Hydrogeological conceptual model building and testing: A review

• Published in: Journal of hydrology (Amsterdam) 2019-02, Vol.569, p.310-329
• Main Authors: Enemark, Trine, Peeters, Luk J.M., Mallants, Dirk, Batelaan, Okke
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Conceptual model uncertainty; Conceptual models; Model evaluation; Model rejection; Multi-model framework
• ISSN: 0022-1694; 1879-2707
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.12.007

•Reviewed 59 studies that applied hydrogeological multi-model approach.•Developing mutually exclusive, collectively exhaustive models remains a challenge.•Conceptual model testing is underutilised but can uncover inconsistent assumptions.•Iterative model development and testing accommodate conceptual “surprises”.•Model testing is limited by the independence and information content of data. Hydrogeological conceptual models are collections of hypotheses describing the understanding of groundwater systems and they are considered one of the major sources of uncertainty in groundwater flow and transport modelling. A common method for characterizing the conceptual uncertainty is the multi-model approach, where alternative plausible conceptual models are developed and evaluated. This review aims to give an overview of how multiple alternative models have been developed, tested and used for predictions in the multi-model approach in international literature and to identify the remaining challenges. The review shows that only a few guidelines for developing the multiple conceptual models exist, and these are rarely followed. The challenge of generating a mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive range of plausible models is yet to be solved. Regarding conceptual model testing, the reviewed studies show that a challenge remains in finding data that is both suitable to discriminate between conceptual models and relevant to the model objective. We argue that there is a need for a systematic approach to conceptual model building where all aspects of conceptualization relevant to the study objective are covered. For each conceptual issue identified, alternative models representing hypotheses that are mutually exclusive should be defined. Using a systematic, hypothesis based approach increases the transparency in the modelling workflow and therefore the confidence in the final model predictions, while also anticipating conceptual surprises. While the focus of this review is on hydrogeological applications, the concepts and challenges concerning model building and testing are applicable to spatio-temporal dynamical environmental systems models in general.