The Consortium on Risk in the Environment: Diagnostics, Integration, Benchmarking, Learning and Elicitation (CREDIBLE)
Lead Research Organisation:
Lancaster University
Department Name: Lancaster Environment Centre
Abstract
Natural hazard events claim thousands of lives every year, and financial losses amount to billions of dollars. The risk of losing wealth through natural hazard events is now increasing at a rate that exceeds the rate of wealth creation. Therefore natural hazards risk managers have the potential, through well-informed actions, to significantly reduce social impacts and to conserve economic assets. By extension, environmental science, through informing the risk manager's actions, can leverage research investment in the low millions into recurring social and economic benefits measured in billions. However, to be truly effective in this role, environmental science must explicitly recognize the presence and implications of uncertainty in risk assessment.
Uncertainty is ubiquitous in natural hazards, arising both from the inherent unpredictability of the hazard events themselves, and from the complex way in which these events interact with their environment, and with people. It is also very complicated, with structure in space and time (e.g. the clustering of storms), measurements that are sparse especially for large-magnitude events, and losses that are typically highly non-linear functions of hazard magnitude. The tendency among natural hazard scientists and risk managers (eg actuaries in insurance companies) is to assess the 'simple' uncertainty explicitly, and assign the rest to a large margin for error.
The first objective of our project is to introduce statistical techniques that allow some of the uncertainty to be moved out of the margin for error and back into an explicit representation, which will substantially improve the transparency and defensibility of uncertainty and risk assessment. Obvious candidates for this are hazard models fitted on a catalogue of previous events (for which we can introduce uncertainty about model parameters, and about the model class), and limitations in the model of the 'footprint' of the hazard on the environment, and the losses that follow from a hazard event.
The second objective is to develop methods that allow us to assess less quantifiable aspects of uncertainty, such as probabilities attached to future scenarios (eg greenhouse gas emissions scenarios, or population growth projections). The third objective is to improve the visualisation and communication of uncertainty and risk, in order to promote a shared ownership of choices between actions, and close the gap between the intention to act (eg, to build a levee, or relocate a group of people living in a high-risk zone) and the completion of the act. In natural hazards this gap can be large, because the cost of the act is high, many people may be affected, and the act may take several years to complete.
Ultimately, everyone benefits from better risk management for natural hazards, although the nature of the benefits will depend on location. In the UK, for example, the primary hazard is flooding, and this is an area of particular uncertainty, as rainfall and coastal storm surges are likely to be affected by changes in the climate. A second hazard is drought, leading to heat stress and water shortages. Our project has explicit strands on inland flooding, wind-storms, and droughts. Other parts of the world are more affected by volcanoes or by earthquakes, and our project has strands on volcanic ash, debris flows as found in volcanic eruptions (ie lahars; avalanches are similar), and earthquakes. In the future, new hazards might emerge, such as the effect of space weather on communications. A key part of our project is to develop generic methods that work across hazards, both current and emerging.
Uncertainty is ubiquitous in natural hazards, arising both from the inherent unpredictability of the hazard events themselves, and from the complex way in which these events interact with their environment, and with people. It is also very complicated, with structure in space and time (e.g. the clustering of storms), measurements that are sparse especially for large-magnitude events, and losses that are typically highly non-linear functions of hazard magnitude. The tendency among natural hazard scientists and risk managers (eg actuaries in insurance companies) is to assess the 'simple' uncertainty explicitly, and assign the rest to a large margin for error.
The first objective of our project is to introduce statistical techniques that allow some of the uncertainty to be moved out of the margin for error and back into an explicit representation, which will substantially improve the transparency and defensibility of uncertainty and risk assessment. Obvious candidates for this are hazard models fitted on a catalogue of previous events (for which we can introduce uncertainty about model parameters, and about the model class), and limitations in the model of the 'footprint' of the hazard on the environment, and the losses that follow from a hazard event.
The second objective is to develop methods that allow us to assess less quantifiable aspects of uncertainty, such as probabilities attached to future scenarios (eg greenhouse gas emissions scenarios, or population growth projections). The third objective is to improve the visualisation and communication of uncertainty and risk, in order to promote a shared ownership of choices between actions, and close the gap between the intention to act (eg, to build a levee, or relocate a group of people living in a high-risk zone) and the completion of the act. In natural hazards this gap can be large, because the cost of the act is high, many people may be affected, and the act may take several years to complete.
Ultimately, everyone benefits from better risk management for natural hazards, although the nature of the benefits will depend on location. In the UK, for example, the primary hazard is flooding, and this is an area of particular uncertainty, as rainfall and coastal storm surges are likely to be affected by changes in the climate. A second hazard is drought, leading to heat stress and water shortages. Our project has explicit strands on inland flooding, wind-storms, and droughts. Other parts of the world are more affected by volcanoes or by earthquakes, and our project has strands on volcanic ash, debris flows as found in volcanic eruptions (ie lahars; avalanches are similar), and earthquakes. In the future, new hazards might emerge, such as the effect of space weather on communications. A key part of our project is to develop generic methods that work across hazards, both current and emerging.
