Marginal Distribution Fitting Method for Modelling Flood Extremes on a River Network

Abstract

This study utilized a max-stable process (MSP) model with a dependence structure defined via a non-Euclidean distance metric, with the goal of modelling extreme flood data on a river network. The dataset was composed of mean daily discharge observations from 22 United States Geological Survey streamflow gaging stations for river basins in Missouri and Arkansas. The analysis included the application of the elastic-net penalty to automatically build spatially varying trend surfaces to model the marginal distributions. The dependence model accounted for the river distance between hydrologically connected gaging sites and the hydrologic distance, defined as the Euclidean distance between the centers of site’s associated drainage areas, for all stations. Modelling the marginal distributions and spatial dependence among the extremes are two key components for spatially modelling extremes. Among the 16 covariates evaluated for marginal fitting, 7 were selected to spatially model the generalized extreme value (GEV) location parameter (for each gaging station’s contributing drainage basin, its outlet elevation, centroid x coordinate, centroid elevation, area, average basin width, elevation range, and median land surface slope). The three covariates selected for the GEV scale parameter included the area, average basin width, and median land surface slope. The GEV shape parameter was assumed to be constant throughout the entire study area. Comparisons of estimates obtained from the spatial covariate model with their corresponding “at-site” estimates resulted in computed values of 0.95, 0.95, 0.94 and 0.85, 0.84, 0.90 for the coefficient of determination, Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency, and Kling–Gupta efficiency for the GEV location and scale parameters, respectively. Brown–Resnick MSP models were fit to independent multivariate events extracted from a set of common discharge data, transformed to unit Fréchet margins while considering different permutations of the non-Euclidean dependence model. Each of the fitted model’s log-likelihood values indicated improved fits when using hydrologic distance rather than Euclidean distance. They also demonstrated that accounting for flow-connected dependence and anisotropy further improved model fit. In this study, the results from both parts were illustrative; however, further research with larger datasets and more heterogeneous systems is recommended.