Design of water reuse storage facilities in Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems from a volumetric water balance perspective

[EN] This paper presents a methodology for designing water reuse storage facilities as part of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) in urban catchments. The method analyzes the whole water balance of the catchment. The contributions to the balance are irrigation and precipitation; the outlets are evapotranspiration, seepage and discharge to the conventional sewage system. The internal system variations are the volume of water to be locally reutilized and the soil water content variation. A cost function that includes the costs of irrigation, discharge to the conventional sewer system and reuse of water locally is proposed to estimate the optimum volume of water to be reused. This approach for SUDS design goes beyond traditional events-based perspectives oriented to damage prevention. This method conceives stormwater as a resource and seeks its optimal use through the design of SUDS. Several types of urban catchments were studied, and the results show that the proposed methodology can be applied either for simulating SUDS behavior in urban catchments or for estimating the optimum volume of water to be locally reused. (C) 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.This research was partially developed within the LIFE CERSUDS project and was financed by the LIFE Programme 2014-2020 of the European Union for the Environment and Climate Action [LIFE15 CCA/ES/000091].Zubelzu, S.; Rodríguez Sinobas, L.; Andrés Doménech, I.; Castillo-Rodríguez, J.; Perales Momparler, S. (2019). Design of water reuse storage facilities in Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems from a volumetric water balance perspective. The Science of The Total Environment. 663:133-143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.01.342S13314366

Enhancing local action planning through quantitative flood risk analysis: a case study in Spain

