Differences in assigning probabilities to coastal inundation hazard estimators: Event versus response approaches

Abstract Coastal flood risk assessment requires a reliable estimation of the frequency of inundation hazards, that is, characterising the hazard magnitude and assigning a probability of occurrence. In this work we analyse the uncertainty introduced in the assessment associated to the method to assig...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Marc Sanuy, Jose A. Jiménez, Maria I. Ortego, Alexandra Toimil
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2020-01-01
Series:Journal of Flood Risk Management
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1111/jfr3.12557
_version_ 1818476664500256768
author Marc Sanuy
Jose A. Jiménez
Maria I. Ortego
Alexandra Toimil
author_facet Marc Sanuy
Jose A. Jiménez
Maria I. Ortego
Alexandra Toimil
author_sort Marc Sanuy
collection DOAJ
description Abstract Coastal flood risk assessment requires a reliable estimation of the frequency of inundation hazards, that is, characterising the hazard magnitude and assigning a probability of occurrence. In this work we analyse the uncertainty introduced in the assessment associated to the method to assign the probability of occurrence to coastal flood hazards. To this end we have compared the use of two general methods, the response and the event approaches. Different procedures are used to characterise coastal inundation hazards depending on the analysis scale and data availability. Thus, a range of possibilities has been analysed, from simple estimators such as run‐up to modelled flood‐prone areas. The analysis has been performed for all wave and water level conditions around the Spanish coast. The results show that the differences between the methods are location‐dependent, and thus, determined by the exposure to wave and water level conditions. When using the event approach, the run‐up or total water level (with good correlation between waves and surge) distributions reasonably approximate those of the response approach with low associated uncertainty. When the assessment aims to output overtopping discharges or inundation maps, observed differences suggest that the event approach would produce misleading conclusions in inundation‐related coastal management and decision‐making.
first_indexed 2024-12-10T09:28:38Z
format Article
id doaj.art-401dbedd9cdd47bf93146c2202cf0cf6
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 1753-318X
language English
last_indexed 2024-12-10T09:28:38Z
publishDate 2020-01-01
publisher Wiley
record_format Article
series Journal of Flood Risk Management
spelling doaj.art-401dbedd9cdd47bf93146c2202cf0cf62022-12-22T01:54:25ZengWileyJournal of Flood Risk Management1753-318X2020-01-0113S1n/an/a10.1111/jfr3.12557Differences in assigning probabilities to coastal inundation hazard estimators: Event versus response approachesMarc Sanuy0Jose A. Jiménez1Maria I. Ortego2Alexandra Toimil3Laboratori d'Enginyeria Marítima Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, BarcelonaTech Barcelona SpainLaboratori d'Enginyeria Marítima Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, BarcelonaTech Barcelona SpainCOSDA‐UPC. Applied Mathematics and Statistics Section of the Civil and Environmental Engineering Department Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, BarcelonaTech Barcelona SpainEnvironmental Hydraulics Institute “IHCantabria” Universidad de Cantabria Santander SpainAbstract Coastal flood risk assessment requires a reliable estimation of the frequency of inundation hazards, that is, characterising the hazard magnitude and assigning a probability of occurrence. In this work we analyse the uncertainty introduced in the assessment associated to the method to assign the probability of occurrence to coastal flood hazards. To this end we have compared the use of two general methods, the response and the event approaches. Different procedures are used to characterise coastal inundation hazards depending on the analysis scale and data availability. Thus, a range of possibilities has been analysed, from simple estimators such as run‐up to modelled flood‐prone areas. The analysis has been performed for all wave and water level conditions around the Spanish coast. The results show that the differences between the methods are location‐dependent, and thus, determined by the exposure to wave and water level conditions. When using the event approach, the run‐up or total water level (with good correlation between waves and surge) distributions reasonably approximate those of the response approach with low associated uncertainty. When the assessment aims to output overtopping discharges or inundation maps, observed differences suggest that the event approach would produce misleading conclusions in inundation‐related coastal management and decision‐making.https://doi.org/10.1111/jfr3.12557EU Floods Directivehazard indicatorsinundation mapsovertopping dischargerun‐uptotal water level
spellingShingle Marc Sanuy
Jose A. Jiménez
Maria I. Ortego
Alexandra Toimil
Differences in assigning probabilities to coastal inundation hazard estimators: Event versus response approaches
Journal of Flood Risk Management
EU Floods Directive
hazard indicators
inundation maps
overtopping discharge
run‐up
total water level
title Differences in assigning probabilities to coastal inundation hazard estimators: Event versus response approaches
title_full Differences in assigning probabilities to coastal inundation hazard estimators: Event versus response approaches
title_fullStr Differences in assigning probabilities to coastal inundation hazard estimators: Event versus response approaches
title_full_unstemmed Differences in assigning probabilities to coastal inundation hazard estimators: Event versus response approaches
title_short Differences in assigning probabilities to coastal inundation hazard estimators: Event versus response approaches
title_sort differences in assigning probabilities to coastal inundation hazard estimators event versus response approaches
topic EU Floods Directive
hazard indicators
inundation maps
overtopping discharge
run‐up
total water level
url https://doi.org/10.1111/jfr3.12557
work_keys_str_mv AT marcsanuy differencesinassigningprobabilitiestocoastalinundationhazardestimatorseventversusresponseapproaches
AT joseajimenez differencesinassigningprobabilitiestocoastalinundationhazardestimatorseventversusresponseapproaches
AT mariaiortego differencesinassigningprobabilitiestocoastalinundationhazardestimatorseventversusresponseapproaches
AT alexandratoimil differencesinassigningprobabilitiestocoastalinundationhazardestimatorseventversusresponseapproaches