Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Catchment scale sensitivity and uncertainty in ...

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

Catchment scale sensitivity and uncertainty in water quality modelling

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

Catchment scale sensitivity and uncertainty in water quality modelling. / Hankin, Barry; Bielby, Sally; Pope, Linda et al.
In: Hydrological Processes, Vol. 30, No. 22, 30.10.2016, p. 4004-4018.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

Hankin, B, Bielby, S, Pope, L & Douglass, J 2016, 'Catchment scale sensitivity and uncertainty in water quality modelling', Hydrological Processes, vol. 30, no. 22, pp. 4004-4018. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.10976

APA

Hankin, B., Bielby, S., Pope, L., & Douglass, J. (2016). Catchment scale sensitivity and uncertainty in water quality modelling. Hydrological Processes, 30(22), 4004-4018. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.10976

Vancouver

Hankin B, Bielby S, Pope L, Douglass J. Catchment scale sensitivity and uncertainty in water quality modelling. Hydrological Processes. 2016 Oct 30;30(22):4004-4018. Epub 2016 Aug 30. doi: 10.1002/hyp.10976

Author

Hankin, Barry ; Bielby, Sally ; Pope, Linda et al. / Catchment scale sensitivity and uncertainty in water quality modelling. In: Hydrological Processes. 2016 ; Vol. 30, No. 22. pp. 4004-4018.

Bibtex

@article{bcc02b11138344488472a7099da7cbf2,
title = "Catchment scale sensitivity and uncertainty in water quality modelling",
abstract = "In this paper, we assess the performance of the catchment model SIMulated CATchment model (SIMCAT), to predict nitrate and soluble reactive phosphorus concentrations against four monitoring regimes with different spatial and temporal sampling frequencies. The Generalised Likelihood Uncertainty Estimation (GLUE) uncertainty framework is used, along with a general sensitivity analysis to understand relative parameter sensitivity. Improvements to model calibration are explored by introducing more detailed process representation using the Integrated Catchments model (INCA) water quality model, driven by the European hydrological predictions for the environment model. The results show how targeted sampling of headwater watercourses upstream of point discharges is essential for calibrating diffuse loads and can exert a strong influence on the whole‐catchment model performance. Further downstream, if the point discharges and loads are accurately represented, then the improvement in the catchment‐scale model performance is relatively small as more calibration points are added or frequency is increased.The higher‐order, dynamic model integrated catchments model of phosphorus dynamics, which incorporates sediment and biotic interaction, resulted in improved whole‐catchment performance over SIMCAT, although there are still large epistemic uncertainties from land‐phase export coefficients and runoff. However, the very large sampling errors in routine monitoring make it difficult to invest confidence in the modelling, especially because we know phosphorous transport to be very episodic and driven by high flow conditions for which there are few samples. The environmental modelling community seems to have been stuck in this position for some time, and whilst it is useful to use an uncertainty framework to highlight these issues, it has not widely been adopted, perhaps because there is no clear mechanism to allow uncertainties to influence investment decisions. This raises the question as to whether it might better place a cost on uncertainty and use this to drive more data collection or improved models, before making investment decisions concerning, for example, mitigation strategies.",
keywords = "uncertainty, diffuse pollution, water quality, sensitivity",
author = "Barry Hankin and Sally Bielby and Linda Pope and John Douglass",
year = "2016",
month = oct,
day = "30",
doi = "10.1002/hyp.10976",
language = "English",
volume = "30",
pages = "4004--4018",
journal = "Hydrological Processes",
issn = "0885-6087",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Ltd",
number = "22",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Catchment scale sensitivity and uncertainty in water quality modelling

AU - Hankin, Barry

AU - Bielby, Sally

AU - Pope, Linda

AU - Douglass, John

PY - 2016/10/30

Y1 - 2016/10/30

N2 - In this paper, we assess the performance of the catchment model SIMulated CATchment model (SIMCAT), to predict nitrate and soluble reactive phosphorus concentrations against four monitoring regimes with different spatial and temporal sampling frequencies. The Generalised Likelihood Uncertainty Estimation (GLUE) uncertainty framework is used, along with a general sensitivity analysis to understand relative parameter sensitivity. Improvements to model calibration are explored by introducing more detailed process representation using the Integrated Catchments model (INCA) water quality model, driven by the European hydrological predictions for the environment model. The results show how targeted sampling of headwater watercourses upstream of point discharges is essential for calibrating diffuse loads and can exert a strong influence on the whole‐catchment model performance. Further downstream, if the point discharges and loads are accurately represented, then the improvement in the catchment‐scale model performance is relatively small as more calibration points are added or frequency is increased.The higher‐order, dynamic model integrated catchments model of phosphorus dynamics, which incorporates sediment and biotic interaction, resulted in improved whole‐catchment performance over SIMCAT, although there are still large epistemic uncertainties from land‐phase export coefficients and runoff. However, the very large sampling errors in routine monitoring make it difficult to invest confidence in the modelling, especially because we know phosphorous transport to be very episodic and driven by high flow conditions for which there are few samples. The environmental modelling community seems to have been stuck in this position for some time, and whilst it is useful to use an uncertainty framework to highlight these issues, it has not widely been adopted, perhaps because there is no clear mechanism to allow uncertainties to influence investment decisions. This raises the question as to whether it might better place a cost on uncertainty and use this to drive more data collection or improved models, before making investment decisions concerning, for example, mitigation strategies.

AB - In this paper, we assess the performance of the catchment model SIMulated CATchment model (SIMCAT), to predict nitrate and soluble reactive phosphorus concentrations against four monitoring regimes with different spatial and temporal sampling frequencies. The Generalised Likelihood Uncertainty Estimation (GLUE) uncertainty framework is used, along with a general sensitivity analysis to understand relative parameter sensitivity. Improvements to model calibration are explored by introducing more detailed process representation using the Integrated Catchments model (INCA) water quality model, driven by the European hydrological predictions for the environment model. The results show how targeted sampling of headwater watercourses upstream of point discharges is essential for calibrating diffuse loads and can exert a strong influence on the whole‐catchment model performance. Further downstream, if the point discharges and loads are accurately represented, then the improvement in the catchment‐scale model performance is relatively small as more calibration points are added or frequency is increased.The higher‐order, dynamic model integrated catchments model of phosphorus dynamics, which incorporates sediment and biotic interaction, resulted in improved whole‐catchment performance over SIMCAT, although there are still large epistemic uncertainties from land‐phase export coefficients and runoff. However, the very large sampling errors in routine monitoring make it difficult to invest confidence in the modelling, especially because we know phosphorous transport to be very episodic and driven by high flow conditions for which there are few samples. The environmental modelling community seems to have been stuck in this position for some time, and whilst it is useful to use an uncertainty framework to highlight these issues, it has not widely been adopted, perhaps because there is no clear mechanism to allow uncertainties to influence investment decisions. This raises the question as to whether it might better place a cost on uncertainty and use this to drive more data collection or improved models, before making investment decisions concerning, for example, mitigation strategies.

KW - uncertainty

KW - diffuse pollution

KW - water quality

KW - sensitivity

U2 - 10.1002/hyp.10976

DO - 10.1002/hyp.10976

M3 - Journal article

VL - 30

SP - 4004

EP - 4018

JO - Hydrological Processes

JF - Hydrological Processes

SN - 0885-6087

IS - 22

ER -