IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/nathaz/v67y2013i3p991-1009.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A structured approach to enhance flood hazard assessment in mountain streams

Author

Listed:
  • B. Mazzorana
  • F. Comiti
  • S. Fuchs

Abstract

An evidence-based flood hazard analysis in mountain streams requires the identification and the quantitative characterisation of multiple possible processes. These processes result from specific triggering mechanisms on the hillslopes (i.e. landslides, debris flows), in-channel morphodynamic processes associated with sudden bed changes and stochastic processes taking place at critical stream configurations (e.g. occlusion of bridges, failure of levees). From a hazard assessment perspective, such possible processes are related to considerable uncertainties underlying the hydrological cause-effect chains. Overcoming these uncertainties still remains a major challenge in hazard and risk assessment and represents a necessary condition for a reliable spatial representation of process intensities and the associated probabilities. As a result of an accurate analysis of the conceptual flaws present in the procedures currently employed for hazard mapping in South Tyrol (Italy) and Carinthia (Austria), we propose a structured approach as a means to enhance the integration of hillslope, morphodynamic and stochastic processes into conventional flood hazard prediction for mountain basins. To this aim, a functional distinction is introduced between prevailing one-dimensional and two-dimensional process propagation domains, i.e., between confined and semi- to unconfined stream segments. The former domains are mostly responsible for the generation of water, sediment and wood fluxes, and the latter are where flooding of inactive channel areas (i.e. alluvial fans, floodplains) can occur. For the 1D process propagation domain, we discuss how to carry out a process routing along the stream system and how to integrate numerical models output with expert judgement in order to derive consistent event scenarios, thus providing a consistent quantification of the input variables needed for the associated 2D domains. Within these latter domains, two main types of spatial sub-domains can be identified based on the predictability of their dynamics, i.e., stochastic and quasi-deterministic. Advantages and limitations offered by this methodology are finally discussed with respect to hazard and risk assessment in mountain basins. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2013

