Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment

, Volume 23, Issue 7, pp 1037–1057

A unified approach to environmental systems modeling

Original Paper


The paper considers the differences between hypothetico-deductive and inductive modeling: between modelers who put their primary trust in their scientific intuition about the nature of an environmental model and tend to produce quite complex computer simulation models; and those who prefer to rely on the analysis of observational data to identify the simplest form of model that can represent these data. The tension that sometimes arises because of the different philosophical outlooks of these two modeling groups can be harmful because it tends to fractionate the effort that goes into the investigation of important environmental problems, such as global warming. In an attempt to improve this situation, the paper will outline a new Data-Based Mechanistic (DBM) approach to modeling that tries to meld together the best aspects of these two modeling philosophies in order to develop a unified approach that combines the hypothetico-deductive virtues of good scientific intuition and simulation modeling with the pragmatism of inductive data-based modeling, where more objective inference from data is the primary driving force. In particular, it demonstrates the feasibility of a new method for complex simulation model emulation, in which the methodological tools of DBM modeling are used to develop a reduced dynamic order model that represents the ‘dominant modes’ of the complex simulation model. In this form, the ‘dynamic emulation’ model can be compared with the DBM model obtained directly from the analysis of real data and any tensions between the two modeling approaches may be relaxed to produce models that suit multiple modeling objectives.


Modeling philosophy Hypothetico-deductive Inductive Data-based mechanistic modeling Dynamic emulation model 


