Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2022-27
https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2022-27
 
16 Feb 2022
16 Feb 2022
Status: a revised version of this preprint is currently under review for the journal NHESS.

Comparison of Flood Inundation Modeling Frameworks within a Small Coastal Watershed during a Compound Flood Event

Joseph Gutenson1,2, Ahmad Tavakoly1,3, Mohammad Islam4, Oliver Wing5, William Lehman6, Chase Hamilton1, Mark Wahl1, and Chris Massey1 Joseph Gutenson et al.
  • 1U. S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory, Vicksburg, MS, 39180, United States
  • 2Department of Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering, The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL, 35487, United States
  • 3Earth System Science Interdisciplinary Center, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20740, United States
  • 4U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Galveston District, Galveston, TX, 77550, United States
  • 5Fathom, Bristol, United Kingdom
  • 6U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center, Davis, CA, 95616, United States

Abstract. The flooding brought about by compound coastal flooding can be devastating. Before, during, and immediately following these events, flood inundation maps, or Events Maps, can provide essential information to emergency management. However, there are a number of frameworks capable of estimating Event Maps during flood events. In this article, we evaluate three such Event Map frameworks in the context of Hurricane Harvey. Our analysis reveals that each of the three frameworks provide different inundation maps that differ in their level of accuracy. Each of the three Event Maps also produce different exposure and consequence estimates because of their physical differences. This investigation highlights the need for a centralized means of vetting and adjudicating multiple Event Maps during compound flood events empowered by the ability to distribute Event Maps as geographic information system (GIS) services and coalesce Event Maps into a common operating picture. Furthermore, we provide evidence that the ability to produce multi-model estimates of Events Maps to create probabilistic Event Maps may provide a better product than the use of a lone Event Map.

Joseph Gutenson et al.

Status: final response (author comments only)

Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor | : Report abuse
  • RC1: 'Comment on nhess-2022-27', Anonymous Referee #1, 04 Apr 2022
    • AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Joseph Gutenson, 10 Jun 2022
  • RC2: 'Comment on nhess-2022-27', Anonymous Referee #2, 11 May 2022
    • AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Joseph Gutenson, 10 Jun 2022

Joseph Gutenson et al.

Joseph Gutenson et al.

Viewed

Total article views: 514 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total BibTeX EndNote
339 158 17 514 13 12
  • HTML: 339
  • PDF: 158
  • XML: 17
  • Total: 514
  • BibTeX: 13
  • EndNote: 12
Views and downloads (calculated since 16 Feb 2022)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 16 Feb 2022)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 481 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 481 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 
Latest update: 25 Oct 2022
Download
Short summary
Emergency managers use event-based flood inundation maps, or Event Maps, to plan and coordinate flood fights. We perform a case study test of three different flood mapping frameworks to see if the Event Map differences lead to substantial differences in the location and magnitude of flood exposure and consequences. We find that the Event Maps are much different physically and that the physical differences do produce differences in the location and magnitude of exposure and consequences.
Altmetrics