Planned Impact
The uncertainty framework developed by the CREDIBLE project will bring new approaches into the field of natural hazards and adapt them to the specific needs of this field. It will create consistency and greater scientific rigour regarding the estimation of uncertainty in natural hazard risk assessment. Thus enhancing capacity, knowledge and skills of stakeholders from private and public sectors, and improve societal security through better and more consistently informed decision-making under uncertainty.
Beneficiaries of the proposed research include the whole range of sectors involved in risk assessment of natural hazards, which is reflected in our list of project partners. These included the insurance and finance sector (Willis Ltd., Lighthill Risk Network, Catlin Underwriting Agencies Ltd), consultants (HR Wallingford, JBA Ltd, RMS), and the UK government agencies (Environment Agency, Met Office, DEFRA).
The insurance industry will benefit from the more accurate pricing of contracts. As we explain elsewhere in this proposal, currently many uncertainties in natural hazards are acknowledged but not explicitly quantified, and enter into insurance premiums as a loading for risk, which is effectively a margin for error on top of the expected loss. Our intention in CREDIBLE is to move some of these uncertainties out of the margin for error and into explicit assessment, thus improving the pricing of risk premiums, and, ultimately, the economic performance of UK insurance companies connected to our project partners. We will also introduce standard statistical tools for improving efficiency in Monte Carlo simulations, and for quantifying variability in Monte Carlo estimates, which will be immediately taken up by CAT modelling companies (notably our project partner RMS), and feed through into regulation, for example through quantifying variability in the estimate of the 99.5th percentile, as required by the EU Solvency 2 directive.
Consultants and agencies will benefit from more powerful tools for assessing uncertainty, and for propagating it into the choice between actions. Our environmental consulting project partners (JBA Consulting and HR Wallingford) focus primarily on flooding, which is also a major concern for our agency project partners (the Environment Agency, the UK Met Office, and DEFRA). In flooding it is acknowledged that providing information about uncertainties is crucial, and this has been reflected in UK postcode-level flood maps produced by the EA (although technically these maps convey frequencies rather than probabilities). CREDIBLE's focus on (i) explicitly assessing more of the uncertainty, (ii) providing additional tools to represent less-quantifiable uncertainties, (iii) considering explicitly the link between potential actions, scenarios, uncertainties and risks, and (iv) visualisation and communication, will provide a more transparent and defensible assessment of different actions and consequences. This will promote a shared ownership of some of the very contentious issues that can arise in natural hazards, such as developments on flood-plains, or groups of people who choose to live in the high risk zones of active volcanoes.
This final aspect is an absolutely crucial part of CREDIBLE, and of our intention to have an enduring effect on natural hazards risk management, and the quality of life of people who are affected by natural hazards. Natural hazards interventions (eg building a levee or a barrage, changing building regulations, relocating a group of people) are almost always contentious, costly, and take several years. There is a large gap, therefore, between the intention to act, and the completion of the action. CREDIBLE can reduce the size of this gap by promoting a shared sense of ownership, of the science and of the decision.
Beneficiaries of the proposed research include the whole range of sectors involved in risk assessment of natural hazards, which is reflected in our list of project partners. These included the insurance and finance sector (Willis Ltd., Lighthill Risk Network, Catlin Underwriting Agencies Ltd), consultants (HR Wallingford, JBA Ltd, RMS), and the UK government agencies (Environment Agency, Met Office, DEFRA).
The insurance industry will benefit from the more accurate pricing of contracts. As we explain elsewhere in this proposal, currently many uncertainties in natural hazards are acknowledged but not explicitly quantified, and enter into insurance premiums as a loading for risk, which is effectively a margin for error on top of the expected loss. Our intention in CREDIBLE is to move some of these uncertainties out of the margin for error and into explicit assessment, thus improving the pricing of risk premiums, and, ultimately, the economic performance of UK insurance companies connected to our project partners. We will also introduce standard statistical tools for improving efficiency in Monte Carlo simulations, and for quantifying variability in Monte Carlo estimates, which will be immediately taken up by CAT modelling companies (notably our project partner RMS), and feed through into regulation, for example through quantifying variability in the estimate of the 99.5th percentile, as required by the EU Solvency 2 directive.
Consultants and agencies will benefit from more powerful tools for assessing uncertainty, and for propagating it into the choice between actions. Our environmental consulting project partners (JBA Consulting and HR Wallingford) focus primarily on flooding, which is also a major concern for our agency project partners (the Environment Agency, the UK Met Office, and DEFRA). In flooding it is acknowledged that providing information about uncertainties is crucial, and this has been reflected in UK postcode-level flood maps produced by the EA (although technically these maps convey frequencies rather than probabilities). CREDIBLE's focus on (i) explicitly assessing more of the uncertainty, (ii) providing additional tools to represent less-quantifiable uncertainties, (iii) considering explicitly the link between potential actions, scenarios, uncertainties and risks, and (iv) visualisation and communication, will provide a more transparent and defensible assessment of different actions and consequences. This will promote a shared ownership of some of the very contentious issues that can arise in natural hazards, such as developments on flood-plains, or groups of people who choose to live in the high risk zones of active volcanoes.
