Epistemic uncertainties and natural hazard risk assessment Part 1: A review of the issues
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...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Journal article |
| Published: |
European Geosciences Union (EGU)
2015
|
| _version_ | 1797067215512535040 |
|---|---|
| author | Borgomeo, E Simpson, M Hall, J Beven, K Aspinall, W Bates, P Goda, K Page, T Phillips, J Rougier, J Stephenson, D Smith, P Wagener, T Watson, M |
| author_facet | Borgomeo, E Simpson, M Hall, J Beven, K Aspinall, W Bates, P Goda, K Page, T Phillips, J Rougier, J Stephenson, D Smith, P Wagener, T Watson, M |
| author_sort | Borgomeo, E |
| collection | OXFORD |
| description | 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. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-06T21:53:11Z |
| format | Journal article |
| id | oxford-uuid:4c040aaf-9662-442b-84a7-b3abe7317861 |
| institution | University of Oxford |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-06T21:53:11Z |
| publishDate | 2015 |
| publisher | European Geosciences Union (EGU) |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | oxford-uuid:4c040aaf-9662-442b-84a7-b3abe73178612022-03-26T15:46:59ZEpistemic uncertainties and natural hazard risk assessment Part 1: A review of the issuesJournal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bcuuid:4c040aaf-9662-442b-84a7-b3abe7317861Symplectic Elements at OxfordEuropean Geosciences Union (EGU)2015Borgomeo, ESimpson, MHall, JBeven, KAspinall, WBates, PGoda, KPage, TPhillips, JRougier, JStephenson, DSmith, PWagener, TWatson, MUncertainties 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. |
| spellingShingle | Borgomeo, E Simpson, M Hall, J Beven, K Aspinall, W Bates, P Goda, K Page, T Phillips, J Rougier, J Stephenson, D Smith, P Wagener, T Watson, M Epistemic uncertainties and natural hazard risk assessment Part 1: A review of the issues |
| title | Epistemic uncertainties and natural hazard risk assessment Part 1: A review of the issues |
| title_full | Epistemic uncertainties and natural hazard risk assessment Part 1: A review of the issues |
| title_fullStr | Epistemic uncertainties and natural hazard risk assessment Part 1: A review of the issues |
| title_full_unstemmed | Epistemic uncertainties and natural hazard risk assessment Part 1: A review of the issues |
| title_short | Epistemic uncertainties and natural hazard risk assessment Part 1: A review of the issues |
| title_sort | epistemic uncertainties and natural hazard risk assessment part 1 a review of the issues |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT borgomeoe epistemicuncertaintiesandnaturalhazardriskassessmentpart1areviewoftheissues AT simpsonm epistemicuncertaintiesandnaturalhazardriskassessmentpart1areviewoftheissues AT hallj epistemicuncertaintiesandnaturalhazardriskassessmentpart1areviewoftheissues AT bevenk epistemicuncertaintiesandnaturalhazardriskassessmentpart1areviewoftheissues AT aspinallw epistemicuncertaintiesandnaturalhazardriskassessmentpart1areviewoftheissues AT batesp epistemicuncertaintiesandnaturalhazardriskassessmentpart1areviewoftheissues AT godak epistemicuncertaintiesandnaturalhazardriskassessmentpart1areviewoftheissues AT paget epistemicuncertaintiesandnaturalhazardriskassessmentpart1areviewoftheissues AT phillipsj epistemicuncertaintiesandnaturalhazardriskassessmentpart1areviewoftheissues AT rougierj epistemicuncertaintiesandnaturalhazardriskassessmentpart1areviewoftheissues AT stephensond epistemicuncertaintiesandnaturalhazardriskassessmentpart1areviewoftheissues AT smithp epistemicuncertaintiesandnaturalhazardriskassessmentpart1areviewoftheissues AT wagenert epistemicuncertaintiesandnaturalhazardriskassessmentpart1areviewoftheissues AT watsonm epistemicuncertaintiesandnaturalhazardriskassessmentpart1areviewoftheissues |