2011
DOI: 10.5194/nhess-11-3181-2011
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

How are flood risk estimates affected by the choice of return-periods?

Abstract: Abstract. Flood management is more and more adopting a risk based approach, whereby flood risk is the product of the probability and consequences of flooding. One of the most common approaches in flood risk assessment is to estimate the damage that would occur for floods of several exceedance probabilities (or return periods), to plot these on an exceedance probability-loss curve (risk curve) and to estimate risk as the area under the curve. However, there is little insight into how the selection of the return… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

7
103
1

Year Published

2013
2013
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8
2

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 141 publications
(111 citation statements)
references
References 50 publications
7
103
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The EAD is calculated by aggregating damage estimates of different probabilities by taking the integral under the exceedance probability-damage curve (risk curve) (Grossi et al, 2005;Meyer et al, 2009). Ward et al (2011b) have shown that flood damage related to five return periods (as available in this study: see Sect. 2.2) with a sufficient spread (low and high probabilities) are sufficient to estimate the EAD.…”
Section: Calculating the Expected Annual Damagementioning
confidence: 99%
“…The EAD is calculated by aggregating damage estimates of different probabilities by taking the integral under the exceedance probability-damage curve (risk curve) (Grossi et al, 2005;Meyer et al, 2009). Ward et al (2011b) have shown that flood damage related to five return periods (as available in this study: see Sect. 2.2) with a sufficient spread (low and high probabilities) are sufficient to estimate the EAD.…”
Section: Calculating the Expected Annual Damagementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Penning-Rowsell et al (2005) recommend a minimum of 5 return periods. Ward et al (2011) showed that the use of a small number of return periods is an important source of uncertainty. Nevertheless, only a set of five return periods (25 to 1250 years in present situation) could be considered in this basin-wide analysis that involved a transnational modeling chain (Table 2).…”
Section: Flood Frequencymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Several studies suggest that more return periods are needed to derive a reliable estimate of the risk (e.g. Messner et al, 2007;Ernst et al, 2010;Penning-Rowsell et al, 2010;Ward et al, 2011a).…”
Section: Limitationsmentioning
confidence: 99%