@article{MerzBassoFischeretal.2022,
  author    = {Merz, Bruno and Basso, Stefano and Fischer, Svenja and Lun, David and Bloeschl, Guenter and Merz, Ralf and Guse, Bjorn and Viglione, Alberto and Vorogushyn, Sergiy and Macdonald, Elena and Wietzke, Luzie and Schumann, Andreas},
  title     = {Understanding heavy tails of flood peak distributions},
  series = {Water resources research},
  volume    = {58},
  journal   = {Water resources research},
  number    = {6},
  publisher = {American Geophysical Union},
  address   = {Washington},
  issn      = {0043-1397},
  doi       = {10.1029/2021WR030506},
  pages     = {37},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {Statistical distributions of flood peak discharge often show heavy tail behavior, that is, extreme floods are more likely to occur than would be predicted by commonly used distributions that have exponential asymptotic behavior. This heavy tail behavior may surprise flood managers and citizens, as human intuition tends to expect light tail behavior, and the heaviness of the tails is very difficult to predict, which may lead to unnecessarily high flood damage. Despite its high importance, the literature on the heavy tail behavior of flood distributions is rather fragmented. In this review, we provide a coherent overview of the processes causing heavy flood tails and the implications for science and practice. Specifically, we propose nine hypotheses on the mechanisms causing heavy tails in flood peak distributions related to processes in the atmosphere, the catchment, and the river system. We then discuss to which extent the current knowledge supports or contradicts these hypotheses. We also discuss the statistical conditions for the emergence of heavy tail behavior based on derived distribution theory and relate them to the hypotheses and flood generation mechanisms. We review the degree to which the heaviness of the tails can be predicted from process knowledge and data. Finally, we recommend further research toward testing the hypotheses and improving the prediction of heavy tails.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{TarasovaMerzKissetal.2019,
  author    = {Tarasova, Larisa and Merz, Ralf and Kiss, Andrea and Basso, Stefano and Bl{\"o}chl, G{\"u}nter and Merz, Bruno and Viglione, Alberto and Pl{\"o}tner, Stefan and Guse, Bj{\"o}rn and Schumann, Andreas and Fischer, Svenja and Ahrens, Bodo and Anwar, Faizan and B{\´a}rdossy, Andr{\´a}s and B{\"u}hler, Philipp and Haberlandt, Uwe and Kreibich, Heidi and Krug, Amelie and Lun, David and M{\"u}ller-Thomy, Hannes and Pidoto, Ross and Primo, Cristina and Seidel, Jochen and Vorogushyn, Sergiy and Wietzke, Luzie},
  title     = {Causative classification of river flood events},
  series = {Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews : Water},
  volume    = {6},
  journal   = {Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews : Water},
  number    = {4},
  publisher = {Wiley},
  address   = {Hoboken},
  issn      = {2049-1948},
  doi       = {10.1002/wat2.1353},
  pages     = {23},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {A wide variety of processes controls the time of occurrence, duration, extent, and severity of river floods. Classifying flood events by their causative processes may assist in enhancing the accuracy of local and regional flood frequency estimates and support the detection and interpretation of any changes in flood occurrence and magnitudes. This paper provides a critical review of existing causative classifications of instrumental and preinstrumental series of flood events, discusses their validity and applications, and identifies opportunities for moving toward more comprehensive approaches. So far no unified definition of causative mechanisms of flood events exists. Existing frameworks for classification of instrumental and preinstrumental series of flood events adopt different perspectives: hydroclimatic (large-scale circulation patterns and atmospheric state at the time of the event), hydrological (catchment scale precipitation patterns and antecedent catchment state), and hydrograph-based (indirectly considering generating mechanisms through their effects on hydrograph characteristics). All of these approaches intend to capture the flood generating mechanisms and are useful for characterizing the flood processes at various spatial and temporal scales. However, uncertainty analyses with respect to indicators, classification methods, and data to assess the robustness of the classification are rarely performed which limits the transferability across different geographic regions. It is argued that more rigorous testing is needed. There are opportunities for extending classification methods to include indicators of space-time dynamics of rainfall, antecedent wetness, and routing effects, which will make the classification schemes even more useful for understanding and estimating floods. This article is categorized under: Science of Water > Water Extremes Science of Water > Hydrological Processes Science of Water > Methods},
  language  = {en}
}