Activity 4 - Continuous Simulation or Event-Based Modelling to Estimate

Flood Probabilities?
OCT. 18, 2022
SHANE IVAN FALLAR

Please read the article entitled: "Continuous simulation or event-based modelling to estimate
flood probabilities?" by O. Hoes & F. Nelen (2005).
ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:
1. In determining the probability of floods, which is the most relevant approach between
continuous simulations and stochastic event-based simulation? Why?

- In the determining the probability of floods, between a stochastic event-based and

continuous simulation, the latter proves to be more relevant to the determining the
probability of floods than the former. In the paper, it is mentioned that one of the main
arguments against the use of continuous models is the large amount of data needed to be
processed, a concern made irrelevant by modern computing. Continuous simulation
presents a more complete outlook and leaves less to random variable and chances. On the
other hand, stochastic event-based simulations rely heavily on statistics and set events,
meaning that there is a lot of assumptions being made. Overall, when it comes to
predicting floods, a continuous simulation presents both relevant, clearer and reliable
data.

2. Based on your analysis of the two approaches, what is the strengths and weaknesses of
stochastic event-based simulations? How about continuous simulations?

- Stochastic event-based simulations, since they make use of statistics and pre-designed
variable offer much more flexibility and even the possibility of getting results otherwise
unachievable from simple continuous monitoring. On the hand, this also means that this
type of simulations makes a lot of assumptions. It also has difficulty incorporating certain
strategies with each specific event. It is also lacking in reproducibility and simplifies or
glosses over many variables in favor of focusing on stochastic variables and how they
affect the model.

- Continuous Simulations, by their nature, provide more hard data and leaves less to
uncertainty, and unlike event-based simulation it has no need to “fill in the blanks”, so to
speak. Among its other strengths is that a continuous simulation makes it easier to
identify patterns, as well as making easier to understand relation between changes in
water consumption, water management strategies, how different water systems relate to
each other and more. It’s primary weakness however is that this kind of simulation
requires a lot of man and computer hours to set up, not to mention the large amount of
data that will need to be processed.

3. What are the general findings of the study and what do you think is the most reliable
approach.

- By far, the study generally finds continuous simulations to be better suited for predicting
floods possibilities owing to the previously stated advantages of being more complete,
thus leaving less to probability and assumption. I am inclined to agree with the study for
the same reasons, and the fact that I think a continuous long-term simulation will provide
better insights on how a water system works, taking into account the constant changes in
a way that Stochastic event-based simulations simply cannot achieve.