Articles | Volume 21, issue 2
https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-21-559-2021
© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-21-559-2021
© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Research article
| 
05 Feb 2021
Research article |
| 05 Feb 2021
| 05 Feb 2021
Simulating historical flood events at the continental scale: observational validation of a large-scale hydrodynamic model
Oliver E. J. Wing
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Fathom, Bristol, United Kingdom
School of Geographical Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol,
United Kingdom
Andrew M. Smith
Fathom, Bristol, United Kingdom
Michael L. Marston
First Street Foundation, Brooklyn, New York, United States of America
Jeremy R. Porter
First Street Foundation, Brooklyn, New York, United States of America
Mike F. Amodeo
First Street Foundation, Brooklyn, New York, United States of America
Christopher C. Sampson
Fathom, Bristol, United Kingdom
Paul D. Bates
Fathom, Bristol, United Kingdom
School of Geographical Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol,
United Kingdom
Related authors
Paul D. Bates, James Savage, Oliver Wing, Niall Quinn, Christopher Sampson, Jeffrey Neal, and Andrew Smith
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 23, 891–908, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-23-891-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-23-891-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We present and validate a model that simulates current and future flood risk for the UK at high resolution (~ 20–25 m). We show that UK flood losses were ~ 6 % greater in the climate of 2020 compared to recent historical values. The UK can keep any future increase to ~ 8 % if all countries implement their COP26 pledges and net-zero ambitions in full. However, if only the COP26 pledges are fulfilled, then UK flood losses increase by ~ 23 %; and potentially by ~ 37 % in a worst-case scenario.
Joseph L. Gutenson, Ahmad A. Tavakoly, Mohammad S. Islam, Oliver E. J. Wing, William P. Lehman, Chase O. Hamilton, Mark D. Wahl, and T. Christopher Massey
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 23, 261–277, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-23-261-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-23-261-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Emergency managers use event-based flood inundation maps (FIMs) to plan and coordinate flood emergency response. We perform a case study test of three different FIM frameworks to see if FIM differences lead to substantial differences in the location and magnitude of flood exposure and consequences. We find that the FIMs are very different spatially and that the spatial differences do produce differences in the location and magnitude of exposure and consequences.
Thomas P. Collings, Callum J. R. Murphy-Barltrop, Conor Murphy, Ivan D. Haigh, Paul D. Bates, and Niall D. Quinn
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1138, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1138, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Determining the threshold above which events are considered extreme is an important consideration for many modelling procedures. We propose an extension of an existing data-driven method for automatic threshold selection. We test our approach on tide gauge records, and show that it outperforms existing techniques. This helps improve estimates of extreme sea levels, and we hope other researchers will use this method for other natural hazards.
Thomas P. Collings, Niall D. Quinn, Ivan D. Haigh, Joshua Green, Izzy Probyn, Hamish Wilkinson, Sanne Muis, William V. Sweet, and Paul D. Bates
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 2403–2423, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-24-2403-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-24-2403-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Coastal areas are at risk of flooding from rising sea levels and extreme weather events. This study applies a new approach to estimating the likelihood of coastal flooding around the world. The method uses data from observations and computer models to create a detailed map of where these coastal floods might occur. The approach can predict flooding in areas for which there are few or no data available. The results can be used to help prepare for and prevent this type of flooding.
Leanne Archer, Jeffrey Neal, Paul Bates, Emily Vosper, Dereka Carroll, Jeison Sosa, and Daniel Mitchell
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 375–396, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-24-375-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-24-375-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We model hurricane-rainfall-driven flooding to assess how the number of people exposed to flooding changes in Puerto Rico under the 1.5 and 2 °C Paris Agreement goals. Our analysis suggests 8 %–10 % of the population is currently exposed to flooding on average every 5 years, increasing by 2 %–15 % and 1 %–20 % at 1.5 and 2 °C. This has implications for adaptation to more extreme flooding in Puerto Rico and demonstrates that 1.5 °C climate change carries a significant increase in risk.
Youtong Rong, Paul Bates, and Jeffrey Neal
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 3291–3311, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-3291-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-3291-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
A novel subgrid channel (SGC) model is developed for river–floodplain modelling, allowing utilization of subgrid-scale bathymetric information while performing computations on relatively coarse grids. By including adaptive artificial diffusion, potential numerical instability, which the original SGC solver had, in low-friction regions such as urban areas is addressed. Evaluation of the new SGC model through structured tests confirmed that the accuracy and stability have improved.
Mohammad Kazem Sharifian, Georges Kesserwani, Alovya Ahmed Chowdhury, Jeffrey Neal, and Paul Bates
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 2391–2413, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-2391-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-2391-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
This paper describes a new release of the LISFLOOD-FP model for fast and efficient flood simulations. It features a new non-uniform grid generator that uses multiwavelet analyses to sensibly coarsens the resolutions where the local topographic variations are smooth. Moreover, the model is parallelised on the graphical processing units (GPUs) to further boost computational efficiency. The performance of the model is assessed for five real-world case studies, noting its potential applications.
Paul D. Bates, James Savage, Oliver Wing, Niall Quinn, Christopher Sampson, Jeffrey Neal, and Andrew Smith
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 23, 891–908, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-23-891-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-23-891-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We present and validate a model that simulates current and future flood risk for the UK at high resolution (~ 20–25 m). We show that UK flood losses were ~ 6 % greater in the climate of 2020 compared to recent historical values. The UK can keep any future increase to ~ 8 % if all countries implement their COP26 pledges and net-zero ambitions in full. However, if only the COP26 pledges are fulfilled, then UK flood losses increase by ~ 23 %; and potentially by ~ 37 % in a worst-case scenario.
Yinxue Liu, Paul D. Bates, and Jeffery C. Neal
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 23, 375–391, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-23-375-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-23-375-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
In this paper, we test two approaches for removing buildings and other above-ground objects from a state-of-the-art satellite photogrammetry topography product, ArcticDEM. Our best technique gives a 70 % reduction in vertical error, with an average difference of 1.02 m from a benchmark lidar for the city of Helsinki, Finland. When used in a simulation of rainfall-driven flooding, the bare-earth version of ArcticDEM yields a significant improvement in predicted inundation extent and water depth.
Joseph L. Gutenson, Ahmad A. Tavakoly, Mohammad S. Islam, Oliver E. J. Wing, William P. Lehman, Chase O. Hamilton, Mark D. Wahl, and T. Christopher Massey
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 23, 261–277, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-23-261-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-23-261-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Emergency managers use event-based flood inundation maps (FIMs) to plan and coordinate flood emergency response. We perform a case study test of three different FIM frameworks to see if FIM differences lead to substantial differences in the location and magnitude of flood exposure and consequences. We find that the FIMs are very different spatially and that the spatial differences do produce differences in the location and magnitude of exposure and consequences.
Maria Pregnolato, Andrew O. Winter, Dakota Mascarenas, Andrew D. Sen, Paul Bates, and Michael R. Motley
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 22, 1559–1576, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-22-1559-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-22-1559-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The interaction of flow, structure and network is complex, and yet to be fully understood. This study aims to establish rigorous practices of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) for modelling hydrodynamic forces on inundated bridges, and understanding the consequences of such impacts on the surrounding network. The objectives of this study are to model hydrodynamic forces as the demand on the bridge structure, to advance a structural reliability and network-level analysis.
Gang Zhao, Paul Bates, Jeffrey Neal, and Bo Pang
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 5981–5999, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-5981-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-5981-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Design flood estimation is a fundamental task in hydrology. We propose a machine- learning-based approach to estimate design floods anywhere on the global river network. This approach shows considerable improvement over the index-flood-based method, and the average bias in estimation is less than 18 % for 10-, 20-, 50- and 100-year design floods. This approach is a valid method to estimate design floods globally, improving our prediction of flood hazard, especially in ungauged areas.
