Comment on “Comparison between probabilistic seismic hazard analysis and flood frequency analysis”
Eos Science News
By: Thomas L. Holzer
Links
- More information: Publisher Index Page (via DOI)
- Download citation as: RIS | Dublin Core
Abstract
Despite providing an exceptionally clear example of the basics of probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA), Wang and Ormsbee [2005] nevertheless conclude that “…using PSHA for risk analysis is not only confusing, but is also inappropriate.” I argue here that (1) the results of a PSHA analysis are not confusing and have physical meaning, and (2) the authors' basis for declaring PSHA “inappropriate” is misguided. I note in passing that the authors consistently confuse “risk” with “hazard.” Both PSHA and flood frequency analysis provide estimates of hazard. Risk is the product of hazard, vulnerability and exposure. This discussion is only concerned with hazard.
| Publication type | Article |
|---|---|
| Publication Subtype | Journal Article |
| Title | Comment on “Comparison between probabilistic seismic hazard analysis and flood frequency analysis” |
| Series title | Eos Science News |
| DOI | 10.1029/2005EO330004 |
| Volume | 86 |
| Issue | 33 |
| Year Published | 2005 |
| Language | English |
| Publisher | American Geophysical Union |
| Description | 1 p. |
| First page | 303 |
| Last page | 303 |
| Google Analytic Metrics | Metrics page |