1386 German catchments adds new data on water quality, flow, and drivers. Additions include water temperature and concentrations of oxygen and others, as well as catchment-wise time series on pollution sources and improved integration with other relevant datasets. This expanded dataset will help researchers and practitioners better understand how human activities affect water quality and ecosystems, and make more informed decisions.
Sacha W. Ruzzante, Wouter J. M. Knoben, Thorsten Wagener, Tom Gleeson, and Markus Schnorbus
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3851, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3851, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Hydrology and Earth System Sciences (HESS).
Short summary
Short summary
Common metrics used to evaluate hydrologic models make it relatively easy to achieve high performance scores in many tropical, alpine, and polar regions. However, we analysed 18 hydrologic models and found that almost all were worse at simulating interannual variability and change in these regions. This suggests that the effects of climate change on streamflow may not be accurately predicted in tropical, alpine, and polar climates, which are highly vulnerable to climate change.
Francesca Pianosi, Georgios Sarailidis, Kirsty Styles, Philip Oldham, Stephen Hutchings, Rob Lamb, and Thorsten Wagener
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3310, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3310, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Flood risk models are essential to support risk management. As they simulate complex interactions between climate, the natural and the built environment, they unavoidably embed a range of simplifying assumptions. In this paper, we propose a more rigorous approach to analyse the impact of uncertain assumptions on modelling results. This is important to improve model transparency and set priorities for improving models.
Doris Elise Wendt, Gemma Coxon, Saskia Salwey, and Francesca Pianosi
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1645, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1645, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Groundwater is a highly-used water source, which drought management is complicated. We introduce a socio-hydrological water resource model (SHOWER) to aid drought management in groundwater-rich managed environments. Results show which and when drought management interventions influence surface water and groundwater storage, with integrated interventions having most effect on reducing droughts. This encourages further exploration to reduce water shortages and improve future drought resilience.
Yongshin Lee, Andres Peñuela, Francesca Pianosi, and Miguel Angel Rico-Ramirez
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 29, 1429–1447, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-1429-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-1429-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This study assesses the value of seasonal flow forecasts (SFFs) in informing decision-making for drought management in South Korea and introduces a novel method for assessing values benchmarked against historical operations. Our results showed the importance of considering flow forecast uncertainty in reservoir operations. There was no significant correlation between the forecast accuracy and value. The method for selecting a compromise release schedule was a key control of the value.
Masooma Batool, Fanny J. Sarrazin, and Rohini Kumar
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 17, 881–916, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-17-881-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-17-881-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Our paper presents a reconstruction and analysis of the gridded P surplus in European landscapes from 1850 to 2019 at a 5 arcmin resolution. By utilizing 48 different estimates, we account for uncertainties in major components of the P surplus. Our findings highlight substantial historical changes, with the total P surplus in the EU 27 tripling over 170 years. Our dataset enables flexible aggregation at various spatial scales, providing critical insights for land and water management strategies.
Fanny J. Sarrazin, Sabine Attinger, and Rohini Kumar
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 16, 4673–4708, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-16-4673-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-16-4673-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) contamination of water bodies is a long-term issue due to the long history of N and P inputs to the environment and their persistence. Here, we introduce a long-term and high-resolution dataset of N and P inputs from wastewater (point sources) for Germany, combining data from different sources and conceptual understanding. We also account for uncertainties in modelling choices, thus facilitating robust long-term and large-scale water quality studies.
Shervan Gharari, Paul H. Whitfield, Alain Pietroniro, Jim Freer, Hongli Liu, and Martyn P. Clark
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 4383–4405, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-4383-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-4383-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This study provides insight into the practices that are incorporated into discharge estimation across the national Canadian hydrometric network operated by the Water Survey of Canada (WSC). The procedures used to estimate and correct discharge values are not always understood by end-users. Factors such as ice cover and sedimentation limit accurate discharge estimation. Highlighting these challenges sheds light on difficulties in discharge estimation and the associated uncertainty.
Saskia Salwey, Gemma Coxon, Francesca Pianosi, Rosanna Lane, Chris Hutton, Michael Bliss Singer, Hilary McMillan, and Jim Freer
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 4203–4218, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-4203-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-4203-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Reservoirs are essential for water resource management and can significantly impact downstream flow. However, representing reservoirs in hydrological models can be challenging, particularly across large scales. We design a new and simple method for simulating river flow downstream of water supply reservoirs using only open-access data. We demonstrate the approach in 264 reservoir catchments across Great Britain, where we can significantly improve the simulation of reservoir-impacted flow.
Yongshin Lee, Francesca Pianosi, Andres Peñuela, and Miguel Angel Rico-Ramirez
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 3261–3279, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-3261-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-3261-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Following recent advancements in weather prediction technology, we explored how seasonal weather forecasts (1 or more months ahead) could benefit practical water management in South Korea. Our findings highlight that using seasonal weather forecasts for predicting flow patterns 1 to 3 months ahead is effective, especially during dry years. This suggest that seasonal weather forecasts can be helpful in improving the management of water resources.
Elizabeth Follett, Keith Beven, Barry Hankin, David Mindham, and Nick Chappell
Proc. IAHS, 385, 197–201, https://doi.org/10.5194/piahs-385-197-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/piahs-385-197-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This paper presents a spreadsheet design tool for barriers in streams used for natural flood management. Retention times in such barriers should neither be too short (they fill and empty too quickly) or too long (they might already be full when a flood occurs). Previous work has shown the order of 10 h to be effective. The tool is freely available for download at https://www.jbatrust.org/how-we-help/publications-resources/rivers-and-coasts/nfm-leaky-barrier-retention-times.
Keith Beven, Trevor Page, Paul Smith, Ann Kretzschmar, Barry Hankin, and Nick Chappell
Proc. IAHS, 385, 129–134, https://doi.org/10.5194/piahs-385-129-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/piahs-385-129-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This paper presents a method of deciding when a hydrological model might be fit for purpose given the limitations of the data that are available for model evaluation. In this case the purpose is to reproduce the peak flows for an application that is concerned with evaluating the effect of natural flood management measures on flood peaks. It is shown that while all the models fail to pass the test at all time steps, there is an ensemble of models that pass for the hydrograph peaks.
Dung Trung Vu, Thanh Duc Dang, Francesca Pianosi, and Stefano Galelli
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 27, 3485–3504, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-3485-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-3485-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
The calibration of hydrological models over extensive spatial domains is often challenged by the lack of data on river discharge and the operations of hydraulic infrastructures. Here, we use satellite data to address the lack of data that could unintentionally bias the calibration process. Our study is underpinned by a computational framework that quantifies this bias and provides a safe approach to the calibration of models in poorly gauged and heavily regulated basins.
Heidi Kreibich, Kai Schröter, Giuliano Di Baldassarre, Anne F. Van Loon, Maurizio Mazzoleni, Guta Wakbulcho Abeshu, Svetlana Agafonova, Amir AghaKouchak, Hafzullah Aksoy, Camila Alvarez-Garreton, Blanca Aznar, Laila Balkhi, Marlies H. Barendrecht, Sylvain Biancamaria, Liduin Bos-Burgering, Chris Bradley, Yus Budiyono, Wouter Buytaert, Lucinda Capewell, Hayley Carlson, Yonca Cavus, Anaïs Couasnon, Gemma Coxon, Ioannis Daliakopoulos, Marleen C. de Ruiter, Claire Delus, Mathilde Erfurt, Giuseppe Esposito, Didier François, Frédéric Frappart, Jim Freer, Natalia Frolova, Animesh K. Gain, Manolis Grillakis, Jordi Oriol Grima, Diego A. Guzmán, Laurie S. Huning, Monica Ionita, Maxim Kharlamov, Dao Nguyen Khoi, Natalie Kieboom, Maria Kireeva, Aristeidis Koutroulis, Waldo Lavado-Casimiro, Hong-Yi Li, Maria Carmen LLasat, David Macdonald, Johanna Mård, Hannah Mathew-Richards, Andrew McKenzie, Alfonso Mejia, Eduardo Mario Mendiondo, Marjolein Mens, Shifteh Mobini, Guilherme Samprogna Mohor, Viorica Nagavciuc, Thanh Ngo-Duc, Huynh Thi Thao Nguyen, Pham Thi Thao Nhi, Olga Petrucci, Nguyen Hong Quan, Pere Quintana-Seguí, Saman Razavi, Elena Ridolfi, Jannik Riegel, Md Shibly Sadik, Nivedita Sairam, Elisa Savelli, Alexey Sazonov, Sanjib Sharma, Johanna Sörensen, Felipe Augusto Arguello Souza, Kerstin Stahl, Max Steinhausen, Michael Stoelzle, Wiwiana Szalińska, Qiuhong Tang, Fuqiang Tian, Tamara Tokarczyk, Carolina Tovar, Thi Van Thu Tran, Marjolein H. J. van Huijgevoort, Michelle T. H. van Vliet, Sergiy Vorogushyn, Thorsten Wagener, Yueling Wang, Doris E. Wendt, Elliot Wickham, Long Yang, Mauricio Zambrano-Bigiarini, and Philip J. Ward
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 15, 2009–2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-2009-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-2009-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
As the adverse impacts of hydrological extremes increase in many regions of the world, a better understanding of the drivers of changes in risk and impacts is essential for effective flood and drought risk management. We present a dataset containing data of paired events, i.e. two floods or two droughts that occurred in the same area. The dataset enables comparative analyses and allows detailed context-specific assessments. Additionally, it supports the testing of socio-hydrological models.
Louisa D. Oldham, Jim Freer, Gemma Coxon, Nicholas Howden, John P. Bloomfield, and Christopher Jackson
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 27, 761–781, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-761-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-761-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Water can move between river catchments via the subsurface, termed intercatchment groundwater flow (IGF). We show how a perceptual model of IGF can be developed with relatively simple geological interpretation and data requirements. We find that IGF dynamics vary in space, correlated to the dominant underlying geology. We recommend that IGF
loss functionsmay be used in conceptual rainfall–runoff models but should be supported by perceptualisation of IGF processes and connectivities.
Rosanna A. Lane, Gemma Coxon, Jim Freer, Jan Seibert, and Thorsten Wagener
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 5535–5554, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-5535-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-5535-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
This study modelled the impact of climate change on river high flows across Great Britain (GB). Generally, results indicated an increase in the magnitude and frequency of high flows along the west coast of GB by 2050–2075. In contrast, average flows decreased across GB. All flow projections contained large uncertainties; the climate projections were the largest source of uncertainty overall but hydrological modelling uncertainties were considerable in some regions.
Pia Ebeling, Rohini Kumar, Stefanie R. Lutz, Tam Nguyen, Fanny Sarrazin, Michael Weber, Olaf Büttner, Sabine Attinger, and Andreas Musolff
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 14, 3715–3741, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-3715-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-3715-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Environmental data are critical for understanding and managing ecosystems, including the mitigation of water quality degradation. To increase data availability, we present the first large-sample water quality data set (QUADICA) of riverine macronutrient concentrations combined with water quantity, meteorological, and nutrient forcing data as well as catchment attributes. QUADICA covers 1386 German catchments to facilitate large-sample data-driven and modeling water quality assessments.
Antonio Capponi, Natalie J. Harvey, Helen F. Dacre, Keith Beven, Cameron Saint, Cathie Wells, and Mike R. James
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 6115–6134, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-6115-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-6115-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Forecasts of the dispersal of volcanic ash in the atmosphere are hampered by uncertainties in parameters describing the characteristics of volcanic plumes. Uncertainty quantification is vital for making robust flight-planning decisions. We present a method using satellite data to refine a series of volcanic ash dispersion forecasts and quantify these uncertainties. We show how we can improve forecast accuracy and potentially reduce the regions of high risk of volcanic ash relevant to aviation.
Joni Dehaspe, Fanny Sarrazin, Rohini Kumar, Jan H. Fleckenstein, and Andreas Musolff
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 6437–6463, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-6437-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-6437-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Increased nitrate concentrations in surface waters can compromise river ecosystem health. As riverine nitrate uptake is hard to measure, we explore how low-frequency nitrate concentration and discharge observations (that are widely available) can help to identify (in)efficient uptake in river networks. We find that channel geometry and water velocity rather than the biological uptake capacity dominate the nitrate-discharge pattern at the outlet. The former can be used to predict uptake.
Tom Gleeson, Thorsten Wagener, Petra Döll, Samuel C. Zipper, Charles West, Yoshihide Wada, Richard Taylor, Bridget Scanlon, Rafael Rosolem, Shams Rahman, Nurudeen Oshinlaja, Reed Maxwell, Min-Hui Lo, Hyungjun Kim, Mary Hill, Andreas Hartmann, Graham Fogg, James S. Famiglietti, Agnès Ducharne, Inge de Graaf, Mark Cuthbert, Laura Condon, Etienne Bresciani, and Marc F. P. Bierkens
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 7545–7571, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-7545-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-7545-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Groundwater is increasingly being included in large-scale (continental to global) land surface and hydrologic simulations. However, it is challenging to evaluate these simulations because groundwater is
hiddenunderground and thus hard to measure. We suggest using multiple complementary strategies to assess the performance of a model (
model evaluation).
Paul C. Astagneau, Guillaume Thirel, Olivier Delaigue, Joseph H. A. Guillaume, Juraj Parajka, Claudia C. Brauer, Alberto Viglione, Wouter Buytaert, and Keith J. Beven
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 3937–3973, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-3937-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-3937-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
The R programming language has become an important tool for many applications in hydrology. In this study, we provide an analysis of some of the R tools providing hydrological models. In total, two aspects are uniformly investigated, namely the conceptualisation of the models and the practicality of their implementation for end-users. These comparisons aim at easing the choice of R tools for users and at improving their usability for hydrology modelling to support more transferable research.
Thorsten Wagener, Dragan Savic, David Butler, Reza Ahmadian, Tom Arnot, Jonathan Dawes, Slobodan Djordjevic, Roger Falconer, Raziyeh Farmani, Debbie Ford, Jan Hofman, Zoran Kapelan, Shunqi Pan, and Ross Woods
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 2721–2738, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-2721-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-2721-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
How can we effectively train PhD candidates both (i) across different knowledge domains in water science and engineering and (ii) in computer science? To address this issue, the Water Informatics in Science and Engineering Centre for Doctoral Training (WISE CDT) offers a postgraduate programme that fosters enhanced levels of innovation and collaboration by training a cohort of engineers and scientists at the boundary of water informatics, science and engineering.
Keith Beven
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 851–866, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-851-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-851-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Inspired by a quotation from Howard Cook in 1946, this paper traces the evolution of the infiltration theory of runoff from the work of Robert Horton and LeRoy Sherman in the 1930s to the early digital computer models of the 1970s and 1980s. Reconsideration of the perceptual model for many catchments, partly as a result of the greater appreciation of the contribution of subsurface flows to the hydrograph indicated by tracer studies, suggests a reconsideration of hydrological nomenclature.
Keith J. Beven, Mike J. Kirkby, Jim E. Freer, and Rob Lamb
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 527–549, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-527-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-527-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
The theory that forms the basis of TOPMODEL was first outlined by Mike Kirkby some 45 years ago. This paper recalls some of the early developments: the rejection of the first journal paper, the early days of digital terrain analysis, model calibration and validation, the various criticisms of the simplifying assumptions, and the relaxation of those assumptions in the dynamic forms of TOPMODEL, and it considers what we might do now with the benefit of hindsight.
Andres Peñuela, Christopher Hutton, and Francesca Pianosi
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 6059–6073, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-6059-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-6059-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
In this paper we evaluate the potential use of seasonal weather forecasts to improve reservoir operation in a UK water supply system. We found that the use of seasonal forecasts can improve the efficiency of reservoir operation but only if the forecast uncertainty is explicitly considered. We also found the degree of efficiency improvement is strongly affected by the decision maker priorities and the hydrological conditions.
Elisa Bozzolan, Elizabeth Holcombe, Francesca Pianosi, and Thorsten Wagener
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 20, 3161–3177, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-20-3161-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-20-3161-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
We include informal housing in slope stability analysis, considering different slope properties and precipitation events (including climate change). The dominant failure processes are identified, and their relative role in slope failure is quantified. A new rainfall threshold is assessed for urbanised slopes. Instability
rulesare provided to recognise urbanised slopes most at risk. The methodology is suitable for regions with scarce field measurements and landslide inventories.
Cited articles
Alexandrov, G. A., Ames, D., Bellocchi, G., Bruen, M, Crout, N.,
Erechtchoukova, M., Hildebrandt, A., Hoffman, F., Jackisch, C., Khaiter, P.,
Mannina, G., Matsunaga, T., Purucker, S. T., Rivington, M., and Samaniego,
L.: Technical assessment and evaluation of environmental models and software: letter to the Editor, Environ. Model. Softw., 26, 328–336, 2011.
Almeida, S., Holcombe, E. A., Pianosi, F., and Wagener, T.: Dealing with
deep uncertainties in landslide modelling for disaster risk reduction under
climate change, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 17, 225–241, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-17-225-2017, 2017.
Ascough II, J. C., Maier, H. R., Ravalico, J. K., and Strudley, M. W.: Future
research challenges for incorporation of uncertainty in environmental and
ecological decision-making, Ecol. Model., 219, 383–399,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2008.07.015, 2008.
Bastin, L., Cornford, D., Jones, R., Heuvelink, G. B. M., Pebesma, E., Stasch, C., Nativi, S., Mazzetti, P., and Williams, M.: Managing uncertainty in integrated environmental modelling: The UncertWeb framework, Environ. Model. Softw., 39, 116–134, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2012.02.008, 2013.
Bennett, N. D., Croke, B. F. W., Guariso, G., Guillaume, J. H. A., Hamilton, S. H., Jakeman, A. J., Marsili-Libelli, S., Newham, L. T. H., Norton, J. P.,
Perrin, C., Pierce, S. A., Robson, B., Seppelt, R., Voinov, A. A., Fath, B.
D., and Andreassian, V.: Characterising performance of environmental models,
Environ. Model. Softw., 40, 1–20, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2012.09.011, 2013.
Beven, K. and Binley, A.: The future of distributed models: Model calibration and uncertainty prediction, Hydrol. Process., 6, 279–298, 1992.
Beven, K., Smith, P., Westerberg, I., and Freer, J.: Comment on “Pursuing the method of multiple working hypotheses for hydrological modeling” by P. Clark et al., Water Resour. Res., 48, 1–5, 2012.
Beven, K. J.: A manifesto for the equifinality thesis, J. Hydrol., 320, 18–36, 2006.
Beven, K. J., Environment Modelling: An Uncertain Future? Routledge: London, 2009.
Beven, K. J.: EGU Leonardo Lecture: Facets of Hydrology – epistemic error,
non-stationarity, likelihood, hypothesis testing, and communication, Hydrolog. Sci. J., 61, 1652–1665, https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2015.1031761, 2015.
Beven, K. J. and Alcock, R.: Modelling everything everywhere: a new approach
to decision making for water management under uncertainty, Freshwater Biol., 56, 124–132, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2011.02592.x, 2012.
Beven, K. J. and Binley, A. M.: GLUE, 20 years on, Hydrol. Process., 28, 5897–5918, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.10082, 2014.
Beven, K. J. and Freer, J.: Equifinality, data assimilation, and uncertainty
estimation in mechanistic modelling of complex environmental systems, J. Hydrol., 249, 11–29, 2001.
Beven, K. J. and Lane, S.: On (in)validating environmental models. 1. Principles for formulating a Turing-like Test for determining when a model
is fit-for purpose, Hydrol. Process., 36, e14704, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.14704, 2022.
Beven, K. J. and Smith, P. J.: Concepts of Information Content and Likelihood in Parameter Calibration for Hydrological Simulation Models, ASCE J. Hydrol. Eng., 20, A4014010, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0000991, 2015.
Beven, K. J. and Westerberg, I.: On red herrings and real herrings:
disinformation and information in hydrological inference, Hydrol. Process., 25, 1676–1680, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.7963, 2011.
Beven, K. J., Smith, P. J., and Freer, J. E.: So just why would a modeller
choose to be incoherent?, J. Hydrol., 354, 15–32, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2008.02.007, 2008.
Beven, K. J., Lamb, R., Leedal, D. T., and Hunter, N.: Communicating
uncertainty in flood risk mapping: a case study, Int. J. River Basin Manage., 13, 285–296, https://doi.org/10.1080/15715124.2014.917318, 2014.
Beven, K. J., Almeida, S., Aspinall, W. P., Bates, P. D., Blazkova, S.,
Borgomeo, E., Freer, J., Goda, K., Hall, J. W., Phillips, J. C., Simpson,
M., Smith, P. J., Stephenson, D. B., Wagener, T., Watson, M., and Wilkins,
K. L.: Epistemic uncertainties and natural hazard risk assessment. 1. A
review of different natural hazard areas, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 2741–2768, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-18-2741-2018, 2018a.
Beven, K. J., Aspinall, W. P., Bates, P. D., Borgomeo, E., Goda, K., Hall, J. W., Page, T., Phillips, J. C., Simpson, M., Smith, P. J., Wagener, T., and Watson, M.: Epistemic uncertainties and natural hazard risk assessment – Part 2: What should constitute good practice?, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 2769–2783, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-18-2769-2018, 2018b.
Beven, K. J., Lane, S., Page, T., Hankin, B, Kretzschmar, A., Smith, P. J.,
and Chappell, N.: On (in)validating environmental models. 2. Implementation of the Turing-like Test to modelling hydrological processes, Hydrol. Process., 36, e14703, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.14703, 2022.
Blazkova, S. and Beven, K. J.: A limits of acceptability approach to model
evaluation and uncertainty estimation in flood frequency estimation by
continuous simulation: Skalka catchment, Czech Republic, Water Resour. Res., 45, W00B16, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007WR006726, 2009.
Box, G. E. P. and Cox, D. R.: An analysis of transformations, J. Royal Stat. Soc. Ser. B, 26, 211–252, 1964.
Brown, J. D. and Heuvelink, G. B. M.: The Data Uncertainty Engine (DUE): A software tool for assessing and simulating uncertain environmental variables,
Comput. Geosci., 33, 172–190, 2007.
Clark, M. P., Kavetski, D., and Fenicia, F.: Pursuing the method of multiple
working hypotheses for hydrological modeling, Water Resour. Res., 47,
W09301, https://doi.org/10.1029/2010WR009827, 2011.
Evin, G., Kavetski, D., Thyer, M., and Kuczera, G.: Pitfalls and improvements
in the joint inference of heteroscedasticity and autocorrelation in
hydrological model calibration, Water Resour. Res., 49, 4518–4524, 2013.
Evin, G., Thyer, M., Kavetski, D., McInerney, D., and Kuczera, G.: Comparison
of joint versus postprocessor approaches for hydrological uncertainty estimation accounting for error autocorrelation and heteroscedasticity, Water Resour. Res., 50, 2350–2375, 2014.
Gelman, A. and Rubin, D. B.: Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences (with discussion), Statist. Sci., 7, 457–472, 1992.
Grimm, V., Augusiak, J, Focks, A., Frank, B. M., Gabsi, F., Johnston, A. S. A., Liu, C., Martin, B. T., Meli, M., Radchuk, V., Thorbek, P., and Railsback, S. F.: Towards better modelling and decision support: Documenting model development, testing, and analysis using TRACE, Ecol. Model., 280, 129–139, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2014.01.018, 2014.
