College of Science and Engineering, Flinders University, GPO Box 2100, Adelaide, SA 5001, Australia; National Centre for Groundwater Research and Training, Flinders University, GPO Box 2100, Adelaide, SA 5001, Australia.
J Environ Manage. 2024 Mar;355:120292. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.120292. Epub 2024 Feb 28.
Computer models are routinely used to underpin critical decision-making for projects that impact groundwater systems. Modelling results are communicated through technical reports, which advise regulators and other stakeholders of groundwater impacts, thereby informing approvals, project restrictions and monitoring requirements. Several guidelines and texts are available to instruct groundwater model development and reporting. In seven of the eight guidelines/texts reviewed, it is recommended that modelling reports (or a model archive) contain sufficient information for an external party to rebuild the model. This study examined that expectation (assumed to be "best practice") by reviewing 25 groundwater modelling reports from eight countries and assessing whether the information contained therein was sufficient (or an archive was provided) to rebuild the model on which the report was based. The reports were characterised based on 18 model components (e.g., aquifer properties, boundary conditions, etc.), and the availability of sufficient information in the report to rebuild each one. The "rebuildability" of model components was classified as: (a) reproducible (from the report), (b) reproducible but assumptions needed, and (c) not reproducible. The Analytical Hierarchical Process was employed to rank the reports based on the reproducibility of the models they describe. Only one of the 25 reports provided adequate information to rebuild the model, while one other report was accompanied by a model archive, resulting in two cases of model reproducibility, contrary to guideline recommendations. This outcome reflects problems with reproducibility in the wider scientific community. We conclude that modelling reports need to provide more detailed information to be compliant with best practice or model archives ought to be made available. Addressing this issue will ensure that stakeholders have access to the information needed to properly assess whether future groundwater impacts have been reliably evaluated.
计算机模型常用于为影响地下水系统的项目提供关键决策支持。建模结果通过技术报告进行交流，这些报告向监管机构和其他利益相关者提供地下水影响的建议，从而为批准、项目限制和监测要求提供信息。有几个指南和文本可用于指导地下水模型的开发和报告。在审查的八个指南/文本中有七个建议，建模报告（或模型档案）应包含足够的信息，以便外部人员重建模型。本研究通过审查来自八个国家的 25 个地下水建模报告，并评估报告中包含的信息是否足以重建报告所依据的模型（或提供了档案），来检验这一期望（假定为“最佳实践”）。报告根据 18 个模型组件（例如含水层特性、边界条件等）进行了特征描述，并评估报告中包含的重建每个模型组件的足够信息。模型组件的“可重建性”分为：（a）可从报告中重现，（b）可重现但需要假设，以及（c）不可重现。采用层次分析法（AHP）根据报告所描述模型的可重现性对报告进行排名。在 25 个报告中，只有一个报告提供了足够的信息来重建模型，而另一个报告附有模型档案，与指南建议相反，有两个案例实现了模型的可重现性。这一结果反映了更广泛的科学界在可重现性方面存在问题。我们得出结论，建模报告需要提供更详细的信息才能符合最佳实践，或者应该提供模型档案。解决这个问题将确保利益相关者能够获得所需的信息，以便正确评估未来地下水影响是否得到了可靠评估。