  1. Bayarri MJ, Berger JO, Cafeo J, Garcia-Donato G, Liu F, Palomo J, Parthasarathy RJ, R Paulo JS, Walsh D (2007a) Computer model validation with functional output. Ann Stat 35:1874–1906CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bayarri MJ, Berger JO, Paulo R, Sacks J, Cafeo JA, Cavendish J, Lin C-H, Tu J (2007b) A framework for validation of computer models. Technometrics 49:138–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beven KJ, Young PC, Leedal DT, Romanowicz R (2008) Computationally efficient flood water level prediction (with uncertainty). In: Proceedings, European Conference on Flood Risk Management, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  4. Box GEP, Jenkins GM (1970) Time series analysis forecasting and control. Holden-Day, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  5. Conti S, Gosling J, Oakley J, O’Hagan A (2007) Gaussian process emulation of dynamic computer codes. Mimeo (submitted)Google Scholar
  6. Enting IG, Lassey KR (1993) Projections of future CO2. Technical Report 27, Division of Atmospheric Research, CSIRO, Melbourne, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  7. Goodwin GC, Payne RL (1977) Dynamic system identification: experiment design and data analysis. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Gu C (2002) Smoothing spline ANOVA models. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  9. Hastie TJ, Tibshirani RJ (1996) Generalized additive models. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. Higdon D, Gattiker J, Williams B, Rightley M (2007) Computer model validation using high-dimensional outputs. In: Bernardo J, Bayarri MJ, Berger JO, Dawid AP, Heckerman D, Smith AFM, West M (eds) Bayesian statistics 8. Oxford University Press, USAGoogle Scholar
  11. Jakeman AJ, Young PC (1979) Refined instrumental variable methods of time-series analysis: Part II, multivariable systems. Int J Control 29:621–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jakeman AJ, Young PC (1981) Recursive filtering and the inversion of ill-posed causal problems. Utilitas Math 25:351–376Google Scholar
  13. Kendall MG, Stuart A (1961) The advanced theory of statistics, vol 2. Griffin, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. Konikow L, Bredehoeft J (1992) Ground water models cannot be validated. Adv Water Resour 15:75–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Li G, Wang SW, Rabitz H (2002) Practical approaches to construct rs-hdmr component functions. J Phys Chem 106:8721–8733Google Scholar
  16. Li G, Azarm S, Farhang-Mehr A, Diaz AR (2006) Approximation of multiresponse deterministic engineering simulations: a dependent metamodeling approach. Struct Multidisc Optim 31:260–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Liaw CM (1986) Model reduction of discrete systems using the power decomposition method. Proc Inst Electr Eng 133(Pt.D):30–34Google Scholar
  18. Ljung L (1999) System identification. Theory for the user, 2nd edn. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  19. Nash JE (1959) Systematic determination of unit hydrograph parameters. J Geophys Res 64:111–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Oakley JE, O’Hagan A (2004) Probabilistic sensitivity analysis of complex models: a Bayesian approach. J R Stat Soc Ser B 66:751–769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Oreskes N, Shrader-Frechette K, Belitz K (1994) Verification, validation, and confirmation of numerical models in the earth sciences. Science 263:641–646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Parkinson S, Young PC (1998) Uncertainty and sensitivity in global carbon cycle modelling. Clim Res 9:157–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Popper K (1959) The logic of scientific discovery. Hutchinson, LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. Ratto M, Pagano A, Young P (2007) State dependent parameter metamodelling and sensitivity analysis. Comput Phys Commun 177:863–876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Romanowicz RJ, Young PC, Beven KJ (2006) Data assimilation and adaptive forecasting of water levels in the River Severn catchment. Water Resources Research 42(W06407). doi:10.1029/2005WR004373
  26. Sacks J, Welch WJ, Mitchell TJ, Wynn HP (1989) Design and analysis of computer experiments. Stat Sci 4:409–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Shorter J, Ip P, Rabitz H (1999) An efficient chemical kinetics solver using high dimensional model representation. J Phys Chem A 103(36):7192–7198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sivakumar B (2007) Dominant processes concept, model simplification and classification framework in catchment hydrology. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess. doi:10.1007/s00477-007-0183-5
  29. Sivapalan M, Young PC (2005) Downward approach to hydrological model development. In: Anderson MG (ed) Encyclopedia of hydrological sciences, vol 3, Part II. Wiley, Hoboken, pp 2081–2098Google Scholar
  30. Smets F, Wouters R (2003) An estimated stochastic dynamic general equilibrium model of the Euro area. J Eur Econ Assoc 1:1123–1175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sobol’ IM (1976) Uniformly distributed sequences with additional uniformity properties. USSR Comput MAth Math Phys 16(5):236–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sobol’ IM, Turchaninov VI, Levitan YL, Shukhman BV (1992) Quasirandom sequence generators. Ipm zak. no. 30, Keldysh Institute of Applied Mathematics, Russian Academy of Sciences, MoscowGoogle Scholar
  33. Söderström T, Stoica P (1983) Instrumental variable methods for system identification. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wahba G (1990) Spline Models for Observational Data. CBMS-NSF Regional Conference Series in Applied MathematicsGoogle Scholar
  35. Wellstead PE (1978) An instrumental product moment test for model order estimation. Automatica 14:89–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Young PC (1976) Some observations on instrumental variable methods of time-series analysis. Int J Control 23:593–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Young PC (1983) The validity and credibility of models for badly defined systems. In: Beck M, van Straten G (eds) Uncertainty and forecasting of water quality. Springer, Berlin, pp 69–98Google Scholar
  38. Young PC (1984) Recursive estimation and time-series analysis. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  39. Young PC (1989) Recursive estimation, forecasting and adaptive control. In: Leondes CT (ed) Control and dynamic systems. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 119–166Google Scholar
  40. Young PC (1998) Data-based mechanistic modeling of environmental, ecological, economic and engineering systems. Environ Model Softw 13:105–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Young PC (1999a) Data-based mechanistic modelling, generalised sensitivity and dominant mode analysis. Comput Phys Commun 117:113–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Young PC (1999b) Nonstationary time series analysis and forecasting. Prog Environ Sci 1:3–48Google Scholar
  43. Young PC (2000) Stochastic, dynamic modelling and signal processing: time variable and state dependent parameter estimation. In: Fitzgerald WJ, Walden A, Smith R, Young PC (eds) Nonlinear and nonstationary signal processing. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 74–114Google Scholar
  44. Young PC (2001a) Data-based mechanistic modelling and validation of rainfall-flow processes. In: Anderson MG, Bates PD (eds) Model validation: perspectives in hydrological science. Wiley, Chichester, pp 117–161Google Scholar
  45. Young PC (2001b) The identification and estimation of nonlinear stochastic systems. In: Mees AI (ed) Nonlinear dynamics and statistics. Birkhauser, Boston, pp 127–166Google Scholar
  46. Young PC (2002) Advances in real-time flood forecasting. Philos Trans R Soc Phys Eng Sci 360(9):1433–1450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Young PC (2003) Top-down and data-based mechanistic modelling of rainfall-flow dynamics at the catchment scale. Hydrol Process 17:2195–2217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Young PC (2006) The data-based mechanistic approach to the modelling, forecasting and control of environmental systems. Annu Rev Control 30:169–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Young PC (2008) The refined instrumental variable method: unified estimation of discrete and continuous-time transfer function models. J Eur Syst Automat 42:149–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Young PC, Beck MB (1974) The modelling and control of water quality in a river system. Automatica 10:455–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Young PC, Jakeman AJ (1979) Refined instrumental variable methods of time-series analysis: Part I, SISO systems. Int J Control 29:1–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Young PC, Jakeman AJ (1980) Refined instrumental variable methods of time-series analysis: Part III, extensions. Int J Control 31:741–764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Young PC, Lees MJ (1993) The active mixing volume: a new concept in modelling environmental systems. In: Barnett V, Turkman K (eds) Statistics for the environment. Wiley, Chichester, pp 3–43Google Scholar
  54. Young PC, Parkinson S (2002) Simplicity out of complexity. In: Beck MB (ed) Environmental foresight and models: a Manifesto. Elsevier, Oxford, pp 251–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Young PC, Ratto M (2007) From dominant mode analysis to dynamic meta-modelling. In: Fifth international conference on sensitivity of model output (SAMO), Budapest, Hungary, June 18–22. (Plenary presentation available from 1st author)Google Scholar
  56. Young PC, Jakeman AJ, McMurtrie R (1980) An instrumental variable method for model order identification. Automatica 16:281–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Young PC, McKenna P, Bruun J (2001) Identification of nonlinear stochastic systems by state dependent parameter estimation. Int J Control 74:1837–1857CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Young PC, Chotai A, Beven KJ (2004) Data-based mechanistic modelling and the simplification of environmental systems. In: Wainwright J, Mullgan M (eds) Environmental modelling: finding simplicity in complexity. Wiley, Chichester, pp 371–388Google Scholar
  59. Young PC, Castelletti A, Pianosi F (2007) The data-based mechanistic approach in hydrological modelling. In: Castelletti A, Sessa RS (eds) Topics on system analysis and integrated water resource management. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 27–48Google Scholar
  60. Young PC, Garnier H, Gilson M (2008) Refined instrumental variable identification of continuous-time hybrid Box-Jenkins models. In: Garnier H, Wang L (eds) Identification of continuous-time models from sampled data. Springer, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Environmental ScienceLancaster UniversityLancasterUK
  2. 2.Fenner School of Environment and SocietyAustralian National UniversityCanberraAustralia
  3. 3.School of Electrical Engineering and TelecommunicationsUniversity of NSWSydneyAustralia
  4. 4.Joint Research Centre (JRC)European CommissionIspraItaly

Personalised recommendations