Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
The ability of contemporary hydrological models to serve as a basis for credible prediction and decision making is increasingly challenged especially as hydrological systems are pushed outside the envelope of historical experience. Conceptual models are the most common type of surface water hydrological model used for decision support due to reasonable performance in the absence of change, ease of use and computational speed that facilitate scenario, sensitivity and uncertainty analysis. Hence, conceptual models arguably represent the current "shopfront" of hydrological science as seen by practitioners. However, these models have notable limitations in their ability to resolve internal catchment processes and subsequently capture hydrological change. New thinking is needed to confront the challenges faced by the current generation of conceptual models in dealing with a changing environment. We argue that the next generation of conceptual models should combine the parsimony of conceptual models with our best available scientific understanding. We propose a strategy to develop such models using multiple hydrological lines of evidence. This strategy includes using appropriately selected physically-resolved models as "Virtual Hydrological Laboratories" to test and refine the simpler models' ability to predict future hydrological changes. This approach moves beyond the sole focus on "predictive skill" measured using metrics of historical performance, facilitating the development of the next generation of conceptual models with hydrological fidelity - i.e., that "get the right answers for the right reasons". This quest is more than a scientific curiosity it is expected by environmental policy makers and broader stakeholders.
Kavetski et al. (Fri,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: