Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Effects of global warming on human health wikipedia , lookup
Climate change feedback wikipedia , lookup
General circulation model wikipedia , lookup
Climate sensitivity wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and poverty wikipedia , lookup
Future sea level wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in the United States wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on humans wikipedia , lookup
Economics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Uncertainty analysis for strategic decision making in the Thames Estuary Jim Hall Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research School of Civil Engineering and Geosciences Newcastle University Contents 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Background to the Thames Estuary 2100 project Risk-based flood management decisions The flood risk calculation in the Thames Estuary Sources and implications of uncertainty Uncertainties in climate change scenarios Uncertainties in socio-economic change Robust decision making under severe uncertainty 1953 slide Bondi slide The existing flood defence system 10 Thames Barrier Teddington Richmond Southend 9 8 North bank defence Spring tide (aprox) 6 1000-year RP 10000-year RP 5 No closure South bank defence Spring tide (aprox) 1000-year RP 4 10000-year RP 1000-year RP: design 3 10000-year RP: design 2 1 F1 T1 T3 T2 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 Distance from Teddington (km) 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 Closure Water Level (m AOD) 7 Thames Estuary 2100 The decision problem A set of decision options or ‘acts’ A set of future states of nature Depending on which state of nature in fact materialises, act di will yield one of m possible outcomes The net value associated with a given decision outcome yi,j can be written as a scalar function Decision making under certainty: The state of nature after the decision is known i.e. m = 1. The decision maker chooses the option with the highest value Decision making under risk: Only the probabilities are known. Choose the option that maximises: Decision making under uncertainty: There is no information about the probabilities of states of nature . The flood risk estimation The state of the flooding system will be described by a vector of continuous variables The expected value of a given flood risk management option is: Typically the quantities in yi(x) will extend though time, so it is necessary to establish a method of aggregating a stream of annual payments or losses In any given year, t, the risk ri,t is given by where is a damage function The flood risk management decision problem The Present Value risk is: In the case of purely economic decision making, commonplace decision criteria are Net Present Value (NPV) and Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) in which case it is necessary to introduce the notion of a ‘base case’ that involves no investment. The Present Value risk corresponding to the base case is r0 and expected to be unacceptably high, which is why investment in risk reduction is being contemplated. The Net Present Value is The Benefit-Cost Ratio is If the preference ordering between risk reduction options is established on the basis of NPV then if the preference ordering is denoted and similarly for BCR. The flood risk calculation In order to estimate flood risks it is necessary to be able to: 1. Estimate probability distributions, f(xt), for the sources of 2. Relate given values of loading variables to probabilities of flooding at locations where flooding may cause damage. 3. Calculate the damage that is caused by floods of a given severity. Steps 2 and 3 are together contained in The flood risk calculation in the Thames Estuary 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Joint probability distribution of boundary conditions at Southend (water level) and Teddington (flow at weir) 1D hydraulic model of water levels in the estuary with the Thames Barrier open and closed Reliability analysis of each of the dike sections Inundation models in the floodplain Depth-damage functions for flooded locations Dealing with uncertainty 1. 2. Uncertainty is significant in its potential to change preference orderings between options Aleatory uncertainties: Random variability, primarily in hydraulic loading conditions at the system boundaries. Integrate over jpdfs to obtain expectations. Epistemic uncertainties: Lack of knowledge due to: Limited statistical samples Choice of statistical distribution Limitations of physics-based models of underlying processes Potential for changes in future Exhaustive inventory and evidence gathering for epistemic uncertainties Robustness analysis under severe uncertainties Hall, J.W. and Solomatine, D. A framework for uncertainty analysis in flood risk management decisions, J. River Basin Management, 6(2) (2008): 85-98. Some examples of epistemic uncertainties: Extracts from the Thames Estuary uncertainty inventory Variable or function Sources of uncertainty Water level at Southend (probability distribution) Statistical uncertainties in estimating extreme tide levels Shape of tide/surge Single representative surge used in analysis Discharge at Teddington (probability distribution) Hydrological uncertainty in estimating discharge Water level at each defence in system: f(water level at Southend and discharge Teddington) Tidal/river model uncertainty Defence crest level Scarcity/accuracy of measurements. Probability of breaching of flood defences (conditional probability distribution) Scarcity of information about defences Limitations of quantified knowledge of failure modes Breach width (discrete values) Scarcity of information about defence materials. Limitations of quantified knowledge of breaching processes Quantification of uncertainties 8 7.5 Southend water level (mOD) JBA 7 r-largest 6.5 JPM RJPM 6 SRJPM 5.5 Spatial model Approach IV 5 Jones 2008 4.5 Suggested 95% bounds for uncertainty analysis 4 3.5 10 100 1000 Return period 10000 Probabilistic treatment of epistemic uncertainties: Distribution of EAD in the Thames Estuary Spatial analysis of uncertainties CV of EAD estimate (2005) Variance-based sensitivity analysis Consider a model of the form Y = g(X1,…, Xk) The total variance V in the model output Y is apportioned to all the input factors Xi as V Vi Vij Vijl ... V12... k i i j i j l The sensitivity index Ii represents the fractional contribution of a given factor Xi to the total variance: V Ii i V First order sensitivity indices 0.7 0.6 S ea level ris e 0.5 S ea level F irs t order s ens itivity index F low increas e F low 0.4 In-river water levels C res t level W eir E qn C ons t. 0.3 B reach W idth Multiplier F ragility 0.2 C ondition grade RFS M T hres hold 0.1 D epth damage Hydrograph multiplier 0 2005 -0.1 2100 Some examples of uncertainties in future changes : Extracts from the Thames Estuary uncertainty inventory Drivers Explanation Main Uncertainties Relative sea level Increases in mean sea level due to climate change. Uplift/subsidence of land. GCM predictions of mean and local sea level rise Future greenhouse gas emissions Waves Wave height and direction GCM predictions of wind. Downscaled wave modelling Future greenhouse gas emissions Surges Temporary increases in sea level above astronomic tide level, resulting from reduced atmospheric pressure and the action of strong winds GCM predictions of wind. Downscaled surge modelling Future greenhouse gas emissions Precipitation Quantity, spatial distribution of rainfall and intensity. Rain/snow proportion. GCM predictions of rainfall. Downscaling to Thames catchment Future greenhouse gas emissions Runoff and river conveyance Changes in land surface (e.g. construction of impermeable surfaces and storm water drainage systems) Changes (including engineering changes) in river morphology and/or vegetation that influence flood storage and flood conveyance Changes in land surface cover in the Thames catchment Future engineering works in the catchment that may alter downstream fluvial discharges Estuarial morphology Changes in the nearshore seabed, shoreline and estuaries. May be the consequence of anthropogenic activities such as dredging, reclamation and coastal protection. Morphological evolution in the outer and inner Thames estuary, including magnitude of and response to human interventions e.g. dredging. Flood defence systems Changes in the condition and reliability of the flood defence system (including fixed and moveable components). Rates of deterioration of the flood defence system e.g. material deterioration, settlement of embankments and deterioration of mechanical systems Buildings and contents Changes in the cost of flood damage to domestic, commercial and other buildings and their contents Rate of increase of domestic wealth Vulnerability of domestic and commercial buildings and contents Uncertainties: sea level rise Uncertainties: projected changes in storm surges from the UK Met Office Hadley Centre Uncertainties: socio-economic change Uncertainties: socio-economic change Economics Scenarios London geography: 633 admin zones Population socio-economic Type Economic forecasts (5 sectors) Land-use Spatial Interaction Model 633 zones: Population and employment Planning Scenarios Population to Land-use 100m grid of landuse change Road Rail Light rail and trams Bus Underground Transport Scenarios Scenarios of economic change from the Cambridge MDM model Future land use change and vulnerability Current Development New development (2020, Low Economic Scenario, PDL New development (2020, High Economic Scenario, PDL desirable) Info-gap analysis for dealing with severe uncertainties “So as to ensure better account is taken of climate change, Defra and the Environment Agency will produce revised guidance for use by those implementing flood and coastal erosion risk management measures. The revised guidance, to be finalised by the end of 2006, will ensure that adaptability to climate change through robust and resilient solutions becomes an integral part of all flood and coastal erosion management decisions.” Making space for water - Taking forward a new Government strategy for flood and coastal erosion risk management in England, March 2005. A theory of robust decision making under sever uncertainty When probabilities are hard to estimate Incorporates approximate information about the relative magnitude of uncertainties Can hybridise with probabilistic representation of aleatory uncertainties V Hi Climate change Info-gap analysis Hi ũ Med Low 1% 2% 3% Economic growth p.a. Ben-Haim, Y.,“Information-Gap Decision Theory: Decisions Under Severe Uncertainty”, 2nd Edition, Wiley, New York, (2006). Demonstration site: Dartford to Gravesend Flood defence options 1. 2. 3. 4. Optimising: Raise defences in 2025 to levels found to be optimal assuming an annual rate of increase of relative mean sea level at the mouth of the Thames consistent with current best estimates of 2100 level. Precautionary: Raise defences in 2025 to levels found to be optimal assuming an annual rate of increase of relative mean sea level at the mouth of the Thames consistent with the upper bound on the IPCC range of 2100 levels. Procrastinating: Raise defences in 2050 to levels optimal for actual sea level rise, which is assumed to be known by the time works must begin. Adaptive: As 3, but implement temporary works in 2025 to increase the standard of defence. Performance criterion R(di,u): reward associated with option di and future conditions u ri,y: flood risk associated with option i in year y i = 0: base case “do nothing” option ci,y: construction cost associated with option i in year y N: appraisal period (years) s: discount rate Option Base case 1. Raise 2025 1.4m, optimal for 0.56m mslr 2. Raise 2025 1.8m, optimal for 0.88m mslr 3. Raise 2050, optimal for actual slr 4. Raise 2050, optimal for slr, temporary works 2025 PV Damage £ 1700×106 82×106 76×106 276×106 96×106 PV Cost £ 57×106 65×106 24×106 36×106 NPV £ 1.2×109 1.2×109 1.1×109 1.2×109 Info-gap uncertainty model 1. 2. 3. Construction cost Best estimate x1.6 (60% “optimism bias”) At α=1 cost in [-14%, +220%] Growth in flood damage potential Foresight gives range [2.4%, 4.7%] annual growth Sea level rise Best regional estimate: 6.4mm/year IPCC range (α=1) [2.1, 10.1]mm/year Outer range of possibility (α=2) somewhere around [1.6, 22]mm/year Info-gap uncertainty model Robustness curves .. Opportunity curves FLOODrisk The lessons “Do something” options become less desirable at: Low rates of sea level rise Low rates of growth in vulnerability High cost over-runs Delaying to obtain better information yields more robust solutions, but only if you can economically limit the risk in the meantime If you prefer to do something now, use the best estimate of sea level rise, not a conservative estimate The analysis is just for a sub-system: analysis of the whole system is next. Options are rather idealised: whole systems analysis will provide the opportunity to explore a broader range of options Conclusions The principles of risk-based flood management decisions are well established Many critical uncertainties remain. These can be difficult to quantify Variance-based sensitivity analysis has been used to identify key uncertainties Systems of coupled models of long term change (e.g. climate change, socio-economic change) are helping to understand how flood risks may evolve in future Info-gap decision theory is helping to identify robustness of adaptation options under conditions of severe uncertainty The Thames Estuary is an outstanding example of risk-based decision making in the context of long term change [email protected] http://www.ceg.ncl.ac.uk/profiles2/njh57 http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/