Articles | Volume 25, issue 11
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-5981-2021
© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-5981-2021
© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Research article
| 
22 Nov 2021
Research article |
| 22 Nov 2021
| 22 Nov 2021
Design flood estimation for global river networks based on machine learning models
School of Geographical Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
Paul Bates
School of Geographical Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
Fathom, Engine Shed, Station Approach, Bristol, UK
Jeffrey Neal
School of Geographical Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
Fathom, Engine Shed, Station Approach, Bristol, UK
Bo Pang
College of Water Sciences, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China
Related authors
No articles found.
Songtang He, Zhenhong Shen, Jeffrey Neal, Zongji Yang, Jiangang Chen, Daojie Wang, Yujing Yang, Peng Zhao, Xudong Hu, Yongming Lin, Youtong Rong, Yanchen Zheng, Xiaoli Su, and Yong Kong
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3004, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3004, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences (NHESS).
Short summary
Short summary
We explored why landslides still happen in areas with dense vegetation. Using data from a mountainous region in China, we combined large-scale mapping with detailed field analysis. We found that while plants can help prevent landslides, their weight and interaction with rainfall and wind can sometimes make slopes more unstable. This research highlights the complex role of vegetation and helps improve landslide prediction and prevention in green mountain areas.
Thomas P. Collings, Callum J. R. Murphy-Barltrop, Conor Murphy, Ivan D. Haigh, Paul D. Bates, and Niall D. Quinn
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1138, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1138, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Determining the threshold above which events are considered extreme is an important consideration for many modelling procedures. We propose an extension of an existing data-driven method for automatic threshold selection. We test our approach on tide gauge records, and show that it outperforms existing techniques. This helps improve estimates of extreme sea levels, and we hope other researchers will use this method for other natural hazards.
Joshua Green, Ivan D. Haigh, Niall Quinn, Jeff Neal, Thomas Wahl, Melissa Wood, Dirk Eilander, Marleen de Ruiter, Philip Ward, and Paula Camus
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 747–816, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-25-747-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-25-747-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Compound flooding, involving the combination or successive occurrence of two or more flood drivers, can amplify flood impacts in coastal/estuarine regions. This paper reviews the practices, trends, methodologies, applications, and findings of coastal compound flooding literature at regional to global scales. We explore the types of compound flood events, their mechanistic processes, and the range of terminology. Lastly, this review highlights knowledge gaps and implications for future practices.
Solomon H. Gebrechorkos, Julian Leyland, Simon J. Dadson, Sagy Cohen, Louise Slater, Michel Wortmann, Philip J. Ashworth, Georgina L. Bennett, Richard Boothroyd, Hannah Cloke, Pauline Delorme, Helen Griffith, Richard Hardy, Laurence Hawker, Stuart McLelland, Jeffrey Neal, Andrew Nicholas, Andrew J. Tatem, Ellie Vahidi, Yinxue Liu, Justin Sheffield, Daniel R. Parsons, and Stephen E. Darby
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 3099–3118, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-3099-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-3099-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This study evaluated six high-resolution global precipitation datasets for hydrological modelling. MSWEP and ERA5 showed better performance, but spatial variability was high. The findings highlight the importance of careful dataset selection for river discharge modelling due to the lack of a universally superior dataset. Further improvements in global precipitation data products are needed.
Thomas P. Collings, Niall D. Quinn, Ivan D. Haigh, Joshua Green, Izzy Probyn, Hamish Wilkinson, Sanne Muis, William V. Sweet, and Paul D. Bates
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 2403–2423, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-24-2403-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-24-2403-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Coastal areas are at risk of flooding from rising sea levels and extreme weather events. This study applies a new approach to estimating the likelihood of coastal flooding around the world. The method uses data from observations and computer models to create a detailed map of where these coastal floods might occur. The approach can predict flooding in areas for which there are few or no data available. The results can be used to help prepare for and prevent this type of flooding.
Laurence Hawker, Jeffrey Neal, James Savage, Thomas Kirkpatrick, Rachel Lord, Yanos Zylberberg, Andre Groeger, Truong Dang Thuy, Sean Fox, Felix Agyemang, and Pham Khanh Nam
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 539–566, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-24-539-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-24-539-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We present a global flood model built using a new terrain data set and evaluated in the Central Highlands of Vietnam.
Leanne Archer, Jeffrey Neal, Paul Bates, Emily Vosper, Dereka Carroll, Jeison Sosa, and Daniel Mitchell
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 375–396, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-24-375-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-24-375-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We model hurricane-rainfall-driven flooding to assess how the number of people exposed to flooding changes in Puerto Rico under the 1.5 and 2 °C Paris Agreement goals. Our analysis suggests 8 %–10 % of the population is currently exposed to flooding on average every 5 years, increasing by 2 %–15 % and 1 %–20 % at 1.5 and 2 °C. This has implications for adaptation to more extreme flooding in Puerto Rico and demonstrates that 1.5 °C climate change carries a significant increase in risk.
Youtong Rong, Paul Bates, and Jeffrey Neal
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 3291–3311, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-3291-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-3291-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
A novel subgrid channel (SGC) model is developed for river–floodplain modelling, allowing utilization of subgrid-scale bathymetric information while performing computations on relatively coarse grids. By including adaptive artificial diffusion, potential numerical instability, which the original SGC solver had, in low-friction regions such as urban areas is addressed. Evaluation of the new SGC model through structured tests confirmed that the accuracy and stability have improved.
Mohammad Kazem Sharifian, Georges Kesserwani, Alovya Ahmed Chowdhury, Jeffrey Neal, and Paul Bates
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 2391–2413, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-2391-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-2391-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
This paper describes a new release of the LISFLOOD-FP model for fast and efficient flood simulations. It features a new non-uniform grid generator that uses multiwavelet analyses to sensibly coarsens the resolutions where the local topographic variations are smooth. Moreover, the model is parallelised on the graphical processing units (GPUs) to further boost computational efficiency. The performance of the model is assessed for five real-world case studies, noting its potential applications.
Paul D. Bates, James Savage, Oliver Wing, Niall Quinn, Christopher Sampson, Jeffrey Neal, and Andrew Smith
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 23, 891–908, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-23-891-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-23-891-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We present and validate a model that simulates current and future flood risk for the UK at high resolution (~ 20–25 m). We show that UK flood losses were ~ 6 % greater in the climate of 2020 compared to recent historical values. The UK can keep any future increase to ~ 8 % if all countries implement their COP26 pledges and net-zero ambitions in full. However, if only the COP26 pledges are fulfilled, then UK flood losses increase by ~ 23 %; and potentially by ~ 37 % in a worst-case scenario.
Yinxue Liu, Paul D. Bates, and Jeffery C. Neal
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 23, 375–391, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-23-375-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-23-375-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
In this paper, we test two approaches for removing buildings and other above-ground objects from a state-of-the-art satellite photogrammetry topography product, ArcticDEM. Our best technique gives a 70 % reduction in vertical error, with an average difference of 1.02 m from a benchmark lidar for the city of Helsinki, Finland. When used in a simulation of rainfall-driven flooding, the bare-earth version of ArcticDEM yields a significant improvement in predicted inundation extent and water depth.
Maria Pregnolato, Andrew O. Winter, Dakota Mascarenas, Andrew D. Sen, Paul Bates, and Michael R. Motley
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 22, 1559–1576, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-22-1559-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-22-1559-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The interaction of flow, structure and network is complex, and yet to be fully understood. This study aims to establish rigorous practices of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) for modelling hydrodynamic forces on inundated bridges, and understanding the consequences of such impacts on the surrounding network. The objectives of this study are to model hydrodynamic forces as the demand on the bridge structure, to advance a structural reliability and network-level analysis.
Peter Uhe, Daniel Mitchell, Paul D. Bates, Nans Addor, Jeff Neal, and Hylke E. Beck
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 4865–4890, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-4865-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-4865-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We present a cascade of models to compute high-resolution river flooding. This takes meteorological inputs, e.g., rainfall and temperature from observations or climate models, and takes them through a series of modeling steps. This is relevant to evaluating current day and future flood risk and impacts. The model framework uses global data sets, allowing it to be applied anywhere in the world.
James Shaw, Georges Kesserwani, Jeffrey Neal, Paul Bates, and Mohammad Kazem Sharifian
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 3577–3602, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3577-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3577-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
LISFLOOD-FP has been extended with new shallow-water solvers – DG2 and FV1 – for modelling all types of slow- or fast-moving waves over any smooth or rough surface. Using GPU parallelisation, FV1 is faster than the simpler ACC solver on grids with millions of elements. The DG2 solver is notably effective on coarse grids where river channels are hard to capture, improving predicted river levels and flood water depths. This marks a new step towards real-world DG2 flood inundation modelling.
Oliver E. J. Wing, Andrew M. Smith, Michael L. Marston, Jeremy R. Porter, Mike F. Amodeo, Christopher C. Sampson, and Paul D. Bates
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 559–575, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-21-559-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-21-559-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Global flood models are difficult to validate. They generally output theoretical flood events of a given probability rather than an observed event that they can be tested against. Here, we adapt a US-wide flood model to enable the rapid simulation of historical flood events in order to more robustly understand model biases. For 35 flood events, we highlight the challenges of model validation amidst observational data errors yet evidence the increasing skill of large-scale models.
Cited articles
Ahmad, M. I., Sinclair, C., and Spurr, B.: Assessment of flood frequency
models using empirical distribution function statistics, Water Resour. Res.,
24, 1323–1328, 1988.
Alexandersson, H.: A Homogeneity Test Applied to Precipitation Data, J
Climatol., 6, 661–675, https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.3370060607, 1986.
Bárdossy, A., Pegram, G. G., and Samaniego, L.: Modeling data
relationships with a local variance reducing technique: Applications in
hydrology, Water Resour. Res., 41, W08404, https://doi.org/10.1029/2004WR003851, 2005.
Bates, P. D., Quinn, N., Sampson, C., Smith, A., Wing, O., Sosa, J., Savage,
J., Olcese, G., Neal, J., and Schumann, G.: Combined modelling of US
fluvial, pluvial and coastal flood hazard under current and future climates,
Water Resour. Res., e2020WR028673, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020WR028673, 2020.
Beames, P., Lehner, B., and Anand, M.:
Global Reservoir and Dam Database (GRanD), available at:
http://globaldamwatch.org/grand/, last access:
October 2021.
Bocchiola, D., De Michele, C., and Rosso, R.: Review of recent advances in index flood estimation, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 7, 283–296, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-7-283-2003, 2003.
Breiman, L. and Cutler, A.: Random Forests, available at:
https://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~breiman/RandomForests/cc_home.htm, last
access: October 2021.
Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN):
Gridded Population of the World (GPW), v4, available at:
https://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/data/collection/gpw-v4, last
access: October 2021.
Chib, S. and Greenberg, E.: Understanding the metropolis-hastings
algorithm, Am. Stat., 49, 327–335, 1995.
CRED and UNISDR: The Human Cost of Weather Related Disasters – 1995–2015,
United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR) and Centre for
Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED), 2015.
Cunnane, C.: Methods and Merits of Regional Flood Frequency-Analysis, J.
Hydrol., 100, 269–290, https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(88)90188-6, 1988.
Dalrymple, T.: Flood-frequency analyses, manual of hydrology: Part 3, USGPO,
https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp1543A, 1960.
Davies, D. L. and Bouldin, D. W.: A Cluster Separation Measure, IEEE T. Pattern Anal., PAMI-1, 224–227, https://doi.org/10.1109/TPAMI.1979.4766909, 1979.
