Articles | Volume 18, issue 10
Review article
24 Oct 2018
Review article |  | 24 Oct 2018

Epistemic uncertainties and natural hazard risk assessment – Part 1: A review of different natural hazard areas

Keith J. Beven, Susana Almeida, Willy P. Aspinall, Paul D. Bates, Sarka Blazkova, Edoardo Borgomeo, Jim Freer, Katsuichiro Goda, Jim W. Hall, Jeremy C. Phillips, Michael Simpson, Paul J. Smith, David B. Stephenson, Thorsten Wagener, Matt Watson, and Kate L. Wilkins


Interactive discussion

Status: closed
Status: closed
AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment
Printer-friendly Version - Printer-friendly version Supplement - Supplement

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision
ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (11 Jun 2018) by Richard Chandler
AR by Keith Beven on behalf of the Authors (07 Sep 2018)  Author's response
ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (24 Sep 2018) by Richard Chandler
AR by Keith Beven on behalf of the Authors (06 Oct 2018)  Author's response    Manuscript
Short summary
This paper discusses how uncertainties resulting from lack of knowledge are considered in a number of different natural hazard areas including floods, landslides and debris flows, dam safety, droughts, earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic ash clouds and pyroclastic flows, and wind storms. As every analysis is necessarily conditional on the assumptions made about the nature of sources of such uncertainties it is also important to follow the guidelines for good practice suggested in Part 2.
Final-revised paper