Probability, Uncertainty and Risk in the Natural Environment
Lead Research Organisation:
Birkbeck, University of London
Department Name: Earth and Planetary Sciences
Abstract
Natural hazards pose serious problems to society and to the global economy. Recent examples in the UK include the cold winters of 2009 and 2010 and the eruptions of the Grimsvotn and Eyjafjallajökull volcanoes with the consequent disruption to air travel. Moving further afield, the first half of 2011 saw major disasters in Australia (flood), New Zealand (earthquake), Japan (earthquake and tsunami) and the US (hurricanes).
It would be nice if scientists could provide precise information to help with the management of such events. This is unrealistic, however, for several reasons: data are usually incomplete (e.g. not available at all required locations) and measured with error; predictions are made using computer models that can at best approximate reality; and our understanding of some phenomena is limited by lack of experience (for example, the historical tsunami record is relatively limited). Therefore, natural hazard scientists must acknowledge the uncertainty in the information they provide, and must communicate this uncertainty effectively to users of the science. However, neither of these tasks is easy. Moreover, scientists do not always understand what users want and need; and users themselves often are uncomfortable with uncertainty.
Despite these problems, modern statistical methods are available for handling uncertainty in complex systems using probability theory. In parallel, social science researchers are interested in understanding how people react to and understand uncertainty. By bringing these two developments together, and linking with scientists from several hazard areas along with a variety of users, we aim (a) to demonstrate a generic framework for handling uncertainty across hazards; and (b) to develop improved tools for communicating uncertain information.
The generic framework considered here has three core components. The first is the treatment of uncertainties arising from our imperfect models and imperfect understanding of any complex system. The second is the combination of information from various sources that are all judged to be relevant: this is particularly important in event management situations where decision-makers must take rapid action based on multiple strands of evidence that might be apparently contradictory. The third is the treatment of uncertainties that are deemed to be "unquantifiable" or too hard to handle:an example from the insurance industry involves how much money to set aside to cover the cost of an event that is known to be possible but for which no historical loss data are available (such as an Atlantic tsunami caused by the collapse of the Cumbre Vieja volcano in La Palma). Five case studies will be used to illustrate the framework: (1) flood risk management in the UK; (2) earthquake hazard in the UK (relevant to the nuclear power industry) and in Italy; (3) tsunami hazard and risk assessment, including the development of methods to improve real-time warning systems; (4) the interpretation of days-ahead weather forecasts (focusing on wind speeds and cold weather); (5) volcanic ash dispersal, again including real-time warning systems.
A final, and critical, component of the proposed research relates to the communication and use of the uncertainty information derived from the three previous components. Working with industrial partners, we will demonstrate how an improved understanding of uncertainty in the hazard itself can be translated through into risk assessments (which focus on the consequence of the hazard, for example the economic loss or damage to infrastructure). We will also carry out research to understand better how people perceive and use risk information. The results will be used to inform the development of novel methods for communicating natural hazard risk information to specialist and non-specialist users; and also (in collaboration with the PURE Network) to produce a handbook of risk communication for natural hazards.
It would be nice if scientists could provide precise information to help with the management of such events. This is unrealistic, however, for several reasons: data are usually incomplete (e.g. not available at all required locations) and measured with error; predictions are made using computer models that can at best approximate reality; and our understanding of some phenomena is limited by lack of experience (for example, the historical tsunami record is relatively limited). Therefore, natural hazard scientists must acknowledge the uncertainty in the information they provide, and must communicate this uncertainty effectively to users of the science. However, neither of these tasks is easy. Moreover, scientists do not always understand what users want and need; and users themselves often are uncomfortable with uncertainty.
Despite these problems, modern statistical methods are available for handling uncertainty in complex systems using probability theory. In parallel, social science researchers are interested in understanding how people react to and understand uncertainty. By bringing these two developments together, and linking with scientists from several hazard areas along with a variety of users, we aim (a) to demonstrate a generic framework for handling uncertainty across hazards; and (b) to develop improved tools for communicating uncertain information.
The generic framework considered here has three core components. The first is the treatment of uncertainties arising from our imperfect models and imperfect understanding of any complex system. The second is the combination of information from various sources that are all judged to be relevant: this is particularly important in event management situations where decision-makers must take rapid action based on multiple strands of evidence that might be apparently contradictory. The third is the treatment of uncertainties that are deemed to be "unquantifiable" or too hard to handle:an example from the insurance industry involves how much money to set aside to cover the cost of an event that is known to be possible but for which no historical loss data are available (such as an Atlantic tsunami caused by the collapse of the Cumbre Vieja volcano in La Palma). Five case studies will be used to illustrate the framework: (1) flood risk management in the UK; (2) earthquake hazard in the UK (relevant to the nuclear power industry) and in Italy; (3) tsunami hazard and risk assessment, including the development of methods to improve real-time warning systems; (4) the interpretation of days-ahead weather forecasts (focusing on wind speeds and cold weather); (5) volcanic ash dispersal, again including real-time warning systems.
