Visualizing Uncertainty in Natural Hazards

Pang, Alex

doi:10.1007/978-3-540-71158-2_12

Cited by 43 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus visualisation of the outcomes of an uncertainty assessment has become increasingly important as the tools and computational resource available have improved in the last decade and a variety of techniques have been explored to represent uncertain data (e.g. Johnson and Sanderson, 2003;MacEachren et al, 2005;Pang, 2008;Kunz et al, 2011;Friedemann et al, 2011;Spiegelhalter et al, 2011;20 Spiegelhalter and Reisch, 2011;Jupp et al, 2012;Potter et al, 2012).…”

Section: Communicating the Meaning Of Uncertainty Analysis And Visualmentioning

confidence: 99%

Epistemic uncertainties and natural hazard risk assessment. 2. What should constitute good practice?

Beven¹,

Aspinall²,

Bates³

et al. 2017

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Part 1 of this paper has discussed the uncertainties arising from gaps in knowledge or limited understanding of the processes involved in different natural hazard areas. Such deficits may include uncertainties 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, 20 especially in terms of event or scenario probabilities, even as elicited probabilities rationalised 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 made, say, for risk management, so it is important to examine the sensitivity of such decisions to different feasible sets of assumptions, to communicate the meaning of associated uncertainty estimates and to provide an audit trail for the analysis. A conceptual framework for good practice in dealing with epistemic 25 uncertainties is outlined and implications of applying the principles to natural hazard science are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Communicating the Meaning Of Uncertainty Analysis And Visualmentioning

confidence: 99%

Epistemic uncertainties and natural hazard risk assessment. 2. What should constitute good practice?

Beven¹,

Aspinall²,

Bates³

et al. 2017

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For representing uncertainty of spatially varying quantities (e.g. tsunami inundation map), visual parameter cues, such as color, texture, transparency, clarity, and size, can be varied in a cartographic graphical system (MacEachren et al 2005;Pang 2008;Kunz et al 2011). Typically, these results are shown for average trends and possible ranges (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is also important to recognize that the visualization of the analysis results itself (e.g. interpolation) creates uncertainty and potentially gives a false impression of accuracy of the hazard results (Pang 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Uncertainty modeling and visualization for tsunami hazard and risk mapping: a case study for the 2011 Tohoku earthquake

Goda

Jie

2015

Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study presents a rigorous computational framework for visualizing uncertainty of tsunami hazard and risk assessment. The methodology consists of three modules: (i) earthquake source characterization and stochastic simulation of slip distribution, (ii) tsunami propagation and inundation, and (iii) tsunami damage assessment and loss estimation. It takes into account numerous stochastic tsunami scenarios to evaluate the uncertainty propagation of earthquake source characteristics in probabilistic tsunami risk analysis. An extensive Monte Carlo tsunami inundation simulation is implemented for the 2011 Tohoku tsunami (focusing upon on Rikuzentakata along the Tohoku coast of Japan) using 726 stochastic slip models derived from eleven inverted source models. By integrating the tsunami hazard results with empirical tsunami fragility functions, probabilistic tsunami risk analysis and loss estimation are carried out; outputs from the analyses are displayed using various visualization methods. The developed framework is comprehensive, and can provide valuable insights in promoting proactive tsunami risk management and in improving emergency response capability.

show abstract

“…As uncertainties originate in every stage of hazard analyses, it is crucial to adopt an adequate mathematical framework to handle uncertainties for individual model components and their dependency (Woo, 2011). It is also important to recognize that the visualization of the analysis results itself creates uncertainties (Pang, 2008).…”

Section: Uncertainty and Visualizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Another important aspect is presentation and visualization of the analysis results (e.g. Pang, 2008;Kunz et al, 2011;Pappenberger et al, 2013), which are relevant for risk management actions. Different stakeholders require different hazard and risk information related to potential effects on communities and infrastructure over a variety of temporal and spatial scales, and estimating these depends on having a detailed understanding of temporal and spatial aspects of underlying hazard processes and related uncertainties.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Anatomy of Natural Hazard Analysis: Uncertainty Propagation and Visualization

Goda

Wagener

Aspinall³

2014

Vulnerability, Uncertainty, and Risk

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Natural hazard analysis involves various kinds of assumptions and approximations. Observations and data used in calibration processes are subject to errors. Consequently, probabilistic hazard assessments are uncertain. The methodologies for natural hazard analyses have evolved rapidly by improving the quantification and visualization of uncertainties associated with probabilistic hazard estimates. However, approaches across different natural hazards are not uniform. Aiming at developing a cross-hazard framework for natural disaster assessment, the current methods for seismic and tsunami hazard analyses are reviewed. In light of current needs for a dynamic and integrated framework for cascading hazards, a multihazard approach for earthquake and tsunami is presented.

show abstract

Visualizing Uncertainty in Natural Hazards

Cited by 43 publications

References 23 publications

Epistemic uncertainties and natural hazard risk assessment. 2. What should constitute good practice?

Epistemic uncertainties and natural hazard risk assessment. 2. What should constitute good practice?

Uncertainty modeling and visualization for tsunami hazard and risk mapping: a case study for the 2011 Tohoku earthquake

Anatomy of Natural Hazard Analysis: Uncertainty Propagation and Visualization

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About