Refine
Year of publication
- 2020 (4) (remove)
Language
- English (4)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (4) (remove)
Keywords
- floods (4) (remove)
Insights into the dynamics of human behavior in response to flooding are urgently needed for the development of effective integrated flood risk management strategies, and for integrating human behavior in flood risk modeling. However, our understanding of the dynamics of risk perceptions, attitudes, individual recovery processes, as well as adaptive (i.e., risk reducing) intention and behavior are currently limited because of the predominant use of cross-sectional surveys in the flood risk domain. Here, we present the results from one of the first panel surveys in the flood risk domain covering a relatively long period of time (i.e., four years after a damaging event), three survey waves, and a wide range of topics relevant to the role of citizens in integrated flood risk management. The panel data, consisting of 227 individuals affected by the 2013 flood in Germany, were analyzed using repeated-measures ANOVA and latent class growth analysis (LCGA) to utilize the unique temporal dimension of the data set. Results show that attitudes, such as the respondents' perceived responsibility within flood risk management, remain fairly stable over time. Changes are observed partly for risk perceptions and mainly for individual recovery and intentions to undertake risk-reducing measures. LCGA reveal heterogeneous recovery and adaptation trajectories that need to be taken into account in policies supporting individual recovery and stimulating societal preparedness. More panel studies in the flood risk domain are needed to gain better insights into the dynamics of individual recovery, risk-reducing behavior, and associated risk and protective factors.
Machine learning (ML) algorithms are being increasingly used in Earth and Environmental modeling studies owing to the ever-increasing availability of diverse data sets and computational resources as well as advancement in ML algorithms. Despite advances in their predictive accuracy, the usefulness of ML algorithms for inference remains elusive. In this study, we employ two popular ML algorithms, artificial neural networks and random forest, to analyze a large data set of flood events across Germany with the goals to analyze their predictive accuracy and their usability to provide insights to hydrologic system functioning. The results of the ML algorithms are contrasted against a parametric approach based on multiple linear regression. For analysis, we employ a model-agnostic framework named Permuted Feature Importance to derive the influence of models' predictors. This allows us to compare the results of different algorithms for the first time in the context of hydrology. Our main findings are that (1) the ML models achieve higher prediction accuracy than linear regression, (2) the results reflect basic hydrological principles, but (3) further inference is hindered by the heterogeneity of results across algorithms. Thus, we conclude that the problem of equifinality as known from classical hydrological modeling also exists for ML and severely hampers its potential for inference. To account for the observed problems, we propose that when employing ML for inference, this should be made by using multiple algorithms and multiple methods, of which the latter should be embedded in a cross-validation routine.
Machine learning (ML) algorithms are being increasingly used in Earth and Environmental modeling studies owing to the ever-increasing availability of diverse data sets and computational resources as well as advancement in ML algorithms. Despite advances in their predictive accuracy, the usefulness of ML algorithms for inference remains elusive. In this study, we employ two popular ML algorithms, artificial neural networks and random forest, to analyze a large data set of flood events across Germany with the goals to analyze their predictive accuracy and their usability to provide insights to hydrologic system functioning. The results of the ML algorithms are contrasted against a parametric approach based on multiple linear regression. For analysis, we employ a model-agnostic framework named Permuted Feature Importance to derive the influence of models' predictors. This allows us to compare the results of different algorithms for the first time in the context of hydrology. Our main findings are that (1) the ML models achieve higher prediction accuracy than linear regression, (2) the results reflect basic hydrological principles, but (3) further inference is hindered by the heterogeneity of results across algorithms. Thus, we conclude that the problem of equifinality as known from classical hydrological modeling also exists for ML and severely hampers its potential for inference. To account for the observed problems, we propose that when employing ML for inference, this should be made by using multiple algorithms and multiple methods, of which the latter should be embedded in a cross-validation routine.
Machine learning (ML) algorithms are being increasingly used in Earth and Environmental modeling studies owing to the ever-increasing availability of diverse data sets and computational resources as well as advancement in ML algorithms. Despite advances in their predictive accuracy, the usefulness of ML algorithms for inference remains elusive. In this study, we employ two popular ML algorithms, artificial neural networks and random forest, to analyze a large data set of flood events across Germany with the goals to analyze their predictive accuracy and their usability to provide insights to hydrologic system functioning. The results of the ML algorithms are contrasted against a parametric approach based on multiple linear regression. For analysis, we employ a model-agnostic framework named Permuted Feature Importance to derive the influence of models' predictors. This allows us to compare the results of different algorithms for the first time in the context of hydrology. Our main findings are that (1) the ML models achieve higher prediction accuracy than linear regression, (2) the results reflect basic hydrological principles, but (3) further inference is hindered by the heterogeneity of results across algorithms. Thus, we conclude that the problem of equifinality as known from classical hydrological modeling also exists for ML and severely hampers its potential for inference. To account for the observed problems, we propose that when employing ML for inference, this should be made by using multiple algorithms and multiple methods, of which the latter should be embedded in a cross-validation routine.