The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Ignorance is bliss: Or seven reasons not to use uncertainty analysis
Abstract
Uncertainty analysis of models has received increasing attention over the last two decades in water resources research. However, a significant part of the community is still reluctant to embrace the estimation of uncertainty in hydrological and hydraulic modeling. In this paper, we summarize and explore seven common arguments: uncertainty analysis is not necessary given physically realistic models; uncertainty analysis cannot be used in hydrological and hydraulic hypothesis testing; uncertainty (probability) distributions cannot be understood by policy makers and the public; uncertainty analysis cannot be incorporated into the decision‐making process; uncertainty analysis is too subjective; uncertainty analysis is too difficult to perform; uncertainty does not really matter in making the final decision. We will argue that none of the arguments against uncertainty analysis rehearsed are, in the end, tenable. Moreover, we suggest that one reason why the application of uncertainty analysis is not normal and expected part of modeling practice is that mature guidance on methods and applications does not exist. The paper concludes with suggesting that a Code of Practice is needed as a way of formalizing such guidance.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Communication and Uncertainty Management
Brashers, D. E. (2001) · Journal of Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2001.tb02892.x · Cited by 1,407
The construction of global warming and the politics of science
Demeritt, D. (2001) · Annals of the Association of American Geographers · doi:10.1111/0004-5608.00245 · Cited by 729
Cited by
What Role Does Hydrological Science Play in the Age of Machine Learning?
Nearing, G. S., Kratzert, F., Sampson, A. K., Pelissier, C. S., Klotz, D., Frame, J. M., Prieto, C., & Gupta, H. V. (2021) · Water Resources Research · doi:10.1029/2020wr028091 · Cited by 894
A Systemic Framework for Sustainability Assessment
Sala, S., Ciuffo, B., & Nijkamp, P. (2015) · Ecological Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.09.015 · Cited by 743
Benchmarking observational uncertainties for hydrology: rainfall, river discharge and water quality
McMillan, H., Krueger, T., & Freer, J. (2012) · Hydrological Processes · doi:10.1002/hyp.9384 · Cited by 522
Daren Harmel, R., & Smith, P. K. (2007) · Journal of Hydrology · doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2007.01.043 · Cited by 265
The problems of increasing transparency on uncertainty
Osman, M., Heath, A. J., & Löfstedt, R. (2018) · Public Understanding of Science · doi:10.1177/0963662517711058 · Cited by 42
Metadata
- Authors
- Pappenberger, F., & Beven, K. J.
- Venue
- Water Resources Research
- Publisher
- American Geophysical Union (AGU)
- Published
- 2006-05
- Volume
- 42
- Issue
- 5
- ISSN
- 0043-1397 (ISSN-L)
- 1944-7973
- OpenAlex
- W1594703822
- Cited by
- 555
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 33.54
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Ignorance is bliss: Or seven reasons not to use uncertainty analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1029/2005wr004820
- The paper
- Pappenberger, F., & Beven, K. J. (2006). Ignorance is bliss: Or seven reasons not to use uncertainty analysis. Water Resources Research. https://doi.org/10.1029/2005wr004820
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.