Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2015-295
https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2015-295

  15 Jan 2016

15 Jan 2016

Review status: this preprint has been withdrawn by the authors.

Epistemic uncertainties and natural hazard risk assessment – Part 2: Different natural hazard areas

K. J. Beven1,2, S. Almeida3, W. P. Aspinall4, P. D. Bates5, S. Blazkova6, E. Borgomeo7, K. Goda4, J. C. Phillips4, M. Simpson7, P. J. Smith1, D. B. Stephenson8, T. Wagener3,9, M. Watson4, and K. L. Wilkins4 K. J. Beven et al.
  • 1Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
  • 2Department of Earth Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
  • 3Department of Engineering, Bristol University, Bristol, UK
  • 4School of Earth Sciences, Bristol University, Bristol, UK
  • 5School of Geographical Sciences, Bristol University, Bristol, UK
  • 6T. G. Masaryk Water Resource Institute, Prague, Czech Republic
  • 7Environmental Change Institute, Oxford University, UK
  • 8Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Exeter University, Exeter, UK
  • 9Cabot Institute, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

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This preprint has been withdrawn.

K. J. Beven et al.

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 et al.

K. J. Beven et al.

Viewed

Total article views: 1,532 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total BibTeX EndNote
809 679 44 1,532 59 52
  • HTML: 809
  • PDF: 679
  • XML: 44
  • Total: 1,532
  • BibTeX: 59
  • EndNote: 52
Views and downloads (calculated since 15 Jan 2016)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 15 Jan 2016)

Cited

Saved

Latest update: 18 Oct 2021
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 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.
Altmetrics