Benchmarking Hydrological Models for an Uncertain Future

Beven, Keith

doi:10.22541/au.168105782.23479951/v1

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A detailed overview of the limitations of aspects of the national scale models is given in Hannaford et al (2023). More philosophical issues such as model calibration equifinality (multiple models or parameter sets that yield equally acceptable validation results (Beven, 2008)) and treatment of uncertainty are less easily resolved. • Stochastic datasets not covering all system-critical droughts for some areas or potentially not providing a sufficient set of diverse future droughts appropriate for long-term strategic planning.…”

Section: Barriers To Progressmentioning

confidence: 99%

The future is transient: Barriers and opportunities for improved UK water resource climate change assessments using the enhanced Future Flows and Groundwater (eFLaG) climate service products

Durant,

Hall,

Morris

et al. 2024

Climate Resilience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

UK water resources face a number of challenges when planning for an uncertain future. Climate change impacts and what future droughts might look like can be a significant contributor to this uncertainty. Recent and potential future developments (e.g. ever‐finer resolutions) in climate modelling offer the potential for running bias‐corrected transient future scenarios through hydrological, hydrogeological and water supply models, providing users with droughts of differing severity, frequency, spatial extent and duration to those experienced historically, incorporating changes over time and an understanding of climate model uncertainty. The recent enhanced Future Flows and Groundwater (eFLaG) project sought to demonstrate a climate service using these transient scenarios, with the aim of enhancing the resilience of the water industry to drought events and complementing existing approaches. The project demonstrated the use of this transient climate change information within a water resource setting, using a variety of hydrological and water resource models to help illuminate potential gaps and issues with such an approach. If we are to realise the potential of transient scenarios, a number of barriers – both scientific and organisational – need to be overcome. We present a road map for the future based on outcomes from the eFLaG project, as well as ways the eFLaG projections could be used to improve system resilience in the present.

show abstract

Section: Barriers To Progressmentioning

confidence: 99%

The future is transient: Barriers and opportunities for improved UK water resource climate change assessments using the enhanced Future Flows and Groundwater (eFLaG) climate service products

Durant,

Hall,

Morris

et al. 2024

Climate Resilience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Beven 2009) that underlies any numerical model. Depending on the process, the mental model is not, or less, influenced by limitations posed by data and technology and is more of an 'ideal type' than an actual model, thoughKrueger et al (2016) argue that technological possibilities of what can be modelled may already co-shape what can be imagined.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Making a case for power-sensitive water modelling: a literature review

ter Horst,

Alba,

Vos

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Hydrological models are widely used to research hydrological change and risk. Yet, the power embedded in the modelling process and outcomes are often concealed by claiming its neutrality. Our systematic review shows that in scientific literature relatively little attention is given to the power of models to influence development processes and outcomes in water governance. The review also shows that there is much to learn from those who are willing to be openly reflexive on the influence of models. In agreement with this emerging body of work, we call for power-sensitive modelling, which means that people are critical about how models are made and with what implications, taking into account that: i) The choice for and use of models for water management happens in a political context and has political consequences; ii) Models are the result of choices made by modellers and – since they have political consequences – these need to be made as explicit as possible as opposed to being “blackboxed”; iii) To consider the ethical implications of the choices of modellers, commissioners, and users, and to improve accountability, models and their power need to be understood by connecting the inner workings of a model with a contextual understanding of its development and use, iv) Action is taken upon these implications by democratising modelling processes. Our call should not be understood as a suggestion to do away with modelling altogether, but rather as an invitation to interrogate how quantitative models may help to foster transformative pathways towards more just and equitable water distributions.

show abstract

Benchmarking Hydrological Models for an Uncertain Future

Cited by 2 publications

References 54 publications

The future is transient: Barriers and opportunities for improved UK water resource climate change assessments using the enhanced Future Flows and Groundwater (eFLaG) climate service products

The future is transient: Barriers and opportunities for improved UK water resource climate change assessments using the enhanced Future Flows and Groundwater (eFLaG) climate service products

Making a case for power-sensitive water modelling: a literature review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About