Use of expert elicitation to assign weights to climate and hydrological models in climate impact studies
-
Published:2022-11-09
Issue:21
Volume:26
Page:5605-5625
-
ISSN:1607-7938
-
Container-title:Hydrology and Earth System Sciences
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.
Author:
Sebok Eva, Henriksen Hans JørgenORCID, Pastén-Zapata Ernesto, Berg PeterORCID, Thirel GuillaumeORCID, Lemoine AnthonyORCID, Lira-Loarca AndreaORCID, Photiadou Christiana, Pimentel RafaelORCID, Royer-Gaspard PaulORCID, Kjellström ErikORCID, Christensen Jens HesselbjergORCID, Vidal Jean PhilippeORCID, Lucas-Picher Philippe, Donat Markus G.ORCID, Besio GiovanniORCID, Polo María JoséORCID, Stisen SimonORCID, Caballero YvanORCID, Pechlivanidis Ilias G.ORCID, Troldborg LarsORCID, Refsgaard Jens Christian
Abstract
Abstract. Various methods are available for assessing uncertainties
in climate impact studies. Among such methods, model weighting by expert
elicitation is a practical way to provide a weighted ensemble of models for
specific real-world impacts. The aim is to decrease the influence of
improbable models in the results and easing the decision-making process. In
this study both climate and hydrological models are analysed, and the result
of a research experiment is presented using model weighting with the
participation of six climate model experts and six hydrological model experts.
For the experiment, seven climate models are a priori selected from a larger
EURO-CORDEX (Coordinated Regional Downscaling Experiment – European Domain) ensemble of climate models, and three different hydrological
models are chosen for each of the three European river basins. The model
weighting is based on qualitative evaluation by the experts for each of the
selected models based on a training material that describes the overall
model structure and literature about climate models and the performance of
hydrological models for the present period. The expert elicitation process
follows a three-stage approach, with two individual rounds of elicitation of
probabilities and a final group consensus, where the experts are separated
into two different community groups: a climate and a hydrological modeller
group. The dialogue reveals that under the conditions of the study, most
climate modellers prefer the equal weighting of ensemble members, whereas
hydrological-impact modellers in general are more open for assigning weights
to different models in a multi-model ensemble, based on model performance
and model structure. Climate experts are more open to exclude models, if
obviously flawed, than to put weights on selected models in a relatively
small ensemble. The study shows that expert elicitation can be an efficient
way to assign weights to different hydrological models and thereby reduce
the uncertainty in climate impact. However, for the climate model ensemble,
comprising seven models, the elicitation in the format of this study could
only re-establish a uniform weight between climate models.
Publisher
Copernicus GmbH
Subject
General Earth and Planetary Sciences,General Engineering,General Environmental Science
Reference100 articles.
1. Aguilar, C. and Polo, M. J.: Generating reference evapotranspiration surfaces from the Hargreaves equation at watershed scale, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 15, 2495–2508, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-15-2495-2011, 2011. 2. Abbott, M. B., Bathurst, J. C., Cunge, J. A., O'Connell, P. E., and
Rasmussen, J.: An introduction to the European Hydrological System – Systeme
Hydrologique Europeen, SHE. 2 Structure of a physically-based distributed
modelling system, J. Hydrol., 87, 61–77, 1986. 3. Arnold, J. G., Srinivasan, R., Muttiah, R. S., and Williams, J. R.: Large-area
hydrologic modeling and assessment: Part I. Model development, J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc., 34,
73–89, 1998. 4. Ayyub, B. M.: Elicitation of Expert Opinion for Uncertainty and Risks, CRC
Press, LLC, FL, ISBN 9780849310874, 2001. 5. Bamber, J. L. and Aspinall, W. P.: An expert judgement assessment of future
sea level rise from the ice sheets, Nature Clim. Change, 3, 424–427, 2013.
Cited by
5 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|