Rights statement: This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Hydrological Sciences Journal on 03/12/2018, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/02626667.2018.1547505
Accepted author manuscript, 392 KB, PDF document
Available under license: CC BY-NC: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
Final published version
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Editorial › peer-review
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Editorial › peer-review
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Reply to Discussion of "Perceptual models of uncertainty for socio-hydrological systems
T2 - a flood risk change example"(*)
AU - Westerberg, Ida K.
AU - Di Baldassarre, Giuliano
AU - Beven, Keith J.
AU - Coxon, Gemma
AU - Krueger, Tobias
N1 - This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Hydrological Sciences Journal on 03/12/2018, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/02626667.2018.1547505
PY - 2018
Y1 - 2018
N2 - Ertsen discusses the representation of reality and uncertainty in our paper, raising three critical points. In response to the first, we agree that discussion of different interpretations of the concept of uncertainty is important when developing perceptual models - making different uncertainty interpretations explicit was a key motivation behind our method. Secondly, we do not, as Ertsen suggests, deny anyone who is not a "certified" scientist to have relevant knowledge. The elicitation of diverse views by discussing perceptual models is a basis for open discussion and decision making. Thirdly, Ertsen suggests that it is not useful to treat socio-hydrological systems as if they exist. We argue that we act as "pragmatic realists" in most practical applications by treating socio-hydrological systems as an external reality that can be known. But the uncertainty that arises from our knowledge limitations needs to be recognized, as it may impact on practical decision making and associated costs.
AB - Ertsen discusses the representation of reality and uncertainty in our paper, raising three critical points. In response to the first, we agree that discussion of different interpretations of the concept of uncertainty is important when developing perceptual models - making different uncertainty interpretations explicit was a key motivation behind our method. Secondly, we do not, as Ertsen suggests, deny anyone who is not a "certified" scientist to have relevant knowledge. The elicitation of diverse views by discussing perceptual models is a basis for open discussion and decision making. Thirdly, Ertsen suggests that it is not useful to treat socio-hydrological systems as if they exist. We argue that we act as "pragmatic realists" in most practical applications by treating socio-hydrological systems as an external reality that can be known. But the uncertainty that arises from our knowledge limitations needs to be recognized, as it may impact on practical decision making and associated costs.
KW - uncertainty
KW - socio-hydrology
KW - perceptual model
KW - flood risk
KW - change analysis
U2 - 10.1080/02626667.2018.1547505
DO - 10.1080/02626667.2018.1547505
M3 - Editorial
VL - 63
SP - 2001
EP - 2003
JO - Hydrological Sciences Journal
JF - Hydrological Sciences Journal
SN - 0262-6667
IS - 13-14
ER -