So how much of your error is epistemic? Lessons from Japan and Italy

Hydrological Processes

Volumn 27, Issue 11, 2013, Pages 1677-1680

  Beven, Keith ^a,b,c  

^a EPFL   (Switzerland)

^b UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^c LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ERROR ANALYSIS; RISK ASSESSMENT; UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS;

ITALY; JAPAN;

EID: 84877649700     PISSN: 08856087     EISSN: 10991085     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/hyp.9648     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Beven KJ. 2011. I believe in climate change but how precautionary do we need to be in planning for the future? Hydrological Processes 25: 1517-1520. DOI: 10.1002/hyp.7939
2. Beven KJ. 2012. Causal models as multiple working hypotheses about environmental processes. Comptes Rendus Geoscience, Académie de Sciences, Paris. doi: 10.1016/j.crte.2012.01.005
3. Beven KJ, Westerberg I. 2011. On red herrings and real herrings: disinformation and information in hydrological inference. Hydrological Processes 25: 1676-1680. DOI: 10.1002/hyp.7963
4. Beven K, Smith PJ, Wood A. 2011. On the colour and spin of epistemic error (and what we might do about it). Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 15: 3123-3133. doi: 10.5194/hess-15-3123-2011
5. Beven KJ, Smith PJ, Westerberg I, Freer JE. 2012. Comment on Clark et al., Pursuing the method of multiple working hypotheses for hydrological modeling, W09301, 2011. Water Resources Research 48. doi: 10.1029/2012WR012282
6. Clark M, Kavetski D, Fenicia F. 2011. Pursuing the method of multiple working hypotheses for hydrological modeling. Water Resour. Res 47: W09301.
7. Clark M, Kavetski D, Fenicia F. 2012. Reply to comments by Beven et al. on Pursuing the method of multiple working hypotheses for hydrological modeling. Water Resources Research 48. doi: 10.1029/2012WR012547
8. Der Kiureghiana A, Ditlevsen O. 2009. Aleatory or epistemic? Does it matter? Structural Safety 31: 105-112.
9. Golding B, Clark P, May B. 2005. The Boscastle flood: Meteorological analysis of the conditions leading to flooding on 16 August 2004. Weather 60: 230-235.
10. Helton JC, Burmaster DE. 1996. Guest editorial: treatment of aleatory and epistemic uncertainty in performance assessments for complex systems. Reliabilty Engineering and Systems Safety 54: 91-94.
11. Hoffman FO, Hammonds JS. 1994. Propagation of unccrtainty in risk assessments: the need to distinguish between uncertainty due to lack of knowledge and uncertainty duc to variability. Risk Analysis 14: 707-712.
12. Kaplan S, Garrick BJ. 1981. On the quantitative definition of risk. Risk Analysis 1: 11-27.
13. Knight FH. 1921. Risk, Uncertainty and Profit. Houghton-Mifflin Co. (reprinted University of Chicago Press, 1971): Boston, MA.
14. Koutsoyiannis D. 2010. HESS Opinions "A random walk on water". Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 14: 585-601.
15. Koutsoyiannis D. 2011. Hurst-Kolmogorov Dynamics and Uncertainty. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 47: 481-495.
16. Montanari A, Koutsoyiannis D. 2012. A blueprint for process-based modeling of uncertain hydrological systems. Water Resources Research 48: W09555. doi: 10.1029/2011WR011412
17. Morgan MG, Henrion M. 1992. Uncertainty: a guide to dealing with uncertainty in quantitative risk and policy analysis. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
18. Rougier J, Beven KJ. 2012. Epistemic uncertainty. In Risk and uncertainty assessment for natural hazards, Rougier J, Sparks S, Hill L (eds). Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, in press.
19. Silbergeld EK. 1987. Five types of ambiguity: scientific uncertainty in risk assessment. Hazardous Waste & Hazardous Materials 4: 139-150.
20. Taleb NN. 2007. Fooled by Randomness. Penguin: London.
21. Taleb NN. 2010. The Black Swan, 2nd edn. Penguin: London.
22. Wakker P. 2010. Prospect Theory for Risk and Ambiguity. CUP: Cambridge.