• search hit 14 of 19
Back to Result List

Evaluation of river flood extent simulated with multiple global hydrological models and climate forcings

  • Global flood models (GFMs) are increasingly being used to estimate global-scale societal and economic risks of river flooding. Recent validation studies have highlighted substantial differences in performance between GFMs and between validation sites. However, it has not been systematically quantified to what extent the choice of the underlying climate forcing and global hydrological model (GHM) influence flood model performance. Here, we investigate this sensitivity by comparing simulated flood extent to satellite imagery of past flood events, for an ensemble of three climate reanalyses and 11 GHMs. We study eight historical flood events spread over four continents and various climate zones. For most regions, the simulated inundation extent is relatively insensitive to the choice of GHM. For some events, however, individual GHMs lead to much lower agreement with observations than the others, mostly resulting from an overestimation of inundated areas. Two of the climate forcings show very similar results, while with the third,Global flood models (GFMs) are increasingly being used to estimate global-scale societal and economic risks of river flooding. Recent validation studies have highlighted substantial differences in performance between GFMs and between validation sites. However, it has not been systematically quantified to what extent the choice of the underlying climate forcing and global hydrological model (GHM) influence flood model performance. Here, we investigate this sensitivity by comparing simulated flood extent to satellite imagery of past flood events, for an ensemble of three climate reanalyses and 11 GHMs. We study eight historical flood events spread over four continents and various climate zones. For most regions, the simulated inundation extent is relatively insensitive to the choice of GHM. For some events, however, individual GHMs lead to much lower agreement with observations than the others, mostly resulting from an overestimation of inundated areas. Two of the climate forcings show very similar results, while with the third, differences between GHMs become more pronounced. We further show that when flood protection standards are accounted for, many models underestimate flood extent, pointing to deficiencies in their flood frequency distribution. Our study guides future applications of these models, and highlights regions and models where targeted improvements might yield the largest performance gains.show moreshow less

Export metadata

Additional Services

Search Google Scholar Statistics
Metadaten
Author details:Benedikt MesterORCiDGND, Sven N. WillnerORCiDGND, Katja FrielerORCiDGND, Jacob ScheweORCiDGND
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac188d
ISSN:1748-9326
Title of parent work (English):Environmental research letters : ERL / Institute of Physics
Publisher:IOP Publ. Ltd.
Place of publishing:Bristol
Publication type:Article
Language:English
Date of first publication:2021/09/21
Publication year:2021
Release date:2023/11/15
Tag:flood risk; global flood model; global hydrological model; model intercomparison; validation
Volume:16
Issue:9
Article number:094010
Number of pages:15
Funding institution:European Union Horizon 2020 project RECEIPT; European Union Horizon 2020 project CASCADES; European Union Horizon 2020 project HABITABLE; BMBF project ISIpediaFederal Ministry of Education & Research (BMBF)
Organizational units:Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Fakultät / Institut für Umweltwissenschaften und Geographie
DDC classification:6 Technik, Medizin, angewandte Wissenschaften / 69 Hausbau, Bauhandwerk / 690 Hausbau, Bauhandwerk
Peer review:Referiert
Publishing method:Open Access / Hybrid Open-Access
License (German):License LogoCC-BY - Namensnennung 4.0 International
Accept ✔
This website uses technically necessary session cookies. By continuing to use the website, you agree to this. You can find our privacy policy here.