Event generation for probabilistic flood risk modelling: multi-site peak flow dependence model vs. weather-generator-based approach
-
Published:2020-06-08
Issue:6
Volume:20
Page:1689-1703
-
ISSN:1684-9981
-
Container-title:Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.
Author:
Winter BenjaminORCID, Schneeberger KlausORCID, Förster KristianORCID, Vorogushyn SergiyORCID
Abstract
Abstract. Flood risk assessment is an important prerequisite for risk management decisions. To estimate the risk, i.e. the probability of damage, flood damage needs to be either systematically recorded over a long period or modelled for a series of synthetically generated flood events. Since damage records are typically rare, time series of plausible, spatially coherent event precipitation or peak discharges need to be generated to drive the chain of process models. In the present study, synthetic flood events are generated by two different approaches to modelling flood risk in a meso-scale alpine study area (Vorarlberg, Austria). The first approach is based on the semi-conditional multi-variate dependence model applied to discharge series. The second approach relies on the continuous hydrological modelling of synthetic meteorological fields generated by a multi-site weather generator and using an hourly disaggregation scheme. The results of the two approaches are compared in terms of simulated spatial patterns of peak discharges and overall flood risk estimates. It could be demonstrated that both methods are valid approaches for risk assessment with specific advantages and disadvantages. Both methods are superior to the traditional assumption of a uniform return period, where risk is computed by assuming a homogeneous return period (e.g. 100-year flood) across the entire study area.
Publisher
Copernicus GmbH
Subject
General Earth and Planetary Sciences
Reference78 articles.
1. Achleitner, S., Schöber, J., Rinderer, M., Leonhardt, G., Schöberl, F., Kirnbauer, R., and Schönlaub, H.: Analyzing the operational performance of the hydrological models in an alpine flood forecasting system, J. Hydrol., 412–413, 90–100, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.07.047, 2012. a 2. Achleitner, S., Huttenlau, M., Winter, B., Reiss, J., Plörer, M., and
Hofer, M.: Temporal development of flood risk considering settlement dynamics
and local flood protection measures on catchment scale: An Austrian case
study, Int. J. River Basin Manage., 14, 273–285, https://doi.org/10.1080/15715124.2016.1167061, 2016. a 3. Andrieu, C., Freitas, N., Doucet, A., and Jordan, M.: An Introduction to MCMC
for Machine Learning, Mach. Learn., 50, 5–43, https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020281327116, 2003. a 4. Archfield, S. A., Pugliese, A., Castellarin, A., Skøien, J. O., and Kiang,
J. E.: Topological and canonical kriging for design flood prediction in ungauged catchments: An improvement over a traditional regional regression
approach?, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 17, 1575–1588,
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-1575-2013, 2013. a 5. Bavay, M. and Egger, T.: MeteoIO 2.4.2: a preprocessing library for
meteorological data, Geosci. Model Dev., 7, 3135–3151,
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-7-3135-2014, 2014. a, b
Cited by
5 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|