4.7 Article

Hierarchical Bayesian Approach for Modeling Spatiotemporal Variability in Flood Damage Processes

期刊

WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH
卷 55, 期 10, 页码 8223-8237

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1029/2019WR025068

关键词

flood risk; flood loss model transfer; multilevel probabilistic flood loss model

资金

  1. European Union [676027]
  2. Deutsche Ruckversicherung
  3. German Research Network Natural Disasters (German Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF)) [01SFR9969/5]
  4. MEDIS project (BMBF) [0330688]
  5. project Hochwasser 2013 (BMBF) [13N13017]
  6. German Research Centre for Geosciences GFZ
  7. University of Potsdam
  8. Deutsche Ruckversicherung AG, Dusseldorf

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Flood damage processes are complex and vary between events and regions. State-of-the-art flood loss models are often developed on the basis of empirical damage data from specific case studies and do not perform well when spatially and temporally transferred. This is due to the fact that such localized models often cover only a small set of possible damage processes from one event and a region. On the other hand, a single generalized model covering multiple events and different regions ignores the variability in damage processes across regions and events due to variables that are not explicitly accounted for individual households. We implement a hierarchical Bayesian approach to parameterize widely used depth-damage functions resulting in a hierarchical (multilevel) Bayesian model (HBM) for flood loss estimation that accounts for spatiotemporal heterogeneity in damage processes. We test and prove the hypothesis that, in transfer scenarios, HBMs are superior compared to generalized and localized regression models. In order to improve loss predictions for regions and events for which no empirical damage data are available, we use variables pertaining to specific region- and event-characteristics representing commonly available expert knowledge as group-level predictors within the HBM.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据