Mark V. Bernhofen, Mark A. Trigg, P. Andrew Sleigh, Christopher C. Sampson, and Andrew M. Smith
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 2829–2847, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-21-2829-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-21-2829-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
The use of different global datasets to calculate flood exposure can lead to differences in global flood exposure estimates. In this study, we use three global population datasets and a simple measure of a river’s flood susceptibility (based on the terrain alone) to explore how the choice of population data and the size of river represented in global flood models affect global and national flood exposure estimates.
Peter Uhe, Daniel Mitchell, Paul D. Bates, Nans Addor, Jeff Neal, and Hylke E. Beck
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 4865–4890, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-4865-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-4865-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We present a cascade of models to compute high-resolution river flooding. This takes meteorological inputs, e.g., rainfall and temperature from observations or climate models, and takes them through a series of modeling steps. This is relevant to evaluating current day and future flood risk and impacts. The model framework uses global data sets, allowing it to be applied anywhere in the world.
James Shaw, Georges Kesserwani, Jeffrey Neal, Paul Bates, and Mohammad Kazem Sharifian
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 3577–3602, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3577-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3577-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
LISFLOOD-FP has been extended with new shallow-water solvers – DG2 and FV1 – for modelling all types of slow- or fast-moving waves over any smooth or rough surface. Using GPU parallelisation, FV1 is faster than the simpler ACC solver on grids with millions of elements. The DG2 solver is notably effective on coarse grids where river channels are hard to capture, improving predicted river levels and flood water depths. This marks a new step towards real-world DG2 flood inundation modelling.
Cited articles
Alfieri, L., Salamon, P., Bianchi, A., Neal, J., Bates, P., and Feyen, L.:
Advances in pan-European flood hazard mapping, Hydrol. Process., 28,
4067–4077, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.9947, 2014.
Altenau, E. H., Pavelsky, T. M., Moller, D., Lion, C., Pitcher, L. H., Allen, G. H., Bates, P. D., Calmant, S., Durand, M., and Smith, L. C.: AirSWOT measurements of river water surface elevation and slope: Tanana River, AK, Geophys. Res. Lett., 44, 181–189, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL071577, 2017a.
Altenau, E. H., Pavelsky, T. M., Bates, P. D., and Neal, J. C.: The effects
of spatial resolution and dimensionality on modeling regional-scale hydraulics in a multichannel river, Water Resour. Res., 53, 1683–1701, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016WR019396, 2017b.
Aronica, G., Bates, P. D., and Horritt, M. S.: Assessing the uncertainty in
distributed model predictions using observed binary pattern information within GLUE, Hydrol. Process., 16, 2001–2006, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.398, 2002.
Association of State Floodplain Managers: Flood Mapping for the Nation: A
Cost Analysis for Completing and Maintaining the Nation's NFIP Flood Map
Inventory, Madison, WI, USA, 2020.
Bates, P. D., Wilson, M. D., Horritt, M. S., Mason, D. C., Holden, N., and
Currie, A.: Reach scale floodplain inundation dynamics observed using synthetic aperture radar imagery: data analysis and modelling, J. Hydrol., 328, 306–318, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.12.028, 2006.
Bates, P. D., Horritt, M. S., and Fewtrell, T. J.: A simple inertial formulation of the shallow water equations for efficient two-dimensional
flood inundation modelling, J. Hydrol., 387, 33–45,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.03.027, 2010.
Bates, P. D., Quinn, N., Sampson, C. C., Smith, A. M., Wing, O. E. J., Sosa,
J., Savage, J., Olcese, G., Schumann, G. J.-P., Giustarini, L., Coxon, G.,
Neal, J. C., Porter, J. R., Amodeo, M. F., Chu, Z., Lewis-Gruss, S., Freeman, N., Houser, T., Delgado, M., Hamidi, A., Bolliger, I. W., McCusker, K. E., Emanuel, K. A., Ferreira, C. M., Khalid, A., Haigh, I. D., Couasnon, A., Kopp, R. E., Hsiang, S., and Krajewski, W. F.: Combined modelling of US fluvial, pluvial and coastal flood hazard under current and future climates, Water Resour. Res., e2020WR028673, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020WR028673, accepted, 2020.
Bell, H. M. and Tobin, G. A.: Efficient and effective? The 100-year flood in
the communication and perception of flood risk, Environ. Hazards, 7, 302–311, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envhaz.2007.08.004, 2007.
Bubeck, P., Botzen, W. J. W., and Aerts, J. C. J. H.: A review of risk
perceptions and other factors that influence flood mitigation behavior, Risk
Anal., 32, 1481–1495, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01783.x, 2012.
Coxon, G., Freer, J., Westerberg, I. K., Wagener, T., Woods, R., and Smith, P. J.: A novel framework for discharge uncertainty quantification applied to
500 UK gauging stations, Water Resour. Res., 51, 5531–5546, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014WR016532, 2015.
Di Baldassarre, G. and Montanari, A.: Uncertainty in river discharge observations: a quantitative analysis, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 13, 913–921, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-13-913-2009, 2009.
Di Baldassarre, G., Schumann, G., and Bates, P. D.: A technique for the
calibration of hydraulic models using uncertain satellite observations of
flood extent, J. Hydrol., 367, 276–282, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.01.020, 2009.
Dottori, F., Martina, M. L. V., and Todini, E.: A dynamic rating curve approach to indirect discharge measurement, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 13, 847–863, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-13-847-2009, 2009.
Dottori, F., Salamon, P., Bianchi, A., Alfieri, L., Hirpa, F. A., and Feyen,
L.: Development and evaluation of a framework for global flood hazard mapping, Adv. Water Resour., 94, 87–102, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2016.05.002, 2016.
Federal Emergency Management Agency: OpenFEMA, available at: https://www.fema.gov/about/reports-and-data/openfema, last access: 3 February 2021.
Fewtrell, T. J., Duncan, A., Sampson, C. C., Neal, J. C., and Bates, P. D.:
Benchmarking urban flood models of varying complexity and scale using high
resolution terrestrial LiDAR data, Phys. Chem. Earth Pt. A/B/C, 36, 281–291, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2010.12.011, 2011.
Fleischmann, A., Paiva, R., and Collischonn, W.: Can regional to continental
river hydrodynamic models be locally relevant? A cross-scale comparison, J. Hydrol., 3, 100027, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hydroa.2019.100027, 2019.
Gesch, D. B., Oimoen, M. J., and Evans, G. A.: Accuracy Assessment of the US Geological Survey National Elevation Dataset, and Comparison with Other
Large-Area Elevation Datasets – SRTM and ASTER, US Geological Survey
Open-File Report 2014-1008, US Geological Survey, Reston, VA, 10 pp., https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20141008, 2014.
Hall, J. W., Tarantola, S., Bates, P. D., and Horritt, M. S.: Distributed
sensitivity analysis of flood inundation model calibration, J. Hydraul. Eng., 131, 117–126, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2005)131:2(117), 2005.
Hattermann, F. F., Wortmann, M., Liersch, S., Toumi, R., Sparks, N., Genillard, C., Schröter, K., Steinhausen, M., Gyalai-Korpos, M., Máté, K., Hayes, B., del Rocío Rivas López, M., Rácz, T., Nielsen, M. R., Kaspersen, P. S., and Drews, M.: Simulation of flood hazard and risk in the Danube basin with the Future Danube Model, Clim. Serv., 12, 14–26, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cliser.2018.07.001, 2018.
Hawker, L., Rougier, J., Neal, J., Bates, P., Archer, L., and Yamazaki, D.:
Implications of simulating global digital elevation models for flood inundation studies, Water Resour. Res., 54, 7910–7928, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018WR023279, 2018.
