The Hidden Challenge  of Forecasting Futility Part II: Exploring the Roots of Futility

Authors: F. Pappenberger, M.-H. Ramos, A. Wood

[Ed’s note: This is part 2 of the exploration of the concept of Futility in forecasting. You can read the first part here.]

Our previous post introduced “Hydrological futility” as a term when the expected benefits of improvements or modifications brought to hydrological modeling or forecasting practices, actions or strategies within a hydrometeorological forecasting system cannot be realized, despite the best and most rigorous efforts, or efforts perceived as such, or may even reverse into harming forecast quality or usefulness.

In addressing hydrological forecast futility, it’s crucial to delve into its underlying causes. By identifying and understanding these roots, we can begin to formulate more effective strategies for improving the accuracy and utility in a more resources-efficient way.

Data Limitations: The foundation of any hydrological forecast lies in the quality and reliability of the underlying data. Issues with spatial and temporal resolution, coverage, and the overall reliability of data sources play a critical role in the accuracy of forecasting performance. Limited or unreliable data can lead to significant inaccuracies in understanding and predicting water-related events, highlighting the presence of gaps in observational networks, the varying quality of data across different regions, and the complexities involved in integrating diverse data types into cohesive models. 

The importance of data extends beyond mere model inputs; it serves as the crucial link that connects hydrological models to reality and, consequently, forecasts to their end-users. In the field of hydrology, this connection is particularly significant as model outputs need to align closely with observable field conditions. Real-time forecasting puts these model outputs to the test, with the hydrological response of a river basin providing a tangible point of comparison at the outlet. This direct confrontation with observations is essential for updating models in flood forecasting, ensuring that they remain reflective of real-world conditions and building confidence in their future predictions.

Model Complexity and Representation of Physical Processes: The art of crafting hydrological models requires a delicate balance between simplicity and realism, aiming to faithfully represent the nonlinear and multiscale nature of hydrological processes. This endeavor involves calibrating models to mirror reality as closely as possible, a process that is crucial for accurate model setup. 

However, this quest for precision can inadvertently lead to an overcomplication of models, increasing their computational demands and making their behavior less intuitive to understand. Such complexity introduces a critical trade-off; while overly simplistic models might overlook essential dynamics, excessively intricate models risk becoming unmanageable and opaque, laden with uncertainties. 

Moreover, an excessive focus on calibration to align too closely with observed data can result in models that, paradoxically, become less capable of handling unexpected events. This overfitting causes models to act as mere “puppets,” chasing after real-time data without providing the reliable forecasts needed for effective decision-making. Thus, the challenge lies in striking the right balance to ensure models are both manageable and capable of anticipating unforeseen hydrological events. 

Uncertainty in Forecasting: Uncertainty is a constant companion in hydrological forecasting, propagating through every stage of the forecasting chain—from input data and weather forecasts, through model parameters, to output predictions. Acknowledging, quantifying  and effectively communicating this uncertainty is vital. It not only aids in setting realistic expectations for forecast accuracy but also informs better developments, risk management and decision-making practices (it closely links to the previous point).

Human and Institutional Factors: Beyond the technical aspects, the efficiency of hydrological forecasts is also shaped by human and institutional factors. This includes how forecasts are communicated, interpreted, and utilized in decision-making processes. Misalignments here can render even accurate forecasts ineffective if they are not understood or trusted by end-users, or if they do not align with the practical needs and capacities of those they are meant to serve.

Socio-Economic and Ethical Considerations: The allocation of resources for hydrological forecasting often reflects broader socio-economic and ethical priorities. Decisions on where to focus forecasting efforts can disproportionately affect vulnerable communities, raising issues of equity and justice. Additionally, economic and technological constraints can limit the ability of regions to develop and maintain robust forecasting systems, exacerbating existing disparities in disaster preparedness and response capabilities. Sometimes driven by competition among nations or among services/institutions in the same country or continent, the development of forecasting systems should rather be seen as a cooperation task force.


As we delve into the intricacies of hydrological forecasting, we uncover a critical yet often overlooked concept: the futility of forecasting efforts where expected benefits fail to materialize. 

This exploration spans from defining and quantifying this futility to identifying its roots in data limitations, model complexities, and uncertainties, and to proposing solutions. 

In defining hydrological forecast futility, we recognize it as a situation where enhancements in forecasting models or practices don’t yield the anticipated improvements. Quantifying this involves a blend of financial, social, and ethical evaluations, considering both the tangible and intangible impacts of forecasting efforts. 

The causes of this futility are deeply intertwined with the nature of hydrological systems themselves. Limited and unreliable data, coupled with the challenging task of accurately modeling complex and nonlinear natural processes, contribute significantly to forecasting inaccuracies. 

Moreover, the role of human interpretation and application of these forecasts in decision-making cannot be underestimated. The complexities are further compounded by socio-economic and ethical considerations, highlighting the need for equitable resource distribution and acknowledgment of inherent uncertainties.

The importance of acknowledging these limitations cannot be overstated. Open and honest dialogues about these challenges can pave the way for more effective flood preparedness and management strategies. Such transparency fosters a culture of continuous improvement and realistic expectations, crucial for enhancing community resilience.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.