Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Ignorance is bliss: Or seven reasons not to use...
View graph of relations

Ignorance is bliss: Or seven reasons not to use uncertainty analysis

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

Ignorance is bliss: Or seven reasons not to use uncertainty analysis. / Pappenberger, F.; Beven, Keith J.
In: Water Resources Research, Vol. 42, No. W05302, 05.2006.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Pappenberger F, Beven KJ. Ignorance is bliss: Or seven reasons not to use uncertainty analysis. Water Resources Research. 2006 May;42(W05302). doi: 10.1029/2005WR004820

Author

Pappenberger, F. ; Beven, Keith J. / Ignorance is bliss: Or seven reasons not to use uncertainty analysis. In: Water Resources Research. 2006 ; Vol. 42, No. W05302.

Bibtex

@article{d31610393c8040d0b5e6bcd6651030fd,
title = "Ignorance is bliss: Or seven reasons not to use uncertainty analysis",
abstract = "Uncertainty analysis of models has received increasing attention over the last two decades in water resources research. However, a significant part of the community is still reluctant to embrace the estimation of uncertainty in hydrological and hydraulic modeling. In this paper, we summarize and explore seven common arguments: uncertainty analysis is not necessary given physically realistic models; uncertainty analysis cannot be used in hydrological and hydraulic hypothesis testing; uncertainty (probability) distributions cannot be understood by policy makers and the public; uncertainty analysis cannot be incorporated into the decision-making process; uncertainty analysis is too subjective; uncertainty analysis is too difficult to perform; uncertainty does not really matter in making the final decision. We will argue that none of the arguments against uncertainty analysis rehearsed are, in the end, tenable. Moreover, we suggest that one reason why the application of uncertainty analysis is not normal and expected part of modeling practice is that mature guidance on methods and applications does not exist. The paper concludes with suggesting that a Code of Practice is needed as a way of formalizing such guidance.",
keywords = "uncertainty analysis, modeling, hydrology, hydraulics",
author = "F. Pappenberger and Beven, {Keith J.}",
year = "2006",
month = may,
doi = "10.1029/2005WR004820",
language = "English",
volume = "42",
journal = "Water Resources Research",
issn = "0043-1397",
publisher = "AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION",
number = "W05302",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Ignorance is bliss: Or seven reasons not to use uncertainty analysis

AU - Pappenberger, F.

AU - Beven, Keith J.

PY - 2006/5

Y1 - 2006/5

N2 - Uncertainty analysis of models has received increasing attention over the last two decades in water resources research. However, a significant part of the community is still reluctant to embrace the estimation of uncertainty in hydrological and hydraulic modeling. In this paper, we summarize and explore seven common arguments: uncertainty analysis is not necessary given physically realistic models; uncertainty analysis cannot be used in hydrological and hydraulic hypothesis testing; uncertainty (probability) distributions cannot be understood by policy makers and the public; uncertainty analysis cannot be incorporated into the decision-making process; uncertainty analysis is too subjective; uncertainty analysis is too difficult to perform; uncertainty does not really matter in making the final decision. We will argue that none of the arguments against uncertainty analysis rehearsed are, in the end, tenable. Moreover, we suggest that one reason why the application of uncertainty analysis is not normal and expected part of modeling practice is that mature guidance on methods and applications does not exist. The paper concludes with suggesting that a Code of Practice is needed as a way of formalizing such guidance.

AB - Uncertainty analysis of models has received increasing attention over the last two decades in water resources research. However, a significant part of the community is still reluctant to embrace the estimation of uncertainty in hydrological and hydraulic modeling. In this paper, we summarize and explore seven common arguments: uncertainty analysis is not necessary given physically realistic models; uncertainty analysis cannot be used in hydrological and hydraulic hypothesis testing; uncertainty (probability) distributions cannot be understood by policy makers and the public; uncertainty analysis cannot be incorporated into the decision-making process; uncertainty analysis is too subjective; uncertainty analysis is too difficult to perform; uncertainty does not really matter in making the final decision. We will argue that none of the arguments against uncertainty analysis rehearsed are, in the end, tenable. Moreover, we suggest that one reason why the application of uncertainty analysis is not normal and expected part of modeling practice is that mature guidance on methods and applications does not exist. The paper concludes with suggesting that a Code of Practice is needed as a way of formalizing such guidance.

KW - uncertainty analysis

KW - modeling

KW - hydrology

KW - hydraulics

U2 - 10.1029/2005WR004820

DO - 10.1029/2005WR004820

M3 - Journal article

VL - 42

JO - Water Resources Research

JF - Water Resources Research

SN - 0043-1397

IS - W05302

ER -