the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Mapping current and future flood exposure using a 5-metre flood model and climate change projections
Connor Darlington
Jonathan Raikes
Daniel Henstra
Jason Thistlethwaite
Emma K. Raven
Abstract. Local stakeholders need information about areas exposed to potential flooding to manage increasing disaster risk. Moderate and large-scale flood hazard mapping is often produced at a low spatial resolution, typically using only one source of flooding (e.g., riverine), and it often fails to include climate change. This article assesses flood hazard exposure in the City of Vancouver, Canada, using flood mapping produced by flood risk science experts JBA Risk Management, which represented baseline exposure at 5-metre spatial resolution and incorporated climate change-adjusted values based on different greenhouse gas emission scenarios. The article identifies areas of both current and future flood exposure in the built environment, differentiating between sources of flooding (fluvial, pluvial, storm surge), climate change scenarios, and return periods. The case study demonstrates the utility of a flood model with a moderate resolution for informing planning, policy development, and public education. Without recent engineered or regulatory mapping available in all areas across Canada, this model provides a mechanism for identifying possible present and future flood risk at a higher resolution than is available at Canada-wide coverage.
- Preprint
(2661 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Connor Darlington et al.
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on nhess-2023-87', Anonymous Referee #1, 31 Jul 2023
General comments:
- Novelty uncertain - In the review, different modeling approaches are described (e.g., physical, physically-based, and empirical), but there is no review on the current state of physically-based modeling which is the modeling method used. A review on physically-based approaches and their applications is needed to demonstrate the need for and novelty of this work. Similar datasets exist from First Street Foundation and Fathom. Comparing this dataset to existing ones can provide further context of this work.
- Modeling details - The description of the modeling methods was very general. More details are needed to understand how the dataset used was produced, especially for pluvial modeling since pluvial was the driving mechanism in the results.
- Include more return periods in analysis - There were several return periods listed that the data was available for, but results were only reported for the 100-year event. Consider comparing the driving flood mechanism across multiple return periods as this could yield interesting and innovative results.
- Paper is very well-written and organized. It is clear and easy to read.
Line-specific comments:
Pg. 2, line 35 - The IPCC citation is not included in the reference list and not in alphabetical order
Pg. 2, line 40 - change anticipating to anticipate
Pg. 4, line 106 - Section is not numbered
Pg. 4, line 142 - Is citation reference to the 2022a or 2022b reference?
Pg. 5, line 154 - The review of Canadian flow mapping throughput history and different initiatives provides nice context.
Figure 1 - Consider condensing Figures 1 and 2. Could add a fourth panel to Figure 2 that shows the inundation including all flood mechanisms for the 100-yr event and eliminating Figure 1.
Pg. 6, line 176 - use of the ‘coverage observed’ - this could be confusing for readers since this isn’t referring to a historical, observed event. Consider changing the language to ‘coverage modeled’ or ‘observed from modeling.’
Pg. 6, line 177 - The use of low to high scale. Figure 2 includes depth ranges instead of qualitative scale. Could the flood depths scale be used for Figure 1?
Pg. 6, line 184 - Figure 2 captions says its mapping the 100-yr event not the 1,500-year RP.
Pg. 8, line 198 - “infiltration coefficient” - I would like to see more details on how this was calculated and applied. Was it assumed to be the same across the study site, or did it vary based on land use or % imperviousness or some other method?
Pg. 8, line 210 - Include more detail on these “change factors” - how are they developed and applied.
Pg. 8, line 216 - Again, more detail on “change factors.” Were the change factors for the hydrographs calculated differently than the change factors for the rainfall?
Page 12, line 283 - make “elevation” plural
Page 12, line 285 - Was there consideration of making additional thresholds for measuring the severity of building exposure? Could include an additional threshold equivalent to the height of a first floor since the flood depths exceed 6 meters in some scenarios.
Page 12, line 292 - “combination of flood types” - Does this mean a building was flooded by both or all three flood types? Add a brief clarification as to how this was determined.
Page 12, line 292 - Change “combination” to “multiple” because the modeling considered the flood mechanism separately, and did not implement compound modeling where the mechanisms are included simultaneously in the model. Combination might imply flood mechanisms occurring at the same time and be misleading.
Page 13, line 300 - Results show pluvial is the driving mechanism of flood exposure. Why do you suppose that is? Consider adding this to the discussion.
Page 13, line 306 - Mention the role of “infrastructures and waterways.” Does the model consider stormwater infrastructure?
Figure 4 - Is the middle map of a different location? Why not use the same location for the pluvial flood mechanism as well?
Pg. 19, line 32 - Word choice of the word “greater.” Consider changing the first instance to “larger amounts of water” and the second instance to “further exposure” to add clarity.
Figure 5 - Consider splitting the classification of “continued exposure” into two groups: “continued exposure” and “worsened exposure” based on a building going from moderate to severe exposure. This could add more information to the figure to show not only where new exposure occurred but also where it was made worse by climate change.
Page 20, line 41 - What model assumptions are being referred to? Be specific.
Page 20, line 43 - “two of the three assets.” The sentence before mentions 14 buildings, so not sure where three assets are coming from.
Page 20, line 46 - the small pockets of disjointed water causing changes. Perhaps this is an opportune place to discuss the role of model uncertainty on the output since the only input that was changed was increasing rainfalls based on climate change.
Page 21, lines 54-56 - can add that pluvial flooding was the driving mechanism, so excluding this in flood mapping could result in harmful consequences
Page 21, line 61 - Provide more detail on the approaches' scalability.
Page 21, line 62 - Why is there greater uncertainty in the pluvial flood estimation?
Page 22, line 83 - make ‘building’ plural
Page 22, line 84 - Add clarity to wording. Buildings are not a source of exposure, but an increase in development leads to a greater density and number of buildings that can be exposed to flooding.
Page 22, line 85 - Again, buildings are not a source of flooding, but they increase the number of assets that can be exposed.
Page 22, lines 95-96 - Sentence is unclear.
Page 22, line 98: Validation is discussed, but what about the roles of uncertainty of and sensitivity analysis on the dataset and the results?
Page 24, line 161 - Reference is in the reference list but not cited in the manuscript
Page 27, line 236 - Reference is in the reference list but not cited in the manuscript
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Jonathan Raikes, 07 Aug 2023
Thank you for the thorough feedback. We acknowledge receipt of the feedback and we will be addressing those comments and recommendations when we revise our manuscript following the review process.
Kind regards,
Connor Darlington, Jonathan Raikes, Daniel Henstra, Jason Thistlethwaite, Emma Raven
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2023-87-AC1
-
RC2: 'Comment on nhess-2023-87', Anonymous Referee #2, 11 Sep 2023
I agree with the first reviewer that the level of novelty in this paper is uncertain.
The authors claim that their primary focus is on a general flood exposure approach, but upon examination, it becomes evident that 90% of the content is around the flood hazard model. The introduction and literature review sections primarily delve into flood hazard modeling techniques and approaches. While a flood exposure method is presented in the methodology section, it appears to be quite limited.
The flood exposure methodology introduced in this paper is notably simple, and the level of uncertainty associated with it is high. In line 264, it is explained that when any part of a building is implicated by flood hazard data, the maximum flood depth value is assigned. Given the localized nature of the analysis, I would recommend that the authors explore alternative approaches to reduce this uncertainty. Furthermore, the authors make certain assumptions, such as those presented in line 279 where they introduce subclasses of exposure. While they argue that these assumptions are reasonable for Canada, they neither provide a comprehensive explanation nor support them with relevant literature.
In light of these concerns, I would recommend major revisions to the paper. The primary objective of the paper should be clearly defined, and appropriate methodologies and approaches should be employed accordingly. There is a substantial body of literature available on flood exposure and local-level methods, which the authors should draw upon to enhance their work.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2023-87-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Jonathan Raikes, 11 Sep 2023
Thank you for the thoughtful and thorough review of our manuscript. We appreciate your time and the depth of your assessment.
We will address each recommendation in revising the manuscript.
Kind regards,
Connor Darlington, Jonathan Raikes, Daniel Henstra, Jason Thistlethwaite, Emma Raven
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2023-87-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Jonathan Raikes, 11 Sep 2023
Connor Darlington et al.
Connor Darlington et al.
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
359 | 117 | 15 | 491 | 6 | 6 |
- HTML: 359
- PDF: 117
- XML: 15
- Total: 491
- BibTeX: 6
- EndNote: 6
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1