Suggested Citation

  • B. Mazzorana & F. Comiti & S. Fuchs, 2013. "A structured approach to enhance flood hazard assessment in mountain streams," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 67(3), pages 991-1009, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:nathaz:v:67:y:2013:i:3:p:991-1009
    DOI: 10.1007/s11069-011-9811-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11069-011-9811-y
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11069-011-9811-y?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Klein, Robert & Scholl, Armin, 2004. "Planung und Entscheidung : Konzepte, Modelle und Methoden einer modernen betriebswirtschaftlichen Entscheidungsanalyse ; [unserem akademischen Lehrer Wolfgang Domschke zum 60. Geburtstag]," Publications of Darmstadt Technical University, Institute for Business Studies (BWL) 22645, Darmstadt Technical University, Department of Business Administration, Economics and Law, Institute for Business Studies (BWL).
    2. Gilboa,Itzhak, 2009. "Theory of Decision under Uncertainty," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521517324.
    3. Sven Fuchs & Magdalena Thöni & Maria McAlpin & Urs Gruber & Michael Bründl, 2007. "Avalanche Hazard Mitigation Strategies Assessed by Cost Effectiveness Analyses and Cost Benefit Analyses—evidence from Davos, Switzerland," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 41(1), pages 113-129, April.
    4. B. Mazzorana & J. Hübl & A. Zischg & A. Largiader, 2011. "Modelling woody material transport and deposition in alpine rivers," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 56(2), pages 425-449, February.
    5. Jens H. Christensen & Ole B. Christensen, 2003. "Severe summertime flooding in Europe," Nature, Nature, vol. 421(6925), pages 805-806, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hector Diaz & Bruno Mazzorana & Bernhard Gems & Ivan Rojas & Nicole Santibañez & Pablo Iribarren & Mario Pino & Andrés Iroumé, 2022. "What do biphasic flow experiments reveal on the variability of exposure on alluvial fans and which implications for risk assessment result from this?," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 111(3), pages 3099-3120, April.
    2. Raoof Mostafazadeh & Amir Sadoddin & Abdolreza Bahremand & Vahed Berdi Sheikh & Arash Zare Garizi, 2017. "Scenario analysis of flood control structures using a multi-criteria decision-making technique in Northeast Iran," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 87(3), pages 1827-1846, July.
    3. Liesbet Jacobs & Jan Maes & Kewan Mertens & John Sekajugo & Wim Thiery & Nicole van Lipzig & Jean Poesen & Matthieu Kervyn & Olivier Dewitte, 2016. "Reconstruction of a flash flood event through a multi-hazard approach: focus on the Rwenzori Mountains, Uganda," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 84(2), pages 851-876, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. B. Mazzorana & F. Comiti & C. Volcan & C. Scherer, 2011. "Determining flood hazard patterns through a combined stochastic–deterministic approach," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 59(1), pages 301-316, October.
    2. Nicola Ranger & Falk Nieh�rster, 2011. "Deep uncertainty in long-term hurricane risk: scenario generation and implications for future climate experiments," GRI Working Papers 51, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
    3. Crès, Hervé & Tvede, Mich, 2022. "Aggregation of opinions in networks of individuals and collectives," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 199(C).
    4. Basieva, Irina & Khrennikova, Polina & Pothos, Emmanuel M. & Asano, Masanari & Khrennikov, Andrei, 2018. "Quantum-like model of subjective expected utility," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 150-162.
    5. Dietz, Simon, 2012. "The treatment of risk and uncertainty in the US social cost of carbon for regulatory impact analysis," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 6, pages 1-12.
    6. Carvalho, M., 2012. "Static vs Dynamic Auctions with Ambiguity Averse Bidders," Other publications TiSEM 1f078e67-88ec-46e3-ae18-1, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    7. Maximilian Blesch & Philipp Eisenhauer, 2021. "Robust decision-making under risk and ambiguity," Papers 2104.12573, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2021.
    8. Heyen, Daniel, 2018. "Ambiguity aversion under maximum-likelihood updating," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 80342, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    9. John Tzilivakis & D. Warner & A. Green & K. Lewis, 2015. "Adapting to climate change: assessing the vulnerability of ecosystem services in Europe in the context of rural development," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 20(4), pages 547-572, April.
    10. Takao Asano & Hiroyuki Kojima, 2022. "Choquet Integrals and Belief Functions," KIER Working Papers 1077, Kyoto University, Institute of Economic Research.
    11. Ranger, Nicola & Niehörster, Falk, 2011. "Deep uncertainty in long-term hurricane risk: scenario generation and implications for future climate experiments," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 37587, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    12. Stephen C. Newbold & Charles Griffiths & Chris Moore & Ann Wolverton & Elizabeth Kopits, 2013. "A Rapid Assessment Model For Understanding The Social Cost Of Carbon," Climate Change Economics (CCE), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 4(01), pages 1-40.
    13. Ikefuji, Masako & Laeven, Roger J.A. & Magnus, Jan R. & Muris, Chris, 2020. "Expected utility and catastrophic risk in a stochastic economy–climate model," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 214(1), pages 110-129.
    14. Xiangyu Qu, 2017. "Separate aggregation of beliefs and values under ambiguity," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 63(2), pages 503-519, February.
    15. M. Ali Khan & Metin Uyanık, 2021. "Topological connectedness and behavioral assumptions on preferences: a two-way relationship," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 71(2), pages 411-460, March.
    16. Zbigniew Kundzewicz & Nicola Lugeri & Rutger Dankers & Yukiko Hirabayashi & Petra Döll & Iwona Pińskwar & Tomasz Dysarz & Stefan Hochrainer & Piotr Matczak, 2010. "Assessing river flood risk and adaptation in Europe—review of projections for the future," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 15(7), pages 641-656, October.
    17. Zappia, Carlo, 2021. "Leonard Savage, The Ellsberg Paradox, And The Debate On Subjective Probabilities: Evidence From The Archives," Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Cambridge University Press, vol. 43(2), pages 169-192, June.
    18. Giocoli, Nicola, 2011. "From Wald to Savage: homo economicus becomes a Bayesian statistician," MPRA Paper 34117, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Tanaka, Shigenori & Umegaki, Toshihito & Nishiyama, Akihiro & Kitoh-Nishioka, Hirotaka, 2022. "Dynamical free energy based model for quantum decision making," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 605(C).
    20. Barnett, William A. & Han, Qing & Zhang, Jianbo, 2021. "Monetary services aggregation under uncertainty: A behavioral economics extension using Choquet expectation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 182(C), pages 437-447.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:nathaz:v:67:y:2013:i:3:p:991-1009. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.