Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3310
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3310
17 Jul 2025
 | 17 Jul 2025
Status: this preprint is open for discussion and under review for Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences (NHESS).

Global sensitivity analysis of large-scale flood loss models

Francesca Pianosi, Georgios Sarailidis, Kirsty Styles, Philip Oldham, Stephen Hutchings, Rob Lamb, and Thorsten Wagener

Abstract. Flood loss models are increasingly used in the (re)insurance sector to inform a range of financial decisions. These models simulate the interactions between flood hazard, vulnerability and exposure over large spatial domains, requiring a range of input information and modelling assumptions. Due to this high level of complexity, evaluating the impact of uncertain input data and assumptions on modelling results, and therefore the overall model “acceptability”, remains a very complex process. In this paper, we advocate for the use of global sensitivity analysis (GSA), a generic technique to analyse the propagation of multiple uncertainties through mathematical models, to improve the sensitivity testing of flood loss models and the identification of their key sources of uncertainty. We discuss key challenges in the application of GSA to large-scale flood models, propose pragmatic strategies to overcome these challenges, and showcase the type of insights that can be obtained by GSA through two proof-of-principle applications to a commercial model, JBA Risk Management’s flood loss model, for the transboundary Rhine River basin in Europe, and Queensland in Australia.

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.
Share
Francesca Pianosi, Georgios Sarailidis, Kirsty Styles, Philip Oldham, Stephen Hutchings, Rob Lamb, and Thorsten Wagener

Status: open (extended)

Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor | : Report abuse
  • CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-3310', Adam Pollack, 25 Aug 2025 reply
    • AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Francesca Pianosi, 03 Oct 2025 reply
      • CC3: 'Reply on AC1', Adam Pollack, 04 Oct 2025 reply
  • CC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-3310', Yukiko Hirabayashi, 08 Sep 2025 reply
  • RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-3310', Francesco Dottori, 07 Oct 2025 reply
Francesca Pianosi, Georgios Sarailidis, Kirsty Styles, Philip Oldham, Stephen Hutchings, Rob Lamb, and Thorsten Wagener
Francesca Pianosi, Georgios Sarailidis, Kirsty Styles, Philip Oldham, Stephen Hutchings, Rob Lamb, and Thorsten Wagener

Viewed

Total article views: 1,405 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total BibTeX EndNote
1,304 81 20 1,405 29 26
  • HTML: 1,304
  • PDF: 81
  • XML: 20
  • Total: 1,405
  • BibTeX: 29
  • EndNote: 26
Views and downloads (calculated since 17 Jul 2025)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 17 Jul 2025)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 1,428 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 1,428 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 
Latest update: 07 Oct 2025
Download
Short summary
Flood risk models are essential to support risk management. As they simulate complex interactions between climate, the natural and the built environment, they unavoidably embed a range of simplifying assumptions. In this paper, we propose a more rigorous approach to analyse the impact of uncertain assumptions on modelling results. This is important to improve model transparency and set priorities for improving models.
Share