Status: this preprint has been withdrawn by the authors.
Epistemic uncertainties and natural hazard risk assessment – Part 1: A review of the issues
K. J. Beven,W. P. Aspinall,P. D. Bates,E. Borgomeo,K. Goda,J. W. Hall,T. Page,J. C. Phillips,J. T. Rougier,M. Simpson,D. B. Stephenson,P. J. Smith,T. Wagener,and M. Watson
Abstract. Uncertainties in natural hazard risk assessment are generally dominated by the sources arising from lack of knowledge or understanding of the processes involved. There is a lack of knowledge about frequencies, process representations, parameters, present and future boundary conditions, consequences and impacts, and the meaning of observations in evaluating simulation models. These are the epistemic uncertainties that can be difficult to constrain, especially in terms of event or scenario probabilities, even as elicited probabilities rationalized on the basis of expert judgements. This paper reviews the issues raised by trying to quantify the effects of epistemic uncertainties. Such scientific uncertainties might have significant influence on decisions that are made for risk management, so it is important to communicate the meaning of an uncertainty estimate and to provide an audit trail of the assumptions on which it is based. Some suggestions for good practice in doing so are made.
This preprint has been withdrawn.
Received: 21 Oct 2015 – Discussion started: 07 Dec 2015
Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.
K. J. Beven,W. P. Aspinall,P. D. Bates,E. Borgomeo,K. Goda,J. W. Hall,T. Page,J. C. Phillips,J. T. Rougier,M. Simpson,D. B. Stephenson,P. J. Smith,T. Wagener,and M. Watson
K. J. Beven,W. P. Aspinall,P. D. Bates,E. Borgomeo,K. Goda,J. W. Hall,T. Page,J. C. Phillips,J. T. Rougier,M. Simpson,D. B. Stephenson,P. J. Smith,T. Wagener,and M. Watson
K. J. Beven,W. P. Aspinall,P. D. Bates,E. Borgomeo,K. Goda,J. W. Hall,T. Page,J. C. Phillips,J. T. Rougier,M. Simpson,D. B. Stephenson,P. J. Smith,T. Wagener,and M. Watson
Viewed
Total article views: 3,358 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML
PDF
XML
Total
BibTeX
EndNote
2,392
816
150
3,358
133
160
HTML: 2,392
PDF: 816
XML: 150
Total: 3,358
BibTeX: 133
EndNote: 160
Views and downloads (calculated since 07 Dec 2015)
Cumulative views and downloads
(calculated since 07 Dec 2015)
Uncertainties in natural hazard risk assessment are generally dominated by the sources arising from lack of knowledge or understanding of the processes involved. This is Part 1 of 2 papers reviewing these epistemic uncertainties that can be difficult to constrain, especially in terms of event or scenario probabilities. It is based on the work of the CREDIBLE research consortium on Risk and Uncertainty in Natural Hazards.
Uncertainties in natural hazard risk assessment are generally dominated by the sources arising...