Articles | Volume 18, issue 10
https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-18-2769-2018
https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-18-2769-2018
Review article
 | 
24 Oct 2018
Review article |  | 24 Oct 2018

Epistemic uncertainties and natural hazard risk assessment – Part 2: What should constitute good practice?

Keith J. Beven, Willy P. Aspinall, Paul D. Bates, Edoardo Borgomeo, Katsuichiro Goda, Jim W. Hall, Trevor Page, Jeremy C. Phillips, Michael Simpson, Paul J. Smith, Thorsten Wagener, and Matt Watson

Viewed

Total article views: 4,708 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total BibTeX EndNote
2,885 1,718 105 4,708 91 110
  • HTML: 2,885
  • PDF: 1,718
  • XML: 105
  • Total: 4,708
  • BibTeX: 91
  • EndNote: 110
Views and downloads (calculated since 21 Aug 2017)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 21 Aug 2017)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 4,708 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 4,308 with geography defined and 400 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 

Cited

Latest update: 24 Jun 2024
Short summary
Part 1 of this paper discussed the uncertainties arising from gaps in knowledge or limited understanding of the processes involved in different natural hazard areas. These are the epistemic uncertainties that can be difficult to constrain, especially in terms of event or scenario probabilities. A conceptual framework for good practice in dealing with epistemic uncertainties is outlined and implications of applying the principles to natural hazard science are discussed.
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint