Abstract
Groundwater models are commonly used as basis for environmental decision-making. There has been discussion and debate in recent times regarding the issue of model simplicity and complexity. This paper contributes to this ongoing discourse. The selection of an appropriate level of model structural and parameterization complexity is not a simple matter. Although the metrics on which such selection should be based are simple, there are many competing, and often unquantifiable, considerations which must be taken into account as these metrics are applied. A unified conceptual framework is introduced and described which is intended to underpin groundwater modelling in decision support with a direct focus on matters regarding model simplicity and complexity.
Résumé
Les modèles hydrogéologiques sont communément utilisés comme base pour la prise de décision dans le domaine environnemental. La question de la simplicité et de la complexité des modèles a récemment et discutée et débattue. Cet article contribue à ce débat en cours. La sélection d’un niveau approprié de complexité de la structure et des paramètres du modèle n’est pas une question simple. Bien que les critères sur lesquels une telle sélection devrait être basée soient simples, de nombreuses considérations antagonistes et souvent non quantifiables doivent être prises en considération lorsque ces critères sont appliqués. Un cadre conceptuel unifié est introduit et décrit dont l’objectif est de soutenir la modélisation hydrogéologique dans l’aide à la décision en se focalisant sur les questions qui concernent la simplicité et la complexité des modèles.
Resumen
Los modelos de agua subterránea son comúnmente usados como base para la toma de decisiones ambientales. Esto ha estado en discusión y debate en tiempos reciente en relación con la cuestión de la simplicidad y complejidad de los modelos. Este trabajo contribuye a esta discusión actual. La selección de un nivel apropiado de la complejidad estructural del modelo y de la parametrización no es un tema simple. Aunque las métricas sobre las cuales esta selección debería estar basada son simples, hay muchas consideraciones que compiten que no son cuantificables, que deben ser tenidas en cuenta cuando se aplican estas métricas. Se introduce y describe un marco conceptual unificado, el cual intenta apoyar el modelado de agua subterránea en el soporte de decisiones con un foco directo en problemas relativos a la simplicidad y complejidad del modelo.
Resumo
A modelação de água subterrânea é frequentemente usada como base para tomadas de decisão ambientais. Em tempos recentes tem havido discussões e debates acerca da simplicidade e complexidade da modelação. Este artigo é um contributo para a discussão atualmente em curso. A seleção de um nível apropriado de complexidade da modelação estrutural e da parametrização não é uma questão simples. Apesar das métricas em que essa seleção deve ser baseada serem simples, existem muitas considerações a serem avaliadas, frequentemente não quantificáveis, que devem ser tomadas em conta na aplicação destas métricas. É apresentado, e descrito, um quadro concetual unificado que se destina a apoiar a modelação de água subterrânea como suporte de decisão, com enfoque direto em questões relativas à simplicidade e complexidade do modelo.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aster RC, Borchers B, Thurber CH (2005) Parameter estimation and inverse problems. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 301 pp
Carle SF, Fogg GE (1997) Modeling spatial variability with one and multidimensional continuous-lag Markov chains. Math Geol 29(7):891–918
Cooley RL (2004) A theory for modeling ground-water flow in heterogeneous media. US Geol Surv Prof Pap 1679, 220 pp
Cooley RL, Christensen S (2006) Bias and uncertainty in regression-calibrated models of groundwater flow in heterogeneous media. Adv Water Resour 29(5):639–656
Doherty J, Christensen S (2011) Use of paired simple and complex models in reducing predictive bias and quantifying uncertainty. Water Resour Res. doi:10.1029/2011WR010763
Doherty J, Welter D (2010) A short exploration of structural noise. Water Resour Res 46(46):W05525. doi:10.1029/2009WR008377
Freeze RA, Massmann J, Smith L, Sperling T, James B (1990) Hydrogeological decision analysis: 1, a framework. Ground Water 28(5):738–766
Gupta HV, Clark MP, Vrugt JA, Abramowitz G, Ye M (2012) Towards a comprehensive assessment of model structural adequacy. Water Resour Res. doi:10.1029/2011WR011044
Mariethoz G, Renard P, Straubhaar J (2010) The direct sampling method to perform multiple-point geostatistical simulations. Water Resour Res 46:W11536. doi:10.1029/2008WR007621
Moore C, Doherty J (2005) The role of the calibration process in reducing model predictive error. Water Resour Res 41(5):W05020. doi:10.1029/2004WR003501
Nordstrom DK (2012) Models, validation and applied geochemistry: issues in science, communication, and philosophy. Appl Geochem 27:1899–1919
Simmons CT, Hunt RJ (2012) Updating the debate on model complexity. GSA Today 22(8):28–29. doi:10.1130/GSATG150GW.1
Strebelle S (2002) Conditional simulation of complex geological structures using multiple-point geostatistics. Math Geol 34(1):1–22
Tonkin M, Doherty J (2009) Calibration-constrained Monte Carlo analysis of highly parameterized models using subspace techniques. Water Resour Res 45:W00B10. doi:10.1029/2007WR006678
Voss CI (2011a) Editor’s message: Groundwater modeling fantasies—part 1, adrift in the details. Hydrogeol J. doi:10.1007/s10040-011-0789-z
Voss CI (2011b) Editor’s message: groundwater modeling fantasies—part 2, down to earth. Hydrogeol J. doi:10.1007/s10040-011-0790-6
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Doherty, J., Simmons, C.T. Groundwater modelling in decision support: reflections on a unified conceptual framework. Hydrogeol J 21, 1531–1537 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-013-1027-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-013-1027-7