4.6 Article

HAND contour: a new proxy predictor of inundation extent

期刊

HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES
卷 30, 期 2, 页码 320-333

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/hyp.10581

关键词

flood-extent prediction; inundation mapping; terrain model; HAND model; topographical contours

资金

  1. BESM project
  2. CNPq DTI federal fellowship
  3. GeoClima project - CNPq-CTHIDRO
  4. Rede Clima project - FAPESP-CNPq

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Tools for accurately predicting environmental risks, such as the location and spatial extent of potential inundation, are not widely available. A dependence on calibration and a lack of available flood data have prevented the widespread application of existing hydrodynamic methods for predicting the extent of inundation. We use the height above the nearest drainage (HAND) terrain model to develop a simple static approach for mapping the potential extent of inundation that does not depend on flood observations and extends beyond methods for mapping low-lying areas. While relying on the contour concept, the method utilizes drainage-normalized topography and flowpaths to delineate the relative vertical distances (drop) to the nearest river. The HAND-delineated relative drop is an effective distributed predictor of flood potential, which is directly related to the river stage height. We validated the new HAND contour approach using a flood event in Southern Brazil for which high-resolution maps were available. The results indicated that the flood hazard-mapping method accurately predicted the inundation extent of the channel carrying the flood wave and the channels influenced by flooding. For channels positioned outside of the flood-wave area, the method overestimated the actual flood extent. As an original static assessment of floodwaters across the landscape, the HAND contour method could be used to map flood hazards in areas with poor information and could promote the development of new methods for predicting hydrological hazards. Copyright (C) 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据