Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/nhessd-3-7333-2015
https://doi.org/10.5194/nhessd-3-7333-2015
07 Dec 2015
 | 07 Dec 2015
Status: this preprint has been withdrawn by the authors.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This preprint has been withdrawn.

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 preprint. The responsibility to include appropriate place names lies with the authors.
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

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

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
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: 2,501 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total BibTeX EndNote
1,639 747 115 2,501 89 102
  • HTML: 1,639
  • PDF: 747
  • XML: 115
  • Total: 2,501
  • BibTeX: 89
  • EndNote: 102
Views and downloads (calculated since 07 Dec 2015)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 07 Dec 2015)

Cited

Saved

Latest update: 24 Jun 2024
Download

This preprint has been withdrawn.

Short summary
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.
Altmetrics