International Journal of River Basin Management

ISSN: 1571-5124 (Print) 1814-2060 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/trbm20

A framework for uncertainty analysis in flood risk

management decisions

Jim Hall & Dimitri Solomatine

To cite this article: Jim Hall & Dimitri Solomatine (2008) A framework for uncertainty analysis in
flood risk management decisions, International Journal of River Basin Management, 6:2, 85-98,
DOI: 10.1080/15715124.2008.9635339

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15715124.2008.9635339

Published online: 23 Aug 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 4482

View related articles

Citing articles: 33 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=trbm20
 i i

“paper01” — 2008/5/26 — 20:07 — page 85 — #1

i i

Intl. J. River Basin Management Vol. 6, No. 2 (2008), pp. 85–98

© 2008 IAHR, INBO & IAHS

A framework for uncertainty analysis in flood risk management decisions

JIM HALL, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, School of Civil Engineering and Geosciences,
Newcastle University, UK. E-mail: Jim.Hall@ncl.ac.uk

DIMITRI SOLOMATINE, UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education, Delft, Netherlands.

E-mail: D.Solomatine@unesco-ihe.org

ABSTRACT
Modern flood risk management involves responding sustainably to flood risk with portfolios of structural and non-structural measures. Under these
circumstances of multi-attribute choice between portfolios of options, the motivation for uncertainty analysis becomes more compelling than ever.
Uncertainty analysis is required in order to understand the implications for decision makers of limited data, model uncertainties, changes in the flooding
system over the long term, incommensurate scales of appraisal and potentially conflicting decision objectives. In recognition of the importance of
uncertainty analysis as an integral aspect of sustainable flood risk management, a new framework for uncertainty analysis within flood risk management
decisions has been established. The proliferation of methods for uncertainty analysis can be placed within the coherent framework. As well as
estimating the amount of uncertainty associated with key decision variables, the framework supports the decision making process by identifying the
most influential sources of uncertainty, and the implications of uncertainty for the preference ordering between options. The challenges posed by severe
uncertainty about the potential for long term changes in the flooding system are discussed and robustness analysis is advocated in response to these
uncertainties.

Keywords: Uncertainty; risk; decision making; flood risk management.

1 The requirement for uncertainty analysis in modern
flood risk management
A major shift in approaches to management of flooding is now
underway in many countries worldwide. This shift has been stim-
ulated by severe floods, for example on the Oder (1997), Yangtze
(1998), Elbe (2002), Rhône (2003), in New Orleans (2005) and
on the Danube (2006), and by a recognition of the relentless
upward trend in vulnerability to flooding world-wide (Munich
Re Group, 2007), as well as the potential impacts of climate
change on flood frequency.
Whilst recent floods have been a stimulus for changing flood
risk management practice, the notion of integrated risk-based
approach to flood management is in fact well established (Hall
et al., 2003; National Academy of Engineering, 2000; National
Research Council, 2000; Sayers et al., 2002) and methods for
probabilistic risk analysis have been used for some years in
the narrower context of flood defence engineering (CUR/TAW,
1990; Goldman, 1997; USACE, 1996; Vrijling, 1993). Indeed
the notion of risk-based optimisation of the costs and benefits
of flood defence was laid out in van Dantzig’s (1956) seminal
analysis. However, modern flood risk management does not rely
solely upon engineered flood defence structures, such as dikes,
channel improvement works and barriers, but also considers a
host of measures that may be used to reduce the severity of
flooding (for example land use changes in upstream catchments)
or reduce the consequence of flooding when it does occur, by
reducing vulnerability. The criteria for assessment of flood risk
management options are seldom solely economic, but involve
considerations of public safety, equity and the environment. Fur-
thermore, an increasing recognition of non-stationarity means
that flood risk management involves explicit consideration of the
ways in which flood risk may change in future, due, for exam-
ple, to climate change or floodplain development. This leads to
the notion of flood risk management being a continuous pro-
cess of adaptive management, which raises new challenges for
uncertainty analysis (Hutter and Schanze, 2008).
There is seldom a single solution to managing flood risk.
Instead, portfolios of flood risk management measures, be they
“hard” structural measures such as construction of dikes, or “soft”
instruments such as land use planning and flood warning systems,
are assembled in order to reduce risk in an efficient and sus-
tainable way. The makeup of flood risk management portfolios
is matched to the functioning and needs of particular locali-
ties and will be adapted as more knowledge is acquired and as
systems change. Implementing this approach involves the col-
lective action of a range of different government authorities and
stakeholders from outside government. This places an increas-
ing emphasis upon effective communication and mechanisms
to reach consensus. Some features of this approach are now

Received on January 14, 2008. Accepted on January 18, 2008.

85

i i

i i
 i i
“paper01” — 2008/5/26 — 20:07 — page 86 — #2
i i
86 Jim Hall and Dimitri Solomatine
becoming embedded in national government policy, for exam-
ple in the UK policy document Making Space for Water (Defra,
2005), the European Directive on the Assessment and Manage-
ment of Flood Risks, which was adopted by the European Council
on 18 September 2007, and progressive evolution of floodplain
management in the USA (Galloway, 2005; Interagency Flood-
plain Management Review Committee, 1994; Kahan, 2006).
Compelling as modern integrated flood risk management cer-
tainly is, it brings with it considerable complexity. The risk-based
approach involves analysing the likely impacts of flooding under
a very wide range of conditions. As the systems under consider-
ation expand in scope and timescale, so too does the number
of potentially uncertain variables. There are many potential
components to a portfolio of hard and soft flood risk manage-
ment measures and they can be implemented in many different
sequences through time, so the decision space is potentially huge.
Communicating risks and building the consensus that is necessary
to engage effectively with stakeholders in the flood risk man-
agement process requires special aptitude for communication,
facilitation and mediation.
Uncertainty has always been inherent in flood defence engi-
neering. Traditionally it was treated implicitly through conserva-
tive design equations or through rules of thumb, for example by
introduction of freeboard allowances. The introduction of risk-
based approaches (CUR/TAW, 1990; Meadowcroft et al., 1997;
USACE, 1996) enabled more rational treatment of natural vari-
ability in loads and responses. It also paved the way for more
explicit treatment of uncertainty in the evidence that is used to
support risk-based decision making. Explicit uncertainty analysis
provides a means of analysing the robustness of flood risk man-
agement decisions as well as the basis for targeting investment
in data collection and analysis activities that make the greatest
possible contribution to reducing uncertainty.
Increasingly governments are requiring a careful considera-
tion of uncertainty in major planning and investment decisions.
For example, USWRC (1983) (quoted in Al-Futaisi and Ste-
dinger (1999)) state that: “Planners shall identify areas of risk
and uncertainty in their analysis and describe them clearly, so
that decisions can be made with knowledge of the degree of reli-
ability of the estimated benefits and costs and of the effectiveness
of alternative plans.” The UK Department of the Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs’ (Defra) guidance on flood and coastal
defence repeatedly calls for proper consideration of uncertainty
in appraisal decisions. Guidance document FCDPAG1 (Defra,
2001) on “Good decision making” states: “Good decisions are
most likely to result from considering all economic, environ-
mental and technical issues for a full range of options, together
with a proper consideration of risk and uncertainty.” As Pate
Cornell (1996) states, in the context of quantified risk analysis
“Decision makers may need and/or ask for a full display of the
magnitudes and the sources of uncertainties before making an
informed judgment.”
However, the practice of uncertainty analysis and use of the
results of such analysis in decision making is not widespread, for
several reasons (Pappenberger and Beven, 2006). Uncertainty
analysis takes time, so adds to the cost of risk analysis,
i i
i i
options appraisal and design studies. The additional require-
ments for analysis and computation are rapidly being (more than)
compensated for by the availability of enhanced computer pro-
cessing power. However, computer processing power is only
part of the solution, which also requires a step change in the
approach to managing data and integrating the software for uncer-
tainty calculations (Harvey et al., 2008). The data necessary for
quantified uncertainty analysis are not always available, so new
data collection campaigns (perhaps including time-consuming
expert elicitation exercises) may need to be commissioned.
Project funders need to be convinced of the merits of uncer-
tainty analysis before they invest in the time and data collection it
requires.
It is not always clear how uncertainty analysis will contribute
to improved decision making. Much of the academic literature on
hydrological uncertainties (Liu and Gupta, 2007) has tended to
focus upon forecasting problems. Providing uncertainty bounds
on a flood forecast may be intriguing, but to be meaningful needs
to be set within the context of a well defined decision problem
(Frieser et al., 2005; Todini, 2008).
There is a bewildering proliferation of uncertainty meth-
ods published in the academic literature. Pappenberger et al.
(2006) provide a decision tree to find the appropriate method
for a given situation. Here our aim is different, in seeking to
establish a framework for incorporating the main aspects of
uncertainty analysis in flood risk management decision mak-
ing. We establish this framework based upon a restatement, in
the following section, of the conventional probabilistic represen-
tation of a decision problem. Sources of uncertainty in flood
risk management decisions are reviewed in section 3, before
addressing the problem of uncertainty representation in section
4. The framework for an uncertainty analysis process is pre-
sented and explained in section 5. The implications and benefits
of adopting the proposed approach are discussed in the conclud-
ing section 6. Examples of methods and approaches that may
populate this framework are provided in the remainder of this
Special Issue.
2 A brief review of risk-based decision making
Modern flood risk management involves decision making at a
range of spatial and temporal scales (Hall et al., 2003). This
may be thought of as a hierarchy of decision making processes in
which high level policies at a continental, national and river basin
scale provide the framework for more specific plans, which in turn
provide the constraints and objectives for designs of specific flood
risk reduction measures and schemes. Operation of schemes, for
example flood warning systems, will involve an ongoing process
of decision making in the light of monitoring information. Our
emphasis in this paper is upon the deliberative decision mak-
ing associated with flood risk management plans, strategies and
designs rather than with the real time decision making associated
with flood warning, or with the political process by which the
policies that set the overall aims of flood risk management are
formulated.
 i i
“paper01” — 2008/5/26 — 20:07 — page 87 — #3
i i
2.1 Formal decision problem
In order to situate uncertainty analysis within the decision making
process, we briefly review conventional decision theory. The aim
of this is three-fold: first to demonstrate the significance of uncer-
tainty through the potential for reversal of preference orderings;
secondly to note that probability is not necessarily the only repre-
sentation of uncertainty in a conventional decision problem; and
thirdly to highlight the assumptions in the conventional decision
problem that contain potential sources of uncertainty.
Conventionally there is a set of decision options or “acts”
{d1 , . . . , dn } and a set of future states of nature {θ1 , . . . , θm },
defined on some space , that may materialise after the choice.
Depending on which state of nature in fact materialises, act di
will yield one of m possible outcomes yi,1 , . . . , yi,m (e.g., “no
flood” or a flood of a given severity). The problem of valuing
outcomes yi,1 , . . . , yi,m is a fundamental one, to which we will
return, but for the time being suppose that the net value (including
both costs and benefits) associated with a given decision outcome
yi,j can be written as a scalar function v(yi,j ), then the following
scenarios were first identified by Knight (1921):
(i) Decision making under certainty: The state of nature after
the decision is known i.e., m = 1. The decision maker
chooses the option with the highest value v(yi,1 ).
(ii) Decision making under risk: Only the probabilities p(θj ) :

m
j = 1, . . . , m : j=1 p(θj ) = 1 of occurrence of set
of states of nature {θ1 , . . . , θm } are known. Provided the
decision maker accepts a set of consistency and continuity
axioms (Savage, 1954) and is neutral in their attitude to risk
then he or she should choose the option that maximises:

m
v(yi,j )p(θj )
j=1
(iii) Decision making under uncertainty: There is no informa-
tion about the probabilities of states of nature θ1 , . . . , θm .
Under these circumstances there are various decision strate-
gies that are in some sense rational, for example maximin
utility, minimax regret, Hurwicz α, and that based on
Laplace’s principle of insufficient reason (French, 1988).
The assumption of risk neutrality, in which a decision maker’s
utility function u(yi,j ) is equal to the value function v(yi,1 ) is
made throughout this paper. The assumption of risk neutrality is
often advocated for government decisions (Ball and Floyd, 1998;
USWRC, 1983), though public safety decisions often illustrate
aversion to low probability, high consequence events (Pasman
and Vrijling, 2003). The extension from risk neutrality to other
utility function is in principle straightforward (French, 1988),
though in practice it requires elicitation of the decision maker’s
utilities.
Knight’s formalisation of the decision problem implicitly dis-
tinguishes between two types of uncertainty. Case (ii), which
Knight referred to as “decision making under risk”, requires a
probability distribution over the future states of nature θ1 , . . . , θm
whilst Case (iii), “decision making under uncertainty”, acknowl-
edges that this probability distribution may not be known. The
i i
i i
A framework for uncertainty analysis in flood risk management decisions 87
question of representation of this, latter, severe uncertainty, par-
ticularly in relation to scenarios of long term future change, is
dealt with in section 3.
2.2 Formal decision problem applied to flood risk management
In the context of flood risk management the acts d1 , . . . , dn
are flood risk management options. They may be portfolios of
options, i.e., different combinations of some set of basic ele-
ments, and they may differ from one another in the sequence,
though time, in which they are implemented. The decision prob-
lem may involve a continuous design variable, such as the crest
level of a dike, so the decision problem may be continuous rather
than discrete.
The future states θ1 , . . . , θm are conventionally thought of as
dealing at least with the unpredictable loads in nature to which
flooding systems are subject e.g., fluvial flows, water levels and
wave heights. These will seldom be discrete but will typically
extend over a continuous multi-dimensional space and the state of
the flooding system will be described by a vector of k continuous
variables x := (x1 , . . . , xk ) : x ∈ (R+ )k . In the case of decision
making under risk the discrete probability distribution p(θj ) :


j = 1, . . . , m :  mj=1 p(θj ) = 1 is replaced by a continuous
∞
distribution f(x) : 0 f(x)dx = 1 and the summation in Eq. (1)
is replaced by an integral:
 ∞
v(yi (x))f(x)dx (2)
0
where we now have to explicitly acknowledge that yi is a func-
tion of x. It is not uncommon to require a combination of discrete
and continuous variables in order to describe the state of a flood-
ing system comprised of multiple components (see for example
(1)
Dawson and Hall (2006)). Here, for clarity, we will now deal
with continuous variables only.
Typically the quantities in yi (x) will extend though time, so
it is necessary to establish a method of aggregating a stream of
annual payments or losses yi,t (x) : t = 0, . . . , T , where t denotes
the year in which the cost or risk is incurred and T is the time
horizon. Customarily this is done by discounting to a Present
Value.
Without loss of generality the expression in Eq. (2) may be
separated into terms that represent PresentValue costs and Present
Value risks. In any given year, t, the risk ri,t is given by
 ∞
ri,t = D(xt )f(xt )dxt (3)
0
where D(xt ) is a damage function and we have introduced the
subscript t to signify that in general we expect x to change with
time. The simplicity of Eq. (3) belies the potential complexity of
the underlying calculations in practice, which have been exten-
sively explored elsewhere (Beard, 1997; Dawson and Hall, 2006;
Stedinger, 1997). In order to estimate flood risks it is necessary
to be able to:
(1) Estimate probability distributions, f(xt ), for the sources of
flooding i.e., loading variables including extreme rainfall,
water levels, marine surge tides and waves.
 i i
“paper01” — 2008/5/26 — 20:07 — page 88 — #4
i i
88 Jim Hall and Dimitri Solomatine
(2) Relate given values of loading variables to probabilities of
flooding at locations where flooding may cause damage. This
may involve hydrological and hydraulic modelling as well
as analysis of the reliability of flood defence structures and
pumping stations, and the operation of reservoirs. In urban
areas flood risk analysis will involve analysis the effects of
the sewer network and pumped systems as potentially major
modifier of flooding behaviour, as well as analysing overland
flows.
(3) Calculate the damage that is caused by floods of a given
severity.
Steps 2 and 3 are together contained in D(xt ). These three steps
typically involve sequences of models and analysis processes. For
systems with significant time-dependency at the sub-annual scale
(for example hydrological response of catchments), accurate sim-
ulation of flooding will involve additional explicit treatment of
the temporal dimension.
The Present Value risk PV(ri ) is:

T
ri,t
PV(ri ) = (4)
t=0
(1 + q)t
where q is the discount rate. The Present Value cost PV(ci ) is
defined similarly.
In the case of purely economic decision making, com-
monplace decision criteria are Net Present Value (NPV) and
Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR) in which case it is necessary to intro-
duce the notion of a “base case” that involves no investment.
The Present Value risk corresponding to the base case is r0 and
expected to be unacceptably high, which is why investment in
risk reduction is being contemplated. The Net Present Value
NPVi = PV(r0 )−PV(ri )−PV(ci ), whilst the Benefit-Cost Ratio
is BCRi = (PV(r0 ) − PV(ri ))/PV(ci ). If the preference order-
ing between risk reduction options is established on the basis of
NPV then if NPVi > NPVj > NPVl , the preference ordering is
denoted i  j  l, and similarly for BCR.
3 Sources of uncertainty in flood risk
management decisions
The familiar theoretical framework reviewed in the previous sec-
tion depends upon a number of assumptions. Typically there are
uncertainties in:
(1) the system characterisation in terms of k variables in xt ;
(2) the specification of the joint probability density function
f(xt ), which describes the variation in xt ;
(3) the function D(xt ) which embodies all of the modelling to
relate given values of variables xt to flood damage, as well
as the problem of damage valuation (including non-market
goods and services);
(4) the cost ci ; and
(5) the choice of discount rate q.
There may also be uncertainties due to numerical approximations
in the integration in Eq. (3).
i i
i i
Whilst the decision problem in section 2 was introduced in
the context of a scalar value function, practical flood risk man-
agement decisions are fraught with valuation problems (Egorova
et al., 2008; Finkel, 1990). Whilst the primary decision criterion
may be based upon comparing the economic value of risk avoided
with the costs of implementing the given decision option, there
will almost invariably be other significant criteria in the decision
problem. Flood risk management decisions are motivated by the
desire to improve public safety, and reduce the health and social
impacts of flooding. Engineering works on rivers and coasts
will usually involve environmental costs and benefits. Uncertain-
ties associated with valuation enter the decision problem either
if an economic valuation approach is adopted for dealing with
these non-market risks and costs, or if an explicit multi-criteria
approach is adopted. In the former, these originate in the prices
assigned to non-market goods and services, whilst in the latter
the uncertainties are associated with the value functions used to
transform (uncertain) predicted outcomes to aggregate utilities.
If the estimates of r0 , ri or ci are uncertain then the preference
ordering between options could be switched. Uncertainty is of
relevance to decision makers because of its potential influence
on preference orderings. In the case of continuously variable
options (e.g., the crest height of a flood defence) any variation in
the risk or cost estimates will alter the choice of design variable.
The joint probability density function f(xt ) in Eq. (3) already
represents random variability. In calculating risks we acknowl-
edge that quantities of relevance to decision making vary. In
flood risk analysis f(xt ) is, as a minimum, used to represent ran-
dom variation in loading variables such as water levels and wave
heights that vary naturally through time. It is usually extended
to include natural variability in space of variables such as soil
properties (National Research Council, 2000). Natural variabil-
ity (which is sometimes also referred to as “inherent uncertainty”
or “aleatory uncertainty”) is thought of as a feature of nature and
cannot be reduced (Vrijling and Van Gelder, 2006).
Epistemic uncertainties (knowledge uncertainties) require
more careful consideration, and are the main focus of attention
in this paper. Epistemic uncertainties include model uncertain-
ties and statistical uncertainties due to observation error and small
samples of random phenomena. Model uncertainties mean that
the function D(xt ) is uncertain. Statistical uncertainties mean
that the function f(xt ) may not be an accurate description of the
variation in xt (National Research Council, 1999). This may be
due to limitations in the number of statistical samples, ambiguity
in the choice of potential statistical models, or inappropriate sta-
tistical assumptions, such as statistical stationarity through time.
We have acknowledged that many of the quantities of interest
in a flood risk calculation will change in a systematic way over
extended timescales, and this extends to the statistical properties
of f(xt ), for example due to non-stationary climate. The nature of
that change will also be uncertain due to epistemic uncertainties.
By way of example, Table 1 sets out the main uncertain vari-
ables in a flood risk analysis for a flood risk analysis in the Thames
estuary in the UK (Newcastle University and Halcrow, 2006).
Most of the uncertain quantities listed in Table 1 are potentially
subject to change in the future. Following the approach adopted
 i i

“paper01” — 2008/5/26 — 20:07 — page 89 — #5

i i

A framework for uncertainty analysis in flood risk management decisions 89

Table 1 Summary of uncertainties in the Thames Estuary flood risk analysis.

Variable or function Sources of uncertainty Driver of change in the future

Variable: Water level at outer boundary of
estuary
Variable: Shape of tide/surge
Variable: Discharge at upstream fluvial
boundary of estuary
Function: Water level at dikes in the estuary
Variable: Dike crest level
Variable: Probability of breaching of dikes
(conditional probability distribution)
Variables: Breach location, Breach width,
Rate of breach growth
Variable: Probability of failure to close
barriers and gates
Variable: Digital Elevation Model (DEM)
Variable: Floodplain roughness
Function: Water level at points in the
floodplain
Variable: Location and type of properties
and people in the floodplain
Variable: Property threshold levels
Function: Depth-damage relationships
Function: probability of loss of life and
other harms to people in the floodplain
Variable: reduction factors for warning,
evacuation etc.
Statistical uncertainties in estimating extreme Mean sea level rise
water levels Changing storm surge frequency
Single representative surge used in analysis Changing storm surge duration
Statistical and hydrological uncertainty in Changing rainfall
estimating discharge Changing land use and runoff
Tidal/river model uncertainty Natural and anthropogenic morphological
changes in estuary
Scarcity/accuracy of measurements. Settlement
Scarcity of information about defences Deterioration
Limitations of quantified knowledge of failure
modes
Scarcity of information about defence materials None
Limitations of quantified knowledge of breaching
processes
Uncertain reliability of mechanical and human Technological changes enabling improved
systems reliability in future
Effective elevations at model grid-cell scale Land use change, especially building size and
location
Effective parameterisation of surface roughness Land use changes that influence surface
roughness
Model grid size
Roughness parameterisation
Representation of buildings and other
obstructions in the floodplain
Hydraulic model solution method
Classification and aggregation of properties Land use, demographic and behavioural
Census data and numbers of commuting people changes
Threshold levels not same as DEM levels Potential use of flood proofing
Aggregation uncertainties for property types Changing wealth and household contents
Regional and local variations
Vulnerability of people Changing public vulnerability with different
Velocity, arrival time and other hydraulic socio-economic scenarios
properties of flood.
Effectiveness of warning, evacuation etc. Changing public behaviour with different
socio-economic scenarios

by Evans et al. (2004), one can consider the potential impact
of the drivers of change, which are listed in the right hand col-
umn of Table 1. A brief summary of the main uncertainties in
future changes and their implications is provided in Table 2. These
two tables illustrate the scope of variables that may need to be
incorporated in a comprehensive uncertainty analysis.
4 Representation of uncertainty in the decision problem
4.1 Representing epistemic uncertainties
In the previous section we recognised that natural variability in
the flooding system is represented in the joint probability density
function f(xt ). The outstanding question is how epistemic uncer-
tainties are to be represented in Eq. (3). There are broadly two
potential approaches:
(1) In the Bayesian approach any variable that is thought of
as being uncertain for any reason (natural or epistemic) is
incorporated in xt and the uncertainty about it encoded in
f(xt ) (Apostolakis, 1990). If necessary the damage function
D and the cost ci can be parameterised and the associated
parameter uncertainties incorporated in f(xt ). With these new
uncertainties incorporated, the calculation of utilities can be
repeated for all decision options which may, or may not,
yield a new preference ordering in the light of the new infor-
mation about uncertainties. In other words all uncertainties
are incorporated in f(xt ) and then “integrated out”, and in so
doing may alter the preference ordering based upon expected
utilities. This is the approach described by Kanning and van

i i

i i
 i
i

i
i

Table 2 Uncertainties in future changes in flood risk in the Thames Estuary. 90

Variable Nature of future change in variable Main uncertainties in predicted future changes

Relative sea level Changes in mean sea level due to climate change. Uplift/subsidence Predictions of mean and local sea level rise
of land Future greenhouse gas emissions
Waves Changes in wave height and direction GCM predictions of wind. Downscaled wave modelling
Future greenhouse gas emissions
Surges Changing surge heights GCM predictions of wind. Downscaled surge modelling
Future greenhouse gas emissions
Precipitation Changes in quantity, spatial distribution of rainfall and intensity. GCM predictions of rainfall. Downscaling to Thames catchment
Jim Hall and Dimitri Solomatine

Rain/snow proportion Future greenhouse gas emissions

Runoff and river conveyance
Estuarial morphology
Flood defence systems
Buildings and contents
Urban vulnerability
Social vulnerability
Infrastructure and business
Changes in land surface (e.g., construction of impermeable surfaces
and storm water drainage systems)
Changes (including engineering changes) in river morphology and/or
vegetation that influence flood storage and flood conveyance
Changes in the nearshore seabed, shoreline and estuaries. May be the
consequence of anthropogenic activities such as dredging,
reclamation and coastal protection
Changes in the condition and reliablity of the flood defence system
(including fixed and moveable components)
Changes in the cost of flood damage to domestic, commerical and
other buldings and their contents
Changes in the number and distribution of domestic, commerical and
other buildings in floodplains
Changes in social vulnerability to flooding, for example due to
changes in health and fitness, equity and systems of social provision
Systems of communication (physical and telecommunication),
Changes in land surface cover in the Thames catchment
Future engineering works in the catchment that may alter
downstream fluvial discharges
Morphological evolution in the outer and inner Thames estuary,
including magnitude of and response to human interventions e.g.,
dredging
Rates of deterioration of the flood defence system e.g., material
deterioration, settlement of embankments and deterioration of
mechanical systems
Rate of increase of domestic wealth
Vulnerability of domestic and commerical buildings and contents
Current and future planning policies
Economic wealth in the Thames Estuary
Direction of social and culural change: community v individualistic.
National wealth
Technological change
“paper01” — 2008/5/26 — 20:07 — page 90 — #6

vulnerability energy distribution, etc. Changes in the extent to which society is Nature of business processes. Degree of dependence upon
dependent on these systems vulnerable infrastructures
Agriculture Changes in the intensity and seasonality of agriculture, including Agricultural and environmental policy (global, EU and UK)
removal of agricultural land from production and hence changes
vulnerability to flood damage
Construction industry Changes in technology, construction process and Technological change
national/international construction markets that determine the price Labour costs
of construction works Cost of raw materials, including energy
Discount rates Valuation of streams of costs and benefits through time Market interest rates
Ethics of long-term trade-offs of costs and risks e.g.,
intergenerational issues

i
i

i
i
 i i
“paper01” — 2008/5/26 — 20:07 — page 91 — #7
i i
A framework for uncertainty analysis in flood risk management decisions
Gelder (2006) in their analysis of the PC-RING software,
which calculates the probability of failure of dike rings in the
Netherlands. The approach can, however, result in communi-
cation problems with decision makers who think of flood risk
as being a characteristic of a flooding system that is modified
only by changes in the physical system (e.g., dike deteriora-
tion). These decision makers have been surprised and puzzled
by the notion that flood risk can be reduced merely by col-
lecting more information. Of course to a Bayesian decision
theorist there is nothing surprising here, and indeed if this
were not the case then there would be no economic value
in collecting information. However, it raises particular prob-
lems where (as in the Netherlands) probability of flooding is
used as a regulatory criterion or (as in the UK) an estimate
of risk is used for year-on-year monitoring of how effective
investment in flood defences has been at reducing the risk to
which people are exposed. If uncertainties are incorporated
in risk calculations alongside and on an equal footing with
natural variability, decision makers may legitimately ask of a
calculated reduction in flood risk: “Is the flood risk to which
people are exposed being reduced or have we merely been
able to reduce the uncertainties in our risk assessment?”
(2) A number of researchers (Helton and Burmaster, 1996;
Pate-Cornell, 1996) have argued that epistemic uncertain-
ties should be separated from natural variability, so that
rather than “integrating out” all of the uncertainties, flood
risk estimates and other decision variables of interest should
be represented as uncertain quantities, with accompanying
information on uncertainties in the form of probability dis-
tributions or interval bounds (Fig. 2). The approach has
been adopted for flood damage reduction studies in the USA
(USACE, 1996). The probabilistic representation allows cal-
culation of the probability that the preferred option, on the
basis of expected utilities, may not be preferred, through
the convolution of the tails of the distributions that overlap.
Additional insights may be gained, for example, through cal-
culating the probability that the NPV of a given option is less
than zero (Stedinger, 1997). Stedinger (1997) also proposes
incremental analysis in order to scrutinise the marginal con-
tribution of project components in a portfolio in order to
remove components that make highly uncertain contribution
to the net benefit.
Interval representation leads to a partial ordering of prefer-
ences, so for example in Fig. 2 we can say that A  B but there is
no definite ordering of preference between A and B or between
B and C.
Use of the types of uncertainty representation shown in Fig. 2
leads naturally to an assessment of robustness. When values of the
decision variable of interest e.g., NPVi are close to one another,
relative to the uncertainty in the estimates of NPVi , then rela-
tively small variations may lead to a swap of preference orderings.
Where they are well separated, then the preference orderings are
thought of as being robust. Various notions of robustness have
been proposed by government (Defra, 2005) and in the liter-
ature (Rosenhead and Mingers, 2001). In this paper the term
i i
i i
91
Interval
representation
Probability density
Probabilistic
representation
4.5E+05 4.7E+05 4.9E+05 5.1E+05 5.3E+05 5.5E+05
NPV
Option A Option B Option C
Figure 1 Probability distributions and interval bounds of Net Present
Value, representing epistemic uncertainties.
“robust” is used in the sense of a robust decision, which is a
choice that continues to be desirable under a wide range of plau-
sible future conditions. The requirement for robustness becomes
more acute when uncertainties are great and not readily quantified
in probabilistic terms.
4.2 Decision making under severe uncertainty
When random factors influence the future performance of design
options or policy alternatives, then decision makers can read-
ily use probabilistic decision analysis. Unfortunately, some of
the most serious decisions confronting flood risk managers are
subject to severe uncertainties that do not succumb to the con-
ventional methods of probabilistic decision analysis. Situations
of severe uncertainty are characterised by the distinct possibil-
ity of surprise, of situations that were unforeseen or unexpected.
This is more than a question of analysing the extreme tails of a
probability distribution – it has to do with fundamental and unex-
pected shifts in the functioning of the system. In the face of this
type of uncertainty, analysts may attempt to construct a probabil-
ity distribution over the future states of nature, but there will be
precious little evidence upon which to base such a distribution.
Experts may have intuitions about what is probable, but can be
hard pressed to quantify the rare but possible.
This raises fundamental questions about the representation
of uncertainty, which have, especially since the 1970s, fuelled
a proliferation of mathematizations of uncertainty that depart
in one way or another from Kolmogorov’s axioms of probabil-
ity, including fuzzy set theory (Zadeh, 1965), evidence theory
(Shafer, 1976) and the theory of imprecise probabilities (Walley,
1991). The latter, which is the most general approach, involves
dealing with sets of probability distributions rather than having
to define one unique “true” distribution. The outputs of imprecise
probability analysis are typically presented as lower and upper
probabilities on an event or outcome of interest.
Connected, and more fundamental, is the question of how
in practice agents should go about making decisions in the face
of this type of uncertainty. In situations of severe uncertainty,
should they seek to optimise the outcome or would it be wiser to
 i i
“paper01” — 2008/5/26 — 20:07 — page 92 — #8
i i
92 Jim Hall and Dimitri Solomatine
make a decision that delivers a satisfactory outcome under a wide
range of possible conditions? Ben-Haim (2006) refers to the latter
of these two approaches as “robust satisficing”. To “satisfice”
means to “achieve an acceptable outcome” (Simon, 1956), as
opposed to achieving the best possible outcome. Governments
are waking up to the importance of robust solutions in some of
the most important policy areas. For example the UK policy on
flood risk management (Defra, 2005) calls for “adaptability to
climate change through robust and resilient solutions”. Yet much
less is said about how these solutions might actually be identified
and analysed.
There is always a trade-off between optimising and robust sat-
isficing. Optimal designs, which maximally exploit every feature
and resource of the system, are minimally robust to conditions
that depart from the assumptions under which the optimisation
was conducted. The quest for optimisation of flood defence sys-
tems should therefore be pursued with some caution, lest the
redundancy that contributes to safety in unforeseen situations be
eliminated in pursuit of economic efficiency. In the face of severe
uncertainty it becomes necessary to trade off some outcome qual-
ity against the confidence (robustness to uncertainty) in attaining
that outcome. The decision maker invests some resources in man-
aging uncertainty, at the expense of garnering tangible benefit
directly from those resources.
4.3 Scenario analysis
Scenario analysis is increasingly used for analysing long term
uncertainties that are not readily quantifiable. In an uncer-
tainty analysis there may be a small number of variables, often
associated with the difficulty of predicting human and societal
behaviour, particularly over the long term, that stand out as
requiring special treatment because of their severe uncertainty.
The UK Government’s Foresight Flood and Coastal Defence
project (Evans et al., 2004) used socio-economic scenarios to
look 30 to 100 years into the future at flood risk in the UK
in an attempt to find robust strategies for flood risk manage-
ment. Whilst there are many versions of scenario analysis, they
all tend to be based around construction of a small number of
contrasting yet internally consistent narratives about the future.
As well as the UK Foresight programme (Fig. 2) (Office of
Science and Technology, 2002) a narrative scenario approach
underpins the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Spe-
cial Report on Emissions Scenarios (IPCC, 2000). The restriction
to a small number (typically four) of possible futures is motivated
by the need to keep the analysis manageable and intelligible for
human participants, but overlooks the capacity to use computer
simulations to explore much larger spaces of possible futures.
In recent years Lempert, Popper and Bankes (2003) have
developed computer-intensive simulation models for analysing
the possible outcomes of policy decisions over large spaces of
possible futures. The approach recognises the deficiencies in any
model of a complex system and does not attempt to represent the
uncertainties in probabilistic terms. Rather, the approach is based
upon identifying options that perform acceptably well over the
widest subset of the space of possible futures. The problem still
i i
i i
interdependence
world global
markets sustainability
conventional
development
individual community
national local
enterprise stewardship
autonomy
Figure 2 The Foresight Futures scenario grid of four scenarios (Office
of Science and Technology, 2002).
remains, however, of specifying the range of that space of pos-
sibilities. Actually, if decision makers and their analysts know
anything, it is about the central tendencies, not the bounds of
variation. A similar problem of precisely specifying the bounds
of possibility besets the use of the theory of Imprecise Probability
(Hall, 2003; Walley, 1991), which was discussed briefly above.
4.4 Info-gap theory for robust decision making
An alternative approach is to start an uncertainty analysis at
the best estimate of the future and then examine how decision
options perform as conditions depart increasingly from expecta-
tions, without identifying a worst case. If an option continues to
be preferred, even at a very large horizon of uncertainty, then it
is thought to be robust to uncertainty. In order to do this type of
analysis it is necessary to have some understanding of the ways in
which the future may depart from expectations. If there are many
uncertain variables that together determine the performance of
the decision options, then insights into how they co-vary can
be used to construct the uncertainty model. However, it is not
necessary to distribute a probability measure or for that matter
any other measure over the space of possibilities. Like Lempter
et al.’s (2003) robust decision making method, uncertainty is rep-
resented in terms of sets of possible futures. However, in info-gap
theory, the boundaries of those sets are unknown and vary up to
a horizon that is measured by an unknown positive scalar α.
Figure 3 illustrates an instance of this approach applied to
long term uncertainties in climate (including sea level, storm
surge frequency and rainfall in the Thames catchment) and
economic growth (including sectoral, demographic and techno-
logical changes) in the Thames Estuary where London is situated.
In the face of uncertainty about both of these axes, an info-gap
analysis permits examination of how each of a set of options
for long term flood risk management performs as the horizon of
uncertainty (scaled by α) expands from the best estimate ũ. Hine
and Hall (2007) provide an illustration of the use of info-gap
theory for dealing with uncertainties in flood frequency estima-
tion and hydraulic model uncertainties in design of flood defence
crest level. Ben-Haim (2006) also describes how info-gap theory
 i i
“paper01” — 2008/5/26 — 20:07 — page 93 — #9
i i
A framework for uncertainty analysis in flood risk management decisions
Climate change
V Hi
Hi
α u~
Med
Low
1% 2% 3%
Economic growth p.a.
Figure 3 Illustration of an info-gap analysis dealing with two severe
long term uncertainties in the Thames Estuary: the rate of economic
growth (and hence vulnerability and exposure to flooding) and the rate
of climate change.
may be applied to dealing with the valuation uncertainties in
multi-attribute decision problems.
5 The uncertainty analysis process
Analysis of flood risks and flood risk management decisions pro-
vides the theoretical framework for dealing with uncertainty, but
equal attention should be applied to the process of conducting
uncertainty analysis and communicating to stakeholders (Fun-
towicz and Ravetz, 1990; IPCC, 2005; Sluijs et al., 2005; Sluijs
et al., 2003; Walker et al., 2003). In this section a process for
uncertainty analysis is introduced, which has been designed with
major flood risk management planning and investment decisions
in mind. Whilst the methods, for example for estimation or prop-
agation of probabilities may differ (and are not discussed here)
the logical structure is intended to be generically applicable to
this class of decision problems, though it may need to be adapted
to the characteristics of a specific situation. The approach is as far
as possible quantified, by using probability distributions where
these can be credibly generated and using intervals or sets of
probability distributions where probability distributions cannot
be justified. Uncertainties are propagated through to key decision
outputs (e.g., metrics of net benefit in terms of risk reduction) and
results are presented as distributions and maps. Sensitivity anal-
ysis is used to understand the contribution that different factors
make to total uncertainty. The effect of uncertainty on choices is
analysed using robustness analysis.
One of the principles of risk-based decision making is that
the amount of data collection and analysis should be proportion-
ate to the importance of the decision (DETR et al., 2000). This
also applies to the uncertainty analysis process, which should be
tiered and scalable so that it can be used from preliminary screen-
ing through to more detailed options appraisal. The process is
i i
i i
93
therefore iterative, so that successive cycles refine uncertainty
estimates and progressively focus upon the uncertainties that are
most significant to decision making.
Figure 4 illustrates in outline the proposed uncertainty analysis
framework. The main steps in this process are now described.
The framework is being applied to the major long term flood risk
management decisions in the Thames Estuary, UK, which will
be reported in a future paper.
(1) Establish purpose and scope of uncertainty analysis
The starting point for uncertainty analysis is definition of the
decisions that the analysis is intended to support and the vari-
ables upon which the decision will be based. As we have seen,
flood risk management is both adaptive, in that it is a process of
ongoing control of a dynamic system, and tiered, in that there is
a multi-layered process of policy, planning, strategic, design and
operational decision making. An uncertainty analysis may seek to
inform more than one cycle or tier in the flood risk management
process, but this added complexity reinforces the need for clear
definition of decision points and decision variables. Definition
of the purpose of uncertainty analysis and the strategy for com-
munication of results requires early engagement of stakeholders
to ensure the legitimacy of the resulting decisions (Kleindorfer
et al., 1993; Sluijs et al., 2003).
(2) Identify and define uncertainties
This step involves identifying any factors or processes that are
believed to influence decision variables. These are identified in a
brainstorming session, with the help of past reviews (e.g., Tables
2 and 3) and checklists, followed by consolidative work to struc-
ture the list of uncertainties and provide short descriptions of
each. The agreed list of uncertainties can then be exposed to peer
review, with further insights from peer review being fed back into
the list of uncertainties. At this stage the aim should be for com-
pleteness, irrespective of the availability of evidence upon which
to base uncertainty estimates. Whilst factors that obviously do
not influence the decision variables of interest can be excluded,
at this stage any factor or process for which there is a possibility
that it may noticeably alter the output(s) of interest should be
included.
(3) Assemble evidence about uncertainties
Having identified uncertain factors and processes, the next step it
to assemble evidence that can be used to understand and quantify
those uncertainties. Any evidence of potential relevance should
be included at this stage. It may take the form of:
• measurements of variables of interest either at the site in ques-
tion (e.g., water levels) or in analogous situations (e.g., unit
rates for construction costs);
• model calibration and/or validation data (e.g., from benchmark
studies);
• multiple model outputs (e.g. from ensembles of climate model
runs);
• observations of output variables of interest that may be com-
pared with the result of uncertainty calculations (e.g., records
of flood extent and/or flood damage).
 i i

“paper01” — 2008/5/26 — 20:07 — page 94 — #10

i i

94 Jim Hall and Dimitri Solomatine

Establish purpose and scope of

Identify and define Peer
uncertainty analysis through
uncertainties review
interaction with stakeholders

Assemble evidence about

Document
uncertainties

Review uncertainty Construct functions quantifying Identify severe uncertainties that

Peer
quantification and if uncertainties at present and under require scenario, robustness and/or
review
necessary acquire more data conditions of future change info-gap analysis

Propagate uncertainties Propagate Analyse effect of uncertainties Store

through to measures of uncertainties on assessment of environmental results in
flood risks through to costs and other impacts a database

Examine, using plausible variations in Analyse the relative contribution of the

model response functions, the input and model uncertainties to the total
potential effects of model uncertainties uncertainty in outputs of interest

Document and
Rank uncertainties in
discuss results
order of importance
and implications

Where appropriate use

Analyse robustness
optimisation (under uncertainty)
to severe
techniques in supervised search
uncertainties
for preferred options

Examine the effects of Document and

uncertainties on option discuss results
choices, based upon agreed and
decision criteria implications

Figure 4 Uncertainty analysis framework.

Identification of relevant evidence can take place in a workshop
meeting of domain experts, which will have to be followed by
data collection efforts that will typically involve contacting sev-
eral organisations. The assembled evidence should be logged and
documented in a summary that can then be circulated for review
by any experts not previously involved who might be aware of
other relevant data.
(4) Construct appropriate functions quantifying uncertainties
The proposed uncertainty framework is based, as far as possi-
ble, upon quantified methods. Qualitative discussion provides an
important commentary, particularly on limitations of the analysis,
but a quantified approach is required in order to understand the
magnitude of uncertainties and to focus resources and analysis
upon the key uncertainties. A critical step is therefore to derive
quantified estimates of uncertainty based on the available evi-
dence. The rigour of this step and use of appropriate peer review
is of utmost importance to the credibility of the analysis.
These mathematical uncertainty representations will be in the
form of (in decreasing order of informativeness) (i) probability
distributions, (ii) sets of probability distributions, (iii) interval
bounds. In some cases probability distributions will be able to
be estimated statistically from data or interval bounds may be
obtained from well known physical limits. However, in almost
all cases there will be a considerable element of expert judgement
involved in constructing mathematical uncertainty representa-
tions. The translation of evidence into quantified uncertainty
representations should therefore be thoroughly documented so
that it can be exposed to peer review (IPCC, 2005). Furthermore,
it is expected that these quantifications will be revisited during
iterations in the analysis, with the most critical one being perhaps
subject to several iterative refinements. For critical uncertainties
that are highly dependent upon expert judgement it may be neces-
sary to employ formal expert elicitation methods (Cooke, 1991;
Vick, 2002). Some uncertainties may be highlighted as being
particularly severe and so more appropriately subject to scenario
and/or info gap analysis (see section 3).
It will not be necessary to generate quantified estimates for
every uncertainty previously identified. For some it will be clear
from review of available evidence and analysis of the relevant
processes that the influence of the uncertainty is insignificant
so the variable can be neglected. These choices should also be
documented.
If variables are not independent then it is necessary to consider
that effect of dependence between variables. In cases where there
are joint measurements of the variables of interest (for example

i i

i i
 i i
“paper01” — 2008/5/26 — 20:07 — page 95 — #11
i i
A framework for uncertainty analysis in flood risk management decisions
surge water levels and fluvial flows) then it is possible to esti-
mate joint probability distributions (Hawkes et al., 2002). Other
situations are more problematic though it is usually possible to
estimate conservative bounds on joint probability distributions
(Ferson et al., 2004).
(5) Propagate uncertainties through to outputs of interest
Uncertainty propagation involves calculating the uncertainty dis-
tribution of one or more outputs of a model, given the quantified
uncertainties on the inputs. In this analysis the key output vari-
ables of interest are flood risk indicators, costs, and specified
environmental impacts. For complex and non-linear models,
uncertainty propagation is based on some version of a sampling
methodology (see for example Apel et al. (2008) for a flood
risk analysis example), which may call flooding models directly,
employ a pre-processed database of results or a model emulator.
In Monte Carlo analysis the results of the analysis are presented
as frequency plots (histograms) for the output quantities of inter-
est. Non-parametric methods (Silverman, 1986) are then used to
construct smooth and normalised probability density functions
from these plots.
In propagating input uncertainties it is (often implicitly)
assumed that the model used for propagating uncertainties is
true. This of course is not the case, so at the same time the effect
of plausible variations in model behaviour should be examined.
Some insights can be gained for example by changing model cal-
ibration parameters or refining grid resolution. It is at this stage
in the analysis that the approaches for conditioning on observed
data are of relevance (Beven, 2006; Duan et al., 2003; Liu and
Gupta, 2007; Montanari and Brath, 2004; Shrestha and Solo-
matine, 2008). Alternative representations of physical processes
may be explored (Georgakakos et al., 2004). Comparison with
validation data will give insights into the magnitude of model
structural uncertainty, though this data may not be available for
the most important, extreme, events (van Gelder et al., 2008).
(6) Store the results in a database
The uncertainty analysis yields very large amounts of data. Fur-
thermore, it is possible to illustrate system response conditional
upon a wide range of specified events, for example a water level
of given return period, so the data used to generate these results
should be stored in a database. Capacity to visualise the large
quantity of outputs in the database is essential for assuring the
quality of analysis.
Key results should be documented in written reports, but the
full result set should be retained in a database that can be inter-
rogated for specific options, variables and locations and can be
used to present results as graphs, maps and time series.
(7) Uncertainty-based sensitivity analysis
Important insights can be gained by attributing output uncer-
tainty to input variables and model uncertainties in order to find
out which variables and models make the greatest contribution
to the uncertainty in the outputs of interest. There is a well estab-
lished set of approaches to decomposing the variance in an output
variable into the contributions from all of the input variables, act-
ing individually or in combination (Hall et al., 2005; Saltelli
i i
i i
95
et al., 2000). These have been extended to deal with sets of
probability distributions and intervals (Hall, 2006). The result
of this variance-based sensitivity analysis are sensitivity indices
that quantify the relative contribution of different factors to the
total output uncertainty. These sensitivity indices can be used to
rank the uncertainties. The top ranked uncertainties should be
subject to further scrutiny whilst variables that are shown to have
a negligible effect can be neglected.
The results of variance-based sensitivity analysis rely upon
the input uncertainty functions being accurate. If the initial
uncertainty estimate for an input quantity of interest is grossly
inaccurate then the ranking of uncertainties will be misleading.
There is therefore a requirement to test the robustness of the
uncertainty ranking, subject to plausible variations in the distri-
butions of the input variables. A process of iterative refinement
of the input uncertainties should converge upon a robust final
ranking of uncertainties. This process of iteration should stop
when key uncertainties are sufficiently confidently defined that
the ranking of top uncertainties does not vary significantly.
(8) Examine the effects of uncertainties on option choices
The focus of the uncertainty analysis is upon examining how sen-
sitive choices are to ambient uncertainties, now and in the future.
Analysis of the effect of uncertainties upon choices requires well
defined decision criteria. In section 3, different versions of robust-
ness analysis, including the methods of Lempert et al. (2003)
and info-gap analysis (Ben-Haim, 2006), were discussed. It is at
this stage that they can be used to inform the choice of options,
based upon analysis of the most severe uncertainties previously
identified.
Choosing between options is an iterative process, with some
options being screened out at a relatively early stage while oth-
ers are progressively refined. Each of these choices is subject
to uncertainty, particularly at the early stages in analysis, so
for example, decisions to exclude options from further analysis
should be robust even given the large uncertainties at early stages
in the analysis. At later stages in the decision making process
options will be developed in more detail and it is at this stage that
approaches to optimisation under uncertainty show most promise,
subject to the limitations discussed above.
(9) Report and discuss results
The uncertainty analysis requires careful interpretation in order
to understand the meaning and significance of the results. It is
through this process of scrutiny and discussion that the most
useful insights for decision makers are obtained.
Furthermore, the conduct of uncertainty analysis provides new
insights into model behaviour that will need to be discussed and
agreed with the experts responsible for models that are employed
in the analysis. Indeed the process of scrutiny that uncertainty
analysis provides is an additional benefit. These insights also
need to be well documented (USACE, 2006).
Experience is now growing in the communication of uncer-
tainty to decision makers and members of the public, for example
in the context of environmental risks (Sluijs et al., 2003) and
climate change (IPCC, 2005). Sluijs et al. (2003) stress the
 i i
“paper01” — 2008/5/26 — 20:07 — page 96 — #12
i i
96 Jim Hall and Dimitri Solomatine
importance of engaging stakeholders from this early stage, iden-
tifying the target audiences and then using appropriate language
to communicate uncertainties. Alongside numerical results and
their implications for decision makers, the limitations of data
sources and analysis methods should be made clear and areas of
ignorance should be highlighted.
6 Conclusions
Whilst much published research dwells upon technical method-
ologies for uncertainty analysis, this paper has focused upon the
process of uncertainty analysis, with particular reference to how
uncertainty analysis can inform decision making. The basis for
risk-based decision making is well established, but the expanding
scope of flood risk management to embrace a broader range of
non-structural flood risk management measures alongside more
conventional structural measures raises new challenges for uncer-
tainty analysis that require careful choice of methods within a
rigorous overall framework. The scope of uncertainty analysis set
out in this paper encompasses all of the natural, human and tech-
nological processes that may influence flood risk, both at present
and in the future under scenarios of change. It is designed to sup-
port strategic analysis on a broad scale to examine portfolios of
interventions that may be implemented in a phased way across
whole catchments or coastlines. These measures will be operated
in combination and can be expected to be modified as conditions
and preferences change and as more information becomes avail-
able. Furthermore, sensitivity analysis is also required to explore
the valuation problem associated with aggregating economic,
public safety, social and environmental impacts of flooding. Each
of the considerations mentioned above depends upon the context
of particular flood risk management decisions, and the approach
to uncertainty analysis will need to be modified accordingly.
However, insofar as a flood risk management is now emerging
as the modern paradigm for dealing with flooding, it is timely
to consider how uncertainty should in general be incorporated in
that paradigm.
Strategic analysis of flooding systems and portfolios of man-
agement options is involving new high resolution datasets and
coupling of computer models that simulate a variety of flooding
processes. Whilst these integrated modelling systems are pro-
viding unprecedented insights they are also, because of their
complexity, increasingly difficult for any individual to inter-
pret, so require systematic uncertainty analysis in order to
build confidence in their outputs. Decision makers are increas-
ingly demanding information about the uncertainties in the
evidence upon which they are basing decisions. A number of
challenges associated with the more comprehensive use of uncer-
tainty analysis have been highlighted in this paper, including
the communication of uncertainties to decision makers and the
representation of severe uncertainties. Whilst an example of
a comprehensive analysis that incorporates all of the issues
addressed in this paper has yet to be published, it is intended that
the framework set out in this paper will pave the way for a new
generation of practical decision-oriented uncertainty analysis.
i i
i i
Acknowledgements
The work described in this publication was supported by the
European Community’s Sixth Framework Programme through
the grant to the budget of the Integrated Project FLOODsite,
Contract GOCE-CT-2004-505420 and through the UK Environ-
ment Agency’s Thames Estuary 2100 programme through project
SD7. This paper reflects the authors’ views and not those of the
European Community or the Environment Agency. Neither the
European Community nor any member of the FLOODsite Con-
sortium nor the Environment Agency is liable for any use of the
information in this paper. The advice of Prof Yakov Ben-Haim is
gratefully acknowledged.
References
1. Al-Futaisi, A. and Stedinger, J.R. (1999). “Hydrologic
and Economic Uncertainties in Flood Risk Project Design,”
Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management,
125(6), 314–324.
2. Apel, H., Merz, B. and Thieken, A.H. (2008). “Quantifica-
tion of Uncertainties in Flood Risk Assessments,” Journal
of River Basin Management (This issue).
3. Apostolakis, G. (1990). “The Concept of Probability in
Safety Assessments of Technological Systems,” Science,
250, 1359–1364.
4. Ball, D.J. and Floyd, P.J. (1998). Societal Risk, Health &
Safety Executive, Risk Assessment Policy Unit, London.
5. Beard, L.R. (1997). “Estimated Flood Frequency and Aver-
ageAnnual Damages,” Journal of Water Resources Planning
and Management, 123(2), 84–88.
6. Ben-Haim, Y. (2006). Information-Gap Decision Theory:
Decisions Under Severe Uncertainty, Academic Press, San
Diego.
7. Beven, K. (2006). “A Manifesto for the Equifinality Thesis,”
Journal of Hydrology, 320, 18–36.
8. Cooke, R.M. (1991). Experts in Uncertainty: Opinion and
Subjective Probability in Science, Oxford University Press,
New York.
9. CUR/TAW (1990). Probabilistic Design of Flood Defences,
Centre for Civil Engineering Research and Codes (CUR),
Technical Advisory Committee on Water Defences (TAW),
Gouda, the Netherlands.
10. Dantzig, D. van (1956). “Economic Decision Problems
for Flood Prevention,” Econometrica, 24(3), 276–287.
11. Dawson, R.J. and Hall, J.W. (2006). “Adaptive Impor-
tance Sampling for Risk Analysis of Complex Infrastructure
Systems,” Proc. Royal Soc. A: Mathematical, Physical and
Engineering Sciences, 462(2075), 3343–3362.
12. Defra (2001). Flood and Coastal Defence Project
Appraisal Guidance: Overview (Including General Guid-
ance), FCDPAG1, Department of the Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs, London.
13. Defra (2005). Making Space for Water: Taking Forward a
New Government Strategy for Flood and Coastal Erosion
 i i
“paper01” — 2008/5/26 — 20:07 — page 97 — #13
i i
A framework for uncertainty analysis in flood risk management decisions
Risk Management in England: First Government Response
to the Autumn 2004 Making Space for Water Consultation
Exercise, Department of the Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs, London.
14. DETR, Environment Agency and Institute of Environmental
Health (2000). Guidelines for Environmental Risk Assess-
ment and Management, The Stationery Office, London.
15. Duan, Q., Gupta, H., Sorooshian, S., Rousseau, A.N.
and Turcotte, R. (2003). Calibration of Watershed Mod-
els. Water Science and Applications, American Geophysical
Union.
16. Egorova, R., Noortwijk, J.M.V. and Holterman, S.R.
(2008). “Uncertainty in Flood Damage Estimation,” Journal
of River Basin Management (This issue).
17. Evans, E.P. et al. (2004). Foresight Flood and Coastal
Defence Project: Scientific Summary: Volume I, Future
Risks and their Drivers, Office of Science and Technology,
London.
18. Ferson, S. et al. (2004). Dependence in Probabilistic Mod-
eling, Dempster-Shafer Theory, and Probability Bounds
Analysis, SAND2004-3072, Sandia National Laboratory,
Albuquerque, NM.
19. Finkel, A.M. (1990). Confronting Uncertainty in Risk Man-
agement: A Guide for Decision-Makers, Center for Risk
Management, Resources for the Future, Washing, DC.
20. French, S. (1988). Decision Theory: An Introduction to the
Mathematics of Rationality, Ellis Horwood, Chichester.
21. Frieser, B.I., Vrijling, J.K. and Jonkman, S.N. (2005).
“Probabilistic Evacuation Decision Model for River Floods
in the Netherlands,” 9th International Symposium on
Stochastic Hydraulics, IAHR, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
22. Funtowicz, S.O. and Ravetz, J. (1990). Uncertainty and
Quality in Science for Policy, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
23. Galloway, G.E. (2005). “Corps of Engineers Responses
to the Changing National Approach to Floodplain Man-
agement Since the 1993 Midwest Flood,” Journal of
Contemporary Water Research and Education, 130,
5–12.
24. Georgakakos, K.P., Seo, D.-J., Gupta, H.V., Schaake,
J. and Butts, M.B. (2004). “Towards the Character-
ization of Streamflow Simulation Uncertainty Through
Multimodel Ensembles,” Journal of Hydrology, 298,
222–241.
25. Goldman, D. (1997). “Estimating Expected Annual Dam-
age for Levee Retrofits,” Journal of Water Resource.
Planning and Management, 123(2), 89–94.
26. Hall, J.W. (2003). “Handling Uncertainty in the Hydroin-
formatic Process,” Hydroinformatics, 5(4), 215–232.
27. Hall, J.W. (2006). “Uncertainty-Based Sensitivity Indices
for Imprecise Probabilities,” Reliability Engineering and
Systems Safety, 91(10–11), 1443–1451.
28. Hall, J.W., Meadowcroft, I.C., Sayers, P.B. and Bram-
ley, M.E. (2003). “Integrated Flood Risk Management
in England and Wales,” Natural Hazards Review, 4(3),
126–135.
i i
i i
97
29. Hall, J.W., Tarantola, S., Bates, P.D. and M.S., H.
(2005). “Distributed Sensitivity Analysis of Flood Inunda-
tion Model Calibration,” Journal of Hydraulic Engineering,
131(2), 117–126.
30. Harvey, D.P., Peppé, R. and Hall, J.W. (2008). “Reframe:
A Framework Supporting Flood Risk Analysis,” Journal of
River Basin Management (This issue).
31. Hawkes, P.J., Gouldby, B.P., Tawn, J.A. and Owen, M.W.
(2002). “The Joint Probability of Waves and Water Levels in
Coastal Engineering,” Journal of Hydraulic Research, 40,
241–251.
32. Helton, J.C. and Burmaster, D.E. (1996). “Treatment of
Aleatory and Epistemic Uncertainty in Performance Assess-
ments for Complex Systems,” Reliability Engineering and
System Safety, 54, 91–258.
33. Hine, D. and Hall, J.W. (2007). “Analysing the Robustness
of Engineering Decisions to Hydraulic Model and Hydro-
logical Uncertainties,” Harmonising the Demands of Art and
Nature in Hydraulics: Proc. 32nd Congress of IAHR, IAHR,
Venice.
34. Hutter, G. and Schanze, J. (2008). “Learning How to Deal
with Uncertainty of Flood Risk in Long-Term Planning,”
Journal of River Basin Management (This issue).
35. Interagency Floodplain Management Review Committee
(1994). Sharing the Challenge: Floodplain Management
into the 21st Century, Report to the Administration Flood-
plain Management Task Force, U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, DC.
36. IPCC (2000). Special Report on Emissions Scenario, Inter-
governmental Panel on Climate Change.
37. IPCC (2005). Guidance Notes for Lead Authors of the IPCC
Fourth Assessment Report on Addressing Uncertainties,
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
38. Kahan, J.P., Wu, M., Hajiamiri, S. and Knopman, D.
(2006). From Flood Control to Integrated Water Resource
Management: Lessons for the Gulf Coast from Flooding in
Other Places in the Last Sixty Years, RAND Corporation,
Santa Monica.
39. Kanning, W. and van Gelder, P.H.A.M. (2006). Analysis
and Influence of Uncertainties on the Reliability of Flood
Defence Systems, T07-06-07.
40. Kleindorfer, P.R., Kunreuther, H.G. and Schoemaker,
P.J.H. (1993). Decision Sciences: An Integrative Perspec-
tive, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
41. Knight, F.H. (1921). Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit Hart,
Schaffner & Marx, Boston, MA.
42. Lempert, R.J., Popper, S.W. and Bankes, S.C. (2003).
Shaping the Next One Hundred Years: New Methods for
Quantitative, Long-Term Policy Analysis, RAND, Santa
Monica, CA.
43. Liu, Y. and Gupta, H. (2007). “Uncertainty in Hydro-
logic Modeling: Toward an Integrated Data Assimilation
Framework,” Water Resources Research, 43(7).
44. Meadowcroft, I.C., Hall, J.W. and Ramsbottom,
D.M. (1997). Application of Risk Methods in Flood and
 i i
“paper01” — 2008/5/26 — 20:07 — page 98 — #14
i i
98 Jim Hall and Dimitri Solomatine
Coastal Engineering: Scoping Study, Report SR483, HR
Wallingford, Oxfordshire.
45. Montanari, A. and Brath, A. (2004). “A Stochastic
Approach for Assessing the Uncertainty of Rainfall-Runoff
Simulations,” Water Resources Research, 40(1), W01106.
46. Munich Re Group (2007). Natural Catastrophes 2006:
Analyses, Assessments, Positions, 302-05217.
47. National Academy of Engineering (2000). Risk Analysis and
Uncertainty in Flood Damage Reduction Studies, National
Academy Press, Washington DC.
48. National Research Council (1999). Improving American
River Flood Frequency, National Academy Press, Wash-
ington DC.
49. National Research Council (2000). Risk Analysis and
Uncertainty in Flood Damage Reduction Studies, National
Academy Press, Washington DC.
50. Newcastle University and Halcrow (2006). Early Concep-
tual Options, A Framework for Uncertainty Analysis in
TE2100, ECO Report R10X, Environment Agency, London.
51. Office of Science and Technology (2002). Foresight Futures
2020: Revised Scenarios and Guidance, Department of
Trade and Industry, London.
52. Pappenberger, F. and Beven, K. (2006). “Ignorance is
Bliss: 7 Reasons not to use Uncertainty Analysis,” Water
Resources Research, 42(5).
53. Pappenberger, F., Harvey, D.P., Beven, K., Hall,
J.W. and Meadowcroft, I.C. (2006). “Decision Tree for
Choosing an Uncertainty Analysis Methodology: A Wiki
Experiment,” Hydrological Processes, 20(17), 3793–3798.
54. Pasman, H.J. and Vrijling, J.K. (2003). “Social Risk
Assessment of Large Technical Systems,” Human Factors
and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, 13(4), 305–316.
55. Pate-Cornell, M.E. (1996). “Uncertainties in Risk Anal-
ysis, Six Levels of Treatment,” Reliability Engineering and
System Safety, 54, 95–111.
56. Rosenhead, J. and Mingers, J. (2001). Rational Analysis
for a Problematic World Revisited, Wiley, Chichester.
57. Saltelli, A., Chan, K. and Scott, M. (2000). Sensitivity
Analysis, Wiley, New York.
58. Savage, L.J. (1954). The Foundations of Statistics, Wiley,
New York.
59. Sayers, P.B., Hall, J.W. and Meadowcroft, I.C. (2002).
“Towards Risk-Based Flood Hazard Management in the
UK,” Civil Engineering, 150(1), 36–42.
60. Shafer, G. (1976). A Mathematical Theory of Evidence,
Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
61. Shrestha, D.L. and Solomatine, D.P. (2008). “A Method
of Localised Model Uncertainty Prediction and its Applica-
tions,” Journal of River Basin Management (this issue).
i i
i i
62. Silverman, B.W. (1986). Density Estimation, Chapman
and Hall, London.
63. Simon, H. (1956). “Rational Choice and the Structure of the
Environment,” Psychol. Rev., 63, 81–97.
64. Sluijs, J.P. van de et al. (2005). “Combining Quantitative
and Qualitative Measures of Uncertainty in Model-Based
Environmental Assessment: The NUSAP System,” Risk
Analysis, 25(2), 481–492.
65. Sluijs, J.P. van de et al. (2003). RIVM/MNP Guidance for
Uncertainty Assessment and Communication, Netherlands
Environmental Assessment Agency (RIVM/MNP).
66. Stedinger, J.R. (1997). “Expected Probability and Annual
Damage Estimators,” Journal of Water Resources Planning
and Management, 123(2), 125–135.
67. Todini, E. (2008). “Predictive Uncertainty in Flood Fore-
casting Models,” Journal of River Basin Management (this
issue).
68. USACE (1996). Risk-Based Analysis of Flood Damage
Reduction Studies, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wash-
ington, DC.
69. USACE (2006). Risk Analysis for Flood Damage Reduction
Studies, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC.
70. USWRC (1983). Economic and Environmental Princi-
ples and Guidelines for Water Related Land Resources
Implementation Studies, U.S. Water Resources Council,
Washington DC.
71. van Gelder, P.H.A.J.M., Devictor, N. and Marquès,
M. (2008). “Representation of Statistical Uncertainties
in the Estimation of Extremes,” Journal of River Basin
Management (This issue).
72. Vick, S.G. (2002). Degrees of Belief: Subjective Probability
and Engineering Judgement. ASCE Press, Reston VA.
73. Vrijling, J.K. (1993). “Development in Probabilistic
Design of Flood Defences in the Netherlands,” in Yen, B.C.
and Tung, Y.-K. (eds.), Reliability and Uncertainty Analysis
in Hydraulic Design, ASCE, New York, pp. 133–178.
74. Vrijling, J.K. and Van Gelder, P.H.A.J.M. (2006). “Impli-
cations of Uncertainties on Flood Defense Policy,” in
Vrijling, J.K. et al. (eds.), Stochastic Hydraulics ’05, Proc.
9th Int. Symp. on Stochastic Hydraulics, IAHR, Nijmegen,
the Netherlands, 8 pp.
75. Walker, W.E. et al. (2003). “Defining Uncertainty: A
Conceptual Basis for Uncertainty Management in Model-
Based Decision Support,” Integrated Assessment, 4(1),
5–17.
76. Walley, P. (1991). Statistical Reasoning with Imprecise
Probabilities, Chapman and Hall, London.
77. Zadeh, L.A. (1965). “Fuzzy Sets,” Information and Con-
trol, 8, 338–353.