Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Intl. J. River Basin Management Vol. 13, No. 3 (September 2015), pp. 285295
# 2014 International Association for Hydro-Environment Engineering and Research
Research paper
KEITH BEVEN, Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YQ, UK; Department of
Geosciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden. Email: k.beven@lancaster.ac.uk (author for correspondence)
ROB LAMB, JBA Trust, South Barn, Broughton Hall, Skipton BD23 3AE, UK. Email: rob.lamb@jbatrust.org
DAVE LEEDAL, Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YQ, UK.
Email: d.t.leedal@lancaster.ac.uk
NEIL HUNTER, JBA Consulting, South Barn, Broughton Hall, Skipton BD23 3AE, UK.
Email: neil.hunter@jbaconsulting.com
ABSTRACT
An important issue in taking account of uncertainty in ood inundation mapping is the communication of the meaning of the outputs from an uncertainty
analysis. In part this is because uncertainty estimation in this domain is not a simple statistical problem in that it involves knowledge uncertainties as
well as statistical (aleatory) uncertainties in most of the important sources of uncertainty (estimated upstream discharges, effective roughness coefcients, ood plain and channel geometries and infrastructure, choice of model, fragility of defences, etc.). Thus, assumptions are required associated
with the knowledge or lack of knowledge about these different sources of uncertainty. A framework has been developed in the form of a sequence of
condition trees to help dene these assumptions. Since stakeholders in the process can potentially be involved in making and recording decisions about
those assumptions the framework also serves as a means of communicating the assumptions. Recording the decisions also serves to provide an audit trail
for later evaluation of the decisions and hence the resulting analysis. Communication can also be helped in this type of spatial problem by effective
visualization techniques and a visualization tool has been developed for both a web-based service using Google MapsTM and a desktop application
using the MatlabTM numerical package.
286
287
2.1
288
Table 1 A summary of aleatory and epistemic uncertainties in ood risk mapping (after Beven et al. 2014)
Source of uncertainty
Aleatory component
Epistemic component
Conveyance estimates
Floodplain topography
Model structure
Floodplain infrastructure
Observations used in
model calibration
Future catchment change
Future climate change
Fragility of defences
Consequences/
vulnerability
or time (as it often will be). Model structural error, for example, is
an epistemic uncertainty that will generally have non-stationary
characteristics. It might then be better to choose to represent
knowledge uncertainties possibilistically or as scenarios
(Rougier and Beven 2013). Possibility theory, as developed in
Fuzzy Set theory, allows associating weights to different possible
outcomes. It also allows more exible ways of manipulating
those variables (Beven 2009).
Table 1 provides examples of aleatory and epistemic uncertainties that arise in ood risk mapping. It will be immediately
apparent that it can be difcult to distinguish between them. We
might, for example, consider the occurrence of different magnitudes of events to be the result of a natural random variability
(i.e. aleatory in nature), but we lack the knowledge to be sure
about the distribution that such events might be drawn from,
and whether that distribution should be considered to be stationary or not (i.e. epistemic in nature). Table 1 gives other examples.
For epistemic uncertainties, we can never be sure that the full
range of possibilities has been considered, because there is a
lack of knowledge about what that range might be. This reinforces
the point that it is important to convey to decision-makers the
assumptions on which a model uncertainty assessment is based
whether that is based on probabilities or possibilities.
289
Figure 3 Summary of conditions in assessing uncertainty in ood risk mapping (after Beven et al. 2014).
290
4.1
Given the posterior likelihood of each model run, a likelihoodweighted probability of a model cell being inundated for the
design event could be calculated. For example, if a cell
became inundated in all 500 model runs then that 10 10 m
region of the oodplain would be ascribed an effectively 100%
probability of being ooded during a ood of magnitude equal
291
Figure 4 Visualized likelihoods of inundation for the AEP0.01 event for Mexborough. Map data source # 2012 Google Maps, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye,
Getmapping plc, Infoterra Ltd & Bluesky, The GeoInformation Group.
Figure 5 Zoom on to Bolton-upon-Dearne Sewage Treatment Works with overlay of extreme ood outline for AEP0.01 event. Map data source
#2012 Google Maps, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Getmapping plc, Infoterra Ltd & Bluesky, The GeoInformation Group.
292
Figure 6 Matlab version of the visualization tool showing the likelihood distribution of depths predicted for the AEP 0.01 ood at the user-selected
point indicated by the red circle. The map image for the MATLABw version of the visualization tool for Mexborough is reproduced from the Explorer
1:25000 scale map by the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majestys Stationery Ofce # Crown Copyright. Lancaster
University, Bailrigg, Lancaster. O.S. Licence No. A281220.
as colour coded likelihoods. This will differ from the more usual
ood map, which is usually based on a single run of the model
with best estimate inputs and parameters, and is referred to
here as a deterministic output (in the sense that although the
event may be dened in terms of AEP of the peak ow, the resulting ood outline is modelled deterministically). In particular, some
areas that are not ooded in the deterministic case are predicted as
having a likelihood of being ooded in the uncertain case. This is
the case for example for the Yorkshire Water Sewage Treatment
Works on the oodplain to the north of the river. This is defended
by embankments that are not overtopped in the deterministic case
but have a likelihood of being over topped in the uncertain case (as
shown in Figure 5). The tool also allows the likelihood for a
chosen depth of inundation to be displayed, or for any grid cell
in the model, a graph of the cumulative likelihood of depths of
inundation. This is shown on the Matlab desktop version of the
tool in Figure 6.
4.2
The visualization tool shows that for some areas where the ood
plain is constrained by embankments or steeper natural topography the incorporation of uncertainty has little effect on the extent
expected to be close to the deterministic best estimate ood inundation map. A lower likelihood would indicate a more risk-averse
stance; a higher likelihood would indicate a more risk accepting
stance. Different likelihoods might be more or less appropriate
for different types of use.
The information can also be fed back into a more complete risk
analysis. At present the map shows only the probability of the
hazard at the AEP0.01 level. A more complete analysis of
risk also involves the assessment of any resulting consequences.
In the estimation of EADs this also requires the integration of
both hazard and consequences over the distribution up to a
given AEP level. Consequences, in terms of damages or
other measures, will have their own uncertainties (both aleatory
and epistemic) that will also depend on the uncertainty
assessments for the patterns of depths and velocities in the
hazard footprint.
Standards for ood damage assessments in the UK are
provided by the manual for economic appraisal (often known as
the multi-coloured manual) produced by the Flood Hazard
Research Centre at Middlesex University (PenningRowsell et al. 2013). Damage assessments are based on predicted
ood depths and in the past have been generally applied purely
deterministically, though recent versions of the book give upper
and lower bounds for the damages at different depths of inundation based on the range of empirical estimates available from
past ood events that have been used to construct the synthetic
depth/damage curves for different types of property at risk.
The uncertainty in the damage estimates, of course, has a
direct impact on the EADs and cost benet analysis for any
particular ood mitigation scheme. The uncertainties, which
should include the possibility of future land-use patterns over
the lifetime of a project, might be large and have been generally
thought to be too large to present to decision-makers, especially
if the resulting cost benet ratio might range from less than
that required to justify a project to much greater
(Penning-Rowsell 2014). Thus, an institutionalized approach
to uncertainty has been taken, dened by the rules with
which a deterministic cost benet analysis is carried out
(Environment Agency 2010).
As with the denition of crisp ood risk zones, this institutionalization of the damage calculations is one, rather convenient,
way of dealing with uncertainty. In that the cost and benets
should be prepared in standardized ways for different proposed
schemes, then the ranking of the schemes in deciding on investments can be presented as an objective way of deciding on
investment priorities.
The question therefore is whether a more complete uncertainty assessment, which would be more expensive for every
project proposed, might result in better decision-making. This
perhaps can already be seen from Figures 4 and 6 where,
293
Conclusions
294
Acknowledgements
Jeff Neal is thanked for carrying out the model likelihood evaluations.
We are grateful to the EA for agreement to make use of the case study
data.
Funding
Notes
1. www.oodrisk.org.uk
2. www.catchmentchange.net
References
Aronica, G., Bates, P.D., and Horritt, M.S., 2002. Assessing the
uncertainty in distributed model predictions using observed
binary pattern information within GLUE. Hydrological
Processes, 16 (10), 2001 2016.
Aronica, G., Hankin, B.G., and Beven, K.J., 1998. Uncertainty
and equinality in calibrating distributed roughness coefcients in a ood propagation model with limited data.
Advances in Water Resources, 22 (4), 349 365.
Bates, P.D., et al., 2004. Bayesian updating of ood inundation
likelihoods conditioned on ood extent data. Hydrological
Processes, 18 (17), 3347 3370.
Beven, K.J., 2002. Towards a coherent philosophy for environmental modeling. Proceedings of the Royal Society of
London A, 458 (2026), 2465 2484.
Beven, K.J., 2009. Environmental modelling: an uncertain
future? London: Routledge.
Beven, K.J., 2011. Distributed models and uncertainty in ood
risk management. In: G. Pender and H. Faulkner, eds. Flood
risk science and management. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell,
291 312.
Beven, K.J., 2012. Causal models as multiple working hypotheses about environmental processes. Comptes Rendus
Geoscience. doi:10.1016/j.crte.2012.01.005
Beven, K.J. and Alcock, R., 2011. Modelling everything everywhere: a new approach to decision making for water management under uncertainty. Freshwater Biology, 56. doi:10.1111/
j.1365-2427.2011.02592.x
Beven, K. and Young, P., 2013. A guide to good practice in
modeling semantics for authors and referees. Water Resources
Research, 49 (8), 5092 5098. doi:10.1002/wrcr.20393
Beven, K.J., Leedal, D.T., and Alcock, R., 2010. Uncertainty
and good practice in hydrological prediction. Vatten, 66 (3),
159 163.
Beven, K., Leedal, D., and McCarthy, S., 2014. Framework for
assessing uncertainty in uvial ood risk mapping. CIRIA
295
Pitt, M., 2008. Learning lessons from the 2007 oods. London:
Cabinet Ofce.
Prudhomme, C., et al., 2010. Scenario-neutral approach to
climate change impact studies: application to ood risk.
Journal of Hydrology, 390 (3), 198 209.
Romanowicz, R. and Beven, K.J., 2003. Bayesian estimation of
ood inundation probabilities as conditioned on event inundation maps. Water Resources Research, 39 (3), W01073.
doi:10.1029/2001WR001056
Romanowicz, R., Beven, K.J., and Tawn, J., 1996. Bayesian
calibration of ood inundation models. In: M.G. Anderson,
D.E. Walling, and P.D. Bates, eds. Floodplain processes.
Chichester: Wiley, 333 360.
Rougier, J. and Beven, K.J., 2013. Model limitations: the sources
and implications of epistemic uncertainty. In: J. Rougier, S.
Sparks, and L. Hill, eds. Risk and uncertainty assessment
for natural hazards. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 40 63.
Tapsell, S.M., et al., 2002. Vulnerability to ooding:
health and social dimensions. Philosophical Transactions
of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 360 (1796), 1511 1525.
Wilby, R.L. and Dessai, S., 2010. Robust adaptation to climate
change. Weather, 65 (7), 180 185.