Horritt, M. S. and Bates, P. D.: Evaluation of 1D and 2D numerical models for predicting river flood inundation, J. Hydrol., 268, 87–99,
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(02)00121-X, 2002.
Horritt, M. S., Bates, P. D., Fewtrell, T. J., Mason, D. C., and Wilson, M. D.: Modelling the hydraulics of the Carlisle 2005 flood event, Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng., 163, 273–281, https://doi.org/10.1680/wama.2010.163.6.273, 2010.
Hunter, N. M., Bates, P. D., Neelz, S., Pender, G., Villanueva, I., Wright,
N. G., Liang, D., Falconer, R. A., Lin, B., Waller, S., Crossley, A. J., and
Mason, D. C.: Benchmarking 2D hydraulic models for urban flooding, Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. – Water Manage., 161, 13–30, https://doi.org/10.1680/wama.2008.161.1.13, 2008.
Kousky, C.: Disasters as learning experiences or disasters as policy
opportunities? Examining flood insurance purchases after hurricanes, Risk
Anal., 37, 517–530, https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12646, 2017.
Luke, A., Sanders, B. F., Goodrich, K. A., Feldman, D. L., Boudreau, D.,
Eguiarte, A., Serrano, K., Reyes, A., Schubert, J. E., AghaKouchak, A., Basolo, V., and Matthew, R. A.: Going beyond the flood insurance rate map:
insights from flood hazard map co-production, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 1097–1120, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-18-1097-2018, 2018.
Mason, D. C., Cobby, D. M., Horritt, M. S., and Bates, P. D.: Floodplain
friction parameterization in two-dimensional river flood models using vegetation heights derived from airborne scanning laser altimetry, Hydrol. Process., 17, 1711–1732, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.1270, 2003.
Mason, D. C., Horritt, M. S., Dall'Amico, J. T., Scott, T. R., and Bates, P.
D.: Improving river flood extent delineation from synthetic aperture radar
using airborne laser altimetry, IEEE T. Geosci. Remote, 45, 3932–3943, https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2007.901032, 2007.
Mason, D. C., Bates, P. D., and Dall'Amico, J. T.: Calibration of uncertain
flood inundation models using remotely sensed water levels, J. Hydrol., 368, 224–236, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.02.034, 2009.
Matgen, P., Schumann, G., Hentry, J.-B., Hoffmann, L., and Pfister, L.:
Integration of SAR-derived river inundation areas, high-precision topographic data and a river flow model toward near real-time flood management, Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf., 9, 247–263, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2006.03.003, 2007.
McMillan, H., Krueger, T., and Freer, J.: Benchmarking observational
uncertainties for hydrology: rainfall, river discharge and water quality,
Hydrol. Process., 26, 4078–4111, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.9384, 2012.
Microsoft: USBuildingFootprints, available at: https://github.com/microsoft/USBuildingFootprints, last access: 3 February 2021.
Mignot, E., Paquier, A., and Haider, S.: Modeling floods in a dense urban
area using 2D shallow water equations, J. Hydrol., 327, 186–199,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.11.026, 2006.
Neal, J., Schumann, G., Fewtrell, T., Budimir, M., Bates, P., and Mason, D.:
Evaluating a new LISFLOOD-FP formulation with data from the summer 2007 floods in Tewkesbury, UK, J. Flood Risk Manage., 4, 88–95,
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1753-318X.2011.01093.x, 2011.
Neal, J., Schumann, G., and Bates, P.: A subgrid channel model for simulating river hydraulics and floodplain inundation over large and data sparse areas, Water Resour. Res., 48, W11506, https://doi.org/10.1029/2012WR012514, 2012.
Neal, J. C., Bates, P. D., Fewtrell, T. J., Hunter, N. M., Wilson, M. D.,
and Horritt, M. S.: Distributed whole city water level measurements from the
Carlisle 2005 urban flood event and comparison with hydraulic model simulations, J. Hydrol., 368, 42–55, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.01.026, 2009.
Pappenberger, F., Beven, K., Horritt, M., and Blazkova, S.: Uncertainty in
the calibration of effective roughness parameters in HEC-RAS using inundation and downstream level observations, J. Hydrol., 302, 46–69, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2004.06.036, 2005.
Pappenberger, F., Matgen, P., Beven, K. J., Henry, J.-B., Pfister, L., and
de Fraipont, P.: Influence of uncertain boundary conditions and model structure on flood inundation predictions, Adv. Water Resour., 29, 1430–1449, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2005.11.012, 2006.
Pappenberger, F., Frodsham, K., Beven, K., Romanowicz, R., and Matgen, P.:
Fuzzy set approach to calibrating distributed flood inundation models using
remote sensing observations, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 11, 739–752, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-11-739-2007, 2007.
Poussin, J. K., Botzen, W. J. W., and Aerts, J. C. J. H.: Factors of influence on flood damage mitigation behaviour by households, Environ. Sci. Policy, 40, 69–77, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2014.01.013, 2014.
Rudorff, C. M., Melack, J. M., and Bates, P. D.: Flooding dynamics on the
lower Amazon floodplain: 1. Hydraulic controls on water elevation, inundation extent, and river-floodplain discharge, Water Resour. Res., 50, 619–634, https://doi.org/10.1002/2013WR014091, 2014.
Sampson, C. C., Smith, A. M., Bates, P. D., Neal, J. C., Alfieri, L., and
Freer, J. E.: A high-resolution global flood hazard model, Water Resour. Res., 51, 7358–7381, https://doi.org/10.1002/2015WR016954, 2015.
Sanders, B. F., Schubert, J. E., Goodrich, K. A., Houston, D., Feldman, D.
L., Basolo, V., Luke, A., Boudreau, D., Karlin, B., Cheung, W., Contreras,
S., Reyes, A., Eguiarte, A., Serrano, K., Allaire, M., Moftakhari, H.,
AghaKouchak, A., and Matthew, R. A.: Collaborative modeling with fine-resolution data enhances flood awareness, minimizes differences in
flood perception, and produces actionable flood maps, Earth's Future, 8,
e2019EF001391, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019EF001391, 2020.
Schumann, G., Matgen, P., Hoffmann, L., Hostache, R., Pappenberger, F., and
Pfister, L.: Deriving distributed roughness values from satellite radar data
for flood inundation modelling, J. Hydrol., 344, 96–111,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2007.06.024, 2007.
Schumann, G. J.-P., Neal, J. C., Mason, D. C., and Bates, P. D.: The accuracy of sequential aerial photography and SAR data for observing urban flood dynamics, a case study of the UK summer 2007 floods, Remote Sens. Environ., 115, 2536–2546, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2011.04.039, 2011.
Schumann, G. J.-P., Neal, J. C., Voisin, N., Andreadis, K. M., Pappenberger,
F., Phanthuwongpakdee, N., Hall, A. C., and Bates, P. D.: A first large-scale flood inundation forecasting model, Water Resour. Res., 49, 6248–6257, https://doi.org/10.1002/wrcr.20521, 2013.
Smith, A., Sampson, C., and Bates, P.: Regional flood frequency analysis at
the global scale, Water Resour. Res., 51, 539–553, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014WR015814, 2015.
Stephens, E. and Bates, P.: Assessing the reliability of probabilistic flood
inundation model predictions, Hydrol. Processs., 29, 4264–4283,
https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.10451, 2015.
Stephens, E., Schumann, G., and Bates, P.: Problems with binary pattern measures for flood model evaluation, Hydrol. Process., 28, 4928–4937,
https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.9979, 2014.
Stephens, E. M., Bates, P. D., Freer, J. E., and Mason, D. C.: The impact of
uncertainty in satellite data on the assessment of flood inundation models,
J. Hydrol., 414–415, 162–173, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.10.040, 2012.
US Army Corps of Engineers: National Levee Database, available at:
https://levees.sec.usace.army.mil/, last access: 3 February 2021.
