Scinovex
articleTop 1% cited

Benchmarking observational uncertainties for hydrology: rainfall, river discharge and water quality

Hydrological Processes · 2012 · Vol. 26(26) · pp. 4078–4111
Hilary McMillanTobias KruegerJim Freer

Abstract

Abstract This review and commentary sets out the need for authoritative and concise information on the expected error distributions and magnitudes in observational data. We discuss the necessary components of a benchmark of dominant data uncertainties and the recent developments in hydrology which increase the need for such guidance. We initiate the creation of a catalogue of accessible information on characteristics of data uncertainty for the key hydrological variables of rainfall, river discharge and water quality (suspended solids, phosphorus and nitrogen). This includes demonstration of how uncertainties can be quantified, summarizing current knowledge and the standard quantitative results available. In particular, synthesis of results from multiple studies allows conclusions to be drawn on factors which control the magnitude of data uncertainty and hence improves provision of prior guidance on those uncertainties. Rainfall uncertainties were found to be driven by spatial scale, whereas river discharge uncertainty was dominated by flow condition and gauging method. Water quality variables presented a more complex picture with many component errors. For all variables, it was easy to find examples where relative error magnitudes exceeded 40%. We consider how data uncertainties impact on the interpretation of catchment dynamics, model regionalization and model evaluation. In closing the review, we make recommendations for future research priorities in quantifying data uncertainty and highlight the need for an improved ‘culture of engagement’ with observational uncertainties. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Hydrology and Watershed Management StudiesHydrology and Drought AnalysisFlood Risk Assessment and ManagementBenchmarkingEnvironmental scienceBenchmark (surveying)Scale (ratio)Hydrology (agriculture)Observational studyHydrological modellingStreamflowUncertainty analysisQuality (philosophy)

Funding

  • Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, UK Government
  • Sight Research UK
  • Natural Environment Research Council
Citations
523
FWCI
29.63
field-weighted impact
References
275
Percentile
100%
vs. same field & year
Citations per year
References
Bayesian Calibration of Computer Models
Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B (Statistical Methodology) · 2001 · 4,079 citations
Partial Area Contributions to Storm Runoff in a Small New England Watershed
Water Resources Research · 1970 · 1,160 citations
A dynamic TOPMODEL
Hydrological Processes · 2001 · 376 citations
A manifesto for the equifinality thesis
Journal of Hydrology · 2005 · 2,577 citations
Fitting and interpretation of sediment rating curves
Journal of Hydrology · 2000 · 728 citations
Citation Network

How this paper connects to the literature. Drag to explore, click any node to open that paper.