Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 536

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Flood risk assessment and associated uncertainty

Open access
Apel, H., Thieken, A. H., Merz, B., Blöschl, G.·2004·Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences

Abstract

Abstract. Flood disaster mitigation strategies should be based on a comprehensive assessment of the flood risk combined with a thorough investigation of the uncertainties associated with the risk assessment procedure. Within the "German Research Network of Natural Disasters" (DFNK) the working group "Flood Risk Analysis" investigated the flood process chain from precipitation, runoff generation and concentration in the catchment, flood routing in the river network, possible failure of flood protection measures, inundation to economic damage. The working group represented each of these processes by deterministic, spatially distributed models at different scales. While these models provide the necessary understanding of the flood process chain, they are not suitable for risk and uncertainty analyses due to their complex nature and high CPU-time demand. We have therefore developed a stochastic flood risk model consisting of simplified model components associated with the components of the process chain. We parameterised these model components based on the results of the complex deterministic models and used them for the risk and uncertainty analysis in a Monte Carlo framework. The Monte Carlo framework is hierarchically structured in two layers representing two different sources of uncertainty, aleatory uncertainty (due to natural and anthropogenic variability) and epistemic uncertainty (due to incomplete knowledge of the system). The model allows us to calculate probabilities of occurrence for events of different magnitudes along with the expected economic damage in a target area in the first layer of the Monte Carlo framework, i.e. to assess the economic risks, and to derive uncertainty bounds associated with these risks in the second layer. It is also possible to identify the contributions of individual sources of uncertainty to the overall uncertainty. It could be shown that the uncertainty caused by epistemic sources significantly alters the results obtained with aleatory uncertainty alone. The model was applied to reaches of the river Rhine downstream of Cologne.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5194/nhess-4-295-2004

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 536

Metadata

Authors
Apel, H., Thieken, A. H., Merz, B., & Blöschl, G.
Venue
Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences
Published
2004-04-16
Volume
4
Issue
2
Pages
295-308
ISSN
  • 1561-8633 (ISSN-L)
  • 1684-9981
OpenAlex
W2171174555
Cited by
536
References
0
FWCI
7.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Flood risk assessment and associated uncertainty. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5194/nhess-4-295-2004
The paper
Apel, H., Thieken, A. H., Merz, B., & Blöschl, G. (2004). Flood risk assessment and associated uncertainty. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-4-295-2004

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.