[EN] This article presents a method to incorporate and promote quantitative risk analysis to support local action planning against flooding. The proposed approach aims to provide a framework for local flood risk analysis, combining hazard mapping with vulnerability data to quantify risk in terms of expected annual affected population, potential injuries, number of fatalities, and economic damages. Flood risk is estimated combining GIS data of loads, system response, and consequences and using event tree modelling for risk calculation. The study area is the city of Oliva, located on the eastern coast of Spain. Results from risk modelling have been used to inform local action planning and to assess the benefits of structural and non-structural risk reduction measures. Results show the potential impact on risk reduction of flood defences and improved warning communication schemes through local action planning: societal flood risk (in terms of annual expected affected population) would be reduced up to 51% by combining both structural and nonstructural measures. In addition, the effect of seasonal population variability is analysed (annual expected affected population ranges from 82 to 107 %, compared with the current situation, depending on occupancy rates in hotels and campsites). Results highlight the need for robust and standardized methods for urban flood risk analysis replicability at regional and national scale.This research was conducted within the framework of the INICIA project, funded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (BIA2013-48157-C2-1-R). The article processing charges for this open-access publication will be covered by the INICIA project. We would like to thank the city of Oliva for their willingness to share data, knowledge, and experience with the authors and for initiating this risk-informed journey.Castillo-Rodríguez, J.; Escuder Bueno, I.; Perales Momparler, S.; Porta-Sancho, J. (2016). Enhancing local action planning through quantitative flood risk analysis: a case study in Spain. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences. 16(7):1699-1718. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-16-1699-2016S16991718167Barredo, J. I.: Normalised flood losses in Europe: 1970–2006, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 9, 97–104, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-9-97-2009, 2009.Castillo-Rodriguez, J. T., Escuder-Bueno, I., Altarejos-García, L., and Serrano-Lombillo, A.: The value of integrating information from multiple hazards for flood risk analysis and management, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 14, 379–400, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-14-379-2014, 2014.DEFRA: FD2321/TR1 – The Flood Risks to People Methodology, London, available at: www.defra.gov.uk/environ/fcd/research (last access: February 2016), 2006.EC: Guide to Cost Benefit Analysis of Investment Projects: European Commission, DG for Regional and Urban Policy, Brussels BELGIUM, https://doi.org/10.2776/97516, 2008.Escuder-Bueno, I., Castillo-Rodriguez, J. T., Zechner, S., Jöbstl, C., Perales-Momparler, S., and Petaccia, G.: A quantitative flood risk analysis methodology for urban areas with integration of social research data, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 12, 2843–2863, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-12-2843-2012, 2012.European Parliament: DIRECTIVE 2007/60/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 23 October 2007 on the assessment and management of flood risks, L 228, 27–34, 2007.Fell, R., Corominas, J., Bonnard, C., Cascini, L., Leroi, E., and Savage, W. Z.: Guidelines for landslide susceptibility, hazard and risk zoning for land use planning, Eng. Geol., 102, 85–98, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2008.03.022, 2008.Fuchs, S., Spachinger, K., Dorner, W., Rochman, J., and Serrhini, K.: Evaluating cartographic design in flood risk mapping, Environ. Hazards, 8, 52–70, https://doi.org/10.3763/ehaz.2009.0007, 2009.Fuchs, S., Keiler, M., and Zischg, A.: A spatiotemporal multi-hazard exposure assessment based on property data, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 15, 2127–2142, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-15-2127-2015, 2015.Gamper, C. D. and Turcanu, C.: On the governmental use of multi-criteria analysis, Ecol. Econ., 2, 298–307, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.01.010, 2007.Generalitat Valenciana: Plan de Acción Territorial sobre prevención del Riesgo de Inundación en la Comunitat Valenciana (PATRICOVA), Valencia, 67–72, 2015.Hall, J. W., Meadowcroft, I. C., Sayers, P. B., and Bramley, M. E.: Integrated Flood Risk Management in England and Wales, 2003.Hennig, C., Dise, K., and Muller, B.: Achieiving Public Protection with Dam Safety Risk Assessment Practices, Nat. Hazards Rev., 4, 126–135, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1527-6988(2003)4:3(126)1997, 2003.Hijós Bitrián, F., Mañueco Pfeiffer, M. G., and Segura Notario, N.: Comité nacional español de grandes presas, Congreso Nacional de Presas, Proc. of Risk-Based Decision Making in Water Resources VIII, edited by: Yacov, Y., Haimes, D., Moser, A., and Stakhiv, E. Z., 19–32, 2010.Jongman, B., Kreibich, H., Apel, H., Barredo, J. I., Bates, P. D., Feyen, L., Gericke, A., and Neal, J.: Comparative flood damage model assessment?: towards a European approach, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 12, 3733–3752, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-12-3733-2012, 2012.Jongman, B., Koks, E. E., Husby, T. G., and Ward, P. J.: Increasing flood exposure in the Netherlands: implications for risk financing, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 14, 1245–1255, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-14-1245-2014, 2014.Jonkman, S. N., Vrijling, J. K., and Vrouwenvelder, A. C. W. M.: Methods for the estimation of loss of life due to floods?: a literature review and a proposal for a new method, Nat. Hazards, 46, 353–389, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-008-9227-5, 2008.Klijn, F. and Schweckendiek, T.: Comprehensive Flood Risk Management: Research for Policy and Practice, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 297–330, 2012.Klijn, F., Kreibich, H., De Moel, H., and Penning-rowsell, E.: Adaptive flood risk management planning based on a comprehensive flood risk conceptualisation, Mitig. Adapt. Strat. Glob. Chang., 20, 845–864, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-015-9638-z, 2015.MAGRAMA: Propuesta de mínimos para la metodología de realización de los mapas de riesgo de inundación, Madrid, Ministerio de Agricultura, Alimentación y Medio Ambiente, Madrid, Spain, 2013.Marcotullio, P. J. and McGranahan, G.: Scaling Urban Environmental Challenges: From local to global and back, Earthscan with UNU-IAS and IIED, Earthscan, London, Sterling, VA, 2006.Mayors Adapt: The new integrated covenant of mayors for climate and energy, www.mayors-adapt.eu (last access: July 2016), 2015.Mazzorana, B., Comiti, F., Scherer, C., and Fuchs, S.: Developing consistent scenarios to assess fl ood hazards in mountain streams, J. Environ. Manage., 94, 112–124, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.06.030, 2012.Mazzorana, B., Comiti, F., and Fuchs, S.: A structured approach to enhance flood hazard assessment in mountain streams, Nat. Hazards, 67, 991–1009, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-011-9811-y, 2013.Merz, B. and Thieken, A. H.: Flood risk curves and uncertainty bounds, Natural Hazards, 51, 437–458, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-009-9452-6, 2009.Merz, B., Kreibich, H., Schwarze, R., and Thieken, A.: Assessment of economic flood damage, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 1697–1724, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-10-1697-2010, 2010.Meyer, V., Scheuer, S., and Haase, D.: A multicriteria approach for flood risk mapping exemplified at the Mulde river, Germany, Nat. Hazards, 48, 17–39, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-008-9244-4, 2009.Meyer, V., Kuhlicke, C., Luther, J., Fuchs, S., Priest, S., Dorner, W., Serrhini, K., Pardoe, J., and Mccarthy, S.: Recommendations for the user-specific enhancement of flood maps, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 12, 1701–1716, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-12-1701-2012, 2012.Miller, A., Jonkman, S. N., and Van Ledden, M.: Risk to life due to flooding in post-Katrina New Orleans, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 15, 59–73, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-15-59-2015, 2015.Morales-Torres, A., Serrano-Lombillo, A., Escuder-Bueno, I., and Altarejos-García, L.: The suitability of risk reduction indicators to inform dam safety management, Struct. Infrastruct. Eng., 12, 2479, https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2015.1136830, 2016.Nakicenovic, N., Lempert, R., and Janetos, A.: Special Issue of Climatic Change on the framework for the development of new socioeconomics scenarios for climate change research, Clim. Change, 122, 351–361, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0982-2, 2013.Parker, D. J., Tunstall, S., and Wilson, T.: Socio-Economic Benefits of Flood Forecasting and Warning, in: International conference on innovation advances and implementation of flood forecasting technology, Session 8, 1–11, ACTIF, available at: http://www.actif-ec.net/conference2005/proceedings/index.html, (last access: July 2016), Tromso, Norway, 2005.Penning-Rowsell, E. C., Priest, S. J., Parker, D. J., Morris, J., Tunstall, S. M., Viavatenne, C., Chatterton, J., and D., O.: Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management, A manual for economic appraisal, London, Routledge, Chapter 4, 2013.Quan-Luna, B., Blahut, J., Westen, C. J. Van, Sterlacchini, S., Asch, T. W. J., and Van and Akbas, S. O.: The application of numerical debris flow modelling for the generation of physical vulnerability curves, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 11, 2047–2060, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-11-2047-2011, 2011.Ramis, C., Homar, V., Amengual, A., Romero, R., and Alonso, S.: Daily precipitation records over mainland Spain and the Balearic Islands, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 13, 2483–2491, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-13-2483-2013, 2013.Sayers, P. B., Horritt, M., Penning-Rowsell, E., and McKenzie, A.: Climate Change Risk Assessment 2017 Projections of future flood risk in the UK, London, 69–73, 2015.Serrano-Lombillo, A., Escuder-Bueno, I., De Membrillera-Ortuño, M. G., and Altarejos-García, L.: Methodology for the Calculation of Annualized Incremental Risks in Systems of Dams, Risk Anal., 31, 1000–1015, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01547.x, 2011.Totschnig, R. and Fuchs, S.: Mountain torrents: Quantifying vulnerability and assessing uncertainties, Eng. Geol., 155, 31–44, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2012.12.019, 2013.UK Health and Safety Executive: Reducing Risks: Protecting People – HSE's decision making process, Norwich, Health and Safety Executive, 40–48, 2001.Université Catholique de Louvain: EM-DAT Database: The OFDA/CRED International Disaster Database, available at: http://www.emdat.be/ (last access: 1 October 2015), 2015.USACE: Economic Guidance Memorandum (EGM) 01-03: Generic Depth-Damage Relationships, 2000.Velasco, M., Cabello, À., and Russo, B.: Flood damage assessment in urban areas, Application to the Raval district of Barcelona using synthetic depth damage curves, Urban Water J., https://doi.org/10.1080/1573062X.2014.994005, 2015.Vrijling, J. K.: Probabilistic design of water defense systems in The Netherlands, 74, 337–344, 2001.Ward, P. J., De Moel, H., and Aerts, J. C. J. H.: How are flood risk estimates affected by the choice of return-periods?, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 11, 3181–3195, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-11-3181-2011, 2011.Ward, P. J., Jongman, B., Weiland, F. S., Bouwman, A., Beek, R. Van, Bierkens, M. F. P., and Ligtvoet, W.: Assessing flood risk at the global scale: model setup, results, and sensitivity, Environ. Res. Lett., 044019, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/4/044019, 2013a.Ward, P. J., Jongman, B., Weiland, F. S., Bouwman, A., van Beek, R., Bierkens, M. F. P., Ligtvoet, W., and Winsemius, H. C.: Assessing flood risk at the global scale: model setup, results, and sensitivity, Environ. Res. Lett., 8, 044019, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/4/044019, 2013b.Winsemius, H. C., Van Beek, L. P. H., Jongman, B., Ward, P. J., and Bouwman, A.: A framework for global river flood risk assessments, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 17, 1871–1892, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-1871-2013, 2013

Accounting for climate change uncertainty in long-term dam risk management

[EN] This paper presents a practical approach to adaptive management of dam risk based on robust decision-making strategies coupled with estimation of climate scenario probabilities. The proposed methodology, called multi-prior weighted scenarios ranking, consists of a series of steps from risk estimation for current and future situations through definition of the consensus sequence of risk reduction measures to be implemented. This represents a supporting tool for dam owners and safety practitioners in making decisions for managing dams or prioritizing long-term investments using a cost-benefit approach. This methodology is applied to the case study of a Spanish dam under the effects of climate change. Several risk reduction measures are proposed and their impacts are analyzed. The application of the methodology allows for identifying the optimal sequence of implementation measures that overcomes uncertainty from the diversity of available climate scenarios by prioritizing measures that reduce future accumulated risks at lower costs. This work proves that such a methodology helps address uncertainty that arises from multiple climate scenarios while adopting a cost-benefit approach that optimizes economic resources in dam risk management.Fluixá-Sanmartín, J.; Escuder Bueno, I.; Morales-Torres, A.; Castillo-Rodríguez, J. (2021). Accounting for climate change uncertainty in long-term dam risk management. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management. 147(4):1-13. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0001355S1131474Amodio, S., D’Ambrosio, A., & Siciliano, R. (2016). Accurate algorithms for identifying the median ranking when dealing with weak and partial rankings under the Kemeny axiomatic approach. European Journal of Operational Research, 249(2), 667-676. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2015.08.048Ardiles L. D. Sanz P. Moreno E. Jenaro J. Fleitz and I. Escuder-Bueno. 2011. “Risk assessment and management for 26 Dams operated by the Duero River Authority (Spain).” In Proc. 6th Int. Conf. on Dam Engineering edited by C. Pina E. Portela and J. P. Gomes. Singapore: CI-premier Pte Ltd.Baecher, G. B., Paté, M. E., & De Neufville, R. (1980). Risk of dam failure in benefit-cost analysis. Water Resources Research, 16(3), 449-456. doi:10.1029/wr016i003p00449Burke, M., Dykema, J., Lobell, D., Miguel, E., & Satyanath, S. (2011). Incorporating Climate Uncertainty into Estimates of Climate Change Impacts, with Applications to U.S. and African Agriculture. doi:10.3386/w17092Chamberlain, G. (2000). Econometric applications of maxmin expected utility. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 15(6), 625-644. doi:10.1002/jae.583Chernet, H. H., Alfredsen, K., & Midttømme, G. H. (2014). Safety of Hydropower Dams in a Changing Climate. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 19(3), 569-582. doi:10.1061/(asce)he.1943-5584.0000836Choi, O. (2003). Climatic Change, 58(1/2), 149-170. doi:10.1023/a:1023459216609Christensen, J., Kjellström, E., Giorgi, F., Lenderink, G., & Rummukainen, M. (2010). Weight assignment in regional climate models. Climate Research, 44(2-3), 179-194. doi:10.3354/cr00916Danthine, J.-P., & Donaldson, J. B. (2015). Making Choices in Risky Situations. Intermediate Financial Theory, 55-86. doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-386549-6.00003-6Davis, J., Hands, D., & Mäki, U. (1998). The Handbook of Economic Methodology. doi:10.4337/9781781954249Dessai, S., & Hulme, M. (2004). Does climate adaptation policy need probabilities? Climate Policy, 4(2), 107-128. doi:10.1080/14693062.2004.9685515Eggleston H. S. 2006. “National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme and Chikyū Kankyō Senryaku Kenkyū Kikan.” In Proc. IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. Geneva: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.Emond, E. J., & Mason, D. W. (2002). A new rank correlation coefficient with application to the consensus ranking problem. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 11(1), 17-28. doi:10.1002/mcda.313Farnoud Hassanzadeh, F., & Milenkovic, O. (2014). An Axiomatic Approach to Constructing Distances for Rank Comparison and Aggregation. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 60(10), 6417-6439. doi:10.1109/tit.2014.2345760Ferson, S., & Ginzburg, L. R. (1996). Different methods are needed to propagate ignorance and variability. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 54(2-3), 133-144. doi:10.1016/s0951-8320(96)00071-3Fluixá-Sanmartín, J., Altarejos-García, L., Morales-Torres, A., & Escuder-Bueno, I. (2018). Review article: Climate change impacts on dam safety. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 18(9), 2471-2488. doi:10.5194/nhess-18-2471-2018Fluixá-Sanmartín, J., Escuder-Bueno, I., Morales-Torres, A., & Castillo-Rodríguez, J. T. (2020). Comprehensive decision-making approach for managing time dependent dam risks. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 203, 107100. doi:10.1016/j.ress.2020.107100Fluixá-Sanmartín, J., Morales-Torres, A., Escuder-Bueno, I., & Paredes-Arquiola, J. (2019). Quantification of climate change impact on dam failure risk under hydrological scenarios: a case study from a Spanish dam. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 19(10), 2117-2139. doi:10.5194/nhess-19-2117-2019Gersonius, B., Morselt, T., van Nieuwenhuijzen, L., Ashley, R., & Zevenbergen, C. (2012). How the Failure to Account for Flexibility in the Economic Analysis of Flood Risk and Coastal Management Strategies Can Result in Maladaptive Decisions. Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal, and Ocean Engineering, 138(5), 386-393. doi:10.1061/(asce)ww.1943-5460.0000142Giorgi, F., & Mearns, L. O. (2002). Calculation of Average, Uncertainty Range, and Reliability of Regional Climate Changes from AOGCM Simulations via the «Reliability Ensemble Averaging» (REA) Method. Journal of Climate, 15(10), 1141-1158. doi:10.1175/1520-0442(2002)0152.0.co;2Haasnoot, M., Kwakkel, J. H., Walker, W. E., & ter Maat, J. (2013). Dynamic adaptive policy pathways: A method for crafting robust decisions for a deeply uncertain world. Global Environmental Change, 23(2), 485-498. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.12.006Haasnoot, M., Middelkoop, H., Offermans, A., Beek, E. van, & Deursen, W. P. A. van. (2012). Exploring pathways for sustainable water management in river deltas in a changing environment. Climatic Change, 115(3-4), 795-819. doi:10.1007/s10584-012-0444-2Hallegatte, S. (2009). Strategies to adapt to an uncertain climate change. Global Environmental Change, 19(2), 240-247. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.12.003Hartford, D. N. D., & Baecher, G. B. (2004). Risk and uncertainty in dam safety. doi:10.1680/rauids.32705Harvey, H., Hall, J., & Peppé, R. (2011). Computational decision analysis for flood risk management in an uncertain future. Journal of Hydroinformatics, 14(3), 537-561. doi:10.2166/hydro.2011.055Hawkins, E., & Sutton, R. (2009). The Potential to Narrow Uncertainty in Regional Climate Predictions. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 90(8), 1095-1108. doi:10.1175/2009bams2607.1Heal, G., & Millner, A. (2014). Reflections. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 8(1), 120-137. doi:10.1093/reep/ret023Jones, R. N. (2000). Climatic Change, 45(3/4), 403-419. doi:10.1023/a:1005551626280Kaplan, S. (1997). The Words of Risk Analysis. Risk Analysis, 17(4), 407-417. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1997.tb00881.xKENDALL, M. G. (1938). A NEW MEASURE OF RANK CORRELATION. Biometrika, 30(1-2), 81-93. doi:10.1093/biomet/30.1-2.81Khatri, K., & Vairavamoorthy, K. (2011). A New Approach of Decision Making under Uncertainty for Selecting a Robust Strategy: A Case of Water Pipes Failure. Vulnerability, Uncertainty, and Risk. doi:10.1061/41170(400)116Kingston, D. G., Todd, M. C., Taylor, R. G., Thompson, J. R., & Arnell, N. W. (2009). Uncertainty in the estimation of potential evapotranspiration under climate change. Geophysical Research Letters, 36(20). doi:10.1029/2009gl040267Knutti, R., Furrer, R., Tebaldi, C., Cermak, J., & Meehl, G. A. (2010). Challenges in Combining Projections from Multiple Climate Models. Journal of Climate, 23(10), 2739-2758. doi:10.1175/2009jcli3361.1Lempert, R. J., Groves, D. G., Popper, S. W., & Bankes, S. C. (2006). A General, Analytic Method for Generating Robust Strategies and Narrative Scenarios. Management Science, 52(4), 514-528. doi:10.1287/mnsc.1050.0472Lempert, R., Popper, S., & Bankes, S. (2003). Shaping the Next One Hundred Years: New Methods for Quantitative, Long-Term Policy Analysis. doi:10.7249/mr1626Levitan, S., & Thomson, R. (2009). The Application of Expected-Utility Theory to the Choice of Investment Channels in a Defined-Contribution Retirement Fund. ASTIN Bulletin, 39(2), 615-647. doi:10.2143/ast.39.2.2044651Leyva López, J. C., & Alvarez Carrillo, P. A. (2014). Accentuating the rank positions in an agreement index with reference to a consensus order. International Transactions in Operational Research, 22(6), 969-995. doi:10.1111/itor.12146Lind, N. (2007). Discounting risks in the far future. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 92(10), 1328-1332. doi:10.1016/j.ress.2006.09.001Luo, K., Xu, Y., Zhang, B., & Zhang, H. (2016). Creating an acceptable consensus ranking for group decision making. Journal of Combinatorial Optimization, 36(1), 307-328. doi:10.1007/s10878-016-0086-9Meila M. K. Phadnis A. Patterson and J. A. Bilmes. 2012. “Consensus ranking under the exponential model.” Preprint submitted June 20 2012. http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.5265.Miao, D. Y., Li, Y. P., Huang, G. H., Yang, Z. F., & Li, C. H. (2014). Optimization Model for Planning Regional Water Resource Systems under Uncertainty. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 140(2), 238-249. doi:10.1061/(asce)wr.1943-5452.0000303Minville, M., Brissette, F., & Leconte, R. (2010). Impacts and Uncertainty of Climate Change on Water Resource Management of the Peribonka River System (Canada). Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 136(3), 376-385. doi:10.1061/(asce)wr.1943-5452.0000041Morales-Torres, A., Escuder-Bueno, I., Serrano-Lombillo, A., & Castillo Rodríguez, J. T. (2019). Dealing with epistemic uncertainty in risk-informed decision making for dam safety management. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 191, 106562. doi:10.1016/j.ress.2019.106562Morales-Torres, A., Serrano-Lombillo, A., Escuder-Bueno, I., & Altarejos-García, L. (2016). The suitability of risk reduction indicators to inform dam safety management. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 1-12. doi:10.1080/15732479.2015.1136830Neumayer, E., & Barthel, F. (2011). Normalizing economic loss from natural disasters: A global analysis. Global Environmental Change, 21(1), 13-24. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.10.004New, M., & Hulme, M. (2000). Integrated Assessment, 1(3), 203-213. doi:10.1023/a:1019144202120Palmieri, A., Shah, F., & Dinar, A. (2001). Economics of reservoir sedimentation and sustainable management of dams. Journal of Environmental Management, 61(2), 149-163. doi:10.1006/jema.2000.0392Park, T., Kim, C., & Kim, H. (2013). Valuation of Drainage Infrastructure Improvement Under Climate Change Using Real Options. Water Resources Management, 28(2), 445-457. doi:10.1007/s11269-013-0492-zPate-Cornell, E. (2002). Risk and Uncertainty Analysis in Government Safety Decisions. Risk Analysis, 22(3), 633-646. doi:10.1111/0272-4332.00043Pittock, A. B., Jones, R. N., & Mitchell, C. D. (2001). Probabilities will help us plan for climate change. Nature, 413(6853), 249-249. doi:10.1038/35095194Roach, T., Kapelan, Z., Ledbetter, R., & Ledbetter, M. (2016). Comparison of Robust Optimization and Info-Gap Methods for Water Resource Management under Deep Uncertainty. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 142(9), 04016028. doi:10.1061/(asce)wr.1943-5452.0000660Seneviratne, S. I., Corti, T., Davin, E. L., Hirschi, M., Jaeger, E. B., Lehner, I., … Teuling, A. J. (2010). Investigating soil moisture–climate interactions in a changing climate: A review. Earth-Science Reviews, 99(3-4), 125-161. doi:10.1016/j.earscirev.2010.02.004Serrano-Lombillo A. A. Morales-Torres I. Escuder-Bueno and L. Altarejos-García. 2013. “Sharing experience for safe and sustainable water storage.” In Proc. 9th ICOLD European Club Symp. Bergamo Italy: Italian Committee on Large Dams.Spence, C. M., & Brown, C. M. (2018). Decision Analytic Approach to Resolving Divergent Climate Assumptions in Water Resources Planning. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 144(9), 04018054. doi:10.1061/(asce)wr.1943-5452.0000939Street, R. B., & Nilsson, C. (2014). Introduction to the Use of Uncertainties to Inform Adaptation Decisions. Adapting to an Uncertain Climate, 1-16. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-04876-5_1Swart, R. ., Raskin, P., & Robinson, J. (2004). The problem of the future: sustainability science and scenario analysis. Global Environmental Change, 14(2), 137-146. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2003.10.002Walker, W., Haasnoot, M., & Kwakkel, J. (2013). Adapt or Perish: A Review of Planning Approaches for Adaptation under Deep Uncertainty. Sustainability, 5(3), 955-979. doi:10.3390/su5030955Walker, W. E., Rahman, S. A., & Cave, J. (2001). Adaptive policies, policy analysis, and policy-making. European Journal of Operational Research, 128(2), 282-289. doi:10.1016/s0377-2217(00)00071-0Walsh, J., Wuebbles, D., Hayhoe, K., Kossin, J., Kunkel, K., Stephens, G., … Somerville, R. (2014). Ch. 2: Our Changing Climate. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment. doi:10.7930/j0kw5cxtWeigel, A. P., Knutti, R., Liniger, M. A., & Appenzeller, C. (2010). Risks of Model Weighting in Multimodel Climate Projections. Journal of Climate, 23(15), 4175-4191. doi:10.1175/2010jcli3594.1Wilby, R. L., & Dessai, S. (2010). Robust adaptation to climate change. Weather, 65(7), 180-185. doi:10.1002/wea.543Zhang, S. X., & Babovic, V. (2011). A real options approach to the design and architecture of water supply systems using innovative water technologies under uncertainty. Journal of Hydroinformatics, 14(1), 13-29. doi:10.2166/hydro.2011.07

