Skip to main content

Propagation of Discharge Uncertainty in a Flood Damage Model For the Meuse River

  • Chapter
Flood Risk Management in Europe

Part of the book series: Advances in Natural and Technological Hazards Research ((NTHR,volume 25))

Abstract

Uncertainty analysis plays an important role in the decision- making process. It can give decision makers better understanding in how different measures will affect the whole river system. Thus it helps decision makers to make a sound choice among measures in a more systematic manner. In case of flood damage reduction projects, uncertainty analysis helps to evaluate the main decision criterion – expected annual damage. The aim of this paper is to investigate the propagation of discharge uncertainty, which is one of the main uncertainty sources in a damage model, into expected annual damage. The discharge uncertainty considered includes model uncertainty (choice of different probability distributions) and sampling errors due to finite gauge record lengths. The calculated uncertainty in the discharge varies between 17 percent for a return period of 5 year and 30 percent for a return period of 1250 year. A first order method is used in this paper to explore the role of discharge uncertainty in the expected annual damage model. The results from the damage model indicate that both model uncertainty and sampling errors are important, with the latter being somewhat more important. The Log-Pearson Type 3 gives a much smaller uncertainty range of the expected annual damage than the other three distribution models used. The uncertainty is aggravated when propagated into the damage results. The uncertainty in the damage reduces a great amount when the sample size increases to n = 80. The results derived from the first order method in fact give two bounds of uncertainty, which is an overestimate in this case

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Al-Futaisi A, Stedinger JR (1999) Hydrologic and economic uncertainties and flood-risk project design. J Water Res Pl-ASCE 125(6):314–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beard LR (1997) Estimating flood frequency and average annual damage. J Water Res Pl-ASCE 123(2):84–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Zvi A, Azmon B (1997) Joint use of L-moment diagram and goodness-of-fit test: a case study of diverse series. J Hydrol 198:245–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger HEJ (1992) Flow forecasting for the river Meuse, PhD thesis, Delft University, Delft, The Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  • Bevington PR, Robinson DK (1992) Data reduction and error analysis for the physical sciences. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Booij MJ (2002) Appropriate modeling of climate change impacts on river flooding, PhD thesis, the University of Twente, Enschede

    Google Scholar 

  • Chow VT, Maidment DR, Mays LW (1988) Applied hydrology. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • De Blois CJ (2000) Uncertainty in large-scale models for decision support in water management, PhD thesis, Twente University, Enschede, The Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  • Eberle M, Buiteveld H, Beersma J, Krahe P, Wilke K (2002) Estimation of extreme floods in the river Rhine basin by combining precipitation-runoff modelling and a rainfall generator. In: Proceedings international conference on flood estimation, Berne, Switzerland, pp 459–467

    Google Scholar 

  • Flood Estimation Handbook (1999) Institute of hydrology. Wallingford, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Hosking JRM (1990) L-moments: analysis and estimation of distributions using linear combinations of order statistics. J R Stat Soc B 52:105–124

    Google Scholar 

  • Kite GW (1977) Frequency and risk analysis in hydrology. Water resources publications, BookCrafters, Chelsea, Michigan, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (2000) Risk analysis and uncertainty in flood damage reduction studies, Committee on risk-based analysis for flood damage reduction, Water Science and Technology Board, National Academy Press, 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Rijkswaterstaat (2000) Verkenning Verruinming Maas — Deel 1(in Dutch): Main Report, VVM-report no.5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rijkswaterstaat (2002) Overstromingsrisico’s Buitendijkse Gebieden (in Dutch), Report, Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management

    Google Scholar 

  • Sankarasubramanian A, Srinivasan K (1999) Investigation and comparison of sampling properties of L-moments and conventional moments J Hydrol 218:13–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shahin M, Van Oorschot HJL, De Lange SJ (1993) Statistical analysis in water resources engineering. AA Balkema, Rotterdam, Brookfield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw EM (1994) Hydrology in practice. TJ International Ltd, Padstow, Cornwall, Great Britain

    Google Scholar 

  • Stedinger JR (1983) Design event with specified flood risk. Water Resour Res 19(2):511–522

    Google Scholar 

  • Stedinger JR (1997) Expected probability and annual damage estimators. J Water Res Pl-ASCE, 123(2):125–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suter GW, Barnthouse LW, O’Neill RV (1987) Treatment of risk in environment impact assessment. Environ. Manage. 11(3):295–303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Noortwijk JM, Kalk HJ, Chbab EH (2003) Bayesian computation of design discharges. In: Proceedings of the ESREL 2003 conference: Safety and Reliability, edited by Bedford and van Gelder, Swets & Zeitlinger, Lisse, 1179–1187

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood EF, Rodriguez-Iturbe I (1975) A Bayesian approach to analyze uncertainty among flood frequency models. Water. Resour. Res. 11(6):839–843

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu YP, Booij MJ (2004) Appropriate modeling in DSSs for river basin management. Complexity and Integrated Resources Management, In: Proceedings of the second biennial meeting of the international environmental modelling and software society, 14–17 June 2004, Osnabrück, Germany

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu Y, Wind HG, Kok JL de (2002) Appropriate modeling in DSS for flood damage assessment, In: Wu B et al (eds) Proceedings of the second international symposium on flood defence, 2, 1159–1165

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2007 Springer

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Xu, Y., Booij, M., Mynett, A. (2007). Propagation of Discharge Uncertainty in a Flood Damage Model For the Meuse River. In: Begum, S., Stive, M.J.F., Hall, J.W. (eds) Flood Risk Management in Europe. Advances in Natural and Technological Hazards Research, vol 25. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-4200-3_16

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics