The credibility challenge for global fluvial flood risk analysis

M. A. Trigg, C. E. Birch, J. C. Neal, P. D. Bates, A. Smith, C. C. Sampson, D. Yamazaki, Yukiko Hirabayashi, F. Pappenberger, E. Dutra, P. J. Ward, H. C. Winsemius, P. Salamon, F. Dottori, R. Rudari, M. S. Kappes, A. L. Simpson, G. Hadzilacos, T. J. Fewtrell

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

40 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Quantifying flood hazard is an essential component of resilience planning, emergency response, and mitigation, including insurance. Traditionally undertaken at catchment and national scales, recently, efforts have intensified to estimate flood risk globally to better allow consistent and equitable decision making. Global flood hazard models are now a practical reality, thanks to improvements in numerical algorithms, global datasets, computing power, and coupled modelling frameworks. Outputs of these models are vital for consistent quantification of global flood risk and in projecting the impacts of climate change. However, the urgency of these tasks means that outputs are being used as soon as they are made available and before such methods have been adequately tested. To address this, we compare multi-probability flood hazard maps for Africa from six global models and show wide variation in their flood hazard, economic loss and exposed population estimates, which has serious implications for model credibility. While there is around 30%-40% agreement in flood extent, our results show that even at continental scales, there are significant differences in hazard magnitude and spatial pattern between models, notably in deltas, arid/semi-arid zones and wetlands. This study is an important step towards a better understanding of modelling global flood hazard, which is urgently required for both current risk and climate change projections.

Original languageEnglish
Article number094014
JournalEnvironmental Research Letters
Volume11
Issue number9
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2016 Sep 14
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Risk analysis
Hazards
hazard
Climate change
climate change
risk analysis
Insurance
Wetlands
Catchments
modeling
mitigation
Decision making
wetland
decision making
catchment
Planning
Economics
economics

Keywords

  • flood hazard
  • flood risk
  • global flood models

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment
  • Environmental Science(all)
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Cite this

Trigg, M. A., Birch, C. E., Neal, J. C., Bates, P. D., Smith, A., Sampson, C. C., ... Fewtrell, T. J. (2016). The credibility challenge for global fluvial flood risk analysis. Environmental Research Letters, 11(9), [094014]. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/9/094014

The credibility challenge for global fluvial flood risk analysis. / Trigg, M. A.; Birch, C. E.; Neal, J. C.; Bates, P. D.; Smith, A.; Sampson, C. C.; Yamazaki, D.; Hirabayashi, Yukiko; Pappenberger, F.; Dutra, E.; Ward, P. J.; Winsemius, H. C.; Salamon, P.; Dottori, F.; Rudari, R.; Kappes, M. S.; Simpson, A. L.; Hadzilacos, G.; Fewtrell, T. J.

In: Environmental Research Letters, Vol. 11, No. 9, 094014, 14.09.2016.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Trigg, MA, Birch, CE, Neal, JC, Bates, PD, Smith, A, Sampson, CC, Yamazaki, D, Hirabayashi, Y, Pappenberger, F, Dutra, E, Ward, PJ, Winsemius, HC, Salamon, P, Dottori, F, Rudari, R, Kappes, MS, Simpson, AL, Hadzilacos, G & Fewtrell, TJ 2016, 'The credibility challenge for global fluvial flood risk analysis', Environmental Research Letters, vol. 11, no. 9, 094014. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/9/094014
Trigg MA, Birch CE, Neal JC, Bates PD, Smith A, Sampson CC et al. The credibility challenge for global fluvial flood risk analysis. Environmental Research Letters. 2016 Sep 14;11(9). 094014. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/9/094014
Trigg, M. A. ; Birch, C. E. ; Neal, J. C. ; Bates, P. D. ; Smith, A. ; Sampson, C. C. ; Yamazaki, D. ; Hirabayashi, Yukiko ; Pappenberger, F. ; Dutra, E. ; Ward, P. J. ; Winsemius, H. C. ; Salamon, P. ; Dottori, F. ; Rudari, R. ; Kappes, M. S. ; Simpson, A. L. ; Hadzilacos, G. ; Fewtrell, T. J. / The credibility challenge for global fluvial flood risk analysis. In: Environmental Research Letters. 2016 ; Vol. 11, No. 9.
@article{647e91ec211c446fb4e1d96b1ab45520,
title = "The credibility challenge for global fluvial flood risk analysis",
abstract = "Quantifying flood hazard is an essential component of resilience planning, emergency response, and mitigation, including insurance. Traditionally undertaken at catchment and national scales, recently, efforts have intensified to estimate flood risk globally to better allow consistent and equitable decision making. Global flood hazard models are now a practical reality, thanks to improvements in numerical algorithms, global datasets, computing power, and coupled modelling frameworks. Outputs of these models are vital for consistent quantification of global flood risk and in projecting the impacts of climate change. However, the urgency of these tasks means that outputs are being used as soon as they are made available and before such methods have been adequately tested. To address this, we compare multi-probability flood hazard maps for Africa from six global models and show wide variation in their flood hazard, economic loss and exposed population estimates, which has serious implications for model credibility. While there is around 30{\%}-40{\%} agreement in flood extent, our results show that even at continental scales, there are significant differences in hazard magnitude and spatial pattern between models, notably in deltas, arid/semi-arid zones and wetlands. This study is an important step towards a better understanding of modelling global flood hazard, which is urgently required for both current risk and climate change projections.",
keywords = "flood hazard, flood risk, global flood models",
author = "Trigg, {M. A.} and Birch, {C. E.} and Neal, {J. C.} and Bates, {P. D.} and A. Smith and Sampson, {C. C.} and D. Yamazaki and Yukiko Hirabayashi and F. Pappenberger and E. Dutra and Ward, {P. J.} and Winsemius, {H. C.} and P. Salamon and F. Dottori and R. Rudari and Kappes, {M. S.} and Simpson, {A. L.} and G. Hadzilacos and Fewtrell, {T. J.}",
year = "2016",
month = "9",
day = "14",
doi = "10.1088/1748-9326/11/9/094014",
language = "English",
volume = "11",
journal = "Environmental Research Letters",
issn = "1748-9326",
publisher = "IOP Publishing Ltd.",
number = "9",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The credibility challenge for global fluvial flood risk analysis

AU - Trigg, M. A.

AU - Birch, C. E.

AU - Neal, J. C.

AU - Bates, P. D.

AU - Smith, A.

AU - Sampson, C. C.

AU - Yamazaki, D.

AU - Hirabayashi, Yukiko

AU - Pappenberger, F.

AU - Dutra, E.

AU - Ward, P. J.

AU - Winsemius, H. C.

AU - Salamon, P.

AU - Dottori, F.

AU - Rudari, R.

AU - Kappes, M. S.

AU - Simpson, A. L.

AU - Hadzilacos, G.

AU - Fewtrell, T. J.

PY - 2016/9/14

Y1 - 2016/9/14

N2 - Quantifying flood hazard is an essential component of resilience planning, emergency response, and mitigation, including insurance. Traditionally undertaken at catchment and national scales, recently, efforts have intensified to estimate flood risk globally to better allow consistent and equitable decision making. Global flood hazard models are now a practical reality, thanks to improvements in numerical algorithms, global datasets, computing power, and coupled modelling frameworks. Outputs of these models are vital for consistent quantification of global flood risk and in projecting the impacts of climate change. However, the urgency of these tasks means that outputs are being used as soon as they are made available and before such methods have been adequately tested. To address this, we compare multi-probability flood hazard maps for Africa from six global models and show wide variation in their flood hazard, economic loss and exposed population estimates, which has serious implications for model credibility. While there is around 30%-40% agreement in flood extent, our results show that even at continental scales, there are significant differences in hazard magnitude and spatial pattern between models, notably in deltas, arid/semi-arid zones and wetlands. This study is an important step towards a better understanding of modelling global flood hazard, which is urgently required for both current risk and climate change projections.

AB - Quantifying flood hazard is an essential component of resilience planning, emergency response, and mitigation, including insurance. Traditionally undertaken at catchment and national scales, recently, efforts have intensified to estimate flood risk globally to better allow consistent and equitable decision making. Global flood hazard models are now a practical reality, thanks to improvements in numerical algorithms, global datasets, computing power, and coupled modelling frameworks. Outputs of these models are vital for consistent quantification of global flood risk and in projecting the impacts of climate change. However, the urgency of these tasks means that outputs are being used as soon as they are made available and before such methods have been adequately tested. To address this, we compare multi-probability flood hazard maps for Africa from six global models and show wide variation in their flood hazard, economic loss and exposed population estimates, which has serious implications for model credibility. While there is around 30%-40% agreement in flood extent, our results show that even at continental scales, there are significant differences in hazard magnitude and spatial pattern between models, notably in deltas, arid/semi-arid zones and wetlands. This study is an important step towards a better understanding of modelling global flood hazard, which is urgently required for both current risk and climate change projections.

KW - flood hazard

KW - flood risk

KW - global flood models

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84992052824&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84992052824&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1088/1748-9326/11/9/094014

DO - 10.1088/1748-9326/11/9/094014

M3 - Article

VL - 11

JO - Environmental Research Letters

JF - Environmental Research Letters

SN - 1748-9326

IS - 9

M1 - 094014

ER -