Comment on "Significance of "high probability/low damage" versus "low probability/high damage" flood events" by Merz et al. (2009)
This comment is meant to shed some light on the use of so-called "risk aversion functions" in the management of flood risks and other natural hazards as recently proposed in this journal (Merz et al., 2009). In particular, I resume the discussion as to whether the relative damage is a suit...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Copernicus Publications
2010-01-01
|
| Series: | Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences |
| Online Access: | http://www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/10/1/2010/nhess-10-1-2010.pdf |
| id |
doaj-a99f09652333429d965c392f27658a9a |
|---|---|
| record_format |
Article |
| spelling |
doaj-a99f09652333429d965c392f27658a9a2020-11-24T22:09:57ZengCopernicus PublicationsNatural Hazards and Earth System Sciences1561-86331684-99812010-01-0110112Comment on "Significance of "high probability/low damage" versus "low probability/high damage" flood events" by Merz et al. (2009)C. M. RheinbergerThis comment is meant to shed some light on the use of so-called "risk aversion functions" in the management of flood risks and other natural hazards as recently proposed in this journal (Merz et al., 2009). In particular, I resume the discussion as to whether the relative damage is a suitable indicator of risk aversion and lay out why the use of this indicator may lead to inefficient decisions upon flood mitigation measures. http://www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/10/1/2010/nhess-10-1-2010.pdf |
| collection |
DOAJ |
| language |
English |
| format |
Article |
| sources |
DOAJ |
| author |
C. M. Rheinberger |
| spellingShingle |
C. M. Rheinberger Comment on "Significance of "high probability/low damage" versus "low probability/high damage" flood events" by Merz et al. (2009) Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences |
| author_facet |
C. M. Rheinberger |
| author_sort |
C. M. Rheinberger |
| title |
Comment on "Significance of "high probability/low damage" versus "low probability/high damage" flood events" by Merz et al. (2009) |
| title_short |
Comment on "Significance of "high probability/low damage" versus "low probability/high damage" flood events" by Merz et al. (2009) |
| title_full |
Comment on "Significance of "high probability/low damage" versus "low probability/high damage" flood events" by Merz et al. (2009) |
| title_fullStr |
Comment on "Significance of "high probability/low damage" versus "low probability/high damage" flood events" by Merz et al. (2009) |
| title_full_unstemmed |
Comment on "Significance of "high probability/low damage" versus "low probability/high damage" flood events" by Merz et al. (2009) |
| title_sort |
comment on "significance of "high probability/low damage" versus "low probability/high damage" flood events" by merz et al. (2009) |
| publisher |
Copernicus Publications |
| series |
Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences |
| issn |
1561-8633 1684-9981 |
| publishDate |
2010-01-01 |
| description |
This comment is meant to shed some light on the use of so-called "risk aversion functions" in the management of flood risks and other natural hazards as recently proposed in this journal (Merz et al., 2009). In particular, I resume the discussion as to whether the relative damage is a suitable indicator of risk aversion and lay out why the use of this indicator may lead to inefficient decisions upon flood mitigation measures. |
| url |
http://www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/10/1/2010/nhess-10-1-2010.pdf |
| work_keys_str_mv |
AT cmrheinberger commentonsignificanceofhighprobabilitylowdamageversuslowprobabilityhighdamagefloodeventsbymerzetal2009 |
| _version_ |
1725809873377034240 |