Refine
Has Fulltext
- no (12) (remove)
Language
- English (12)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (12)
Keywords
- uncertainty (12) (remove)
Institute
- Institut für Geowissenschaften (4)
- Institut für Umweltwissenschaften und Geographie (3)
- Department Sport- und Gesundheitswissenschaften (1)
- Fachgruppe Betriebswirtschaftslehre (1)
- Fachgruppe Volkswirtschaftslehre (1)
- Hasso-Plattner-Institut für Digital Engineering GmbH (1)
- Institut für Mathematik (1)
- Wirtschaftswissenschaften (1)
Hydrometeorological hazards caused losses of approximately 110 billion U.S. Dollars in 2016 worldwide. Current damage estimations do not consider the uncertainties in a comprehensive way, and they are not consistent between spatial scales. Aggregated land use data are used at larger spatial scales, although detailed exposure data at the object level, such as openstreetmap.org, is becoming increasingly available across the globe.We present a probabilistic approach for object-based damage estimation which represents uncertainties and is fully scalable in space. The approach is applied and validated to company damage from the flood of 2013 in Germany. Damage estimates are more accurate compared to damage models using land use data, and the estimation works reliably at all spatial scales. Therefore, it can as well be used for pre-event analysis and risk assessments. This method takes hydrometeorological damage estimation and risk assessments to the next level, making damage estimates and their uncertainties fully scalable in space, from object to country level, and enabling the exploitation of new exposure data.
Within the field of species distribution modelling an apparent dichotomy exists between process-based and correlative approaches, where the processes are explicit in the former and implicit in the latter. However, these intuitive distinctions can become blurred when comparing species distribution modelling approaches in more detail. In this review article, we contrast the extremes of the correlativeprocess spectrum of species distribution models with respect to core assumptions, model building and selection strategies, validation, uncertainties, common errors and the questions they are most suited to answer. The extremes of such approaches differ clearly in many aspects, such as model building approaches, parameter estimation strategies and transferability. However, they also share strengths and weaknesses. We show that claims of one approach being intrinsically superior to the other are misguided and that they ignore the processcorrelation continuum as well as the domains of questions that each approach is addressing. Nonetheless, the application of process-based approaches to species distribution modelling lags far behind more correlative (process-implicit) methods and more research is required to explore their potential benefits. Critical issues for the employment of species distribution modelling approaches are given, together with a guideline for appropriate usage. We close with challenges for future development of process-explicit species distribution models and how they may complement current approaches to study species distributions.