Expected Annual Damages and Uncertainties in Flood Frequency Estimation
Publication: Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management
Volume 115, Issue 1
Abstract
The expected annual damge is the most frequently used index of the impact of flooding at a site. However, estimates of expected annual damages are very uncertain as a result of uncertainties in both the estimation of the flood frequency relationship from limited data and the relationships between magnitude and damage. Computer simulation experiments using synthetic flood peak data and fixed magnitude‐damage functions have shown that the sampling distribution of estimates of expected annual damages is highly skewed to a degree depending on the form of the damage function, and most importantly, that bias in the estimates is most closely related to error in the estimated probability at which damage begins. The use of expected probability leads to a very significant increase in bias in the estimation of expected annual damages.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
Abramowitz, M., and Stegun, I. A. (1965). Handbook of mathematical functions. Dover Publications Inc., New York, N.Y., 948–949.
2.
Arnell, N. W. (1988). “Unbiased estimates of flood risk with the generalized extreme value distribution.” Stochastic Hydrol. and Hydr., 2(2), 201–212.
3.
Bao, Y., Tung, Y.‐K., and Hasfurther, V. R. (1987). “Evaluation of uncertainty in flood magnitude estimator on annual expected damage costs of hydraulic structures.” Water Resour. Res., 23, 2023–2029.
4.
Beard, L. R. (1960). “Probability estimates based on small normal distribution samples.” J. Geophys. Res., 65, 2143–2148.
5.
Beard, L. R. (1978). “Impact of hydrologic uncertainties on flood insurance.” J. Hydr. Div., ASCE, 104(11), 1473–1484.
6.
Doran, D. G., and Irish, J. L. (1980). “On the nature and extent of bias in flood damage estimation.” Proc. Hydrology and Water Resour. Symp. Institution of Engineers, Adelaide, Australia, Nov., 135–139.
7.
Gould, B. W. (1973a). Discussion of “Bias in computed flood risk” by C. H. Hardison. J. Hydr. Div., ASCE, 99(1), 270–272.
8.
Gould, B. W. (1973b). “Sampling errors in flood damage estimates.” Proc. Urban Water Economics Symp. C. Aislabie, ed. Univ. of Newcastle Research Associates, Newcastle, Australia, 82–98.
9.
Grigg, T. J. (1978). “Risk and uncertainty in project appraisal: The urban flooding example.” Hydrology Symp. Institution of Engineers, Canberra, Australia, 90–94.
10.
Hardison, C. H., and Jennings, M. E. (1972). “Bias in computed flood risk.” J. Hydr. Div., ASCE, 98(3), 415–427.
11.
James, L. D., and Hall, B. (1986). “Risk information for floodplain management.” J. Water Resour. Planning and Mgmt., ASCE, 112, 485–499.
12.
Ouellette, P., El‐Jabi, N., and Rousselle, J. (1985). “Application of extreme value theory to flood damage.” J. Water Resour. Planning and Mgmt., ASCE, 111(5), 467–477.
13.
Stedinger, J. R. (1983a). “Design events with specified flood risk.” Water Resour. Res., 19(2), 511–522.
14.
Stedinger, J. R. (1983b). “Confidence intervals for design events.” J. Hydr. Engrg., ASCE, 109(1), 13–27.
15.
Tai, K. C. (1987). “Flood risk bias analysed through a multi‐state flood insurance model.” Application of frequency and risk in water resources, V. P. Singh, ed. D. Reidel, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 395–404.
17.
Tung, Y.‐K. (1987). “Effects of uncertainties on optimal risk‐based design of hydraulic structures.” J. Water Resour. Planning and Mgmt., ASCE, 113(5), 709–722.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management
Volume 115 • Issue 1 • January 1989
Pages: 94 - 107
Copyright
Copyright © 1989 ASCE.
History
Published online: Jan 1, 1989
Published in print: Jan 1989
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.