Quantifying location error to define uncertainty in volcanic mass flow hazard simulations

<p>The use of mass flow simulations in volcanic hazard zonation and mapping is often limited by model complexity (i.e. uncertainty in correct values of model parameters), a lack of model uncertainty quantification, and limited approaches to incorporate this uncertainty into hazard maps. When q...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: S. R. Mead, J. Procter, G. Kereszturi
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Copernicus Publications 2021-08-01
Series:Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences
Online Access:https://nhess.copernicus.org/articles/21/2447/2021/nhess-21-2447-2021.pdf
id doaj-8148bce6872a44d88f234728562fcdcf
record_format Article
spelling doaj-8148bce6872a44d88f234728562fcdcf2021-08-20T05:36:12ZengCopernicus PublicationsNatural Hazards and Earth System Sciences1561-86331684-99812021-08-01212447246010.5194/nhess-21-2447-2021Quantifying location error to define uncertainty in volcanic mass flow hazard simulationsS. R. MeadJ. ProcterG. Kereszturi<p>The use of mass flow simulations in volcanic hazard zonation and mapping is often limited by model complexity (i.e. uncertainty in correct values of model parameters), a lack of model uncertainty quantification, and limited approaches to incorporate this uncertainty into hazard maps. When quantified, mass flow simulation errors are typically evaluated on a pixel-pair basis, using the difference between simulated and observed (“actual”) map-cell values to evaluate the performance of a model. However, these comparisons conflate location and quantification errors, neglecting possible spatial autocorrelation of evaluated errors. As a result, model performance assessments typically yield moderate accuracy values. In this paper, similarly moderate accuracy values were found in a performance assessment of three depth-averaged numerical models using the 2012 debris avalanche from the Upper Te Maari crater, Tongariro Volcano, as a benchmark. To provide a fairer assessment of performance and evaluate spatial covariance of errors, we use a fuzzy set approach to indicate the proximity of similarly valued map cells. This “fuzzification” of simulated results yields improvements in targeted performance metrics relative to a length scale parameter at the expense of decreases in opposing metrics (e.g. fewer false negatives result in more false positives) and a reduction in resolution. The use of this approach to generate hazard zones incorporating the identified uncertainty and associated trade-offs is demonstrated and indicates a potential use for informed stakeholders by reducing the complexity of uncertainty estimation and supporting decision-making from simulated data.</p>https://nhess.copernicus.org/articles/21/2447/2021/nhess-21-2447-2021.pdf
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author S. R. Mead
J. Procter
G. Kereszturi
spellingShingle S. R. Mead
J. Procter
G. Kereszturi
Quantifying location error to define uncertainty in volcanic mass flow hazard simulations
Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences
author_facet S. R. Mead
J. Procter
G. Kereszturi
author_sort S. R. Mead
title Quantifying location error to define uncertainty in volcanic mass flow hazard simulations
title_short Quantifying location error to define uncertainty in volcanic mass flow hazard simulations
title_full Quantifying location error to define uncertainty in volcanic mass flow hazard simulations
title_fullStr Quantifying location error to define uncertainty in volcanic mass flow hazard simulations
title_full_unstemmed Quantifying location error to define uncertainty in volcanic mass flow hazard simulations
title_sort quantifying location error to define uncertainty in volcanic mass flow hazard simulations
publisher Copernicus Publications
series Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences
issn 1561-8633
1684-9981
publishDate 2021-08-01
description <p>The use of mass flow simulations in volcanic hazard zonation and mapping is often limited by model complexity (i.e. uncertainty in correct values of model parameters), a lack of model uncertainty quantification, and limited approaches to incorporate this uncertainty into hazard maps. When quantified, mass flow simulation errors are typically evaluated on a pixel-pair basis, using the difference between simulated and observed (“actual”) map-cell values to evaluate the performance of a model. However, these comparisons conflate location and quantification errors, neglecting possible spatial autocorrelation of evaluated errors. As a result, model performance assessments typically yield moderate accuracy values. In this paper, similarly moderate accuracy values were found in a performance assessment of three depth-averaged numerical models using the 2012 debris avalanche from the Upper Te Maari crater, Tongariro Volcano, as a benchmark. To provide a fairer assessment of performance and evaluate spatial covariance of errors, we use a fuzzy set approach to indicate the proximity of similarly valued map cells. This “fuzzification” of simulated results yields improvements in targeted performance metrics relative to a length scale parameter at the expense of decreases in opposing metrics (e.g. fewer false negatives result in more false positives) and a reduction in resolution. The use of this approach to generate hazard zones incorporating the identified uncertainty and associated trade-offs is demonstrated and indicates a potential use for informed stakeholders by reducing the complexity of uncertainty estimation and supporting decision-making from simulated data.</p>
url https://nhess.copernicus.org/articles/21/2447/2021/nhess-21-2447-2021.pdf
work_keys_str_mv AT srmead quantifyinglocationerrortodefineuncertaintyinvolcanicmassflowhazardsimulations
AT jprocter quantifyinglocationerrortodefineuncertaintyinvolcanicmassflowhazardsimulations
AT gkereszturi quantifyinglocationerrortodefineuncertaintyinvolcanicmassflowhazardsimulations
_version_ 1721201539314352128