A final, and critical, component of the proposed research relates to the communication and use of the uncertainty information derived from the three previous components. Working with industrial partners, we will demonstrate how an improved understanding of uncertainty in the hazard itself can be translated through into risk assessments (which focus on the consequence of the hazard, for example the economic loss or damage to infrastructure). We will also carry out research to understand better how people perceive and use risk information. The results will be used to inform the development of novel methods for communicating natural hazard risk information to specialist and non-specialist users; and also (in collaboration with the PURE Network) to produce a handbook of risk communication for natural hazards.
Planned Impact
The proposed research will benefit all individuals and organisations with an interest in understanding, responding to and planning for natural hazards and their consequences. Excluding academic beneficiaries, these include:
- Business and industry, in particular the financial (notably insurance), energy, aviation and built environment sectors;
- Organisations such as DEFRA, the Environment Agency and SEPA, with responsibility for natural hazard risk management in the UK and elsewhere;
- Agencies responsible for the provision of risk and hazard management information, such as the UK Meteorological Office (UKMO);
- The general public, including schoolchildren.
For these non-academic beneficiaries, the primary impact of the research will arise from improved communication between the science and user communities, so that the science becomes more relevant to the users and the users are better able to understand the science. The requirements here work both ways. Our engagement with users and industrial partners, and research on communication under Work Package D, aims to foster better understanding of user needs by scientists. Simultaneously however, we will help users to develop a better understanding of what science can and cannot be expected to provide, and to make effective use of uncertain information in decision-making. Apart from the direct engagement with our industrial partners, much of this work will be carried out via dissemination, engagement and training events organised in collaboration with the PURE Network.
Further details of the research impact can be found in our "Pathways to Impact" statement.
- Business and industry, in particular the financial (notably insurance), energy, aviation and built environment sectors;
- Organisations such as DEFRA, the Environment Agency and SEPA, with responsibility for natural hazard risk management in the UK and elsewhere;
- Agencies responsible for the provision of risk and hazard management information, such as the UK Meteorological Office (UKMO);
- The general public, including schoolchildren.
For these non-academic beneficiaries, the primary impact of the research will arise from improved communication between the science and user communities, so that the science becomes more relevant to the users and the users are better able to understand the science. The requirements here work both ways. Our engagement with users and industrial partners, and research on communication under Work Package D, aims to foster better understanding of user needs by scientists. Simultaneously however, we will help users to develop a better understanding of what science can and cannot be expected to provide, and to make effective use of uncertain information in decision-making. Apart from the direct engagement with our industrial partners, much of this work will be carried out via dissemination, engagement and training events organised in collaboration with the PURE Network.
Further details of the research impact can be found in our "Pathways to Impact" statement.
People |
ORCID iD |
Gerald Roberts (Principal Investigator) |
Publications
Cowie P
(2012)
Relationships between fault geometry, slip rate variability and earthquake recurrence in extensional settings Fault geometry control on earthquake rupture
in Geophysical Journal International
Wilkinson M
(2012)
Distribution and magnitude of post-seismic deformation of the 2009 L'Aquila earthquake (M6.3) surface rupture measured using repeat terrestrial laser scanning Post-seismic deformation: L'Aquila surface rupture
in Geophysical Journal International
Faure Walker J
(2012)
Relationship between topography, rates of extension and mantle dynamics in the actively-extending Italian Apennines
in Earth and Planetary Science Letters
Roberts G
(2013)
The implications of revised Quaternary palaeoshoreline chronologies for the rates of active extension and uplift in the upper plate of subduction zones
in Quaternary Science Reviews
Papanikola?u I
(2013)
The Sparta Fault, Southern Greece: From segmentation and tectonic geomorphology to seismic hazard mapping and time dependent probabilities
in Tectonophysics
Cowie P
(2013)
Viscous roots of active seismogenic faults revealed by geologic slip rate variations
in Nature Geoscience
L. Peruzza
(2016)
PSHA after a strong earthquake: hints for the recovery
in Annals of Geophysics
Mildon Z
(2016)
Active normal faulting during the 1997 seismic sequence in Colfiorito, Umbria: Did slip propagate to the surface?
in Journal of Structural Geology
Mildon Z
(2016)
Evaluating models of Coulomb stress transfer: Is variable fault geometry important?
in Geophysical Research Letters
Franz A. Livio
(2016)
Surface faulting during the August 24, 2016, Central Italy earthquake (Mw 6.0): preliminary results
in Annals of Geophysics
Cowie PA
(2017)
Orogen-scale uplift in the central Italian Apennines drives episodic behaviour of earthquake faults.
in Scientific reports
Civico R
(2018)
Surface ruptures following the 30 October 2016 M w 6.5 Norcia earthquake, central Italy
in Journal of Maps
Villani F
(2018)
A database of the coseismic effects following the 30 October 2016 Norcia earthquake in Central Italy.
in Scientific data
Iezzi F
(2018)
Coseismic Throw Variation Across Along-Strike Bends on Active Normal Faults: Implications for Displacement Versus Length Scaling of Earthquake Ruptures
in Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth
Faure Walker J
(2018)
Variable Fault Geometry Suggests Detailed Fault-Slip-Rate Profiles and Geometries Are Needed for Fault-Based Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment (PSHA)
in Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America
Walters R
(2018)
Dual control of fault intersections on stop-start rupture in the 2016 Central Italy seismic sequence
in Earth and Planetary Science Letters
Deligiannakis G
(2018)
Fault specific GIS based seismic hazard maps for the Attica region, Greece
in Geomorphology
Beck J
(2018)
Bayesian earthquake dating and seismic hazard assessment using chlorine-36 measurements (BED v1)
in Geoscientific Model Development
Mildon ZK
(2019)
Coulomb pre-stress and fault bends are ignored yet vital factors for earthquake triggering and hazard.
in Nature communications
Iezzi F
(2019)
Occurrence of partial and total coseismic ruptures of segmented normal fault systems: Insights from the Central Apennines, Italy
in Journal of Structural Geology
Sgambato C
(2020)
Uncertainty in strain-rate from field measurements of the geometry, rates and kinematics of active normal faults: Implications for seismic hazard assessment
in Journal of Structural Geology
Robertson J
(2020)
Distributed normal faulting in the tip zone of the South Alkyonides Fault System, Gulf of Corinth, constrained using 36Cl exposure dating of late-Quaternary wave-cut platforms
in Journal of Structural Geology
Sgambato C
(2020)
Stress loading history of earthquake faults influenced by fault/shear zone geometry and Coulomb pre-stress.
in Scientific reports
Scotti O
(2021)
Which Fault Threatens Me Most? Bridging the Gap Between Geologic Data-Providers and Seismic Risk Practitioners
in Frontiers in Earth Science
Lavecchia G
(2022)
QUaternary fault strain INdicators database - QUIN 1.0 - first release from the Apennines of central Italy.
in Scientific data
Mildon ZK
(2022)
Surface faulting earthquake clustering controlled by fault and shear-zone interactions.
in Nature communications
Lavecchia G
(2024)
QUIN 2.0 - new release of the QUaternary fault strain INdicators database from the Southern Apennines of Italy.
in Scientific data
Description | We have derived the slip versus time histories for a number of faults. These can be used for seismic hazard assessment. We have developed two different ways to model the data and are evaluating these at present. We are now publishing new results. |
Exploitation Route | Seismic hazard mapping |
Sectors | Environment |
URL | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169555X14002293 |
Description | Conference Talk at Normal Faults Meeting: Viscous roots of active seismogenic faults revealed by geologic slip rate variations |
Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
Geographic Reach | International |
Primary Audience | Professional Practitioners |
Results and Impact | Scientific discussion |
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2014 |
Description | Conference talk at Normal Faults Meeting: Linking historical earthquake records to long term fault slip rates using cosmogenic 36Cl: Evidence for migrating earthquake activity on a centennial timescale |
Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
Geographic Reach | International |
Primary Audience | Professional Practitioners |
Results and Impact | Scientific discussion |
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2014 |
Description | GSA Talk Detailed fault slip-histories based on cosmogenic 36Cl analyses from Abruzzo, Italy, reveal fault behaviour over multiple earthquake cycles |
Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
Geographic Reach | International |
Primary Audience | Professional Practitioners |
Results and Impact | Talk in a special earthquake session at GSA by Dr. Laura Gregory, PDRA. Scientific questions |
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2014 |
Description | Invited Lecture at EGU |
Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
Type Of Presentation | Keynote/Invited Speaker |
Geographic Reach | International |
Primary Audience | Public/other audiences |
Results and Impact | 120 geomorphologists too part in the "Steepest Descent" special geomorphology session at EGU convened by Prof. Niels Hovius. None |
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2013 |
Description | Keynote Lecture in Milan: Fault slip-rates on active faults: vital data for seismic hazard mapping |
Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
Geographic Reach | International |
Primary Audience | Professional Practitioners |
Results and Impact | Invited Keynote Scientific questions |
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2014 |
Description | Met with Dr Athanassios Ganas who is deputy director of research at the National Observatory of Athens |
Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
Geographic Reach | Regional |
Primary Audience | Professional Practitioners |
Results and Impact | We had two days of fieldwork and discussed how the project will proceed |
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2022 |