Infrastructure Engineering - Research Publications
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5
-
ItemEquifinality and Flux Mapping: A New Approach to Model Evaluation and Process Representation Under Uncertainty(AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION, 2019-11)Abstract Uncertainty analysis is an integral part of any scientific modeling, particularly within the domain of hydrological sciences given the various types and sources of uncertainty. At the center of uncertainty rests the concept of equifinality, that is, reaching a given endpoint (finality) through different pathways. The operational definition of equifinality in hydrological modeling is that various model structures and/or parameter sets (i.e., equal pathways) are equally capable of reproducing a similar (not necessarily identical) hydrological outcome (i.e., finality). Here we argue that there is more to model equifinality than model structures/parameters, that is, other model components can give rise to model equifinality and/or could be used to explore equifinality within model space. We identified six facets of model equifinality, namely, model structure, parameters, performance metrics, initial and boundary conditions, inputs, and internal fluxes. Focusing on model internal fluxes, we developed a methodology called flux mapping that has fundamental implications in understanding and evaluating model process representation within the paradigm of multiple working hypotheses. To illustrate this, we examine the equifinality of runoff fluxes of a conceptual rainfall‐runoff model for a number of different Australian catchments. We demonstrate how flux maps can give new insights into the model behavior that cannot be captured by conventional model evaluation methods. We discuss the advantages of flux space, as a subspace of the model space not usually examined, over parameter space. We further discuss the utility of flux mapping in hypothesis generation and testing, extendable to any field of scientific modeling of open complex systems under uncertainty.
-
ItemEvaluating Participatory Modeling Methods for Co-creating Pathways to Sustainability(AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION, 2021-03)Abstract The achievement of global sustainability agendas, such as the Sustainable Development Goals, relies on transformational change across society, economy, and environment that are co‐created in a transdisciplinary exercise by all stakeholders. Within this context, environmental and societal change is increasingly understood and represented via participatory modeling for genuine engagement with multiple collaborators in the modeling process. Despite the diversity of participatory modeling methods to promote engagement and co‐creation, it remains uncertain what the extent and modes of participation are in different contexts, and how to select the suitable methods to use in a given situation. Based on a review of available methods and specification of potential contextual requirements, we propose a unifying framework to guide how collaborators of different backgrounds can work together and evaluate the suitability of participatory modeling methods for co‐creating sustainability pathways. The evaluation of method suitability promises the integration of concepts and approaches necessary to address the complexities of problems at hand while ensuring robust methodologies based on well‐tested evidence and negotiated among participants. Using two illustrative case studies, we demonstrate how to explore and evaluate the choice of methods for participatory modeling in varying contexts. The insights gained can inform creative participatory approaches to pathway development through tailored combinations of methods that best serve the specific sustainability context of particular case studies.
-
ItemNo Preview Available
-
ItemA Global Survey on the Perceptions and Impacts of Gender Inequality in the Earth and Space Sciences(American Geophysical Union, 2019-10-02)The leaky pipeline phenomenon refers to the disproportionate decline of female scientists at higher academic career levels and is a major problem in the natural sciences. Identifying the underlying causes is challenging, and thus, solving the problem remains difficult. To better understand the reasons for the leaky pipeline, we assess the perceptions and impacts of gender bias and imbalance—two major drivers of the leakage—at different academic career levels with an anonymous survey in geoscience academia (n=1,220). The survey results show that both genders view male geoscientists as substantially more gender biased than female scientists. Moreover, female geoscientists are more than twice as likely to experience negative gender bias at their workplaces and scientific organizations compared to male geoscientists. There are also pronounced gender differences regarding (i) the relevance of role models, (ii) family-friendly working conditions, and (iii) the approval of gender quotas for academic positions. Given the male dominance in senior career levels, our results emphasize that those feeling less impacted by the negative consequences of gender bias and imbalance are the ones in position to tackle the problem. We thus call for actions to better address gender biases and to ensure a balanced gender representation at decision-making levels to ultimately retain more women in geoscience academia.
-
ItemInteractive comment on “Quantifying the impacts of human water use and climate variations on recent drying of Lake Urmia basin: the value of different sets of spaceborne and in-situ data for calibrating a hydrological model” by Seyed-Mohammad Hosseini-Moghari et al.(Copernicus Publications, 2018)The present study aims to quantify (estimate) the impact of human water consumption—as for irrigation, livestock, domestic, manufacturing, and thermal energy production—versus (natural) climatic variability on the water balance and storage of the Lake Urmia (LU) basin and consequently the lake desiccation during the past decades. This is indeed a curious question with high practical relevance, given the ongoing drying of the lake and scientific debates around possible causes and viable remedies. One of the strength of the study is incorporating multiple input data (both ground and remote sensing) in developing the basin’s hydrologic model. The authors have also attempted to include the groundwater data which is highly important in this basin, and has been ignored in many (not all) of the previous studies. I enjoyed reading the paper, however, as the other reviewers have already pointed out there are major shortcomings that call for a major revision. In the spirit of helping the authors to improve the manuscript, I’d like to further comment on a number of---I believe---major deficiencies and questionable assumptions of the study that undermine the reliability of their results and discussion, given my own (limited) knowledge/experience in studying the lake’s dynamics and desiccation [Khatami, 2013; Khatami and Berndtsson, 2013; Khazaei et al., in review]. I hope the authors would find my comments useful in highlighting the new insights and contribution of their study.