US Geological Survey: The National Map, available at: https://ned.usgs.gov/ (last access: 3 February 2021), 2021a.
US Geological Survey: USGS Water Data for the Nation, available at: https://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis (last access: 3 February 2021), 2021b.
US Geological Survey: USGS Flood Event Viewer, available at: https://stn.wim.usgs.gov/FEV/ (last access: 3 February 2021), 2021c.
US Geological Survey: StreamStats: Streamflow Statistics and Spatial Analysis Tools for Water-Resources Applications, available at: https://streamstats.usgs.gov/ (last access: 3 February 2021), 2021d.
US Geological Survey: Hydrologic Unit Maps, available at: https://water.usgs.gov/GIS/huc.html (last access: 3 February 2021), 2021e.
US Geological Survey: National Hydrography, available at:
https://www.usgs.gov/core-science-systems/ngp/national-hydrography (last access: 3 February 2021), 2021f.
Ward, P. J., Jongman, B., Aerts, J. C. J. H., Bates, P. D., Botzen, W. J. W., Loaiza, A. D., Hallegatte, S., Kind, J. M., Kwadijk, J., Scussolini, P., and Winsemius, H. C.: A global framework for future costs and benefits of river-flood protection in urban areas, Nat. Clim. Change, 7, 642–646,
https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3350, 2017.
Watson, K. M., Harwell, G. R., Wallace, D. S., Welborn, T. L., Stengel, V. G., and McDowell, J. S.: Characterization of Peak Streamflows and Flood Inundation of Selected Areas in Southeastern Texas and Southwestern Louisiana from the August and September 2017 Flood Resulting from Hurricane Harvey, US Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2018-5070, US Geological Survey, Reston, VA, 44 pp., https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20185070, 2018.
Wing, O. E. J., Bates, P. D., Sampson, C. C., Smith, A. M., Johnson, K. J.,
and Erickson, T. A.: Validation of a 30 m resolution flood hazard model of
the conterminous United States, Water Resour. Res., 53, 7968–7986,
https://doi.org/10.1002/2017WR020917, 2017.
Wing, O. E. J., Bates, P. D., Neal, J. C., Sampson, C. C., Smith, A. M., Quinn, N., Shustikova, I., Domeneghetti, A., Gilles, D. W., Goska, R., and
Krajewski, W. F.: A new automated method for improved flood defense representation in large-scale hydraulic models, Water Resour. Res., 55, 11007–11034, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019WR025957, 2019.
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.
Winsemius, H. C., Aerts, J. C. J. H., van Beek, L. P. H., Bierkens, M. F. P., Bouwman, A., Jongman, B., Kwadijk, J. C. J., Ligtvoet, W, Lucas, P. L.,
van Vuuren, D. P., and Ward P. J.: Global drivers of future river flood risk, Nat. Clim. Change, 6, 381–385, https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2893, 2016.
Wood, M., Hostache, R., Neal, J., Wagener, T., Giustarini, L., Chini, M.,
Corato, G., Matgen, P., and Bates, P.: Calibration of channel depth and
friction parameters in the LISFLOOD-FP hydraulic model using medium-resolution SAR data and identifiability techniques, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 20, 4983–4997, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-4983-2016, 2016.
Yamazaki, D., Kanae, S., Kim, H., and Oki, T.: A physically based description of floodplain inundation dynamics in a global river routing model, Water Resour. Res., 47, W04501, https://doi.org/10.1029/2010WR009726, 2011.
Short summary
Global flood models are difficult to validate. They generally output theoretical flood events of a given probability rather than an observed event that they can be tested against. Here, we adapt a US-wide flood model to enable the rapid simulation of historical flood events in order to more robustly understand model biases. For 35 flood events, we highlight the challenges of model validation amidst observational data errors yet evidence the increasing skill of large-scale models.
Global flood models are difficult to validate. They generally output theoretical flood events of...
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint