Event generation for probabilistic flood risk modelling: Multi-site peak flow dependence model vs. weather-generator-based approach

Show simple item record

dc.identifier.uri http://dx.doi.org/10.15488/10942
dc.identifier.uri https://www.repo.uni-hannover.de/handle/123456789/11024
dc.contributor.author Winter, Benjamin
dc.contributor.author Schneeberger, Klaus
dc.contributor.author Förster, Kristian
dc.contributor.author Vorogushyn, Sergiy
dc.date.accessioned 2021-05-18T09:29:22Z
dc.date.available 2021-05-18T09:29:22Z
dc.date.issued 2020
dc.identifier.citation Winter, B.; Schneeberger, K.; Förster, K.; Vorogushyn, S.: Event generation for probabilistic flood risk modelling: Multi-site peak flow dependence model vs. weather-generator-based approach. In: Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 20 (2020), Nr. 6, S. 1689-1703. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-20-1689-2020
dc.description.abstract Flood risk assessment is an important prerequisite for risk management decisions. To estimate the risk, i.e. the probability of damage, flood damage needs to be either systematically recorded over a long period or modelled for a series of synthetically generated flood events. Since damage records are typically rare, time series of plausible, spatially coherent event precipitation or peak discharges need to be generated to drive the chain of process models. In the present study, synthetic flood events are generated by two different approaches to modelling flood risk in a meso-scale alpine study area (Vorarlberg, Austria). The first approach is based on the semi-conditional multi-variate dependence model applied to discharge series. The second approach relies on the continuous hydrological modelling of synthetic meteorological fields generated by a multi-site weather generator and using an hourly disaggregation scheme. The results of the two approaches are compared in terms of simulated spatial patterns of peak discharges and overall flood risk estimates. It could be demonstrated that both methods are valid approaches for risk assessment with specific advantages and disadvantages. Both methods are superior to the traditional assumption of a uniform return period, where risk is computed by assuming a homogeneous return period (e.g. 100-year flood) across the entire study area. © Author(s) 2020. eng
dc.language.iso eng
dc.publisher Katlenburg-Lindau : European Geophysical Society
dc.relation.ispartofseries Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 20 (2020), Nr. 6
dc.rights CC BY 4.0 Unported
dc.rights.uri https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.subject flood damage eng
dc.subject hazard management eng
dc.subject hydrological modeling eng
dc.subject peak discharge eng
dc.subject peak flow eng
dc.subject risk assessment eng
dc.subject spatial analysis eng
dc.subject Austria eng
dc.subject Vorarlberg eng
dc.subject.ddc 910 | Geografie, Reisen ger
dc.title Event generation for probabilistic flood risk modelling: Multi-site peak flow dependence model vs. weather-generator-based approach
dc.type article
dc.type Text
dc.relation.essn 1684-9981
dc.relation.issn 1561-8633
dc.relation.doi https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-20-1689-2020
dc.bibliographicCitation.issue 6
dc.bibliographicCitation.volume 20
dc.bibliographicCitation.firstPage 1689
dc.bibliographicCitation.lastPage 1703
dc.description.version publishedVersion
tib.accessRights frei zug�nglich


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s):

Show simple item record

 

Search the repository


Browse

My Account

Usage Statistics