uu.seUppsala University Publications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
The comparison of sensitivity analysis of hydrological uncertainty estimates by GLUE and Bayesian method under the impact of precipitation errors
Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Earth Sciences, Department of Earth Sciences, LUVAL.
2014 (English)In: Stochastic environmental research and risk assessment (Print), ISSN 1436-3240, E-ISSN 1436-3259, Vol. 28, no 3, 491-504 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

The input uncertainty is as significant as model error, which affects the parameter estimation, yields bias and misleading results. This study performed a comprehensive comparison and evaluation of uncertainty estimates according to the impact of precipitation errors by GLUE and Bayesian methods using the Metropolis Hasting algorithm in a validated conceptual hydrological model (WASMOD). It aims to explain the sensitivity and differences between the GLUE and Bayesian method applied to hydrological model under precipitation errors with constant multiplier parameter and random multiplier parameter. The 95 % confidence interval of monthly discharge in low flow, medium flow and high flow were selected for comparison. Four indices, i.e. the average relative interval length, the percentage of observations bracketed by the confidence interval, the percentage of observations bracketed by the unit confidence interval and the continuous rank probability score (CRPS) were used in this study for sensitivity analysis under model input error via GLUE and Bayesian methods. It was found that (1) the posterior distributions derived by the Bayesian method are narrower and sharper than those obtained by the GLUE under precipitation errors, but the differences are quite small; (2) Bayesian method performs more sensitive in uncertainty estimates of discharge than GLUE according to the impact of precipitation errors; (3) GLUE and Bayesian methods are more sensitive in uncertainty estimate of high flow than the other flows by the impact of precipitation errors; and (4) under the impact of precipitation, the results of CRPS for low and medium flows are quite stable from both GLUE and Bayesian method while it is sensitive for high flow by Bayesian method.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2014. Vol. 28, no 3, 491-504 p.
Keyword [en]
GLUE, Bayesian, Precipitation error, Uncertainty, Sensitivity, Hydrological model
National Category
Natural Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-219954DOI: 10.1007/s00477-013-0767-1ISI: 000330342600004OAI: oai:DiVA.org:uu-219954DiVA: diva2:704613
Available from: 2014-03-12 Created: 2014-03-09 Last updated: 2017-12-05Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full text

Authority records BETA

Xu, Chong-Yu

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Xu, Chong-Yu
By organisation
LUVAL
In the same journal
Stochastic environmental research and risk assessment (Print)
Natural Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 325 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf