Developing a translational discourse to communicate uncertainty in flood risk between science and the practitioner

Ambio

Volumn 36, Issue 8, 2007, Pages 692-703

  Faulkner, Hazel ^a   Parker, Dennis ^a   Green, Colin ^a   Beven, Keith ^b,c  

^a MIDDLESEX UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b LANCASTER UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^c UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMMUNICATION; ESTIMATION METHOD; FLOOD; LANGUAGE; RATIONALIZATION; RISK ASSESSMENT; UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS;

DISASTER; HUMAN; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; REVIEW; RISK; SCIENCE; UNCERTAINTY; UNITED KINGDOM;

COMMUNICATION; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; NATURAL DISASTERS; RISK; SCIENCE; UNCERTAINTY;

EID: 38349059224     PISSN: 00447447     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1579/0044-7447(2007)36[692:DATDTC]2.0.CO;2     Document Type: Review

References (88)

1. European Commission. 2002. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council. The European Community Response to the Flooding in Austria, Germany, and Several Applicant Countries: A Solidarity-Based Initiative. COM, Brussels, 2002, p. 481.
2. Molteni, F., Buizza, R., Palmer, T.N. and Petroliagis, T. 1996. The ECMWF ensemble prediction system: methodology and validation. Quart. J. Roy. Meteorol. Soc. 122, 73-119.
3. Hall, J. 2003. Handling uncertainty in the hydroinformatic process. Hydroinformatics 5, 215-232.
4. Hall, J. 2006. Principles of uncertainty estimation and decision-making under uncertainty. Paper presented at the Annual Floodsite Partner Workshop in Braunschweig, Germany, 13-15 February 2006.
5. Pappenberger, F., Beven, K.J., Frodsham, K., Romanovicz, R. and Matgen, P. 2006. Grasping the unavoidable subjectivity in calibration of flood inundation models: a vulnerability weighted approach. J. Hydrol. 333, 275-287.
6. McCarthy, S., Tunstall, S., Parker, D., Faulkner, H. and Howe, J. 2006.Risk communication in emergency response to extreme floods. Environ. Hazards (In press).
7. Handmer, J.W., Proudley, B. and Roberts, N. 2003. Communicating Uncertainty in Short-Term Weather Forecasts. Report for the Bureau of Meteorology, Centre for Risk and Community Safety, Department of Geospatial Science, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia.
8. Morgan, M.G., Fischhoff, B., Bostrom, A. and Atman, C.J. 2002. Risk Communication: A Mental Models Approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 566 pp.
9. van der Sluijs, J.P., Janssen, P.H.M., Petersen, A.C., Kloprogge, P., Risbey, S., Tuinstra, W. and Ravetz, J.R. 2004. RIVM/MNP Guidance for Uncertainty Assessment and Communication: Tool Catalogue for Uncertainty Assessment. Report No: NWS-E-2004-37. Copernicus Institute and RIVM, Utrecht/Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
10. van der Sluijs, J., Craye, M., Funtowicz, S., Kloprogge, P., Ravetz, J. and Risbey, J. 2005. Experiences with the NUSAP system for multidimensional uncertainty assessment. Water Sci. Technol. 52, 133-144.
11. Slovic, P. 1987. Perception of risk. Science. 236, 280-285.
12. Slovic, P. 1993. Perceived risk, trust and democracy. Risk Anal. 13, 675-682.
13. Beck, U. 1992. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity Theory, Culture and Society. Sage, London, 176 pp.
14. Kasperson, R.E., Renn, O., Slovic, P. and Brow, H.S. 1988. The social amplification of risk: a conceptual framework. Risk Anal. 8, 177-187.
15. Renn, O. 1998. Three decades of risk research: accomplishments and new challenges. J. Risk Res. 1, 49-71.
16. Renn, O. and Levine, D. 1991. Credibility and trust in risk communication. In: Communicating Risk to the Public: International Perspectives. Kasperson, R.E. and Stallen, P.M. (eds). Kluwer, Amsterdam, 701 pp.
17. Shrader-Frechette, K. 1998. First things first: balancing scientific and ethical values in environmental science. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 88, 287-289.
18. Hall, J.W., Meadowcroft, I.C., Sayers, P.B. and Bramley, M.E. 2003. Integrated flood risk management in England and Wales. Nat. Hazards Rev. ASCE. 4, 126-135.
19. Holmes, P.R. 2004. On risky ground: the water professional in politics. Water Sci. Technol. 49, 117-125.
20. Leiss, W. 2004. Effective risk communication practice. Toxicol. Lett. 149, 399-404.
21. Fischhoff, B. 1995. Risk perception and communication unplugged: twenty years of process. Risk Anal. 15, 137-145.
22. Huberman, M. 1990. Linkage between researchers and practitioners: a qualitative study. Am. Educ. Res. J. 27, 363-391.
23. Environment Agency. 1999. Flood Warning Service Strategy for England and Wales. Environment Agency, Bristol, England, 51 pp.
24. DEFRA/Environment Agency. 2002. Risk, Performance and Uncertainty in Flood and Coastal Defence: A Review. Report No. FD2302/TR1, London.
25. DEFRA/Environment Agency. 2004. Risk Performance and Uncertainty in Flood and Coastal Defence: A Review. R&D Technical Report FD23022/TR. London.
26. DEFRA/Environment Agency. 2004. Making Space for Water: Developing a New Government Strategy for Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management in England. DEFRA Consultation Document, London, 154 pp.
27. Hall, J.W. 2002. A contingency approach to choice. Civ. Eng. Environ. Syst. 19, 87-118.
28. Todini, E. 2006. The nature and role of uncertainty in operational flood management. Paper presented at the Annual Floodsite Partner Workshop in Braunschweig, Germany. 13-15 February 2006.
29. Green, C. Handbook of Water Analysis. Wiley, London, 433 pp.
30. We use scientific uncertainty here as a shorthand for both the aleatory and espistemic uncertainties involved in making quantitative predictions (31). One of the referees on this paper suggested that in The Netherlands the whole process of quantified risk assessment has been stalled by the different treatment given to these 2 sources of uncertainty.
31. Helton, J.C. and Burmaster, D.E. (eds). 1996. Treatment of aleatory and epistemic uncertainty in performance assessments for complex systems. Reliability Eng. Syst. Saf. 54, 91-258.
32. Hall, J.W. and Davis, J.P. 2001. Sources and implications of uncertainly for coastal managers in the UK. Water Environ. Manage. 15, 103-108.
33. Ben Haim, Y. 2001. Information-Gap Decision Theory: Decisions Under Severe Uncertainty. Academic Press, San Diego, 368 pp.
34. Kinzig, A.P., Starrett, D., Arrow, K., Aniyar, S., Bolin, B., Dasgupta, P., Ehrlich, P., Folke, C., et al. 2003. Coping with uncertainty: a call for a new science-policy forum. Ambio 32, 330-335.
35. Pappenberger, F. and Beven, K. 2006. Ignorance is bliss: seven reasons not to use uncertainty analysis. Water Resour. Res. 42, W05032.
36. Beven, K. 2001. On modelling as collective intelligence. Hydrol. Proc. 15, 2205-2207.
37. Pappenberger, F., Beven, K.J., Hunter, N., Gouweleeuw, B., Bates, P., de Roo, A. and Thielen, J. 2005. Cascading model uncertainty from medium range weather forecasts (10 days) through a rainfall-runoff model to flood inundation predictions within the European Flood Forecasting System (EFFS). Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 9, 381-393.
38. As Pappenburger et al. (37) have explained, it is sometimes possible to constrain the uncertainties in each model step, either on a historical basis or in real time. Nevertheless, when models with a range of uncertainties are cascaded together, the envelope of possible futures inevitably enlarges, and these uncertainties can only realistically be reduced when updated by new data as would be possible, for instance, by data assimilation in modeling an unfolding event in real time.
39. Kiem, A.S., Franks, S.W. and Kuczera, G. 2003. Multi-decadal variability of flood risk. Geophys. Res. Lett. 30, 1035.
40. Robson, A. 2003. Evidence for trends in UK flooding. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A. 360, 1327-1343.
41. Clarke, R.T. 2007. Hydrological prediction in a non-stationary world. Hydro. Earth Syst. Sci. 11, 408-414.
42. Conventionally, flood forecasting is considered to be a process of predicting when a flood will take place and how severe it will be. It is a subset of problems that statisticians would in general refer to as "prediction." From this perspective, flood risk mapping and assessment of the impacts of climate change are more correctly "prediction" problems, rather than "forecasting" problems.
43. Cameron, D., Beven, K. and Naden, P. 2000. Flood frequency estimation by continuous simulation under climate change (with uncertainty). Hydro. Earth Syst. Sci. 4, 393-405.
44. Aronica, G., Hankin, B.G. and Beven, K.J. 1998. Uncertainty and equifinality in calibrating distributed roughness coefficients in a flood propagation model with limited data. Adv. Water Resour. 22, 349-365.
45. Liu, K. 2004. Virtual, Distributed and Flexible Organisations: Studies in Organisational Semiotics. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 316 pp.
46. Patt, A. and Schrag, D. 2003. Using specific language to describe risk and probability. Clim. Change. 61, 17-30.
47. Stamper, R., Liu, Kechung, Hafkamp, M. and Ades, Y. 2000. Understanding the roles of signs and norms in organisations: a semiotic approach to information systems design. J. Behav. Inf. Technol. 19, 15-27.
48. Beven, K. 2001. On explanatory depth and predictive power. Hydrol. Proc. 15, 3069-3072.
49. Hartley, J., Sotto, E. and Fox, C. 2004. Clarity across the disciplines: an analysis of texts in the sciences, social sciences, and arts and humanities. Sci. Commun. 26, 188-210.
50. Hoffmann, M.H.G. and Roth, W.M. 2005. What you should know to survive in knowledge societies: on a semiotic understanding of "knowledge." Semiotica 157, 105-142.
51. Beven, K. 2006. A manifesto for the equifinality thesis. J. Hydrol. 320, 18-36.
52. Beven, K.J. 2006. On undermining the science? Hydrol. Proc. (HPToday) 20, 3141-3146.
53. Huberman, M. 1994. Research utilization: the state of the art. Knowledge and Policy: The International Journal of Knowledge Transfer and Utilization. 7, 13-33.
54. Frewer, J., Hunt, S., Brennan, M., Kuznesof, S., Ness, M. and Ritson, C. 2003. The views of scientific experts on how the public conceptualize uncertainty. J. Risk Res. 6, 75-85.
55. Parker, D.J. and Handmer, J.W. 1998. The role of unofficial flood warning systems. J. Contingencies Crisis Manage. 6, 45-60.
56. Handmer, J.W. 1996. Policy design and local attributes for flood hazard management. J. Contingencies Crisis Manage. 4, 189-197.
57. Penning-Rowsell, E.C., Tunstall, S.M. and Tapsell, S.M. 2000. The benefits of flood warnings: real but elusive and politically significant. J. Chartered Inst. Water Environ. Manage. 14, 7-14.
58. Tapsell, S.M., Tunstall, S.M., Green, C., Fernandez, A. and Penning-Rowsell, E.C. 2004. Communications Audit. Draft report for Floodscape project. Environment Agency. London.
59. Mantovan, P. and Todini, E. 2006. Hydrological forecasting uncertainty assessment: incoherence of the GLUE methodology. J. Hydrol. 330, 368-381.
60. Klir, G.J. 2006. Uncertainty and Information: Foundations of Generalized Information Theory. John Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 168 pp.
61. Ross, T.J. 1995. Fuzzy Logic with Engineering Applications. McGraw-Hill. Columbus, OH, 650 pp.
62. Beven, K. 2002. Towards a coherent philosophy for modelling the environment. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A. 458, 2465-2484.
63. Beven, K. 2002. Towards an alternative blueprint for a physically based digitally simulated hydrologic response modelling system. Hydrol. Proc. 16, 189-206.
64. Beven, K. and Feyen, J. 2002. The future of distributed modelling. Hydrol. Proc 16, 169-172.
65. NFFS is based on the Delft FEWS (63), which is well known internationally.
66. Werner, M.G.F., van Dijk, M. and Schellekens, J. 2004. DELFT-FEWS: an open shell flood forecasting system. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Hydroinformatics. Liong, S.Y., Phoon, K.K. and Babovic, C.V. (eds). World Scientific Publishing Company, Singapore, pp. 1205-1212.
67. Parker, D.J. 2004. Designing flood forecasting, warning and response systems from a societal perspective. Meteorologische Zeitschrift, 13, 5-11.
68. Bye, P. and Horner, M. 1998. Easter 1998 Floods. Volume 1: Report by the Independent Review Team to the Board of the Environment Agency. Environment Agency, London.
69. Whitfield, D. 2005. The National Flood Forecasting System (NFFS) of the UK Environment Agency. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Innovation. Advances and Implementation of Flood Forecasting Technology, Tromsø, Norway. Balabanis, E., Lumbruso, D. and Samuels, P. (eds). HR Wallingford, Howbery Park, England.
70. Krzysztofowicz, R. 1999. Bayesian theory of probabilistic forecasting via deterministic hydrologic model. Water Resourc. Res. 35, 2739-2750.
71. Krzysztofowicz, R. 2002. Bayesian system for probabilistic river stage forecasting. J. Hydrol. 268, 16-10.
72. Krzysztofowicz, R. 2002. Probabilistic floods forecast: bounds and approximations. J. Hydrol. 268, 41-55.
73. Romanowicz, R., Young, P.C. and Beven, K.J. 2006. Dala assimilation and adaptive forecasting of water levels in the River Severn catchment, UK. Water Resourc. Res. 42, W06407.
74. Romanowicz, R. and Beven, K.J. 1998. Dynamic real-time prediction of flood inundation probabilities. Hydrol. Sci. J. 43, 181-196.
75. Young, P.C. 2002. Advances in real-time flood forecasting. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 360, 1433-1450.
76. Madsen, H., Rosbjerg, D., Damgaerd, J. and Hansen, F.S. 2003. Data assimilation in the MIKE 11 flood forecasting system using Kalman filtering. Water Resources Systems: Hydrological Risk, Management and Development. International Association of Hydrological Sciences, Publication No. 281. pp. 75-81.
77. Moradkhani, H., Sorooshian, S., Gupta, H.V. and Hauser, P.R. 2005. Dual stale-parameter estimation of hydrological models using ensemble Kalman filter. Adv. Water Resour. 28, 135-147.
78. Moradkhani, H., Hsu, K.-L., Gupta, H. and Sorooshian, S. 2005, Uncertainty assessment of hydrologic model states and parameters: sequential data assimilation using the particle filter. Water Resour. Res. 41, W05012.
79. Weerts, A.H. and El Serafy, G.Y.H. 2006. Particle filtering and ensemble Kalman filtering for state updating with hydrological conceptual rainfall-runoff models. Water Resour. Res. 42, W09403.
80. Sarukkai, S. 2001. Mathematics, language and translation. META 46, 664-674.
81. Mansilla, V.B., Dillon, D. and Middlebrooks, K. 2006. Building Bridges Across Disciplines: Organisational and Individual Qualities of Exemplary Interdisciplinary Work. "Goodwork project," Harvard Graduate School of Education, Cambridge, MA.
82. Fullen, M.A. 2003. Soil erosion and conservation in northern Europe. Prog. Phys. Geogr. 27, 331-358.
83. There is resonance in the concept of the effective plan of application with the views expressed by some consulting engineer practitioners at the Flood Risk Management Research Consortium's Risk and Uncertainty Practitioners' Workshop held at Lancaster University in January 2006. At this meeting, the professionals' suggestion was that they would be happy to make some estimates of uncertainty in flood hazard and flood risk if they were provided with some recipes to use (and preferably recipes that would not be much more expensive to apply than existing procedures). However, unless more professional leadership was evident, they doubted that they would be able to provide estimates of uncertainty to clients, unless clients demanded them. This suggested an initial unwillingness to embrace ownership of uncertainty, or at least a reluctance to be criticized for going out on a limb and deciding which methods to use.
84. Lavis, J.N., Robertson, D., Woodside, J.M., McLeod, C.B. and Abelson, J. 2003. How can research organizations more effectively transfer research knowledge to decision makers? Millbank Q. 81, 221-248.
85. Gurabardhi, Z., Gutteling, J.M. and Kuttschreuter, M. 2004. The development of risk communication. Sci. Commun. 25, 323-349.
86. Hall, J.W., Twyman, C. and Kay, A. 2005. Influence diagrams for representing uncertainty in climate-related propositions. Clim. Change. 69, 343-365.
87. The concepts in this paper have been developed as a result of interdisciplinary discussions within the UK Flood Risk Management Research Consortium (http://www.floodrisk.org.uk/), which is a consortium funded by the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council under grant GR/S76304/01, jointly with NERC, the Joint Defra/EA Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management R&D Programme, the Scottish Executive, the Rivers Agency (Northern Ireland), and UK Water Industry Research. Keith Beven has also been supported by NERC Long-Term Grant NER/L/S/2001/00658 on Uncertainty in Environmental Modelling. The authors are indebted to the two anonymous referees whose comments improved the conceptual development of the paper.
88. First submitted 5 December 2006. Accepted for publication 25 April 2007.