Dealing with epistemic uncertainty in risk-informed decision making for dam safety management

[EN] In recent years, the application of risk analysis to inform dam safety governance has increased significantly. In this framework, considering explicitly and independently both natural and epistemic uncertainty in quantitative risk models allows to understand the sources of uncertainty in risk results and to estimate the effect of actions, tests, and surveys to reduce epistemic uncertainty. In this paper, Indexes of Coincidence are proposed to analyze the effect of epistemic uncertainty in the prioritization of investments based on risk results, which is the key issue in this paper. These indexes allow consideration of the convenience of conducting additional uncertainty reduction actions. These metrics have been applied to the prioritization of risk reduction measures for four concrete gravity dams in Spain. Results allow for a better understanding of how epistemic uncertainty of geotechnical resistance parameters influence risk-informed decision making. The proposed indexes are also useful for probabilistic risk analyses of other civil engineering structures with high epistemic uncertainty environments, since they analyze whether existing uncertainty could have an impact on decision making, outlining the need for extra studies, surveys and tests.Morales Torres, A.; Escuder Bueno, I.; Serrano Lombillo, AJ.; Castillo-Rodríguez, J. (2019). Dealing with epistemic uncertainty in risk-informed decision making for dam safety management. Reliability Engineering & System Safety. 191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2019.106562S19

I know people who can and who cannot: A measure of the perception of economic inequality in everyday life

Versión preprintThis paper describes the development of the Perceived Economic Inequality in Everyday Life (PEIEL) scale. It is written and validated in Spanish. We first carried out an exploratory study, using a sample of 205 participants (52.2% men and 47.8% women; age: M = 24.69, SD = 8.95). We then conducted a confirmatory study with a sample size of 215 individuals (43.7% men and 56.3% women; age: M = 23.83, SD = 6.46). Results showed that the PEIEL scale is a valid and reliable unidimensional instrument. This scale negatively predicted tolerance of economic inequality over and above perceived inequality measured by wage gap estimates. In addition, perceived economic inequality in everyday life was negatively associated with tolerance of inequality, particularly in individuals with right-wing political ideology.Universidad de Costa Rica/[OAICE-006-2017]/UCR/Costa RicaUCR::Sedes Regionales::Sede de Occident

Supporting Spartina: Interdisciplinary perspective shows Spartina as a distinct solid genus

In 2014, a DNA-based phylogenetic study confirming the paraphyly of the grass subtribe Sporobolinae proposed the creation of a large monophyletic genus Sporobolus, including (among others) species previously included in the genera Spartina, Calamovilfa, and Sporobolus. Spartina species have contributed substantially (and continue contributing) to our knowledge in multiple disciplines, including ecology, evolutionary biology, molecular biology, biogeography, experimental ecology, biological invasions, environmental management, restoration ecology, history, economics, and sociology. There is no rationale so compelling to subsume the name Spartina as a subgenus that could rival the striking, global iconic history and use of the name Spartina for over 200 yr. We do not agree with the subjective arguments underlying the proposal to change Spartina to Sporobolus. We understand the importance of both the objective phylogenetic insights and of the subjective formalized nomenclature and hope that by opening this debate we will encourage positive feedback that will strengthen taxonomic decisions with an interdisciplinary perspective. We consider that the strongly distinct, monophyletic clade Spartina should simply and efficiently be treated as the genus Spartina

ϒ production in p–Pb collisions at √sNN=8.16 TeV

ϒ production in p–Pb interactions is studied at the centre-of-mass energy per nucleon–nucleon collision √sNN = 8.16 TeV with the ALICE detector at the CERN LHC. The measurement is performed reconstructing bottomonium resonances via their dimuon decay channel, in the centre-of-mass rapidity intervals 2.03 < ycms < 3.53 and −4.46 < ycms < −2.96, down to zero transverse momentum. In this work, results on the ϒ(1S) production cross section as a function of rapidity and transverse momentum are presented. The corresponding nuclear modification factor shows a suppression of the ϒ(1S) yields with respect to pp collisions, both at forward and backward rapidity. This suppression is stronger in the low transverse momentum region and shows no significant dependence on the centrality of the interactions. Furthermore, the ϒ(2S) nuclear modification factor is evaluated, suggesting a suppression similar to that of the ϒ(1S). A first measurement of the ϒ(3S) has also been performed. Finally, results are compared with previous ALICE measurements in p–Pb collisions at √sNN = 5.02 TeV and with theoretical calculations.publishedVersio

Searches for lepton-flavour-violating decays of the Higgs boson in s=13\sqrt{s}=13 TeV pp\mathit{pp} collisions with the ATLAS detector

This Letter presents direct searches for lepton flavour violation in Higgs boson decays, H → eτ and H → μτ , performed with the ATLAS detector at the LHC. The searches are based on a data sample of proton–proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy √s = 13 TeV, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 36.1 fb−1. No significant excess is observed above the expected background from Standard Model processes. The observed (median expected) 95% confidence-level upper limits on the leptonflavour-violating branching ratios are 0.47% (0.34+0.13−0.10%) and 0.28% (0.37+0.14−0.10%) for H → eτ and H → μτ , respectively.publishedVersio

Measurement of jet suppression in central Pb-Pb collisions at root s(NN)=2.76 TeV

The transverse momentum(p(T)) spectrum and nuclear modification factor (R-AA) of reconstructed jets in 0-10% and 10-30% central Pb-Pb collisions at root s(NN) = 2.76 TeV were measured. Jets were reconstructed using the anti-k(T) jet algorithm with a resolution parameter of R = 0.2 from charged and neutral particles, utilizing the ALICE tracking detectors and Electromagnetic Calorimeter (EMCal). The jet p(T) spectra are reported in the pseudorapidity interval of \eta(jet)\ 5 GeV/c to suppress jets constructed from the combinatorial background in Pb-Pb collisions. The leading charged particle requirement applied to jet spectra both in pp and Pb-Pb collisions had a negligible effect on the R-AA. The nuclear modification factor R-AA was found to be 0.28 +/- 0.04 in 0-10% and 0.35 +/- 0.04 in 10-30% collisions, independent of p(T), jet within the uncertainties of the measurement. The observed suppression is in fair agreement with expectations from two model calculations with different approaches to jet quenching. (C) 2015 CERN for the benefit of the ALICE Collaboration. Published by Elsevier B.V.Peer reviewe

Search for flavour-changing neutral currents in processes with one top quark and a photon using 81 fb⁻¹ of pp collisions at \sqrts = 13 TeV with the ATLAS experiment

A search for flavour-changing neutral current (FCNC) events via the coupling of a top quark, a photon, and an up or charm quark is presented using 81 fb−1 of proton–proton collision data taken at a centre-of-mass energy of 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector at the LHC. Events with a photon, an electron or muon, a b-tagged jet, and missing transverse momentum are selected. A neural network based on kinematic variables differentiates between events from signal and background processes. The data are consistent with the background-only hypothesis, and limits are set on the strength of the tqγ coupling in an effective field theory. These are also interpreted as 95% CL upper limits on the cross section for FCNC tγ production via a left-handed (right-handed) tuγ coupling of 36 fb (78 fb) and on the branching ratio for t→γu of 2.8×10−5 (6.1×10−5). In addition, they are interpreted as 95% CL upper limits on the cross section for FCNC tγ production via a left-handed (right-handed) tcγ coupling of 40 fb (33 fb) and on the branching ratio for t→γc of 22×10−5 (18×10−5). © 2019 The Author(s