This final aspect is an absolutely crucial part of CREDIBLE, and of our intention to have an enduring effect on natural hazards risk management, and the quality of life of people who are affected by natural hazards. Natural hazards interventions (eg building a levee or a barrage, changing building regulations, relocating a group of people) are almost always contentious, costly, and take several years. There is a large gap, therefore, between the intention to act, and the completion of the action. CREDIBLE can reduce the size of this gap by promoting a shared sense of ownership, of the science and of the decision.
Organisations
People |
ORCID iD |
Keith Beven (Principal Investigator) | |
Jonathan Tawn (Co-Investigator) |
Publications
Beven K
(2014)
The uncertainty cascade in model fusion
in Geological Society, London, Special Publications
Beven K
(2012)
So how much of your error is epistemic? Lessons from Japan and Italy
in Hydrological Processes
Beven K
(2016)
Reversing hydrology: quantifying the temporal aggregation effect of catchment rainfall estimation using sub-hourly data
in Hydrology Research
Beven K
(2019)
Towards a methodology for testing models as hypotheses in the inexact sciences
in Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences
Beven K
(2016)
Facets of uncertainty: epistemic uncertainty, non-stationarity, likelihood, hypothesis testing, and communication
in Hydrological Sciences Journal
Beven K
(2015)
Concepts of Information Content and Likelihood in Parameter Calibration for Hydrological Simulation Models
in Journal of Hydrologic Engineering
Beven K
(2015)
What we see now: Event-persistence and the predictability of hydro-eco-geomorphological systems
in Ecological Modelling
Beven K
(2020)
An epistemically uncertain walk through the rather fuzzy subject of observation and model uncertainties 1
in Hydrological Processes
Beven K
(2013)
GLUE: 20 years on
in Hydrological Processes
Beven K
(2019)
Developing observational methods to drive future hydrological science: Can we make a start as a community?
in Hydrological Processes
Description | Importance of data uncertainties in parameter calibration and uncertainty estimation in hydrological models (paper for JHE ASCE). Commonalities and differences in dealing with epistemic uncertainties in different areas of natural hazards. Review articles submitted to NHESS MATLAB toolbox produced |
Exploitation Route | By use of MATLAB toolbox |
Sectors | Environment |
Description | The methods have been incorporated into a Matlab Toolbox CURE (the CREDIBLE Uncertainty Estimation toolbox) - see https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/lec/sites/qnfm/credible/DownloadCure.htm A paper on the CURE toolbox will shortly be submitted - but the methods are being used outside of academic research, and are being incorporated into current projects assessing uncertainty being prepared by JBA Consulting for the Environment Agency |
First Year Of Impact | 2022 |
Sector | Environment |
Impact Types | Policy & public services |
Title | Matlab Toolbox for uncertainty estimation |
Description | Matlab toolbox for uncertainty estimation |
Type Of Material | Improvements to research infrastructure |
Year Produced | 2016 |
Provided To Others? | Yes |
Impact | A paper in preparation |
Title | Matlab toolbox for Uncertainty Estimation |
Description | Matlab toolbox for Uncertainty Estimation with example workflows |
Type Of Technology | Software |
Year Produced | 2016 |
Impact | Paper in preparation for submission to Environmental Models and Software |
Description | Article for "The Conversation" |
Form Of Engagement Activity | A magazine, newsletter or online publication |
Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
Geographic Reach | International |
Primary Audience | Professional Practitioners |
Results and Impact | Article on flood defences following the 2014 floods. |
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2014 |
URL | http://theconversation.com/total-flood-defence-is-a-myth-we-must-learn-to-live-with-the-water-22670 |
Description | Chair, Evaluation Committee, Defra Cumbria Floods Competition |
Form Of Engagement Activity | A formal working group, expert panel or dialogue |
Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
Geographic Reach | National |
Primary Audience | Professional Practitioners |
Results and Impact | Evaluation of entries to the Defra Cumbria Floods Competition |
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2016 |
URL | https://consult.defra.gov.uk/water-and-flood-risk-management/flood-risk-management-modelling-competi... |
Description | Contributions to "The Conversation" |
Form Of Engagement Activity | A magazine, newsletter or online publication |
Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
Geographic Reach | International |
Primary Audience | Professional Practitioners |
Results and Impact | article on the channel dredging controversy. There is an url for this article but the box below would not accept it. https://theconversation.com/mps-focus-on-dredging-and-defences-will-not-prevent-floods-28083 |
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2014 |
Description | Defra Seminar on Natural Flood Management |
Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
Geographic Reach | National |
Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
Results and Impact | Seminar given at Defra, Noble House, |
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2016 |
Description | Member of Advisory Group on Environment Agency / Science Wise Communication of Flood Risk Uncertainty |
Form Of Engagement Activity | A formal working group, expert panel or dialogue |
Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
Geographic Reach | National |
Primary Audience | Professional Practitioners |
Results and Impact | Environment Agency Report produced. |
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2014,2015 |
URL | https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/public-dialogues-on-flood-risk-communication |