Status: this preprint has been withdrawn by the authors.
Epistemic uncertainties and natural hazard risk assessment – Part 2: Different natural hazard areas
K. J. Beven,S. Almeida,W. P. Aspinall,P. D. Bates,S. Blazkova,E. Borgomeo,K. Goda,J. C. Phillips,M. Simpson,P. J. Smith,D. B. Stephenson,T. Wagener,M. Watson,and K. L. Wilkins
Abstract. This paper discusses how epistemic uncertainties 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. In each case it is common practice to treat most uncertainties in the form of aleatory probability distributions but this may lead to an underestimation of the resulting uncertainties in assessing the hazard, consequences and risk. It is suggested that such analyses might be usefully extended by looking at different scenarios of assumptions about sources of epistemic uncertainty, with a view to reducing the element of surprise in future hazard occurrences. Since every analysis is necessarily conditional on the assumptions made about the nature of sources of epistemic uncertainty it is also important to follow the guidelines for good practice suggested in the companion Part 1 by setting out those assumptions in a condition tree.
This preprint has been withdrawn.
Received: 21 Oct 2015 – Discussion started: 15 Jan 2016
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,S. Almeida,W. P. Aspinall,P. D. Bates,S. Blazkova,E. Borgomeo,K. Goda,J. C. Phillips,M. Simpson,P. J. Smith,D. B. Stephenson,T. Wagener,M. Watson,and K. L. Wilkins
K. J. Beven,S. Almeida,W. P. Aspinall,P. D. Bates,S. Blazkova,E. Borgomeo,K. Goda,J. C. Phillips,M. Simpson,P. J. Smith,D. B. Stephenson,T. Wagener,M. Watson,and K. L. Wilkins
K. J. Beven,S. Almeida,W. P. Aspinall,P. D. Bates,S. Blazkova,E. Borgomeo,K. Goda,J. C. Phillips,M. Simpson,P. J. Smith,D. B. Stephenson,T. Wagener,M. Watson,and K. L. Wilkins
Viewed
Total article views: 2,178 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML
PDF
XML
Total
BibTeX
EndNote
1,205
871
102
2,178
109
101
HTML: 1,205
PDF: 871
XML: 102
Total: 2,178
BibTeX: 109
EndNote: 101
Views and downloads (calculated since 15 Jan 2016)
Cumulative views and downloads
(calculated since 15 Jan 2016)
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 2 of 2 papers reviewing these epistemic uncertainties and covers different areas of natural hazards including landslides and debris flows, dam safety, droughts, earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic ash clouds and pyroclastic flows, and wind storms. It is based on the work of the UK CREDIBLE research consortium.
Uncertainties in natural hazard risk assessment are generally dominated by the sources arising...