Stochastic hydrogeology's biggest hurdles analyzed and its big blind spot

Yoram Rubin,Heather Savoy,Jiancong Chen,Karina Cucchi,Ching-Fu Chang,Bradley Harken,Falk Heße

doi:10.5194/hess-22-5675-2018

Abstract

Abstract. This paper considers questions related to the adoption of stochastic methods in hydrogeology. It looks at factors affecting the adoption of stochastic methods including environmental regulations, financial incentives, higher education, and the collective feedback loop involving these factors. We begin by evaluating two previous paper series appearing in the stochastic hydrogeology literature, one in 2004 and one in 2016, and identifying the current thinking on the topic, including the perceived data needs of stochastic methods, the attitude in regulations and the court system regarding stochastic methods, education of the workforce, and the availability of software tools needed for implementing stochastic methods in practice. Comparing the state of adoption in hydrogeology to petroleum reservoir engineering allowed us to identify quantitative metrics on which to base our analysis. For impediments to the adoption of stochastic hydrology, we identified external factors as well as self-inflicted wounds. What emerges is a picture much broader than current views. Financial incentives and regulations play a major role in stalling adoption. Stochastic hydrology's blind spot is in confusing between uncertainty with risk and ignoring uncertainty. We show that stochastic hydrogeology comfortably focused on risk while ignoring uncertainty, to its own detriment and to the detriment of its potential clients. The imbalance between the treatment on risk on one hand and uncertainty on the other is shown to be common to multiple disciplines in hydrology that interface with risk and uncertainty.

Highlights

A key element in the discussion on adoption of stochastic hydrogeology (SH), or the lack of it, is the apparent disconnect between theory and practice
Who is to blame for ignoring uncertainty? Are there some external factors not related to the science? And what has SH missed, if anything, that could have made a difference in adoption? This paper reviews the evolution of the thoughts on these topics
To begin the SH-specific discussion, we provide a brief summary of the comments made in two series of articles addressing SH in practice

Summary

Introduction

A key element in the discussion on adoption of stochastic hydrogeology (SH), or the lack of it, is the apparent disconnect between theory and practice. The root causes for the perceived failure in adoption have been discussed in several papers Regardless of whether true or not, this apparent gap raises questions such as the following: first, what does “practical” mean? One can argue about strengths and weaknesses of SH, e.g., the practicality, but there is no argument about the need to address uncertainty. This paper reviews the evolution of the thoughts on these topics. It evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of arguments made and provides additional perspectives by looking at factors not considered before

Objectives

Findings

Discussion

Conclusion