Haario, H., Saksman, E., and Tamminen, J.: An adaptive Metropolis algorithm,
Bernoulli, 7, 223–242, 2001.
Hollaway, M. J., Beven, K. J., Benskin, C. M. W. H., Collins, A. L., Evans, R., Falloon, P. D., Forber, K. J., Hiscock, K. M., Kahana, R., Macleod, C. J. A., Ockenden, M. C., Villamizar, M. L., Wearing, C., Withers, P. J. A., Zhou, J. G., and Haygarth, P. M.: Evaluating a processed based water quality model on a UK headwater catchment: what can we learn from a `limits of acceptability' uncertainty framework?, J. Hydrol., 558, 607–624, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.01.063, 2018.
McInerney, D., Thyer, M., Kavetski, D., Bennett, B., Lerat, J., Gibbs, M.,
and Kuczera, G.: A simplified approach to produce probabilistic hydrological
model predictions, Environ. Model. Softw., 109, 306–314, 2018.
Neal, J., Keef, C., Bates, P., Beven, K. J., and Leedal, D.: Probabilistic flood risk mapping including spatial dependence, Hydrol. Process., 27, 1349–1363, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.9572, 2013.
Nearing, G. S., Tian, Y., Gupta, H. V., Clark, M. P., Harrison, K. W., and
Weijs, S. V.: A Philosophical Basis for Hydrologic Uncertainty, Hydrolog. Sci. J., 61, 1666–1678, https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2016.1183009, 2016.
Page, T., Smith, P. J., Beven, K. J., Jones, I. D., Elliott, J. A., Maberly, S. C., Mackay, E. B., De Ville, M., and Feuchtmayr, H.: Constraining uncertainty and process-representation in an algal community lake model using high frequency in-lake observations, Ecol. Modell., 357, 1–13, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2017.04.011, 2017.
Page, T., Smith, P. J., Beven, K. J., Pianosi3, F., Sarrazin, F., Almeida, S.
Holcombe, E., Freer, J., Chappell, N., and Wagener, T.: The CURE Uncertainty Estimation Matlab Tooolbox, Version 1.0, https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/lec/sites/qnfm/credible (last access: 3 July 2023), 2021.
Pappenberger, F., Harvey, H., Beven, K. J., Hall, J., and Meadowcroft, I.:
Decision tree for choosing an uncertainty analysis methodology: a wiki
experiment http://www.floodrisknet.org.uk/methods http://www.floodrisk.net, Hydrol. Process., 20, 1099–1085, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.6541, 2006.
Pianosi, F., Rougier, J., Freer, J., Hall, J., Stephenson, D. B., Beven, K. J., and Wagener, T.: Sensitivity Analysis of environmental models: a systematic review with practical workflows, Environ. Model. Soft., 79, 214–232, 2016.
Poeter, E. P., Hill, M. C., Lu, D., Tiedeman, C. R., and Mehl, S.: UCODE_2014, with new capabilities to define parameters unique to predictions, calculate weights using simulated values, estimate parameters with SVD, evaluate uncertainty with MCMC, and More: Integrated Groundwater Modeling Center Report Number GWMI 2014-02, https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70159674 (last access: 3 July 2023), Colorado, USA, 2014.
Ratto, M. and Saltelli, A.: Model assessment in integrated procedures for
environmental impact evaluation: software prototypes, GLUEWIN User's Manual,
Estimation of human impact in the presence of natural fluctuations (IMPACT),
Deliverable 18. Joint Research Centre of European Commission (JRC), Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen (ISIS), Ispra, Italy, 2001.
Refsgaard, J. C., van der Sluijs, J. P., Højberg, A. L., and Vanrolleghem, P. A.: Uncertainty in the environmental modelling process – A framework and
guidance, Environ. Model. Softw., 22, 1543–1556, 2007.
Roberts, G. O. and Rosenthal, J. S.: Optimal scaling for various Metropolis-Hastings algorithms, Statist. Sci., 16, 351–367,
https://doi.org/10.1214/ss/1015346320, 2001.
Roberts, G. O. and Rosenthal, J. S.: Examples of Adaptive MCMC, J. Comput. Graph. Stat., 18, 349–367, https://doi.org/10.1198/jcgs.2009.06134, 2009.
Rougier, J. and Beven, K. J.: Model limitations: the sources and implications
of epistemic uncertainty, in: Risk and uncertainty assessment for natural hazards, edited by: Rougier, J., Sparks, S., and Hill, L., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 40–63, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139047562.004, 2013.
Sadegh, M. and Vrugt, J. A.: Approximate Bayesian computation using Markov
Chain Monte Carlo simulation: DREAM(ABC), Water Resour. Res., 50, 6767–6787,
https://doi.org/10.1002/2014WR015386, 2014.
Saltelli, A., Tarantola, S., Campolongo, F., and Ratto, M.: How to Use SIMLAB in Sensitivity Analysis in Practice: A Guide to Assessing Scientific Models, Wiley, ISBN 0-470-87093-1, 2004.
Sutherland, W. J., Spiegelhalter, D., and Burgman, M. A.: Twenty tips for
interpreting scientific claims, Nature, 503, 335–337, 2013.
Vrugt, J.: Markov chain Monte Carlo Simulation Using the DREAM Software Package: Theory, Concepts, and MATLAB Implementation, https://bpb-us-e2.wpmucdn/faculty.sites.uci.edu/dist/f/94/files/2015/03/manual_DREAM.pdf (last access: 3 July 2023), 2015.
Vrugt, J. A.: Markov chain Monte Carlo simulation using the DREAM software
package: Theory, concepts, and MATLAB implementation, Environ. Model. Softw., 75, 273–316, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2015.08.013, 2016.
Vrugt, J. A. and Beven, K. J.: Embracing Equifinality with Efficiency: Limits of Acceptability Sampling Using the DREAM(LOA) algorithm, J. Hydrol., 559, 954–971, 2018.
Vrugt, J. A., ter Braak, C. J. F., Clark, M. P., Hyman, J. M., and Robinson B. A.: Treatment of input uncertainty in hydrologic modeling: Doing hydrology
backward with Markov chain Monte Carlo simulation, Water Resour. Res., 44, W00B09, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007WR006720, 2008.
Vrugt, J. A., ter Braak, C. J. F., Diks, C. G. H., Higdon, D., Robinson, B. A., and Hyman, J. M.: Accelerating Markov chain Monte Carlo simulation by differential evolution with self-adaptive randomized subspace sampling. Int. J. Nonlin. Sci. Numer. Simul., 10, 273–290, 2009.
Vrugt, J. A., de Oliveira, D. Y., Schoups, G., and Diks, C. G.: On the use of
distribution-adaptive likelihood functions: Generalized and universal likelihood functions, scoring rules and multi-criteria ranking, J. Hydrol., 615, 128542, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.128542, 2022.
Wagener, T., Boyle, D. P., Lees, M. J., Wheater, H. S., Gupta, H. V., and Sorooshian, S.: A framework for development and application of hydrological models, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 5, 13–26, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-5-13-2001, 2001.
Walker, W. E., Harremoës, P., Rotmans, J., Van der Sluijs, J. P., Van Asselt M. B. A., Janssen, P., and Krayer von Krauss, M. P.: Defining Uncertainty A Conceptual Basis for Uncertainty Management in Model-Based Decision, Support, Integrat. Assess., 4, 5–17, 2003.
Short summary
This publication provides an introduction to the CREDIBLE Uncertainty Estimation (CURE) toolbox. CURE offers workflows for a variety of uncertainty estimation methods. One of its most important features is the requirement that all of the assumptions on which a workflow analysis depends be defined. This facilitates communication with potential users of an analysis. An audit trail log is produced automatically from a workflow for future reference.
This publication provides an introduction to the CREDIBLE Uncertainty Estimation (CURE) toolbox....