Desai, S. and Ouarda, T. B.: Regional hydrological frequency analysis at
ungauged sites with random forest regression, J. Hydrol., 594, 125861, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.125861, 2021.
Di Baldassarre, G. and Montanari, A.: Uncertainty in river discharge observations: a quantitative analysis, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 13, 913–921, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-13-913-2009, 2009.
Di Baldassarre, G., Laio, F., and Montanari, A.: Effect of observation
errors on the uncertainty of design floods, Phys. Chem.
Earth, Parts A/B/C, 42, 85–90, 2012.
Do, H. X., Gudmundsson, L., Leonard, M., and Westra, S.: The Global Streamflow Indices and Metadata Archive (GSIM) – Part 1: The production of a daily streamflow archive and metadata, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 10, 765–785, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-10-765-2018, 2018a.
Do, H. X., Gudmundsson, L., Leonard, M., and Westra, S.:
Global Streamflow Indices and Metadata Archive – Part 1: Station catalog and Catchment boundary, PANGAEA, https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.887477,
2018b.
Doxsey-Whitfield, E., MacManus, K., Adamo, S. B., Pistolesi, L., Squires,
J., Borkovska, O., and Baptista, S. R.: Taking advantage of
the improved availability of census data: a first look at the gridded
population of the world, version 4, Papers in Applied Geography, 1, 226–234, 2015.
Drucker, H., Burges, C. J., Kaufman, L., Smola, A., and Vapnik, V.: Support
vector regression machines, Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst 9, 155–161, 1997.
Fick, S. E., and Hijmans, R. J.: WorldClim 2: new 1-km spatial resolution
climate surfaces for global land areas, Int. J. Climatol., 37, 4302–4315,
https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.5086, 2017.
Fick, S. E. and Hijmans, R. J.:
Global climate and weather data, available at:
https://worldclim.org/, last access: October 2021.
Frieler, K., Lange, S., Piontek, F., Reyer, C. P. O., Schewe, J., Warszawski, L., Zhao, F., Chini, L., Denvil, S., Emanuel, K., Geiger, T., Halladay, K., Hurtt, G., Mengel, M., Murakami, D., Ostberg, S., Popp, A., Riva, R., Stevanovic, M., Suzuki, T., Volkholz, J., Burke, E., Ciais, P., Ebi, K., Eddy, T. D., Elliott, J., Galbraith, E., Gosling, S. N., Hattermann, F., Hickler, T., Hinkel, J., Hof, C., Huber, V., Jägermeyr, J., Krysanova, V., Marcé, R., Müller Schmied, H., Mouratiadou, I., Pierson, D., Tittensor, D. P., Vautard, R., van Vliet, M., Biber, M. F., Betts, R. A., Bodirsky, B. L., Deryng, D., Frolking, S., Jones, C. D., Lotze, H. K., Lotze-Campen, H., Sahajpal, R., Thonicke, K., Tian, H., and Yamagata, Y.: Assessing the impacts of 1.5 ∘C global warming – simulation protocol of the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (ISIMIP2b), Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 4321–4345, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-4321-2017, 2017.
Gao, S., Liu, P., Pan, Z., Ming, B., Guo, S., Cheng, L., and Wang, J.:
Incorporating reservoir impacts into flood frequency distribution functions,
J. Hydrol., 568, 234–246, 2019.
Garcia, F. A. A.: Tests to identify outliers in data series, Pontifical
Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro, Industrial Engineering Department,
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2012.
Garmdareh, E. S., Vafakhah, M., and Eslamian, S. S.: Regional flood
frequency analysis using support vector regression in arid and semi-arid
regions of Iran, Hydrolog. Sci. J., 63, 426–440, https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2018.1432056,
2018.
Gaume, E.: Flood frequency analysis: The Bayesian choice, Wiley
Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water, 5, e1290, https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1290, 2018.
Gizaw, M. S. and Gan, T. Y.: Regional Flood Frequency Analysis using
Support Vector Regression under historical and future climate, J. Hydrol.,
538, 387–398, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.04.041, 2016.
Griffis, V. W. and Stedinger, J. R.: Log-Pearson Type 3 distribution and
its application in flood frequency analysis. I: Distribution
characteristics, J. Hydrol. Eng., 12, 482–491,
https://doi.org/10.1061/(Asce)1084-0699(2007)12:5(482), 2007.
Gudmundsson, L., Do, H. X., Leonard, M., and Westra, S.: The Global Streamflow Indices and Metadata Archive (GSIM) – Part 2: Quality control, time-series indices and homogeneity assessment, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 10, 787–804, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-10-787-2018, 2018.
Haddad, K. and Rahman, A.: Selection of the best fit flood frequency
distribution and parameter estimation procedure: a case study for Tasmania
in Australia, Stoch. Env. Res. Risk A., 25,
415–428, 2011.
Halbert, K., Nguyen, C. C., Payrastre, O., and Gaume, E.: Reducing
uncertainty in flood frequency analyses: A comparison of local and regional
approaches involving information on extreme historical floods, J. Hydrol.,
541, 90–98, 2016.
Hamed, K. H.: Trend detection in hydrologic data: the
Mann–Kendall trend test under the scaling hypothesis, 349, 350–363, 2008.
Hammond, M. J., Chen, A. S., Djordjevic, S., Butler, D., and Mark, O.: Urban
flood impact assessment: A state-of-the-art review, Urban Water J., 12,
14–29, https://doi.org/10.1080/1573062x.2013.857421, 2015.
Hosking, J. R. M. and Wallis, J. R.: The Effect of Intersite Dependence on
Regional Flood Frequency-Analysis, Water Resour. Res., 24, 588–600, https://doi.org/10.1029/WR024i004p00588, 1988.
Hosking, J. R. M. and Wallis, J. R.: Regional frequency analysis: an
approach based on L-moments, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511529443, 2005.
Hutengs, C. and Vohland, M.: Downscaling land surface temperatures at
regional scales with random forest regression, Remote Sens. Environ., 178,
127–141, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2016.03.006, 2016.
Kalai, C., Mondal, A., Griffin, A., and Stewart, E.: Comparison of
nonstationary regional flood frequency analysis techniques based on the
index-flood approach, J. Hydrol. Eng., 25, 06020003, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0001939, 2020.
Laio, F.: Cramer–von Mises and Anderson-Darling goodness of fit tests for
extreme value distributions with unknown parameters, Water Resour. Res., 40, W09308, https://doi.org/10.1029/2004WR003204,
2004.
Lee, J.-Y., Choi, C., Kang, D., Kim, B. S., and Kim, T.-W.: Estimating
Design Floods at Ungauged Watersheds in South Korea Using Machine Learning
Models, Water, 12, 3022, https://doi.org/10.3390/w12113022, 2020.
Lehner, B. and Döll, P.: Development and validation of a global database of
lakes, reservoirs and wetlands, J. Hydrol., 296, 1–22,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2004.03.028, 2004.
Lehner, B. and Döll, P.:
Global Lakes and Wetlands Database: Lakes and Wetlands Grid, available at:
https://www.worldwildlife.org/pages/global-lakes-and-wetlands-database, last access: October 2021.
Lehner, B., Liermann, C. R., Revenga, C., Vorosmarty, C., Fekete, B.,
Crouzet, P., Doll, P., Endejan, M., Frenken, K., Magome, J., Nilsson, C.,
Robertson, J. C., Rodel, R., Sindorf, N., and Wisser, D.: High-resolution
mapping of the world's reservoirs and dams for sustainable river-flow
management, Front. Ecol. Environ., 9, 494–502, https://doi.org/10.1890/100125, 2011.
Li, B., Yang, G. S., Wan, R. R., Dai, X., and Zhang, Y. H.: Comparison of
random forests and other statistical methods for the prediction of lake
water level: a case study of the Poyang Lake in China, Hydrol. Res., 47,
69–83, https://doi.org/10.2166/nh.2016.264, 2016.
Lin, G. F. and Chen, L. H.: Identification of homogeneous regions for
regional frequency analysis using the self-organizing map, J. Hydrol., 324,
1–9, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.09.009, 2006.
Liu, X., Liu, W., Yang, H., Tang, Q., Flörke, M., Masaki, Y., Müller Schmied, H., Ostberg, S., Pokhrel, Y., Satoh, Y., and Wada, Y.: Multimodel assessments of human and climate impacts on mean annual streamflow in China, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 23, 1245–1261, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-1245-2019, 2019.
MathWorks: kmeans, available at: https://www.mathworks.com/help/stats/kmeans.html, last access: October 2021a.
MathWorks: Support Vector Machine Regression, available at: https://uk.mathworks.com/help/stats/support-vector-machine-regression.html, last access: October 2021b.
McCabe, M. F., Rodell, M., Alsdorf, D. E., Miralles, D. G., Uijlenhoet, R., Wagner, W., Lucieer, A., Houborg, R., Verhoest, N. E. C., Franz, T. E., Shi, J., Gao, H., and Wood, E. F.: The future of Earth observation in hydrology, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 3879–3914, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-3879-2017, 2017.
Merz, R. and Blöschl, G.: Flood frequency hydrology: 2. Combining data
evidence, Water Resour. Res., 44, W08433,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2007wr006745, 2008a.
Merz, R. and Blöschl, G.: Flood frequency hydrology: 1. Temporal, spatial,
and causal expansion of information, Water Resour. Res., 44, W08432,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2007wr006744, 2008b.
Merz, B. and Thieken, A. H.: Separating natural and epistemic uncertainty
in flood frequency analysis, J. Hydrol., 309, 114–132, 2005.
Müller Schmied, H., Adam, L., Eisner, S., Fink, G., Flörke, M., Kim, H., Oki, T., Portmann, F. T., Reinecke, R., Riedel, C., Song, Q., Zhang, J., and Döll, P.: Variations of global and continental water balance components as impacted by climate forcing uncertainty and human water use, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 20, 2877–2898, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-2877-2016, 2016.
O'Brien, N. L., and Burn, D. H.: A nonstationary index-flood technique for
estimating extreme quantiles for annual maximum streamflow, J. Hydrol., 519,
2040–2048, 2014.
Pohlert, T.: Non-Parametric Trend Tests and Change-Point Detection,
available at: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/trend/index.html, last access: 31 October 2021.
Prihodko, L., Denning, A. S., Hanan, N. P., Baker, I., and Davis, K.:
Sensitivity, uncertainty and time dependence of parameters in a complex land
surface model, Agr. Forest Meteorol., 148, 268–287,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2007.08.006, 2008.
Raykov, Y. P., Boukouvalas, A., Baig, F., and Little, M. A.: What to do when
K-means clustering fails: a simple yet principled alternative algorithm,
PloS one, 11, e0162259, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0162259, 2016.
Reis, D. S. and Stedinger, J. R.: Bayesian MCMC flood frequency analysis
with historical information, J. Hydrol., 313, 97–116, 2005.
Richter, B. D., Baumgartner, J. V., Wigington, R., and Braun, D. P.: How
much water does a river need?, Freshwater Biol, 37, 231–249, https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2427.1997.00153.x, 1997.
Salinas, J. L., Laaha, G., Rogger, M., Parajka, J., Viglione, A., Sivapalan, M., and Blöschl, G.: Comparative assessment of predictions in ungauged basins – Part 2: Flood and low flow studies, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 17, 2637–2652, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-2637-2013, 2013.
Samaniego, L., Bárdossy, A., and Schulz, K.: Supervised classification
of remotely sensed imagery using a modified $ k $-NN technique, IEEE
T. Geosci. Remote, 46, 2112–2125, 2008.
Sampson, C. C., Smith, A. M., Bates, P. B., Neal, J. C., Alfieri, L., and
Freer, J. E.: A high-resolution global flood hazard model, Water Resour. Res.,
51, 7358–7381, https://doi.org/10.1002/2015wr016954, 2015.
Schumann, G., Bates, P. D., Apel, H., and Aronica, G. T.: Global flood
hazard mapping, modeling, and forecasting: challenges and perspectives,
Global Flood Hazard: Applications in Modeling, Mapping, and Forecasting,
239–244, https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119217886.ch14, 2018.
Schumann, G. J. P., Andreadis, K. M., and Bates, P. D.:
Downscaling coarse grid hydrodynamic model simulations over large domains, J. Hydrol.,
508, 289–298, 2014a.
Schumann, G. J.-P., Andreadis, K. M., and Bates, P. D.: Downscaling coarse
grid hydrodynamic model simulations over large domains, J. Hydrol., 508,
289–298, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2013.08.051, 2014b.
Sharifi Garmdareh, E., Vafakhah, M., and Eslamian, S. S.: Regional flood
frequency analysis using support vector regression in arid and semi-arid
regions of Iran, Hydrolog. Sci. J., 63, 426–440, 2018.
Sharma, A., Wasko, C., and Lettenmaier, D. P.: If precipitation extremes are
increasing, why aren't floods?, Water Resour. Res., 54, 8545–8551, 2018.
Shiffler, R. E. J. T. A. S.: Maximum Z scores and outliers, Am. Stat., 42, 79–80, 1988.
Shu, C., and Ouarda, T. B. M. J.: Regional flood frequency analysis at
ungauged sites using the adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system, J. Hydrol.,
349, 31–43, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2007.10.050, 2008.
Smith, A., Sampson, C., and Bates, P.: Regional flood frequency analysis at
the global scale, Water Resour. Res., 51, 539–553, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014wr015814, 2015.
Stedinger, J. R.: Estimating a regional flood frequency distribution, Water Resour. Res., 19, 503–510, 1983.
Stein, L., Pianosi, F., and Woods, R.: Event-based classification for global
study of river flood generating processes, Hydrol. Process., 34, 1514–1529, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.13678, 2019.
Teng, J., Jakeman, A. J., Vaze, J., Croke, B. F. W., Dutta, D., and Kim, S.:
Flood inundation modelling: A review of methods, recent advances and
uncertainty analysis, Environ. Modell. Softw., 90, 201–216,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2017.01.006, 2017.
Trigg, M. A., Birch, C. E., Neal, J. C., Bates, P. D., Smith, A., Sampson,
C. C., Yamazaki, D., Hirabayashi, Y., Pappenberger, F., Dutra, E., Ward, P.
J., Winsemius, H. C., Salamon, P., Dottori, F., Rudari, R., Kappes, M. S.,
Simpson, A. L., Hadzilacos, G., and Fewtrell, T. J.: The credibility
challenge for global fluvial flood risk analysis, Environ. Res. Lett., 11,
094014, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/9/094014, 2016.
United States Soil Conservation Service: National Engineering Handbook, Section 19, Construction Inspection, Washington, D.C., U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 1985.
Viglione, A.: Non-Supervised Regional Frequency Analysis, available at:
https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=nsRFA,
last access: October 2021.
Vogel, R. M., McMahon, T. A., and Chiew, F. H.: Floodflow frequency model
selection in Australia, J. Hydrol., 146, 421–449, 1993.
Wang, J., Liang, Z., Hu, Y., and Wang, D.: Modified weighted function method
with the incorporation of historical floods into systematic sample for
parameter estimation of Pearson type three distribution, J. Hydrol., 527,
958–966, 2015.
Water Resources Council (US): Hydrology Committee, Guidelines for determining flood flow frequency, US Water Resources Council, Hydrology Committee, 1975.
Wing, O. E., Bates, P. D., Sampson, C. C., Smith, A. M., Johnson, K. A., and
Erickson, T. A. J. W. R. R.: Validation of a 30 m resolution flood hazard
model of the conterminous United States, Water Resour. Res., 53, 7968–7986, 2017.
Wing, O. E., Bates, P. D., Smith, A. M., Sampson, C. C., Johnson, K. A.,
Fargione, J., and Morefield, P.: Estimates of present and future flood risk
in the conterminous United States, Environ. Res. Lett., 13, 034023, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aaac65, 2018.
Winsemius, H. C., Van Beek, L. P. H., Jongman, B., Ward, P. J., and Bouwman, A.: A framework for global river flood risk assessments, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 17, 1871–1892, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-1871-2013, 2013.
Winsemius, H. C., Aerts, J. C., Van Beek, L. P., Bierkens, M. F., Bouwman,
A., Jongman, B., Kwadijk, J. C., Ligtvoet, W., Lucas, P. L., and Van Vuuren,
D. P.: Global drivers of future river flood risk, Nat. Clim. Change, 6,
381–385, 2016.
Yamazaki, D., Kanae, S., Kim, H., and Oki, T.: A physically based
description of floodplain inundation dynamics in a global river routing
model, Water Resour. Res., 47, W04501,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2010wr009726, 2011.
Yamazaki, D.:
MERIT DEM: Multi-Error-Removed Improved-Terrain DEM, available at:
http://hydro.iis.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~yamadai/MERIT_DEM/, last
access: October 2021.
Yamazaki, D., Ikeshima, D., Tawatari, R., Yamaguchi, T., O'Loughlin, F.,
Neal, J. C., Sampson, C. C., Kanae, S., and Bates, P. D.: A high-accuracy
map of global terrain elevations, Geophys. Res. Lett., 44, 5844–5853,
https://doi.org/10.1002/2017gl072874, 2017.
Yang, T., Sun, F., Gentine, P., Liu, W., Wang, H., Yin, J., Du, M., and
Changming, L.: Evaluation and machine learning improvement of global flood
simulations, AGUFM, 2019, H33L-2122, 2019a.
Yang, T., Sun, F., Gentine, P., Liu, W., Wang, H., Yin, J., Du, M., and Liu,
C.: Evaluation and machine learning improvement of global hydrological
model-based flood simulations, Environ. Res. Lett., 14, 114027, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab4d5e, 2019b.
Zeng, Z. Y., Tang, G. Q., Hong, Y., Zeng, C., and Yang, Y.: Development of
an NRCS curve number global dataset using the latest geospatial remote
sensing data for worldwide hydrologic applications, Remote Sens. Lett., 8,
528–536, https://doi.org/10.1080/2150704x.2017.1297544, 2017.
Zhang, Y., Chiew, F. H., Li, M., and Post, D.: Predicting runoff signatures
using regression and hydrological modeling approaches, Water Resour. Res., 54,
7859–7878, 2018.
Zhao, G., Pang, B., Xu, Z. X., Yue, J. J., and Tu, T. B.: Mapping flood
susceptibility in mountainous areas on a national scale in China, Sci. Total
Environ., 615, 1133–1142, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.10.037, 2018.
Zhao, G., Bates, P., and Neal, J.: The impact of dams on design floods in
the Conterminous US, Water Resour. Res., 56, e2019WR025380, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019WR025380, 2020.
Short summary
Design flood estimation is a fundamental task in hydrology. We propose a machine- learning-based approach to estimate design floods anywhere on the global river network. This approach shows considerable improvement over the index-flood-based method, and the average bias in estimation is less than 18 % for 10-, 20-, 50- and 100-year design floods. This approach is a valid method to estimate design floods globally, improving our prediction of flood hazard, especially in ungauged areas.
Design flood estimation is a fundamental task in hydrology. We propose a machine- learning-based...
