Flash Flood Mapping

Journal of Hydrology 603 (2021) 126846
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Hydrology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jhydrol
Review papers
Flood hazard mapping methods: A review

Rofiat Bunmi Mudashiru a, b, Nuridah Sabtu a, *, Ismail Abustan a, Waheed Balogun b
a
School of Civil Engineering, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Malaysia
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Federal Polytechnic Offa, Nigeria
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Flood hazard mapping (FHM) has undergone significant development in terms of approach and capacity of the
Flood hazard mapping result to meet the target of policymakers for accurate prediction and identification of flood-prone or affected
Physically-based modelling regions. FHM is a vital tool in flood hazard and risk management analysis. Previous review studies have focused
Empirical modelling
on flood inundation modelling methods. This present study presents a thorough and current review of the
Physical modelling
physically-based, empirical, and physical modelling methods in FHM. The study gives insight into strengths,
Uncertainty
Climate decision-making limitations, case studies, and uncertainties associated with the methods. It further discusses the approaches in
handling uncertainties related to each method, and its recent development. The review study is targeted at
enlightening researchers and decision-makers with an extensive understanding of the methods and of the recent
improvements in FHM thereby empowering flood management agencies, decision-makers, design engineers,
early warning system agencies, and responders in addressing and making accurate decisions in flood-related
problems, employing best management practices in flood management, and adaption of climate decision-
making towards building resilient infrastructures.
1. Introduction floods and their impact globally. Historical data and FHM play a rele
vant role in the identification of flood hazard potential areas, hazard
Flood represents the excess flow that inundates the conveying or intensity, flood depth, and spatial damage extent. There are three major
holding medium when its capacity has been exceeded (Getahun and ways to create a flood hazard map and these approaches are through the
Gebre, 2015). Flooding can be classified into pluvial flooding which physically-based, empirical, and physical modelling methods (Bellos,
results from rainfall causing excessive runoff leading to a rapid increase 2012; Teng et al., 2017). Although the physical modelling approach has
in water level and fluvial flooding resulting from an increase in the level largely been replaced by physically-based models, some researchers still
of water of a stream/river causing an overflow into the surrounding simulate past and future flood event scenarios with real-life experiments
environment and coastal regions (Lin et al., 2019). The increase in water (Bellos, 2012; Saidani and Shibani, 2014). The physical modelling
level may be a result of excessive rainfall or snowmelt. Floods caused by method requires experimentation to validate the prediction perfor
snowmelt can result in multiple flood events leading to losses in lives mance of the model. Alternatively, numerical models remain significant
and properties. Snowmelt resulting in flood has a major role in cold as long as these models simulate or represent the physical/real processes
regions’ hydrology processes study which is key to flood disaster risk of a flow/flood occurrence (Carmo, 2020). The physically-based models
reduction (Zeinivand and De Smedt, 2010). are useful in flood prediction and early warning systems but require
FHM forms an important part of flood risk analysis and enables large input data through hydrological parameters, river network ge
efficient estimation of the spatial extent of flood characteristics like ometry, topographic, and sometimes remote sensing data processing in
velocity, depth, and frequency (Díez-Herrero et al., 2009). Flood hazard GIS (Ji et al., 2012). There is evidence of errors and associated un
maps are relevant for flood management practices as these maps certainties with physically-based models (Chen et al., 2016; Ji et al.,
represent the spatial extent and distribution of flood hazards effectively 2012) and have limitations in replicating the actual physical process of
(Di Baldassarre et al., 2010). Over the years and in recent times, there complex flows (Carmo, 2020). The numerical models rely on numerical
has been a lot of effort to understand, predict, analyze, and quantify solutions to solve flow equations in 1-, 2-, and 3-D dimensions and are
* Corresponding author at: School of Civil Engineering, Engineering Campus, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 14300 Nibong Tebal, Penang, Malaysia.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (R.B. Mudashiru), [email protected] (N. Sabtu), [email protected] (I. Abustan), [email protected]
(W. Balogun).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.126846
Received 5 March 2021; Received in revised form 14 August 2021; Accepted 16 August 2021
Available online 28 August 2021
0022-1694/© 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
R.B. Mudashiru et al. Journal of Hydrology 603 (2021) 126846
sometimes referred to as the hydrodynamic models. Several physically- analysis. Sources of these uncertainties have been reported and can be
based and empirical models may require data from remote sensing and found in studies by Anuar (2018); Bales and Wagner (2009); Koivumäki
are capable of predicting floods. The physical models are also capable of et al. (2010). Furthermore, ways of conducting uncertainty assessment
analyzing past and predicting future flood hazard extent through are comprehensively discussed in the studies by Apel et al. (2004);
physical experimentation. The empirical models are operable with Domeneghetti et al. (2013); Kazakis et al., (2015); Lim (2018); Merz
various statistical and data-driven approaches. The statistical and data- et al. (2008); Souissi et al. (2019). Uncertainties associated with flood
driven methods rely on hydrological, topographic, Digital Elevation hazard maps need to be given relevant consideration during the plan
Model (DEM), and geomorphology data which are sometimes obtained ning and decision-making process in flood management policies (Anuar,
using remote sensing and processed in GIS (Wang et al., 2019a). The 2018; Hamzah, 2005).
empirical methods are categorized into; i) the multi-criteria decision- Global FHM is relevant in evaluating global flood risk (Di Baldassarre
making method (MCDM) (Chen et al., 2014), ii) the statistical methods et al., 2009; Pappenberger et al., 2012). These maps contain information
which include the bivariate (Costache, 2019a; El-Magd, 2019; Youssef that serves as a key tool in flood forecasting, early warning system, and
et al., 2016) models and the multivariate (Bui et al., 2019a; Shafizadeh- climate change analysis. Evaluation of flood hazard, vulnerability, risk,
Moghadam et al., 2018) models), and iii) the Machine learning approach and uncertainties and the resulting maps are crucial as highlighted by
(Al-Abadi, 2018; Costache, 2019a; Janizadeh et al., 2019), and the the European Flood Risk Directive 2007/60/EC of 2007. A summary of
Artificial intelligence (Rahman et al., 2019). The data sources for the selected countries’ flood maps and the information about the maps are
physically-based, physical, and empirical models may be palae presented in Table 1.
ohydrological records, hydrology data, bathymetry data, historical
streamflow records, geological data, and several other sources of in 1.2. Research motivation and framework of the review study
formation (Díez-Herrero et al., 2009). The use of a specific type of data is
not exclusive to one type of model. Additionally, in the work of (Mor Although there is a growing trend in the application of FHM in
jani, 2011), the author referred to statistical methods as one of the ap various aspects of flood management studies, from the comprehensive
proaches in flood hazard analysis which follows the process of review of several works of literature and other similar research works, a
combining flood frequency analysis and contributing factors (causal review study that is recent and covers all aspects of FHM methods is not
factors or flood-related conditioning factors) to establish flood inunda available. This study, therefore, aims to review relevant articles and
tion areas. review paper publications spanning from the last two decades. This re
Previous review studies on methods and modelling approaches in view study presents the numerical, empirical, and physical modelling
FHM by Teng et al. (2017) focused mainly on the hydrodynamic models methods in FHM. This study is sectioned into three parts as described
which are numerical models and less emphasis on empirical models. below:
Bellos (2012) did a short review of the physical and numerical methods.
The present study presents an overview of the numerical, empirical i. Part 1: A review of the three methods in FHM is presented. The
modelling, and physical approaches in FHM, highlighting their three methods discussed are the physically-based, physical, and
strengths, limitations, recent advances, and way forward for future re empirical modelling methods. The physically-based modelling
searchers. This review paper will empower researchers and decision- methods are sub-categorized into the 1, 2, 3, -D numerical models
makers with an extensive understanding of the recent approach in while the empirical modelling methods are sub-categorized into
FHM thereby enabling flood management agencies, decision-makers, Machine learning, MCDM, and statistical methods.
design engineers, early warning system agencies, and responders in ii. Part 2: A review of various case studies related to physically-
addressing and making accurate decisions in flood-related problems and based, empirical, and physical modelling methods is presented.
employing the best management practices in flood management. The In addition, the strengths and limitations are comprehensively
study focuses on applying relevant topics with advanced methods in the discussed for each category and sub-category.
subject of interest to enable access to the best and right information for iii. Part 3: Recent improvements, associated uncertainties, and rec
the study. The methods discussed in this study are developed i) to un ommendations for future application in FHM are presented in this
derstand the general approach in FHM; ii) to identify the strengths and chapter to contribute meaningfully to research by providing an
limitations of each method; and iii) to present recent development in extensive understanding of the methods.
methods. iv. Part 4: Summary & recommendations for future studies are
presented.
1.1. The relevance of flood maps v. Part 5: The concluding remarks are presented.
Flood hazard maps are critical in detecting areas at risk of flooding In summary, the study presents the review of the three methods in
disasters. Flood hazard maps indicate regions that are susceptible to FHM, thereby identifying all necessary subjects required to create the
flooding hazards. The interpretation of a typical flood hazard map structure of the review to reveal the new development in the FHM
should be able to provide information on the spatial extent, depth, and methods and identify gaps for future studies.
flood frequency. Flood hazard maps specification and ranking of flood-
prone regions rely on the end users’ requirement (Merz et al., 2007). 2. Overview of methods
End-users of flood hazard maps include but are not limited to flood
mitigation and management decision-makers and stakeholders, weather The study focused on three categories of FHM methods which are the
forecasters, emergency responders, and design engineers. Flood hazard physically-based, empirical, and physical models. The physically-based
maps serve as an important tool in limiting the extent of damage caused methods were sub-categorized into the 1, 2, 3-D hydrodynamic model
by flood hazards through its provision of prior information on floods and ling methods. The empirical models were sub-categorized into the
its various characteristics. This has proven to reduce mortality due to MCDM, the statistical, and machine learning & artificial intelligence
flood hazards, help in evacuation plans, and assist in raising awareness methods. In addition, conceptual, physically-based, and data-driven
to allow for proper preparation (Hamzah, 2005). hydrological modelling methods were discussed. An illustrative dia
Accuracy in the information provided by flood hazard maps is crucial gram of the methodological process of the three methods considered in
in flood mitigation and management-related practices. Validating and the study is presented in Fig. 1.
checking the predictive capability of flood hazard maps is necessary for The search for relevant papers was conducted in Science Direct,
flood hazard analysis through model validation and uncertainty Scopus, and Google Scholar databases for publications from the last two
2
Table 1 subsequent searches.

Selected national flood maps.
S/ Country Flood map Type Information 1. KEYWORDS search for Physically-based modelling methods:(haz
N ard/numerical modelling/flood/1D/2D/3D),(hazard/numerical
1 England and Flood map indicating Information of regions modelling/flood/1D/2D/3D/Inundation), (hazard/numerical
Wales depth and flood extent vulnerable or at risk of high modelling/flood/1D/2D/3D/Inundation/hydrodynamic), (hazard/
flood depth or velocity is numerical modelling/flood/1D/2D/3D/Inundation/hydrodynamic/
indicated coupled),(hazard/flood Hazard/numerical modelling/flood/one-
2 France & Flood depth, spatial Historical maps do not
Finland extent, duration, and represent the current
Dimensional/two-Dimensional/threeDimensional/Inundation/
historical flood map conditions of the area hydrodynamic/coupled), (hazard/numerical modelling/ flood/
3 Japan Flood hazard indicating The flood depth intervals are physically-based/Inundation)
depth and spatial extent such that it contains danger/ 2. KEYWORDS search for Physical model: flood/physical model/flood
with warning instructions how to act on the information
Hazard/physical modelling/investigation/experiment
derived for individuals
4 Germany & Flood depth and Velocity Hazard relating to flood depth 3. KEYWORDS search for Empirical model: (hazard/Multi-criteria
Switzerland and velocity are presented Decision-making/flood) (Hazard/flood susceptibility/MCDM/flood
practically for professional Hazard/flood susceptibility/AHP/ MCDM/Analytic Hierarchy Pro
users. cess), (Statistics/flood/statistical/bivariate/multivariate/flood Sus
5 Belgium Soil Map, historical flood Information on soil map
map (1986–2006), flood indicates river sediments,
ceptibility) (flood susceptibility/machine learning/flood/flood
depth, extent, frequency, slope sediments resulting from hazard).
and duration flooding, historical flood maps
with a spatial extent of 2000 After considering the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the review
km
study was conducted based on selected relevant papers as indicated in
6 Austria Flood plain mapsFlood Availability of flood plain
hazard maps maps extending up to 5000 km Fig. 2. A quantitative analysis of the final refined publication was con
of river’s reach is produced, ducted. This was conducted to analyze, compare and synthesize the
additional information on methodological criteria applied in this review study. After searching
methodology and accuracy are using the related keywords in several batches and combinations, rele
represented on maps
vant papers were selected from both Science Direct, Scopus, Google
7 Hungary Flood maps Flood maps were produced for
major rivers to indicate flood Scholar databases.
extensions and depth.
8 Romania Flood risk management Information of geographical 3. Results
plan and flood hazard areas indicating associated
maps flood hazard and risk level
9 Czech Flood risk management These maps comprise of data A total of 109 papers were reviewed for the physically-based, 25
Republic plan and flood hazard and information required flood papers for the physical, and 115 papers for the empirical modelling
maps mitigation measures for methods in FHM as shown in Fig. 3. This indicates an application rate of
various residential, hydraulic, 43.8% for physically-based, 10% for physical, and 46.2% for the
and transport infrastructures
10 Bulgaria Flood hazard maps Information about flood depth,
empirical modelling methods in FHM. This shows that the empirical and
velocity, and inundation extent physically-based modelling methods both surpassed the physical
11 Estonia Flood risk management Available at the country’s modelling method based on application rate. There was also an increase
plan and flood hazard meteorological and of 12% in publication rate between 2000 and 2020 for physically-based
maps hydrological institute
modelling which might indicate the relevance of this method in FHM.
12 Poland Flood risk management Flood information provided in
plan and flood hazard old paper maps Despite this, the empirical modelling method which can be categorized
maps as a more recent approach in flood hazard/inundation modelling
13 Kenya Flood Hazard Information on flood hazard method has experienced improvement over the years with a 35% in
Distribution Map index crease in publication percentage between 2000 and 2019. This might be
14 Malaysia Flood Hazard Map Flood map indicating depth,
velocity, and inundation extent
related to the growing interest in machine learning and artificial intel
for about 12 flood-prone ligence, and improved decision-making as a key tool in FHM. In the year
locations and others in 2019 alone, 37 publications were recorded for the three sub-categories
progress (MCDM, Machine learning, and statistical methods) with upward
15 South Africa Flood Risk map Information on all flood risk
trends across all the three empirical modelling methods as shown in
regions in the country
accessible at http://products. Fig. 4. Additionally, across all the modelling methods in FHM, there was
sansa.org.za/mapApp/SANSA. an increase in the publication in recent years. The physical modelling
html method had the least publication when compared to the other modelling
16 Norway Flood Inundation Map Provides information on 10, methods in FHM. This can be correlated to the findings from this review
20, 50, 100, 200, and 500-year
flood for areas connected to
that it is the least favourable of all the methods because of its investi
the river and riverine gative requirements. The MCDM method is the most applied method
structures amongst the empirical methods as shown in Fig. 5. The distribution of
publications by methods shown in Fig. 6 across countries indicated that
China had the total highest publication rate (27), Iran (24), USA (24),
decades which included research and review articles as well as confer
and Malaysia and UK (18). Based on modelling method categories, the
ence proceedings. The use of the exact keywords- (hazard/numerical
USA had the most publications for physically-based (15) & physical
modelling/flood/hydrodynamic/flood hazard) in the Scopus Database
modelling (5) and Iran for Empirical modelling (20). In summary, this
and Science Direct yielded 3435 and 1873 results respectively as indi
current study presents a summary of past review studies related to the
cated in Fig. 2 for the physically-based modelling method at the time of
three categories of FHM modelling methods discussed herein. The
writing this article. The keywords shown in Fig. 2 was applied for the
overview of past review studies is presented in Table 2. The purpose of
physical and empirical modelling methods.
this summarized review is to enable readers to have a general overview
Other combinations of KEYWORDS used are stated below for
of the past and current situation in FHM methodologies. Detailed
3
Fig. 1. A schematic diagram showing the methodological process involved the three types of FHM modelling methods.
Fig. 2. Illustration of the search strategy for this review study.
review, case studies, strengths, limitations, uncertainties, and future remote sensing data (Ramírez, 2000) to simulate hydrological processes
directions are discussed in subsequent sections. leading to flooding events and have been applied in various studies
(Bellos, 2012). The physically-based models comprise of numerical
models that incorporate measurable variables and variables character
3.1. General overview
ized by time and space (Devi et al., 2015) that require intense processing
input and longer computing time (Hong et al., 2018). Numerical models
3.1.1. Physically-based modelling methods in FHM
allow visualization of the dynamic characteristics of the physical pro
The physically-based models enable simulation of physical processes
cesses of a flood generation (Anees et al., 2016) with the help of a
of flow through various real data input which can be either climatic or
4
Fig. 3. Graph showing number of publications reviewed for the three modelling methods in FHM (2000–2021).
Fig. 4. Graph showing publications covering the three modelling methods in FHM between 2000 and 2021.
mathematical model. There are three forms of numerical models in the The input parameter of these models may be adjusted to evaluate the
FHM which are the 1-, 2-, and 3-dimensional hydrodynamic models impact of changes in boundary conditions, initial conditions of hydraulic
(Anees et al., 2016). These numerical models are based on the fluid structures, and topographic data of hydraulic structures (Teng et al.,
motion that is driven by the standard principles of mass, energy, and 2017). The creation of flood hazard maps for various flood scenarios
momentum. Numerical models are expected to solve the complex requires topographic data provided by the digital terrain model or DEM,
equations that are characterized by the physical processes of flow sys hydrology data capable of providing information about rainfall and river
tems. There are two major categories in finding solutions to these discharge, land use information, and bathymetry data (Anuar, 2018;
complex flow equations which are the differential analysis and the Arseni et al., 2020; Lim, 2018). In addition, the process of FHM through
finite/control-volume analysis (Toombes and Chanson, 2011). numerical modelling methods includes GIS and hydraulic modelling
5
Fig. 5. Graph showing publications covering the three categories of empirical modelling methods in FHM between 2000 and 2021.
Fig. 6. Distribution of publications covering the three categories of FHM by country.
analysis (Lim, 2018). Conceptual model parameters require large field data such as hydro
logical and meteorological data for calibration. On the other hand,
3.1.1.1. Role of conceptual, physically-based, and data-driven hydrological physically-based hydrological models describe various hydrological
models in rainfall-runoff modelling in FHM. Conceptual models are processes through the conservation of mass equations. Although the
parametric models that explain the major parts of hydrological processes physically-based hydrological models require large hydrologic input
that lead to a flood event. The processes consist of several interdepen data such as topography, soil water content, river network dimensions
dent storages that represent the physical aspects in a basin that are and others, it does not require field data for calibration like the con
recharged by infiltration and rainfall and get drained by evaporation, ceptual models. According to Peel and McMahon (2020), the Systeme
evapotranspiration, runoff, drainage, and so on (Devi et al., 2015). Hydrologique European- European Hydrological System (SHE), a
physical-based full distributed model came into existence in the 1980s,
6
Table 2
An overview of FHM methods studies based on the published review articles between 2000 and 2020.
Classification Authors Subject Area Area of Focus Publication
Bibliography Period
Empirical (Madruga and MCDM in Flood Risk A state-of-the-art review of MCDM methods and its applications to flood risk 1983–2016
Evers, 2016) Management management related studies to search for research gaps and identify trends
Empirical (Dikshit et al., Machine Learning & Focused on several areas of geohazards that applies machine learning techniques 1986–2020
2020) Geohazards and discusses future improvements in the studied area
Physically-based & (Teng et al., 2017) Flood Inundation Focused on flood inundation modelling techniques which included empirical, 1962–2016
Empirical hydrodynamic, and simple conceptual models.
Physically-based (Nkwunonwo Flood Risk Focused on flood modelling techniques as related to urban flood risk management 1979–2020
et al., 2020) analysis in developing countries
Physically-based (Devi et al., 2015) Hydrological Models Focused on identifying the capabilities of some physically-based and conceptual 1963–2014
models in flood forecasting
Empirical (Mosavi et al., Flood Prediction Conducted a state of the art of ML models in flood prediction and to show 1973–2018
2018) outstanding models
Empirical (Rehman et al., Flood Vulnerability Focused on a systematic review of methodologies in flood and its vulnerability 1975–2018
2019) Assessment analysis
Physically-based & (Nasiri et al., Flood Vulnerability Presented an overview of four methods of assessment of flood vulnerability and 1982–2013
Empirical 2016) Assessment found out the indicator methods were most suitable
Physically-based (Tsakiris, 2014) Flood Risk Presented a new concept for flood protection developed based on flood risk 1969–2014
Assessment management by applying the hazard– vulnerability–risk order method
Physically-based & (Yin et al., 2014) Urban Flood Risk Focused on urban flood, vulnerability and exposure analysis and their advances in 1991–2014
Empirical Analysis China
Physically-based (Ali et al., 2016) Flood Risk Reviewed and integrated principles and methods of flood risk, hazard, and 1975–2015
Assessment vulnerability assessment for Himalayan areas
Empirical (Han and Flood Forecasting Presented a broad review on Bayesian flood prediction methods between 1999 and 1972–2016
Coulibaly, 2017) 2016
Physically-based (Borah, 2011) Storm Event Models Conducted an in-depth review on 14 watershed models and found out flow routing 1931–2010
processes is the most influential on model performance. In addition, findings from
the review study indicated that in the case of overland runoff routing procedures
complex models are less efficient in terms of run time but might increase accuracy
Classification Authors Subject Area Area of Focus Publication

Bibliography Period
Empirical (Malczewski, GIS & MCDM Gives a comprehensive overview of the status quo in the approach of GIS and 1977–1999
2000) weighted linear combination (WLC)
Empirical (Malczewski, GIS & MCDM A literature survey on GIS and MCDM methods 1990–2004
2007)
Physically-based (Prinos, 2008) Flood Hazard Mapping Focused on coastal and fluvial FHM with a high concentration on data 1983–2008
requirements, approaches, sources, and end-users of models for estimating the
flood risk
Physically-based (Wright, 2016) Flood risk, vulnerability, and An overview of methodologies in flood hazard and risk assessments 1969–2014
hazard assessment
Physically-based (Di Baldassarre Flood-Plain Mapping A critical discussion of various techniques in flood plain mapping 1959–2009
et al., 2010)
Physically-based (Anees et al., Flood Analysis Focused on evaluating the popular hydrodynamic models, analyzing the 1953–2016
2016) model’s weaknesses and feasible improvements
Physically-based (Bulti and Abebe, Flood Modelling Focused on the current flood modelling techniques and limited the study to 1999–2020
2020) modelling techniques for pluvial flooding in urban areas
Physically-based (Anees et al., Flood Analysis The review study discussed input parameters for hydrodynamic models in 1988–2016
2017) data-scarce areas, and associated uncertainty with the models
Physically-based (Néelz and Pender, Flood Inundation Theoretical background to 2D inundation modelling packages 1980–2008
2009)
Physically-based (Worni et al., Glacial Lake Outburst Flood Focused on the current knowledge and important areas of modelling GLOFs 1948–2014
2014) (GLOF) with more emphasis on process cascades
Physically-based (Westoby et al., GLOF Presented a detailed overview ofthe several components that constitute a 1965–2013
2014) GLOF event, modelling techniques, challenges, uncertainties, and potential
gaps for futures studies
Physical & (Bellos, 2012) Flood Hazard Mapping Focused on techniques of FHM in a flood-prone area based on the European 1964–2013
Physically-based Directive 2007/60
Physical (Carmo, 2020) Building design and The study emphasized the current requirements and advances in physical 1975–2019
engineering construction modelling
works
Physically-based (Clark et al., 2017) Evolution of process-based The review paper describes how process-based hydrologic advances have 1969–2017
hydrologic models been made among users, challenges, solutions, and the need for physically
realistic models
and ever since then, about thirty-five other physical-based and coupled meteorological parameters to predict rainfall-runoff data (Mosavi et al.,
hydrodynamic models have been applied in rainfall-runoff modelling in 2018).
FHM. Additionally, the data-driven hydrological models also referred to Examples of some conceptual models include the Hydrologiska
as the black-box or empirical models do not consider the hydrological Byrans Vattenavdelning (HBV) model, TOPMODEL, and CLARK model
processes in a basin in any way but can be trained and validated to (Clark,1945). Full details of these studies can be found in Mendez and
predict rainfall-runoff data for flood forecasting and hydrodynamic Calvo-Valverde (2016); Beven et al. (2021); Cho et al. (2018); Liu et al.
modelling in FHM (Banihabib, 2016; Devi et al., 2015). These models (2017) respectively. Similarly, examples of physically-based hydrolog
have the ability to learn the evaluated climate indices, hydrological, and ical models include the Variable Infiltration Capacity (VIC) (Devi et al.,
7
2015; Sitterson et al., 2017), SHE (Devi et al., 2015), MIKE SHE (Vargas, 3.1.3. Empirical modelling methods in FHM
2016), Hydrologic Engineering Center- Hydrologic Modelling System The empirical models are data-driven models popularly referred to as
(HEC-HMS) (Romali et al., 2018), soil and water assessment tool a black-box model that relies on observation data and characteristics
(SWAT) (Sufiyan and Magaji, 2018), Penn State Integrated Hydrologic and mechanism of the hydrological cycle. The empirical models use
Modelling System (PIHM) (Qu, 2004; Sitterson et al., 2017), Visualizing mathematical equations that are simultaneous with the time series input
Ecosystem Land Management Assessments (VELMA) (McKane et al., and output data with high predictive power and applicable only within
2014), and Kinematic Runoff and Erosion Model (KINEROS) (Woolhiser the estimated boundary (Devi et al., 2015). Empirical models can be
et al., 1990). Examples of data-driven hydrological models include divided based on its approach to quantitative and qualitative methods.
climatology average method, flood frequency analysis (Aziz et al., The quantitative-based empirical models depend upon data analysis
2014); multiple linear regression, autoregressive integrated moving targeted at evaluating the relationship between flood occurrence and
average (Valipour et al., 2013); Bayesian models (Haddad and Rahman, flood causing/contributing factors which will be referred to herein and
2012); empirical orthogonal function (Mackey and Krishnamurti, 2001); after as Flood Influencing Factors (FIFs) while the qualitative approach
quantile regression techniques (Haddad and Rahman, 2012); artificial relies upon experts’ opinion of the same. Flood prediction through
neural networks, machine learning, deep learning (Mosavi et al., 2018); empirical modelling strives to create a connection between the physical
etc. processes which encompasses flood generation through regression
Flood forecasting is instrumental in the Flood Early Warning System equations and parameters that are capable of evaluating flood frequency
(FEWS) which can be executed by hydrological rainfall-runoff models in analysis or flood spatial extent (Cunha et al., 2011; Feloni et al., 2019;
FHM (Banihabib, 2016). However, there is a need for accurate runoff Skakun et al., 2014). The qualitative approach is usually subjected to
data to predict flood and map inundated regions (Mirzaei et al., 2016). experts’ opinion which is the reason why the popular MCDM, even
Several studies have simulated floods of various regions by applying though the weights are empirically derived, remains as a semi-
conceptual rainfall-runoff, (Abdi and Meddi, 2021; Masseroni et al., quantitative method. The empirical models are operable with various
2017; Monte et al., 2016); physically-based rainfall-runoff (Mai and De statistical and data-driven approaches through the use of hydrological,
Smedt, 2017; Mirzaei et al., 2016; Neto et al., 2016; Romali et al., 2018); Digital Elevation Model (DEM), terrain, and geomorphology data
and data-driven models (Brocca et al., 2013; Harun et al., 2001) to sometimes obtained using remote sensing and processed in GIS (Wang
enable accurate input for the flood inundation mapping through hy et al., 2019a). These data-driven approaches are categorized into the
drodynamic modelling. However, the need for large field data for cali quantitative (MCDM, (Chen et al., 2014) although the expert’s opinion
bration has decreased the application of some of these models. In on quantified weight puts it in the category of semi-quantitative
addition, researchers have proposed and successfully applied several approach). Others include the bivariate statistical (Costache, 2019a;
coupled hydrologic-hydraulic models in modelling flood inundated Costache and Bui, 2019; El-Magd, 2019; Youssef et al., 2016), multi
areas and these modelling tools have proven to be efficient (Wang and variate statistical (Bui et al., 2019a; Shafizadeh-Moghadam et al., 2018),
Yang, 2020; Mai and De Smedt, 2017). Furthermore, comprehensive and machine learning (Al-Abadi, 2018; Costache, 2019a; Janizadeh
information on coupled hydrologic-hydraulic models and its application et al., 2019; Rahman et al., 2019) methods.
is presented by Choi (2013).
(a) Flood Influencing Factors (FIFs)
3.1.2. Physical modelling methods in FHM
According to Bellos (2012), the high-cost implication, experimental Flood occurrence is dependent on some meteorological factors and
requirement, and the development of robust numerical models capable the catchment characteristics (Khosravi et al., 2019) which are also
of simulating the physical processes of flow have led to the progression capable of affecting the level of susceptibility of the area to flooding
in replacement of the physical models by the physically-based models. hazard. Flood modelling studies require analyzing the interrelationship
Before the 1970 s, the major modelling methods were analytical and between applied FIFs (Pradhan, 2009). Multicollinearity is related to the
physical modelling as these models were applied in several fields of evidence of dependence among the predictory variables of a regression
engineering. But, in recent years there has been a great development model. The existence of multicollinearity can reduce the predicting ca
regarding information processing and the application of mathematical pacity of the model though it does not affect the reliability of the model
computations in simulating the physical processes of a flood. This is (Al-Juaidi et al., 2018; Gujarati, 2003). A factor is of high relevance if it
because of the availability of computing power hardware and software correlates highly with the model which is the subject of prediction and
for numerical modelling which occurred at varying periods across not correlated with other factors used in the prediction. Furthermore, a
different regions and countries. The application of numerical models in factor is regarded as irrelevant if its level of correlation with other fac
representing the physical processes has limited the need for physical tors is high (Costache, 2019a; Ozcift and Gulten, 2011). The effective use
models (Carmo, 2016; Carmo, 2020). The requirement of physical of the empirical modelling method to identify flood hazard regions is
models which need the development and implementation of highly ac highly dependent on the fact that the selected factors are related to the
curate experimentation of realistic flood events, complex operations, processes which lead to flood generation (Papaioannou et al., 2015).
and longer time dedication has made it the least favourable approach in One of the techniques applied in evaluating the level of correlation
FHM. Although the physical model is seldomly applied in FHM, there are amongst the FIFs is the variance inflation factor test (Bui et al., 2019b;
successful reports of its application and implementation. The cases of Santos et al., 2019). Other various approaches to evaluating multi
application of the physical models are assumed not tested if the actual collinearity include correlation-based feature selection model (Cos
modelled experiment has not been carried out. Several studies have tache, 2019b), pairwise scatter plots (Al-Juaidi et al., 2018), and
alternatively applied the physical model in cases where numerical Pearson correlation coefficients method (Papaioannou et al., 2015).
computations simulations output were not sufficient to analyze the flood
hazard or flow system. Such studies include physical water resources (b) Identification and selection of FIFs
infrastructures construction (Siviglia et al., 2009), tsunami flood wave
propagation modelling (Hiraishi and Yasuda, 2006; Miyashita and Mori, Identification of the key factors that influence flooding is crucial in
2018), flood analysis (Mohamad et al., 2014), dam break analysis FHM analysis. The effective use of the empirical modelling method to
(Güney et al., 2014), and river basins flood management (Ishigaki et al., identify flood-prone areas is highly dependent on the fact that the
2004; Mignot et al., 2008; Thang et al., 2004; Toda et al., 2004). selected factors are related to the processes which lead to flood gener
ation (Papaioannou et al., 2015). These factors represent the criteria for
the MCDM model and factors applied in analyzing flood-prone areas in
8
statistical, machine learning, and artificial intelligence modelling (b) Fuzzy AHP
methods. The FIFs are mostly geomorphologically or hydrologically
related and are sometimes inter-related which prompts the need to It enables the expert’s judgment to be defined through means of
check for multi-collinearity between the selected factors. FIFs identifi fuzzy numbers based on the concept that decision-making by humans is
cation and selection are of high importance because the successful associated with uncertainties that are difficult to explain by single
evaluation and implementation of the overall goal of the model are numbers (Mikhailov, 2003; Noranis et al., 2019; Parhizgar et al., 2017).
dependent on it. Generally, researchers who apply empirical modelling The method was introduced to curtail the uncertainty associated with
methods have relied on literature in the selection of the FIFs as done in AHP based on its subjective approach. The most common type of fuzzy
studies by (Arabameri et al., 2019; Bui et al., 2019c; Chapi et al., 2017; AHP includes the trapezoidal fuzzy AHP and the triangular fuzzy AHP
Costache, 2019b; Khosravi et al., 2016; Papaioannou et al., 2015; Rah (Chan et al., 2019). Both fuzzy AHP methods have been applied in
mati et al., 2016b). detecting flood hazard zones in flood risk assessment studies by Li et al.
(2018); Yang et al. (2013). Furthermore, Parhizgar et al. (2017)
3.1.3.1. Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) modelling methods. compared AHP and Fuzzy AHP and reported more compatibility of the
MCDM is an approach for making decisions based on complex decision fuzzy AHP with the past flood data of the study area.
problems of incomparable criteria and alternatives (Malczewski, 2007;
Pavan and Todeschini, 2009). MCDM effectively illustrates stake (c) Analytic network process (ANP)
holder’s flood decision choices and helps in synthesizing a smooth
operation among the people and the policymakers. When a flood affects This is a generalized form of the AHP that was created to enhance
an area, quick and relevant decisions needs to be taken in a short and put into consideration multiple dependencies and in
specified period and, these decisions are subjected to uncertainties and terdependencies in the clustered group referred to as networks (Saaty,
are at risk of failure (Levy, 2005). MCDM is a method targeted at 1996; Sarkis, 2003). The method is reliable in deciding in
enabling decision-makers to integrate information to ease the process of terdependencies amongst real-life factors similar to parameters that
decision making and the outcome is usually a set of weights connected to influence flood generation (Dano et al., 2019). Wang et al. (2019b) re
different objectives (Madruga and Evers, 2016; Papaioannou et al., ported a 98% accuracy when the authors applied a hybrid model con
2015; Saaty, 2000). The MCDM enables the estimation of criteria (FIFs) sisting of ANP, DEMATEL, and Interval-Rough numbers for the detection
weights through the pairwise comparison methods commonly referred of flood-prone regions of Shangyou, China.
to as the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) (Khaleghi and Mahmoodi,
2017; Rahmati et al., 2016b; Saaty, 1990), the ranking (Mind’je et al., (d) Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution
2019), and the rating (Patrikaki et al., 2018; Samanta et al., 2018) (TOPSIS)
methods. The MCDM model is structured in a way that the initial stage
entails an expert (decision-maker) allocating weight related to a crite This method follows the concept that the favourable alternative is
rion’s relevance. The MCDM model hierarchical structuring is important the one that is differentiated by the most immediate positive and farthest
because it has an impact on the model result. The model structure has negative ideal solution (Lee et al., 2014). The procedure for the TOPSIS
the objective of the problem at the foremost hierarchical level and next involves eight important steps and details can be found in (Amiri et al.,
level occupied by the criteria (factors) that define the problem (Saaty, 2019) who applied the method alongside AHP using morphometric
2008). Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), ranking, rating are among the analysis of the catchment to prioritize flood inundated areas in the
techniques applied in weight evaluation in MCDM modelling (Malc studied area. The TOPSIS method is an effective tool for decision-makers
zewski, 1999). Aggregating the weights enables the determination of the to enable the proper integration of flood mitigation planning through
final scores for factors considered in the analysis by summing each flood hazard analysis for urban areas (Moghadas et al., 2019).
factor’s attributes by its weights through methods such as the weighted
linear combination and order weighted average methods (Madruga and (e) Fuzzy-TOPSIS
Evers, 2016).
When applying MCDM methods in FHM, it is crucial to analyze and This was developed based on the fuzzy-sets theory to provide a so
select the most relevant and non-correlating (FIFs). These factors lution to supplier selection problems in the supply chain system (Chen-
represent the criteria under consideration for the flood hazard analysis Tung et al., 2006; Kim et al., 2019). Kim et al. (2019) proposed a hybrid
through the weight assigning process. Several studies have applied fuzzy TOPSIS to deal with uncertainties associated with developing a
MCDM alongside GIS in flood hazard/susceptibility studies. A review of flood hazard map for a levee failure. The author reported that the
this aspect can be found in Madruga and Evers (2016). The suitability of method performed better with regards to the accuracy and ranking of
the GIS with MCDM was also studied by Chandio et al. (2013). The flood inundation potential zones than the current flood hazard map
MCDM methods have various types that have been applied in FHM produced by Korea’s Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport. It
studies which are briefly explained below. has also been proven to be a robust methodology for decision-making in
flood and water resources management (Lee et al., 2014).
(a) Analytic hierarchy process (AHP)
(f) Decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL)
This is a method that solves decision-making problems by ranking
alternatives according to several criteria (FIFs) both in discrete and It was developed to comprehensively analyze complex inter
continuous paired comparisons (Cozannet et al., 2013; Saaty, 1987). It is connected decision problems (Wang et al., 2019a). It is a preferable
referred to as the most popular MCDM method applied in FHM (Mah method in delineating FHM because of its networking and in
moud and Gan, 2018) and it is based on pairwise comparisons of FIFs terdependencies of criteria (Kanani-Sadat et al., 2019; Wang et al.,
and feature classes to enable the respective weight evaluation. A 2019a). Furthermore, it has proven to be reliable in addressing un
detailed methodological explanation of the process of the AHP can be certainties when fuzzified (Kanani-Sadat et al., 2019).
seen in (Malczewski, 1999; Malczewski and Rinner, 2015) which both
gave a comprehensive methodological description of various MCDM (g) VlseKriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje- Multi-
methods and examples which include the weighted linear combination, Criteria optimization and compromise solution (VIKOR)
analytic hierarchy process, ideal point, and outranking methods.
This method was developed to enhance MCDM in complex systems of
9
contradictory criteria with the assumption and determination that a mapping studies which have shown promising predictive capabilities.
compromising solution is allowed (Madruga and Evers, 2016). The Such ML models include decision tree (DT) models like the Alternating
method has shown promising predictive accuracy of 96% when Khosravi Decision Trees (ADT) which is a simple and effective algorithm for
et al. (2019) compared various MCDM methods which included VIKOR classification in ML built in a stump-like structure, unlike other tree
and some other ML methods in identifying flood susceptible zones. algorithms. The ADT performed best when it was compared with four
other decision tree models in flood susceptibility mapping with a pre
3.1.3.2. Statistical modelling methods. Statistical methods are common dictive accuracy of 94.3% (Khosravi et al., 2018). Zhao et al. (2018)
methods in FHM (Shafapour et al., 2019). These methods integrate past have successfully applied the random forest (RF) model which comprises
flood event records and distribution of FIFs to predict the probability of of many distinctive decision trees that shows attributes of an ensemble
flood occurrence in flood-prone areas (FPAs) in the study area. The in flood susceptibility mapping. Each of these trees in the random forest
method enables estimation of flood hazard index (FHI) which is ob produces a classification prediction and the classification with the
tained from aggregating the weighted scores of geospatially analyzed highest vote is chosen as the model’s prediction (Mao and Wang, 2012).
thematic layers and the historical flood distributions (Morjani & Tar Other DT models include the classification and regression trees (CART)
oudant, 2014). The flood inventory dataset is usually sectioned into the (Shafizadeh-Moghadam et al., 2018), the logistic model trees (LMT)
training and validation parts. The two major categories of the statistical (Khosravi et al., 2018), the reduced error pruning trees (REPtree)
methods that are applied in FHM are the bivariate and multivariate (Khosravi et al., 2018), etc.
statistical methods. The Support vector machine (SVM) is another type of ML that is a
linear model usually applied in classification and regression problems by
(a) Bivariate statistical model developing a hyper-plane capable of solving linear and non-linear
problems into easy and executable classes (Shafapour et al., 2015).
The bivariate statistical models examine the influence of each class of Shafizadeh-Moghadam et al. (2018) applied the maximum entropy
a flood influencing feature on flood generation and a type include the model in FHM which is a combination of data from different sources to
Statistical Index (SI) which develops a relationship between FIFs and generate a probability distribution that represents the training data. The
flood disaster (Costache, 2019a; Shafapour et al., 2019) where weights probability distribution is then evaluated with the highest entropy with
are assigned to the FIFs. Other statistical models applicable in FHM the training dataset. Janizadeh et al. (2019); Popa et al. (2019) reported
include the Evidential Belief Function (EBF) which is a knowledge-based over 90% prediction accuracy of the multilayer perceptron (MP) in flood
spatial integration model founded on the theory of the Dempster–Shafer susceptibility mapping. The MP model illustrates logistic regression
(Althuwaynee et al., 2012; Arabameri et al., 2019; Bui et al., 2019b; which replaces the input for a non-linear function hidden layer, and it is
Rahmati et al., 2016a) the Partial Least Square (PLS) which takes into often used in function approximation and order identification. A similar
consideration uncertainty and variety input data in integration into regression-based model is the multivariate adaptive regression splines
different GIS layers (Costache, 2019b), the Frequency Ratio (FR) which (MARS) which is a nonparametric model that enables flexibility in the
is expressed as a ratio of the probability of occurrence of an event to the evaluation of multi-dimensional experimental data and can model
non-occurrence of the same event (Azizat and Wan Omar, 2018; Cao complex nonlinear problems to generate straightforward linear models
et al., 2016; Popa et al., 2019; Sahana and Patel, 2019; Samanta et al., (Dodangeh et al., 2020).
2018), Certainty Factor (CF) which takes into consideration uncertainty The integration of multiple ML/AI models have also been applied in
and variety input data in integration into different GIS layers (Costache, FHM and such models are ensemble models like the Naive Bayes trees
2019a), and the Weight of Evidence (WOE) proposed by Agterberg (NBT) which is an integration of Naïve Bayes and decision trees adopt
(1992) which is applied in flood mapping by evaluating the weight of pre-pruning while building the tree structure and its technique is non-
each FIF based on the occurrence or non-occurrence of flood hazard in complex and high predicting capability (Khosravi et al., 2018).
the study area (Hong et al., 2018; Rahmati et al., 2016a; Shafapour et al., Furthermore is the Bayesian-GLM (General Linear Model) which is an
2017; Shafapour et al., 2014) methods. improvement of the GLM that adapts the technique of Bayesian for
effective prediction (Hosseini et al., 2019). Also, Termeh et al. (2018)
(b) Multivariate statistical model was able to identify flood susceptible areas with an ensemble of genetic
algorithm (GA) model which has random nature that presents a better
The multivariate methods evaluate the influence of each flood chance of finding a good solution to complex and chaotic problems in
causative factor on the generation of the flood through the integration of less time (Wilson and Mantooth, 2013) and four other models.
the flood records and the flood factors. An example of this type of model Artificial intelligence-based models have also performed well in
is the Logistic Regression (LR) model (McFadden, 1974) which evaluates identifying flood hazard-prone areas as reported by Bui et al. (2020).
the probability of occurrence of flooding in a region The authors highlighted that the Grasshopper Optimization Algorithm
(GOA), the grey wolf algorithm (GWO), and social spider optimization
3.1.3.3. Artificial intelligence & machine learning models. Machine algorithm (SSOA) outperformed the support vector machine and particle
Learning Model (ML) is a subdivision of artificial intelligence that has swarm optimization and random forest in analyzing flood susceptible
been developed from pattern identification to application in the evalu regions. Others include the firefly algorithm (FA) which is a recent
ation of the framework of the data that will fit into effective and accurate metaheuristic algorithm developed by Yang, (2009) from the inspiration
models (Shobha and Rangaswamy, 2018). ML is developed to determine of fireflies’ behaviour (Nguyen et al., 2018). The extreme learning ma
functional dependencies within the observed data to enable valuable chine (ELM) is also an artificial intelligence proposed by Huang et al.
deductions from the process. ML models enable the construction of (2006) for single hidden layer feedforward neural networks to create an
predictive models from historical data which can show features of new efficient algorithm with a faster learning speed (Bui et al., 2019c; Huang
components (Zoppis et al., 2019). In the case of machine learning et al., 2006). The deep learning neural network (DLNN) is also an arti
models, flood inventory records are applied in training and testing of the ficial neural network that has more than a single hidden layer and is
model which classifies the dataset by determining the connecting normally trained using the back-propagation method. It has difficulty in
weights to the model. The flood maps are generated by analyzing the training the network when the number of hidden layers is increased due
validated models for the region of study through the evaluation of the to the varying learning speeds of the hidden layers (Bui et al., 2020).
probability of each flood location to flood hazard (Bui et al., 2020). Others include the particle swarm optimization (PSO) (Bui et al., 2019c;
Several ML methods have been applied in flood hazard/ susceptibility Wilson and Mantooth, 2013), the ant colonization algorithm (ACO)
(Termeh et al., 2018), the adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system
10
(ANFIS) (Mathur et al., 2016), etc. Table 3

A brief comparison of the merits and demerits of the FHM methods.
Method Strength Drawback Mapping
3.2. Case studies Suitability
1. Physically- • Founded on the • Accuracy • Sediment

In this section, several studies that carried out FHM are discussed. based basic principle of dependent on transport
Most of the studies highlighted have delineated flood hazards through Models fluid mechanics. the boundary modelling
physically-based, physical, and empirical methods. The strengths and • Ability to condition • Water quality
accurately predict • Inability to modelling
limitations of these methods are also discussed in this section. A brief
and model flood model complex • FHM
comparison of the advantages and limitations of the modelling methods depth, magnitude, flow scenarios • Flood damage
in FHM is presented in Table 3. spatial extent, in some cases. assessment
damage evaluation. • Large data input • Early warning
• Perform better with requirement system
3.2.1. Physically-based models in FHM
access to accurate • Complex • Probabilistic
1D hydrodynamic models are relevant as these models have been data and DEM with computations flood mapping
widely applied in water resources management and flood modelling good resolution • Coastal flood
studies to support flood mitigation planning and key decision-making in mapping
flood risk management. Such is presented by Tian et al. (2019) when • Water
resources
they applied a 1D hydrologic- hydraulic model in examining the flood
systems
inundation resulting from normal frequent flood occurrence of below 20 planning
years return period by applying river flow theory, GIS, and digital • Flood
elevation model (DEM). The resulting flood hazard and damage map monitoring
2. Physical • Ability to • Requires more • Dam break
were able to accurately identify the affected areas thereby meeting the
models experiment with tests when analysis
requirement of the flood hazard analysis of the region of study. This was flood processes that considered in • Flood Risk on
done by calibrating the model result using flood observation data of are complex to empirical Human
2012 alongside aerial image data of the study area for verification. Aryal observe. formulations. • Historical
et al. (2020) determined inundated areas of an area of about 38 sq. km • Ability to measure • Costly to build flood scenario
flood parameters and implement. modelling
for five different return periods using (HEC-RAS) modelling tool to
that difficult to • Inability to • Urban flood
develop the 1D- hydrodynamic model. The authors concluded that the accomplish during properly modelling
model result could buttress crucial decision-making in flood manage the actual simulate the
ment and help in flood management planning. occurrence. actual
The 2D model has also proven to be dependent, capable of executing • Experimentation of roughness that
varying feasible can be created
complex computations simulating flood processes, and accurate. This is input time series in by the existence
proven in the study by Nguyen et al. (2015) which developed a high- evaluation of the of different
resolution model (10 m resolution) flood map indicating flood depth predictive stand-in
and velocities. This was conducted by applying an integrated performance of the materials
numerical model
hydrologic-hydraulic model which was made up of the Hydrology
3. Empirical • Subjective and • Inability to • Flood
Laboratory-Research Distributed Hydrologic Model (HL-RDHM) and a Models Objective opinions predict future susceptibility
2D hydraulic (BreZo) modelling tool. The validated flood predictions • Easy to implement. occurrences. mapping
result of water level and streamflow showed a high confidence level in • Accurate prediction • Uncertainty • FHM
the models’ prediction of spatial flood and velocities. • Less input data linked to • Flood
requirement experts’ bias. vulnerability
Fernández-pato (2018) combined a 2D and 1D hydrodynamic model • Ability to link • Difficult to mapping
in modelling surface flow and pipe network flow to a riverbank tributary catchment understand the • Flood risk
case study. The 2D surface area was discretized by applying the optimal hydrological rules of some mapping
number of cells. The integration of both models was validated through processes through machine • Landslide
flood causing learning models susceptibility
laboratory experimental data and real flood data of high-intensity storm
factors for flood mapping
events. The coupled 1D and 2D model and the experimental test was able analysis. • Groundwater
to forecast the sudden variation in the flow depth of both the sewer and • Improved methods potential
the riverbank flow. Li et al. (2006) applied a 3D model in studying the • Ability to combine mapping
effect of relocating a flood prevention system by analyzing possible several methods. • Emergency
flood
impacts resulting from both tidal and fluvial flooding from the south and management
the River Usk respectively. The findings of the investigation showed that • Multi-hazard
there will be a negligible impact on the relocation of the flood mitigation susceptibility
system and the nearby environment. Yang et al. (2018) investigated the mapping
• Reservoir
tsunami force control by using a numerical dam-break wave in simu
flood control
lating this force with a 3D numerical model and the result was validated • Flood
using a similar physical model experimentation result from another mitigation
study (Amason, 2005). method
selection
3.2.1.1. Conceptual, physically-based, and data-driven hydrological mod

els. These models possess the ability to enhance flood prediction accu physically-based models to delineate flood hazard zones, evaluate flood
racy through simplified basins’ hydrological process simulation (Chen depth, and damage extent using hydrodynamic models. A similar study
et al., 2016). Dutta and Herath (2004) applied a conceptual modelling was carried out by Shrestha and Lohpaisankrit (2017) which combined a
approach in deciding on how to control flood hazards and the associated physically-based model, hydraulic, and a conceptual model to simulate
risk. The model outcome was able to highlight the relevance of the flood scenarios using various climatic change prediction models to
basin-scale flood management method for flood risk reduction. Other predict future flood occurrences. Sufiyan and Magaji (2018) simulated
studies incorporate simulation of flood parameters in conceptual and
11
flow using catchment hydrological response parameters with a SWAT modelled residential buildings. The model was tested with varying
and three-dimensional model. Mirzaei et al. (2016) applied KINEROS transient wave conditions. Measurements of surface water level, flow
and HEC-RAS hydrological and hydrodynamic modelling tools to velocity, flow pressure, forces acting on cross-shores, and pressure close
simulate varying water level scenarios and map inundated areas in the and acting against the building showed the mangrove affects the inshore
Langat River basin, Malaysia. Hosseiny et al., (2020) identified flood flow hydrodynamics and forces. The experimental results also showed
inundated areas and evaluated flood depth by applying an ensemble of that the existence of the mangrove was related to increased water levels
ML and hydraulic models. The hydraulic model was calibrated with and minimized peak velocities of flow between the inshore buildings
observed surface water level data and was used to train random forest and the mangrove. Begam et al. (2018) also investigated GLOF with a
and multilayer perceptron models to forecast water level in wet nodes. numerical 2D model and validated the results by building a physical
The authors concluded the findings can be applied to save computa model. The results from the study indicated a satisfactory correlation
tional time and cost. between the observation and the experimental results.
The impact of snowmelt as discussed in the introductory part is
significant in flood hazard potential and should be taken into consid 3.2.3. Empirical models in FHM
eration at all times especially for alpine regions like Switzerland and the
Pacific Northwest of the USA (Voigt et al., 2003). In the study conducted 3.2.3.1. MCDM methods. Kourgialas and Karatzas (2011) produced
by Nie et al. (2020), glacial lake burst flood was investigated by recre maps for each FIF based on the factor’s interactive influence on each
ating past floods due to glacial outbursts by applying a glacial lake other, on all other factors, and also on hazard followed by assigning
outburst flood (GLOF) model comprising of a dam break model (DL weights (rating method) to each factor and finally integrating all factor
Breach) and a hydrodynamic model. The result from the study indicated weights to obtain an overall flood hazard map using six FIFs. The six FIFs
a near-future recurrence and the authors recommended the application selection was conducted based on the general importance and findings
of additional sediment and soil data for a substantial parameterization of from past studies. The results from the study were found reliable when
the model for accurate flood hazard prediction. validated with the record of the flood events in the study area. Gigović
et al. (2017) applied fuzzy logic based on interval-rough (IR) numbers in
3.2.2. Physical models in FHM a GIS environment to develop an FHI to produce a flood hazard map
A comparison between numerical (3D) and physical experimentation using six FIFs. The IR’AHP showed the best consistency when compared
of simulation of a dam-break flow indicated that the physical experi to historical flood events alongside the fuzzy AHP and ordinary AHP.
ment was more accurate and the experimental data from the study can Xiao et al. (2017) developed a flood hazard map using the Fuzzy AHP
be applied for model validation for other study areas (Ozmen-Cagatay technique rather than the conventional WLC in assigning weights to the
et al., 2014). Postacchini et al. (2019) proved the impact of the incidence developed factors some of which included flow accumulation, Soil
angle, flow depth, flow velocity on the pressure acting on the walls of Conservation Service Curve Number, drainage pumping stations, slope,
buildings when a model Mansory structure scaled at 1:10 was applied in elevation standard deviation, depression point density, and dike density
simulating flow mechanisms. Güney et al. (2014) constructed a distorted and integrating all weights for a comprehensive flood hazard map. The
physical model to investigate dam break resulting from flooding after an applied technique of the ordered weighted averaging (OWA) method
intensive storm event. The model was built in such a way that its sizing which is based on optimization that was combined with Fuzzy AHP
allowed the components of the dam consisting of the body, reservoir, made the result of the analysis flexible in terms of the decision-makers
and downstream region with horizontal scaling of 1:150 to fit in a space risk consideration. Arabameri et al. (2019) used TOPSIS and VIKOR in
of 300 square meters. The model also enabled the construction of fea the analysis of a flood-prone area and compared it with two statistical
tures capable of simulating roughness like culverts, bridges, houses, and methods (FR & EBF) when analyzing flood susceptibility areas. The
roads. The flow that will cause the model dam to fail was examined for findings from the study indicated the optimal FIFs and established ef
instantaneous partial collapse through simulation of a trapezoidal gap ficiency in combining statistical and MCDM methods by applying
on the model dam body. Parameters measured include the depth of flow remote sensing data with the GIS technique. Phrakonkham et al. (2019)
by ultrasonic velocity profiler (UVP) transducers, flood propagation by a evaluated the flood hazard index (FHI) from the relationship between
high-resolution camera, water level by water level sensors, and flow flow velocity and flow duration to produce a flood hazard map. The FHI
velocities. The result from the experiments indicated that the region of values were used to recognize flood-prone zones on the land-use change
study modelled can be flooded in minutes at flow depth reaching 3 m hazard map. The climate change impact on flood hazard was determined
and in four minutes for the built-up areas. Kvočka et al. (2016) suc by estimating the difference in duration of flood between 50 and 100-
cessfully tested the capability of a physical model with experimentation year recurrence intervals. Subsequently, AHP was used to assign
and a numerically formulated model in accessing, analyzing, and pre weights based on criteria relevance, and finally, an integrated flood
dicting extreme flood hazard events. The numerically-based method hazard map was created. Arianpour and Jamali (2015) reported high
applied was derived from the methodology of Ramsbottom and Sure accuracy when the authors applied Boolean and fuzzy rules in factor
ndran (2006) which tests the impact of flood hazards on human subjects. selection in the spatial MCDM model because raw data which are
The physical model applied was developed by Xia et al. (2014) in the UK sometimes characterized by error was not applied.
and it was based on the processes of falling and forces on a human
subject in a water body. The findings from the investigation revealed 3.2.3.2. Statistical models in FHM. Khosravi et al. (2016) mapped flood
that the physically-based model is preferable as a method of analyzing susceptible regions by applying three statistical models which included
extreme flood hazards in the study. This was because the physical model SI, WOE, and Shannon’s Entropy using 10 FIFs and flood inventory re
method is more influenced by increased velocities and momentum cords. The results from the study showed that the best model was the SI
regarding higher Froude numbers rather than depending on velocity as similarly indicated in the study of Shafapour et al. (2019). Kalantari
alone like in the physically-based methods. Physical models were rec et al. (2014) applied the PLS model to evaluate nine physical catchment
ommended for areas susceptible to flash-floods or extreme coastal descriptors that are significant in the prediction of FHM. The result
flooding on a large-scale because the physical model tested in the study showed land use, elevation, and soil type were the most influential to
efficiently considered variations in rapid flow and enable a fast and vi flood hazards in the study area. The authors concluded that the meth
sual flood hazard and risk assessment. odology applied was a simple and consistent approach in delineating
Tomiczek et al. (2020) tested the capability of mangrove forests in flood-prone areas along roads. Nandi et al. (2016) applied LR in FHM,
safeguarding the coastal environment during extreme flooding events. with the help of principal component analysis in FIF selection analysis
The study built a physical model consisting of a mangrove boundary and
12
and the flood frequency distribution. The result of the study showed an systems (Fan et al., 2017). Also, the assumptions such as horizontal
accurate prediction. The methodology can be adopted for similar cross-section water level, negligible river curvature, and hydraulic
catchments and the analysis can be developed with additional and jump, small mean bottom slope, and application of the law of resistance
updated information. Rahmati et al. (2016a) applied WOE and FR in for friction caused by stream boundaries and unsteady flows similar to
flood susceptibility mapping by using 110 flood records and nine FIFs. the one applied for steady flows reduces the accuracy in the 1D model
The result of the study showed both methods presented similar good results.
predicting accuracy performance.
3.3.1.2. 2D hydrodynamic models. The 2D hydrodynamic model is
3.2.3.3. ML/AI models in FHM. Hosseini et al. (2019) categorized capable of accurately estimating the flow depth and velocities across a
selected FIFs through simulated annealing as input and the flash flood grid that outlines the topographic domain under investigation (Toombes
inventory map as output in the ML model and validated the models for and Chanson, 2011). The 2D has been described to possess relevant
spatial flash flood prediction map development. The selection of the FIFs improvement in the evaluation of hydraulic parameters and the identi
was done based on findings from past studies and data availability in the fication of flood-prone areas. These models are widely applied in FHM.
study area. The maps were classified, and flash flood hazard maps were However, the evaluation takes longer computational time and the
produced. The study applied new machine learning models (GLMBoost, probability of large variations in cell sizes due to the complexity of urban
RF, and Bayesian-GLM). The results revealed the models performed underground surface will result in reduced efficiency caused by the
excellently and accurately in flash FHM. Popa et al. (2019) made use of limited time step which is dependent on the smallest cells in the mesh
FR, MP, and an ensemble of both to develop an index for flash flood and (Fan et al., 2017). There are limitations in the computational approach
flood hazard for mapping using flood inventory records and FIFs. The applied in evaluating the forces acting on individual flow components
combination of FR and MP outshined others in terms of performance in like the viscous shear stresses and channel bed friction in addition to the
FHM and findings revealed the FIFs directly influence flood develop basic assumptions made by the Saint Venant equations (Toombes and
ment. Khosravi et al. (2018) examined four machine learning models Chanson, 2011).
(decision tree type) in the production of FSMs which incorporated 11
FIFs. The study revealed that the ADT model performed better than the 3.3.1.3. 3D hydrodynamic models. The recent years have seen the
other models. Zhao et al. (2018) applied Random Forest (RF) in delin improvement in computing capabilities which has allowed the appli
eating flood susceptible regions by applying flood inventory records and cation of 3D hydrodynamic models in surface water analysis. A 3D flood
FIFs. Results from the study indicated the highest FIFs to flood occur model can enable a practical design to be carried out using a computer
rences and showed that the RF model applied outperformed the SVM system (Li et al., 2006), show clearer details of the flow fields (Al-
and ANN models. Zubaidi and Wells, 2018), turbulent conditions at varying scenarios,
enable clearer understanding into various physical processes via free-
surface flow (Abdurrasheed et al., 2019), and improved visualization
3.3. Modelling method strengths and limitations of flooded areas for better flood risk reduction management (Douass and
Kbir, 2019). It also allows users more regulation of the 3D visualization
3.3.1. Physically-based models which enables extended exploration and investigation of flood-affected
The time required for numerical modelling in FHM is becoming more areas (Lim, 2018).
tolerable and these models are the most applied in flood analysis studies These models tend to be more accurate and more complicated
(Ahmad and Simonovic, 2015; Teng et al., 2017). The simulation of the therefore discouraging the model’s application in large-scale study areas
physical processes that describe a flood/flow system is made possible (Prinos, 2008). Anees et al. (2016) mentioned the need for applying
through numerical computations in this model. In addition to this, the these models will be difficult to justify if the analysis required for the
access to better DEMs resolution and more accurate data has greatly study includes computation of parameters like inundation extent, flood
benefitted the application of hydrodynamic models. Unlike the physical depth, velocity, direction, a magnitude which can be done with the 1D
models which require fabrication and experimentation to build the flow and 2D hydrodynamic models. Some examples of numerical model types
scenario and obtain results, which can be costly, some numerical models and related application areas are presented in Table 4.
are freely available for use.
3.3.1.4. Conceptual, physically-based, and data-driven hydrological mod
3.3.1.1. 1D hydrodynamic models. 1D models have widespread recog els. One of the major advantages of physically-based hydrological
nition and a 1D hydrodynamic modelling tool like HEC-RAS 1D is free models is the ability to simulate the mechanism that makes up the hy
software for global users. These models are effective when computing a drologic cycle of a basin. The models are most suitable for use when data
wide range of river/drainage systems and several water resources is sufficiently available and enable enhanced comprehension of the ba
structures. These models are capable of effectively carrying out flood sins’ characteristics related to flood processes. Its application in
analysis (Anees et al., 2016), flood risk analysis (Tian et al., 2019), and corporates larger scales because it allows for a longer computational
dam break analysis. The 1D model requires less computational time, period. It also enables the evaluation of the physical parameters of the
easier to run, and build than the 2D numerical model (Gharbi et al., basin. It is, however, unable to measure parameters that are process-
2016; Lin et al., 2006). The ID models are also capable of forecasting the based such as water storage capacity. Physically-based hydrological
average velocity of a channel cross-section and the water surface models are limited at catchment-scale and are therefore not replicable to
elevation. non-similar basins. The conceptual hydrological models require field
However, the ID hydrodynamic model with all the above-mentioned data for calibration which are sometimes not available or sufficient
strengths is only suitable for modelling properly outlined and steady (Chen et al., 2016; Sitterson et al., 2017).
flow channels. The ID hydrodynamic is unable to incorporate the entire According to Kan et al. (2017), conceptual models have gained a
details of the complexity of urban flooding, especially internal floods. reputation for being reliable and powerful tools for hydrological simu
This is because, in 1D models, the impact of increased resistance posed lation and flood forecasting. They have more benefits in comparison to
by structures or buildings is not accounted for explicitly unlike in 2D physically-based fully-distributed hydrological models in terms of
models (Vojinovic and Tutulic, 2009). Therefore, researchers have computational efficiency, complexity (simplified), and suitability. In
found alternatives in coupling 1D and 2D models to accurately map addition, they present more physical clarity than the black box models.
flood inundated areas in urban areas when there is a need to consider All the above-mentioned attributes have made them a relevant tool in
flow interactions between ground surfaces and underground pipe
13
Table 4 Table 4 (continued )

Selected physically-based hydrodynamic modelling tools application areas. Modelling Dimension Application Area Source
Modelling Dimension Application Area Source Tool Type
Tool Type
River and coastal flood
Infoworks 1D River modelling, Flood (Néelz and Pender, modelling, sediment
RS Inundation modelling 2009; Prinos, 2008) transport modelling
Infoworks 1D Urban drainage ✓ DELFT-3D 3D Coastal modelling and (Prinos, 2008)
CS modelling, fluvial system reach-scale river
modelling modelling
ISIS 1D Flood hazard simulation, (Wangpimool, 2012) FINEL 3D 3D River, ocean, tidal, wind (Prinos, 2008)
water quality, sediment and wave-driven flow
transport modelling modelling, and
MIKE 11 1D Water quality, flood (Néelz and Pender, environmental impact
inundation modelling, 2009; Prinos, 2008) assessment
navigation, flood TELEMAC 3D Simulation of tidal, (Néelz and Pender,
forecasting, and sediment 3D floodplain flows, and 3D 2009; Smolders et al.,
transport flow visualization 2016)
HEC-RAS 1D 1D steady and unsteady ✓ PHOENIX 3D Simulation of 3D flow (Prinos, 2008)
flow calculations, velocity fields in main
bathymetry calculations, channels and floodplains
sediment transport, flood FLOW 3D 3D Complex flow simulation, (Abdurrasheed et al.,
inundation modelling, tsunami, and tidal flow 2019)
water temperature, and modelling
quality modeling
SOBEK 1D Simulation of 1D river, (Dhondia and
channel, sewerage Stelling, 2004) flood forecasting. Further details on the comparison between physically-
network flows based and conceptual rainfall-runoff models can be read in the study by
SOBEK 1D- 2D, 1D-2D Simulation of 1D and 2D
Jaiswal et al. (2020).
✓
2D and 2D river, channel, sewerage,
urban network flows One of the key strengths of the data-driven hydrological models is
HEC-RAS 2D 1D and 2D steady and (Shustikova et al., that they can numerically derive flood non-linearly with the use of
unsteady flow 2019) historical data without the understanding of the physical processes that
calculations, bathymetry result in flood generation. These models are also faster, require less
calculations, sediment
transport, rural/urban
input to build, less computation time, and cheaper to operate. However,
flood inundation there have been reports about inadequacies regarding short-term pre
modelling, water diction and the requirement of extensive data in terms of long-term
temperature, and quality prediction and for a reliable forecast (Mosavi et al., 2018).
modeling
LISFLOOD- 2D Complex floodplain (Néelz and Pender,
FP inundation modellling 2009; Vojinovic and 3.3.1.5. Physical models. The findings from physical models are factual
Tutulic, 2009) results allowing a proper understanding of the phenomena and the
JFLOW 2D Overland tidal, tsunami, (Bradbrook, 2006) complexity of the processes that lead to flood generation. The results
fluvial overtopping, and
from these models can provide in detail the impact of a flood on humans,
sewerage flow modelling
MIKE21 2D 2D hydrodynamic (Prinos, 2008; Gilles, infrastructure, and the environment with a proper time scale. The
modelling, flood & 2010) method allows proper investigation into high impact flood events such
tsunami simulations, as Hurricane Katrina which caused destruction and failure of several
robust water quality, and infrastructures (Emelen et al., 2012), and dam break failures due to
sediment transport
modelling
flooding (LaRocque et al., 2013; Leal et al., 2002; Soares-Frazão and
TUFLOW 2D Urban flood and drainage (Néelz and Pender, Zech, 2007). The physical models enable the validation of theoretical
simulation, sediment 2009; TUFLOW, model output, the analysis of various details of the physical projects, and
transport, water quality 2020) tests the various effect of flood hazard impact on the environment in
modelling, and coastal
extreme conditions. Its application gives a better understanding of how
hydrodynamic modelling
DIVAST- 2D Dam break analysis and (Kvočka et al., 2017) structures will behave under varying flow conditions with instant visual
TVD flash flood inundation results (Carmo, 2020; Taveira-Pinto et al., 2020). Despite all these ca
modelling pabilities, the models are characterized by several complex issues that
BreZo 2D Dam break analysis, flood (Adeogun et al., 2015; are difficult to solve. Such an issue may be scale effects in cases where
inundation analysis Nguyen et al., 2015)
ISIS- 2D 2D Urban flood hazard (Nkwunonwo et al.,
there is a need to scale a free-hydrodynamic surface by applying a flow
simulation, water quality, 2020) that will fulfill all the conditions of the targeted stimulation. Addition
sediment transport ally, there are cases of laboratory effects such as reflection, restriction on
modelling, coastal and flows, experiment duration, and incomplete modelling (Taveira-Pinto
river channels
et al., 2020). Even though the results from the physically modeled flood
hydrodynamic modelling
TELEMAC 2D Water structure design (Di Baldassarre et al., cases represent factual experimental processes, the cost of building these
2D such as harbours, 2010; Prinos, 2008; models is high. There are reported cases of uncertainties in results due to
submersible structures, Smolders et al., 2016) limited measurement devices (Emelen et al., 2012), and the inability to
fluvial flooding properly simulate the actual roughness required from stand-in materials
modelling, dam-break
modelling, transport of
(Güney et al., 2014).
dissipating or non-
dissipating tracers 3.3.2. Empirical models
FINEL 2D 2D (Svasek, 2020) The empirical model, unlike the physical models, does not try to
simulate physical processes but applies data observations or estimations
as inputs. Physically-based methods have been used in flood mapping to
14
describe, predict, and simulate various parts of the processes and problem with these kinds of models is the input data, bad data, and
development of floods. FHM requires a wide range of hydrologic length of the dataset can influence the accuracy of the prediction model.
observation data and in recent years due to the non-availability of this Furthermore, resulting flood prediction can be affected by applying out-
data researchers are now finding alternatives in qualitative and quan of-range training values in validating prediction models (Dodangeh
titative approaches in empirical methods in FHM with the accessibility et al., 2020; Janizadeh et al., 2019; Termeh et al., 2018).
of remote sensing data.
3.4. Recent trends in FHM methodologies
3.3.2.1. The MCDM models. MCDM can provide information to help
rank uncertainties associated with model components such as deriving In this section, the recent development in methods will be discussed
flood depth, magnitude, and extent which are usually solved based on
the study participant/participants’ intuition only. Flood risk manage 3.4.1. Physically-based models
ment requires the contribution of decision support methods that Prinos, (2008) categorized the numerical methods in FHM into the
consider various policy/decision-makers’ opinions, objectives, subjec first, second, and third-generation models by the models’ level of
tive views, possible alternatives, and optimum evaluation criteria. complexity. This categorization describes the mode of development in
MCDM can be applied in synthesizing complex environmental issues like these models. The authors referred to the 1D as the first, the 1D and 1D-
flood disasters and socio-economic goals to make the best decision. 2D coupled models as the second, and the 3D as the third generation
MCDM has been successfully applied in flood analysis and FHM with the models. Table 5 shows a summary of these models and some typical
help of GIS and remote sensing data (Franci et al., 2016; Nigusse and characteristics.
Adhanom, 2019; Rahmati et al., 2016b) to produce more flexible, less
biased and accurate decisions in evaluation of relevant FIFs. The MCDM 3.4.1.1. 1D hydrodynamic models. Recent and current studies in 1D
are methods that have proven to be relevant in delineating flood hazard hydrodynamic modelling include the afflux system which enables a
areas for both gauged and ungauged regions and on a large scale. Even better technique for forecasting surges in the upstream water level of
though the MCDM is simple to apply and implement, the method is hydraulic structures. Another high point in the development of the 1D is
subjected to uncertainties based on different experts’ opinions and the linking potential it has with the 2D hydrodynamic models (Néelz and
perspectives. Pender, 2009; Teng et al., 2017). Over the years, researchers have found
alternatives when modelling floodplains where the assumptions asso
3.3.2.2. The statistical models. The statistical methods enable the inte ciated with 1D requires clarification, researchers opt for the fully 2D or
gration of GIS-based numerical simulation with statistical methods for integrate the 1D and 2D hydrodynamic models. The 1D-2D Coupled
FHM by applying weighted indices. These methods can be easily un models have made significant improvement over the years as have been
derstood with less computing time and is accurate for flood modelling as applied in complex flow and drainage system and can model flood
it considers observation and remote sensing data to produce flood sus problems associated with flood hazard and risk (Dhondia and Stelling,
ceptibility/hazard maps on small scales. These methods do not require 2004; Lin et al., 2006).
specific data, computing software, and system capacity to run the model.
The FR method requires minimum data input, easy to process at a low 3.4.1.2. 2D hydrodynamic models. For a long time, the application of 2D
cost. On the other hand methods like EBF requires a high run-time, a hydrodynamic models to large areas was a difficult task because of the
wide range of estimation process, and data transformation before pro long computation duration required. Recently, the development of
ducing the final flood hazard maps (Shafapour et al., 2019). parallelization methods has enabled new areas for investigation. Report
on computation time conservation by developing 2D-SWE on message
3.3.2.3. The ML/AI models. The artificial intelligence/ machine passing interface communication that will normally function with high-
learning methods are frequently applied in flood modelling because of performance computers (Ferrari et al., 2019).
the computational efficiency in detecting spatial flood extent and sus
ceptible areas using remote sensing data and past flood data. These 3.4.1.3. 3D hydrodynamic models. The improvement in the 1, 2, and 1–2
models are good models that can be combined with other methods in Ds can be found in the 3D hydrodynamic models which have been re
flood modelling and are also effective in data-scarce regions. The major ported to possess high computational accuracy, enables users with a
Table 5
Description of some existing Numerical Models adopted from Néelz and Pender (2009), Nkwunonwo et al. (2020), Prinos (2008), Teng et al. (2017).
Modelling Tool Dimensions Discretization Time Discretization Space Numerical Equation Numerical Solution Access
Infoworks RS 1D Implicit Structured mesh 1D SWE Finite Volume Open Source

Infoworks CS 1D Implicit Triangular mesh 1D SWE Finite Volume Commercial
ISIS 1D Implicit Unstructured mesh 1D SWE Finite difference Commercial
MIKE 11 1D Implicit Structured mesh 1D SWE Finite difference Commercial
HEC-RAS 1D Implicit Unstructured mesh 1D SWE Finite Difference & Volume Open-access
SOBEK 1D Implicit Unstructured mesh 1D SWE Finite Difference Commercial
HEC-RAS 2D Implicit Structured + Unstructured mesh 2D SWE + Diffusion wave Finite Volume Open-source
LISFLOOD-FP 2D- Explicit Structured mesh Normal flow in × &y direction Finite difference Research
JFLOW 2D- Explicit Structured mesh Diffusive wave Finite volume Internal
MIKE21 2D Implicit Flexible mesh NSE Finite volume Commercial
TUFLOW 2D Implicit Structured mesh SWE Finite difference Commercial
DIVAST-TVD 2D Explicit Unstructured mesh 2D NSE/SWE Finite difference Research
BreZo 2D Explicit Unstructured mesh SWE Finite volume Research
ISIS- 2D 2D Implicit Structured mesh SWE Finite difference Commercial
TELEMAC 2D 2D Implicit/Explicit Unstructured mesh SWE Finite Element Commercial
DELFT-3D 3D Implicit Flexible mesh NSE Finite difference Commercial
FINEL 2D 2D Explicit Flexible mesh SWE Finite element Commercial
FINEL 3D 3D Explicit Flexible mesh NSE Finite element Commercial
TELEMAC 3D 3D Implicit Unstructured mesh NSE Finite element/volume Open Source
* Navier-Stokes Equation (NSE), shallow water equation (SWE)
15
better understanding of hydrological processes understanding, adjust models to enable simulation of flood generation in an entire drainage
able gridding system, realistic prediction of flood scenarios, accessible basin. These modelling tools are operated by factors such as rainfall,
for modelling larger-scaled flood problems and less complexity (Anees evaporation, temperature which are sourced from remote sensing,
et al., 2017). Recently, flood disaster management activities have found ground stations, or a combination of both for updated data. The inte
the need for 3D technologies and cartographic visualization to help in gration of these hydrological and hydraulic (river routing) have been
understanding and increasing the awareness of flood problems at successfully applied in FHM of complex flow systems with the aid of
regional, local, and global scales (Herman et al., 2017). Furthermore, adequate Digital terrain models (Arduino et al., 2005; Fatapour et al.,
digital hydrodynamic modelling tools have improved flood management 2020; Knijff et al., 2010).
decision-making through the evaluation and visualization of flow pa
rameters in 3D with the help of data from virtual environments. Such 3.4.2. Physical models
data include satellite images, topographic maps, DEM, and LiDAR points There have been notable technological advancements in the last few
clouds (Wu et al., 2019). decades as the perspective of physical models have changed because of
Applying 3D models to flood inundation modelling for FHM in scales the development of equipment and techniques applied in experimenta
exceeding a kilometer was initially regarded as not feasible because of tion. The improvement in this aspect will result in improved field data
the required computing power and issues of accuracy in presenting thereby allowing for reliable calibrations (Carmo, 2020; Taveira-Pinto
turbulent conditions at varying scenarios, free-surface flows, velocity et al., 2020). This has offered some solutions to the limitations of nu
flow fields (Al-Zubaidi and Wells, 2018; Teng et al., 2017). However, merical modelling. Generally, with improved experimental techniques,
alternatives have been made possible through a particle-based method the physical models enable the opportunity to investigate new flow
referred to as the Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics (SPH) which en phenomena and the estimation of variables in complex flows which are
ables high-quality visualization with the help of graphics processing impossible via numerical computations (Taveira-Pinto et al., 2020).
units that accelerate the simulation process in comparison to the com Physical model methods represent real flood phenomena. Recent ad
puter processing unit’s execution (Hadimlioglu et al., 2020; Goswami vances for these methods are in the integration of physical and numer
et al., 2010). Improvement in 3D flood simulations has also been made ical models which is referred to as composite modelling (Gerritsen et al.,
possible through advanced graphics processing units, particle-based 2011). In other words, a balanced application of numerical and physical
simulations, and data availability. However, there were limitations models. It is the computational representation of the real flood phe
posed by the SPH as presented by Goswami et al. (2010); Teng et al. nomena which form the advanced methods. Various concepts and as
(2017) based on an overestimation of CPU memory consumption, but sumptions are linked to these advanced methods because these models
improved SPH methods have been introduced and seen in studies by enable optimized results from both the numerical and physical models
Alihan Hadimlioglu et al. (2020); Goswami et al. (2010); Winchenbach for specific flood analysis. Applying this method at a suitable
et al. (2016). geographical scale will result in an excellent simulation of the entire
process. The future of these models lies in the application of numerical
3.4.1.4. Conceptual, data-driven, and physically-based hydrological mod simulations in enhancing physical models i.e composite models espe
els. The physical-based distributed hydrological model was initially cially for complex flow/flood cases which are difficult to replicate in
based on the assumption that the model will define parameters directly models (Taveira-Pinto et al., 2020). Such cases can include turbid cur
from the hydrological processes of the catchment and does not require rents, turbulent flows, and scour at complex bridge piers (Yang et al.,
the calibration of model parameters. This resulted in high uncertainty 2019). A further question is whether numerical models applied for
leading to errors in flood forecasting. Recently, parameter optimization specific scales validate some model scale effects such as the effect of
has become a necessity for these models, Chen et al. (2016) evaluated kinematic viscosity.
the flood prediction performance of two catchment areas in China using
a particle swarm optimization algorithm. Additionally, Duethmann et al. 3.4.3. Empirical models
(2020) mentioned that various studies have shown indication that hy The notable observation is the diversity in the choice of methodol
drological models perform less when applied to periods with climate ogies that depends mainly on data availability and other factors like
conditions that vary from the ones applied during calibration. This capabilities, advantages, and limitations of these methods. There are a
setback was tested to know the reason for the discrepancy between the lot of challenges in producing flood hazard maps mainly due to the
observed and simulated streamflow values by making few modifications inaccessibility of sufficient data for flood investigations such as hydro
in the new model. The findings from the study showed that precipitation logic data, flood event records, and topographical survey maps of
data obtained from stationary rainfall stations is important. Un drainage networks and flood plains (Kourgialas and Karatzas, 2017).
certainties in climate change predictions can also be assessed using the Furthermore, is the complexity of applying physically-based models
physically-based hydrological model in analyzing flood hazard potential which sometimes requires large datasets for execution (Hong et al.,
under various climate change scenarios (Shrestha and Lohpaisankrit, 2018), longer computing time, and little flow dynamics illustration of
2017). In most cases of hydrodynamic modelling studies; physically- conceptual models (Teng et al., 2017). Some researchers are now finding
based distributed models (Tingsanchali and Karim, 2010), and mathe alternatives in different approaches in the empirical modelling of flood
matical and analogue models (Peel and McMahon, 2020) are used for hazard areas with the help of remote sensing data. The empirical-based
rainfall-runoff modelling. modelling methods in FHM are useful in data-scarce regions because
Recent years have seen both conceptual and physically-based hy remote sensing data can serve as a supporting system in place of insuf
drological models been combined with various data-driven models ficient or unavailable historical data. The physically-based modelling
(machine learning and artificial intelligence) to predict runoff for methods are sometimes executed with large data producing reliable
rainfall-runoff modelling (Kwon et al., 2020) to provide more accuracy. results (Franci et al., 2016) while the empirical methods such as the
Such ensemble was applied in the study by Young et al. (2017) which (MCDM) need fewer data and also generate suitable results (Souissi
applied a hybrid HEC-HMS, ANN, and support vector regression for et al., 2019). Flood hazard maps that are presently accessible globally
accurate rainfall-runoff prediction in modelling extreme typhoons. Also, are often portrayed in poor resolution (Giustarini et al., 2015). Accurate
Kwon et al. (2020) applied a hybrid of Tank which is a conceptual hy and effective identification of flood-prone regions needs high-resolution
drological model and least squared SVM to analyze the rainfall-runoff DEM data which is costly and scarce, thereby much reliance on the free
process. Further recent advances have been made possible through and available data like the US Geological Survey (USGS) STRM DEM,
flood predicting models that integrate hydraulic models with land-phase topographical maps, and National Remote sensing center (NRSC)
Cartosat-1 DEM (Kuldeep and Garg, 2011). The early phase of satellite
16
remote sensing data experienced the availability of Landsat Multi- Table 6

Spectral Scanner (MSS) with 80 m resolution dominantly applied for Sources of uncertainty in Numerical modelling (adopted from (Anuar, 2018;
flood mitigation studies. This extended to the Landsat Thematic Mapper Prinos, 2008).
imageries of (30 m) which provides flood monitoring data and for Uncertainty Origin of Uncertainty Parameter Evaluated
identifying flood spatial extent boundary. Improvement of the Landsat Category
FAD LC WL FD
Thematic Mapper imageries of (30 m) brought the Landsat TM band 7
Parameter Channel roughness
(Wang et al., 2019b; Wang et al., 2011) and Landsat -OLI (Ahmed and ✓
uncertainty Parameters of the statistical ✓
Kranthi, 2018; Hong et al., 2018) which is capable of easily delineating distribution
inundated regions. Recently, the SPOT imageries which perform better Channel geometry estimation ✓
with DEM in flood analysis emerged. Also, the Advanced Very High- Levee parameters evaluation ✓
Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) became available which is relatively Data uncertainty Error in Levee structure geometry ✓
estimation
relevant in regional flood analysis and for evaluating Normalized Dif Errors in measurement ✓
ference Vegetation Index (NDVI) (Sanyal and Lu, 2005). Furthermore, Sediment transport and bedforms ✓
large scale flood mapping analysis can rely on imageries obtained from Land/building use, worth, and ✓
the recent Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) images such as the TerraSAR- location
Structure first-floor elevation
x (Giustarini et al., 2015; Shafapour et al., 2015), Sentinel-1 (Bui et al., ✓
Public response to a flood ✓
2019a; Ngo et al., 2018; Rahman et al., 2019), Phased Array L-band Effectiveness of the flood ✓
Synthetic Aperture Radar (PALSAR) (Rahman et al., 2019), Advanced protection system
Land Observing Satellite-2 (ALOS-2) (Arabameri et al., 2019; Kumar, Debris build-up and ice effects ✓
2016; Liu et al., 2019), and COSMO-SkyMed (Liu et al., 2019). Flood alertness ✓
Incomplete or no data ✓
Model uncertainty Coastal modelling ✓
3.5. Uncertainty associated with FHM methods Rainfall-runoff modelling ✓
Dam break/breach analysis ✓
In this section, the uncertainty related to each method discussed in Choice of the hydrodynamic ✓
model
this study will be briefly explained. Uncertainty can be categorized as
Steady or Unsteady flow ✓
the natural and epistemic uncertainty as the former can be ascribed to computation
the uncertainty resulting from non-predictable outcomes and the latter Law of frictional resistance ✓
can be ascribed to the uncertainty resulting from missing information, equation
Dependence on the water level
lack of expertise of process, and technique (Anuar, 2018; Merz and ✓
Choice of the probability
Thieken, 2005). distribution function
3.5.1. Physically-based modelling methods * FAD- annual flood damage, LC- levee collapse, WL-water level, FD- flood
damage
Generally, uncertainty in FHM can be accounted for by uncertainty
in hydrologic data, topographic data, hydraulic model, mapping tech
nique, and the geospatial approach applied in its generation (Bales and reduce bed uncertainty in physical modelling in which one or two
Wagner, 2009; Merwade et al., 2008). A detailed explanation of un properly selected bedforms are under consideration.
certainty in flood risk, flood risk management, frequency analysis can be
found in Berbić et al. (2015); Hall (2014); Merz and Thieken (2005), and 3.5.3. Empirical modelling methods
flood estimation in Blazkova and Beven (2009). The proper identifica
tion of uncertainties requires effective investigation of the originating 3.5.3.1. MCDM models. In MCDM, various approaches have been
source (Teng et al., 2017). For the hydrodynamic modelling, Prinos developed to rank complex issues with multi-criteria attributes. This
(2008) classified these uncertainties into the model, data, and parameter modelling method allows the definition, evaluation, and ranking of al
uncertainty as shown in Table 6. ternatives that are selected based on the criteria weight determination.
Uncertainties can be addressed through model calibration of the However, the decision-making process is often associated with un
model. The uncertainties associated with friction parameters seem to be certainties. MCDM approach requires both internal and external infor
the important factor to uncertainty and therefore given optimal mation, whereby the internal information describes the decision-
consideration despite other sources such as model framework, and makers’ approach for consistency and rational decision making related
topographical factors. One analytic technique to measure uncertainty is to the judgment and alternative structure. The external information is
the general likelihood uncertainty estimation (GLUE) (Beven and Binley, related to the circumstances surrounding the decision, its consequences,
1992) which has proven to be relevant and is easy to implement (Anuar, and the constraints. Uncertainties relating to the internal information of
2018). the decision-making process may result due to wrong judgment arising
from the misconception of an alternative (Su and Tung, 2014). The
3.5.2. Physical modelling methods external uncertainties are related to processes related to analyzing and
Even though the results from the physical modelling flood cases specification of criteria under consideration, besides uncertainties
represent factual experimental processes, the cost of building these related to flood events characterized by natural/aleatoric uncertainty
models is high and highly dependent on funding by government bodies. (Madruga and Evers, 2016; Merz et al., 2008). The AHP indirectly ac
There are reported cases of uncertainties due to limited measurement cesses uncertainties through evaluation of the inconsistency index for
devices (Emelen et al., 2012), measurement error, and the inability to every pairwise comparison made. According to Madruga and Evers
properly simulate the actual roughness of different environmental and (2016), in flood analysis using MCDM, a larger percentage of researchers
infrastructural features (Güney et al., 2014) through use of stand-in do not report the performance of sensitivity analysis, although, sensi
materials. The materials representing these stand-in materials are tivity analysis was applied in the MCDM methods by Fernández and Lutz
required to have the same roughness of actual features while considering (2010), Kazakis et al. (2015), Souissi et al. (2019), Toosi et al. (2019)
the Froude number but in most cases simulation of roughness introduces and examples include single-parameter sensitivity analysis (SPSA),
a lot of uncertainties in the physical model. For composite models that Taylor series error propagation, and Monte Carlo approach which in
combine numerical and physical models, (Gerritsen et al., 2011) corporates extended FAST (Fourier Amplitude Sensitivity Test) method
confirmed from a case study of coastal modelling that these models can (Fernández and Lutz, 2010). Some other authors validated the results
17
obtained with a flood event record of the study area (Nigusse and 4. Summary
Adhanom, 2019; Phrakonkham et al., 2019) to check for similarities.
The SPSA replaces the empirical weights obtained through AHP or any FHM has formed the basis for an improved approach in flood miti
other weighting methods with effective weights (Souissi et al., 2019). gation measures and management. Researchers and policy-makers must
The single parameter sensitivity analysis is easy therefore makes it a also be aware and mindful of the next limiting components in flood
practical approach for researchers even though it does not consider the analysis for FHM. Variations in the prediction results obtained from the
informative aspect of the uncertainty thereby giving room for bias various modelling methods indicate the uncertainty related to the FHM
overview of the final mapping decision. Uncertainties relating to modelling method. Future developments in FHM may involve out
subjectivity of the decision-makers’ opinion can be modelled by weighing the benefits of the physical model against the additional costs
methods like the fuzzy set which deals with groups whose boundaries especially for areas where the expectation of flood hazard, risk,
are unclear (Yang et al., 2013), and a combination fuzzy set with other vulnerability, and damage are high. In regards to composite modelling,
MCDM methods because of its similarity to human reasoning and uncertainty associated with physical models that simulate the physical
computational requirements. Even with these capabilities, some studies processes of the terrain should be given more attention. The future for
have indicated that the fuzzy set theory does not provide a better these models lies in the solution to how numerical simulations can be
outcome than the AHP (judgments are fuzzy) thereby finding no need for applied in enhancing physical models i.e composite models especially
the complexity of fuzzy numbers (Madruga, 2018). The objective for complex flow/flood cases that are difficult to replicate in models. The
methods do not rely completely on the decision-makers’ opinion but upgrade in equipment applied in physical models will improve the result
rather highlight the mathematical evaluation of the criteria weights to reduce uncertainty and encourage its application.
thereby reducing the rate of uncertainty and increasing the effectiveness DEM and digital terrain model (DTM) play a significant role in
of the evaluation process. An objective method like the entropy-based physically-based hydrodynamic modelling, and the influence of high-
MCDM was proposed by Mahmoody and Jelokhani-Niaraki (2019) and resolution DEM on flood hazard maps generated should be given more
the result from the study indicated that the method provides more ac investigative consideration. The improvement of the computational
curacy than the subjective method. A summary of MCDM methods ability of computer systems has given a positive opportunity in simu
highlighting the methods’ characteristics from a few selected FHM lating flows with high-resolution data, complex terrain, and boundaries
studies is presented in Table 7. at larger scales. Investigation of uncertainty should be extended to flood
depth and extents because of the possibility of the vertical changes in the
3.5.3.2. Statistical and ML/AI models. On the other hand, for statistical profile affecting the horizontal stretch of the water. There is a need for
models and machine learning methods, it is crucial to evaluate the future research to consider highlighting uncertainty associated with
performance of a prediction model (Dodangeh et al., 2020) and it is flood hazard analysis in the maps because most times it is graphically
common to make use of statistical indicators for the evaluation and represented and not included in the actual flood hazard map. This will
comparison of classification models (Bui et al., 2020). Examples of some help in flood risk analysis as it relies much on FHM. Researchers should
of these testing measures include the Relative Operating Characteristics consider simplifying the representation of uncertainties presented in
Curve (ROC) often applied in the predictive performance test (Popa flood hazard analysis for better comprehension of flood management
et al., 2019; Rahmati et al., 2019). Others include root-mean-square decisions for policymakers.
error (RMSE) applied by Elkhrachy (2015); Kia et al. (2012); Kourgia As empirical methods in FHM relies greatly on remote sensing data,
las and Karatzas (2017); Kumar (2016) coefficient of determination (R2) there is a need to highlight that FHMs developed using DEM, land use,
(Kia et al., 2012), Kling-Gupta Efficiency (KGE) for flood model pre soil map, and etc need to be updated regularly. The need to source
diction model evaluation (Rezaei-Sadr, 2020), true skill statistics (TSS) reliable and high-resolution data for flood hazard/susceptibility map
popularly referred to as Hanssen-Kuipers discriminant (Dodangeh et al., ping is highly recommended. As highlighted with physically-based
2020), Heidke skill score (Hosseini et al., 2019), correlation coefficient modelling methods in FHM, the influence of the different resolution of
(Dodangeh et al., 2020) overall accuracy (Bui et al., 2020), and Wil remote sensing data should be investigated on the outcome of the flood
coxon signed-rank tests (Hong et al., 2018; Khosravi et al., 2018; Wei hazard map and its contribution to the uncertainty associated with the
et al., 2019), and confusion matrix (Hosseini et al., 2019). final flood map. There is a need for researchers to explore more objective
methods in MCDM that evaluate the whole decision-making process
rather than relying on fuzzifying the methods and sensitivity analysis.
Table 7
Summary of MCDM methods in FHM.
Reference MCDM Type Weight Estimation Validation Numbers Subjective Objective Group of Experts
Technique Opinion
(Elkhrachy, 2015; Khaleghi and AHP Pairwise Comparison ✓ Crisp ✓ ✓

Mahmoodi, 2017)
(Hategekimana et al., 2018; Fuzzy-AHP Ranking Crisp, ✓ ✓
Papaioannou et al., 2015) Fuzzy
(Mahmoody and Jelokhani-Niaraki, AHP-Entropy Entropy Crisp ✓ ✓ ✓ (for the AHP
2019) evaluation)
(Lappas and Kallioras, 2019; Souissi AHP Ranking ✓ Crisp ✓ ✓
et al., 2019)
(Patrikaki et al., 2018) AHP Rating Crisp ✓ ✓
(Raaijmakers et al., 2008) Spatial Multi-Criteria Analysis Trade-off Analysis Crisp ✓ ✓
(Papaioannou et al., 2015; Parhizgar Fuzzy-AHP Pairwise Comparison Crisp, ✓ ✓
et al., 2017) Fuzzy
(Wang et al., 2019a) DEMATEL, ANP, and Interval Pairwise Comparison ✓ Crisp, ✓
rough Numbers Fuzzy
(Arabameri et al., 2019) VIKOR, TOPSIS Pairwise Comparison ✓ Crisp ✓ ✓
(Kanani-Sadat et al., 2019) Fuzzy DEMATEL + ANP Pairwise Comparison ✓ Fuzzy ✓ ✓
(Kim et al., 2019) Fuzzy TOPSIS TOPSIS Fuzzy ✓
(Dano et al., 2019) ANP Pairwise Comparison Crisp ✓ ✓
18
Despite the report of high prediction capabilities associated with significance of the modelling methods as key tools in flood management
using machine learning models in delineating flood hazard/suscepti practices. The physical modelling method remains the least favourable
bility areas, the results can be affected by uncertainties associated with as indicated by past studies while the empirical modelling methods
the input data. It will be of benefit for future researchers to work on showed an increment of 35% in application rate between 2000 and
recommended models with varying study regions to validate the pre 2019.
dictive performance of machine learning models. The consideration of Over the years, there has been a great improvement in FHM methods
antecedent soil conditions and rainfall days preceding major flood which include developing models capable of computing complex flow
derived from the historical record as part of FIFs should be incorporated for complex terrains and channels at reasonable run-time with improved
in flood hazard/susceptibility studies. Researchers can also benefit from software packages and the application of supercomputers for modelling
applying different classification methods in which principles are foun flood hazards. Despite the ability of physical models to present accurate
ded on statistical or probabilistic methods in preference to the practical and realistic flood scenarios, these models are costly to build. While
ones with less objective expert-based approaches which can improve the empirical models can delineate flood hazard/susceptibility regions, and
model predictive performance. Researchers should also consider the evaluate flood vulnerability and risk, these models cannot predict flow
model averaging method which integrates the result of different indi depth, velocity, and the probability of future reoccurrence. With all the
vidual models through the exploration of more ensemble models in a capabilities and few limitations of these approaches, researchers and
single robust model for the best result. Future studies should also be decision-makers can find precision, potential, opportunity to combine,
mindful of the date of flood events records collected through remote and understand uncertainties and risks associated with these methods.
sensing concerning selected FIFs such as urbanization and climate Most importantly, researchers can pick on the numerous gaps and work
change that are susceptible to temporal variability. on them to make a tremendous improvement in the field of flood anal
ysis for FHM.
5. Conclusion
This paper presents a comprehensive review of methodologies in Declaration of Competing Interest

FHM. A current review of the various FHM objectives is presented based
on the increased need for flood hazard maps to mitigate the increased The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
flood disaster events. Previous studies have reviewed methods in FHM interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
with a higher focus on numerical modelling methods. In this paper, a the work reported in this paper.
current review of the physically-based, physical, and empirical methods
is given. The result from the systematic literature findings indicate a Acknowledgment
46.20% application rate of empirical modelling methods surpassing the
43.8% and 10% application rate for physically-based modelling and This study is part of the findings of a Ph.D. study funded by the
physical modelling methods respectively. This might indicate the Tertiary Institutions Education Fund (TetFUND), Nigeria.
Appendix A. Categorization by modelling methods in FHM for all reviewed papers
S/ Category by Modelling Method sub-category Study Area Year Authors

NO Method
1 Physically-based Conceptual Hydrological Algeria 2021 (Abdi and Meddi, 2021)

2 Physically-based 3D Malaysia 2019 (Abdurrasheed et al., 2019)
3 Physically-based Coupled 1D-2D England/UK 2015 (Adeogun et al., 2015)
4 Physically-based 2D&3D Canada 2015 (Ahmad and Simonovic, 2015)
5 Empirical MCDM India 2018 (Ahmed and Kranthi, 2018)
6 Empirical ML Iraq 2018 (Al-Abadi, 2018)
7 Physically-based Review Nepal 2016 (Ali et al., 2016)
8 Physically-based 3D USA 2020 (Hadimlioglu et al., 2020)
9 Empirical Statistical Palestine 2018 (Al-Juaidi et al., 2018)
10 Physically-based 1D-2D USA 2018 (Al-Zubaidi and Wells, 2018)
11 Physical Physical USA 2005 (Amason, 2005)
12 Empirical MCDM Iran 2019 (Amiri et al., 2019)
13 Physically-based 1D, 2D, 3D Malaysia 2016 (Anees et al., 2016)
14 Physically-based 1D-2D Malaysia 2017 (Anees et al., 2017)
15 Physically-based 2D Malaysia 2018 (Anuar, 2018)
16 Physically-based Conceptual, physically-based Hydrological Germany 2004 (Apel et al., 2004)
17 Empirical MCDM/Statistical Iran 2019 (Arabameri et al., 2019)
18 Physically-based Physically-based/data-driven Hydrological UK 2005 (Arduino et al., 2005)
19 Empirical MCDM Iran 2015 (Arianpour and Jamali, 2015)
20 Physically-based 1D Romania 2020 (Arseni et al., 2020)
21 Physically-based 1D Nepal 2020 (Aryal et al., 2020)
22 Empirical ANN Australia 2014 (Aziz et al., 2014)
23 Empirical Statistical Malaysia 2018 (Azizat and Wan Omar, 2018)
24 Physically-based 1D-2D Italy 2009 (Di Baldassarre et al., 2010)
25 Physically-based 2D UK 2010 (Di Baldassarre et al., 2010)
26 Physically-based 1D USA 2009 (Bales and Wagner, 2009)
27 Physically-based Conceptual, physically-based, data-driven Iran 2016 (Banihabib, 2016)
28 Physical Physical/physically-based India 2018 (Begam et al., 2018)
29 Physical Review Greece 2012 (Bellos, 2012)
30 Physically-based Uncertainty Croatia 2015 (Berbić et al., 2015)
31 Physically-based Conceptual Hydrological UK 2021 (Beven et al., 2021)
32 Physically-based Conceptual Hydrological Czech Republic 2009 (Blazkova and Beven, 2009)
(continued on next page)
19
(continued )
NO Method
33 Physically-based Review USA 2011 (Borah, 2011)

34 Physically-based 2D UK 2006 (Bradbrook, 2006)
35 Physically-based Conceptual Hydrological Italy 2013 (Brocca et al., 2013)
36 Empirical ML Vietnam 2019 (Bui et al., 2019a)
37 Empirical Statistical Iran 2019 (Bui et al., 2019b)
38 Empirical ML/AI Vietnam 2019 (Bui et al., 2019c)
39 Empirical ML/AI Vietnam 2019 (Bui et al., 2019d)
40 Empirical ML/AI Vietnam 2020 (Bui et al., 2020)
41 Physically-based Review Ethiopia 2020 (Bulti and Abebe, 2020)
42 Empirical Statistical China 2016 (Cao et al., 2016)
43 Physically-based 1D numerical & physical Modelling Portugal 2016 (Carmo, 2016)
44 Physical Physical Portugal 2020 (Carmo, 2020)
45 Empirical MCDM China 2019 (Chan et al., 2019)
46 Empirical MCDM/Review Malaysia 2013 (Chandio et al., 2013)
47 Empirical ML/AI Iran 2017 (Chapi et al., 2017)
48 Empirical MCDM Australia 2014 (Chen et al., 2014)
49 Physically-based Physically-based hydrological China 2016 (Chen et al., 2016)
50 Empirical MCDM Taiwan 2006 (Chen-Tung et al., 2006)
51 Physically-based Conceptual hydrological USA 2018 (Cho et al., 2018)
52 Physically-based Coupled 1D-2D USA 2013 (Choi, 2013)
53 Physically-based Physically-based hydrological USA 2017 (Clark et al., 2017)
54 Empirical Statistical Romania 2019 (Costache and Bui, 2019)
55 Empirical Statistical Romania 2019 (Costache, 2019a)
56 Empirical Statistical Romania 2019 (Costache, 2019b)
57 Empirical MCDM France 2013 (Cozannet et al., 2013)
58 Physically-based 2D (Hydrologic-Hydraulic) USA 2011 (Cunha et al., 2011)
59 Empirical MCDM Malaysia 2019 (Dano et al., 2019)
60 Physically-based Review India 2015 (Devi et al., 2015)
61 Physically-based 1D, 2D Netherlands 2004 (Dhondia and Stelling, 2004)
62 Physically-based Handbook Spain 2009 (Díez-Herrero et al., 2009)
63 Empirical ML/AI Australia 2020 (Dikshit et al., 2020)
64 Empirical ML/AI Iran 2020 (Dodangeh et al., 2020)
65 Physically-based 1D, 2D, and Probabilistic Italy 2013 (Domeneghetti et al., 2013)
66 Physically-based 3D Morocco 2019 (Douass and Kbir, 2019)
67 Physically-based Conceptual Hydrological Austria 2020 (Duethmann et al., 2020)
68 Physically-based Physically-based hydrological Thailand 2004 (Dutta and Herath, 2004)
69 Empirical MCDM Saudi Arabia 2015 (Elkhrachy, 2015)
70 Empirical Statistical Egypt 2019 (El-Magd, 2019)
71 Physical Physical USA 2012 (Emelen et al., 2012)
72 Physically-based Coupled 1D-2D China 2017 (Fan et al., 2017)
73 Physically-based 2D Iran 2020 (Fatapour et al., 2020)
74 Empirical MCDM Greece 2019 (Feloni et al., 2019)
75 Empirical MCDM Argentina 2010 (Fernández and Lutz, 2010)
76 Physically-based 1D-2D Spain 2018 (Fernández-pato, 2018)
77 Physically-based 1D-2D Italy 2019 (Ferrari et al., 2019)
78 Empirical MCDM Cyprus 2016 (Franci et al., 2016)
79 Physical Physical/composite modelling Netherlands 2011 (Gerritsen et al., 2011)
80 Empirical MCDM/Hydraulic Ethiopia 2015 (Getahun and Gebre, 2015)
81 Physically-based 1D-2D Tunisia 2016 (Gharbi et al., 2016)
82 Empirical MCDM Serbia 2017 (Gigović et al., 2017)
83 Physically-based Coupled 1D-2D USA 2010 (Gilles, 2010)
84 Physically-based 2D (Hydrologic-Hydraulic) UK 2015 (Giustarini et al., 2015)
85 Physically-based 3D Switzerland 2010 (Goswami et al., 2010)
86 Physical Physical Turkey 2014 (Güney et al., 2014)
87 Physically-based Data-driven Hydrological Australia 2012 (Haddad and Rahman, 2012)
88 Empirical MCDM Ethiopia 2019 (Erena and Worku, 2018)
89 Physically-based Uncertainty/numerical UK 2014 (Hall, 2014)
90 Physically-based Report (Effective FHM) Malaysia 2005 (Hamzah, 2005)
91 Physically-based Data-driven Hydrological Canada 2017 (Han and Coulibaly, 2017)
92 Physically-based Data-driven Hydrological Malaysia 2001 (Harun et al., 2001)
93 Empirical MCDM Kenya 2018 (Hategekimana et al., 2018)
94 Physically-based 3D Czech Republic 2017 (Herman et al., 2017)
95 Physical Physical/Numerical Japan 2006 (Hiraishi and Yasuda, 2006)
96 Empirical MCDM China 2018 (Hong et al., 2018)
97 Empirical ML/AI USA 2020 (Hosseiny et al., 2020)
98 Empirical ML & Hydraulic modelling USA 2020 (Hosseiny et al., 2020)
99 Empirical ML Singapore 2006 (Huang et al., 2006)
100 Physical Physical Netherlands 2004 (Ishigaki et al., 2004)
101 Physically-based Physically-based & conceptual hydrological India 2020 (Jaiswal et al., 2020)
102 Empirical ML/AI Iran 2019 (Janizadeh et al., 2019)
103 Physically-based Physically-based & Data-driven hydrological South Korea 2012 (Ji et al., 2012)
104 Empirical Statistical Sweeden 2014 (Kalantari et al., 2014)
105 Physically-based Conceptual hydrological China 2017 (Kan et al., 2017)
106 Empirical MCDM Iran 2019 (Kanani-Sadat et al., 2019)
107 Empirical MCDM Greece 2015 (Kazakis et al., 2015)
20
(continued )
NO Method
108 Empirical MCDM Iran 2017 (Khaleghi and Mahmoodi, 2017)

109 Empirical Statistical Iran 2016 (Khosravi et al., 2016)
110 Empirical ML/AI Iran 2018 (Khosravi et al., 2018)
111 Empirical MCDM China 2019 (Khosravi et al., 2019)
112 Empirical AI/ML Malaysia 2012 (Kia et al., 2012)
113 Physically-based 1D-2D and MCDM South Korea 2019 (Kim et al., 2019)
114 Physically-based 2D (Hydrologic-Hydraulic) Europe(Czech Republic, 2010 (Knijff et al., 2010)
Germany)
115 Physically-based 1D-2D Uncertainty Finland 2010 (Koivumäki et al., 2010)
116 Empirical MCDM Greece 2011 (Kourgialas and Karatzas, 2011)
117 Empirical MCDM Greece 2017 (Kourgialas and Karatzas, 2017)
118 Empirical MCDM India 2011 (Kuldeep and Garg, 2011)
119 Empirical MCDM India 2016 (Kumar, 2016)
120 Physical Physical, hydrodynamic Slovenia 2016 (Kvočka et al., 2016)
121 Physically-based 2D UK 2017 (Kvočka et al., 2017)
122 Physically-based Conceptual & Data-driven Hydrological South Korea 2020 (Kwon et al., 2020)
123 Empirical MCDM Greece 2019 (Lappas and Kallioras, 2019)
124 Physical Physical/ Numerical USA 2013 (LaRocque et al., 2013)
125 Physical Physical Portugal 2002 (Leal et al., 2002)
126 Empirical MCDM Korea 2014 (Lee et al., 2014)
127 Empirical MCDM China 2005 (Levy, 2005)
128 Physically-based 3D UK 2006 (Li et al., 2006)
129 Empirical MCDM China 2018 (Li et al., 2018)
130 Physically-based Uncertainty/Numerical Sweeden 2018 (Lim, 2018)
131 Physically-based Coupled 1D-2D UK 2006 (Lin et al., 2006)
132 Empirical MCDM China 2019 (Lin et al., 2019)
133 Physically-based Conceptual Hydrological China 2017 (Liu et al., 2017)
134 Empirical MCDM Cambodia 2019 (Liu et al., 2019)
135 Empirical ML/AI Mexico 2018 (Luque-Chang et al., 2018)
136 Physically-based Data-driven Hydrological Taiwan 2001 (Mackey and Krishnamurti, 2001)
137 Empirical MCDM Brazil 2016 (Madruga and Evers, 2016)
138 Empirical MCDM Brazil 2018 (Madruga, 2018)
139 Empirical MCDM Iran 2019 (Mahmoody and Jelokhani-Niaraki,
2019)
140 Empirical MCDM Saudi Arabia 2018 (Mahmoud and Gan, 2018)
141 Physically-based 1D Hydraulic and Hydrological Model Vietnam 2017 (Mai and De Smedt, 2017)
142 Empirical MCDM Canada 2015 (Malczewski and Rinner, 2015)
143 Empirical MCDM Canada 2000 (Malczewski, 2000)
144 Empirical MCDM Canada 2007 (Malczewski, 2007)
145 Empirical ML/AI China 2012 (Mao and Wang, 2012)
146 Physically-based Conceptual Hydrological Italy 2017 (Masseroni et al., 2017)
147 Empirical ML/AI UK 2016 (Mathur et al., 2016)
148 Physically-based Uncertainty(Hydrological-Hydraulic) USA 2008 (Merwade et al., 2008)
149 Physically-based Uncertainty(Hydrological-Hydraulic) Germany 2005 (Merz and Thieken, 2005)
150 Physically-based Concepts FHM Germany 2007 (Merz et al., 2007)
151 Physically-based Uncertainty Germany 2008 (Merz et al., 2008)
152 Empirical MCDM UK 2003 (Mikhailov, 2003)
153 Empirical Statistical Rwanda 2019 (Mind’je et al., 2019)
154 Physically-based 1D Hydraulic and Hydrological Model Malaysia 2016 (Mirzaei et al., 2016)
155 Physical Physical Japan 2018 (Miyashita and Mori, 2018)
156 Empirical MCDM Iran 2019 (Moghadas et al., 2019)
157 Physical Physical Malaysia 2014 (Mohamad et al., 2014)
158 Physically-based 1D Hydraulic and Hydrological Model Brazil 2016 (Monte et al., 2016)
159 Empirical MCDM Morocco 2011 (Morjani, 2011)
160 Physically-based Data-driven Hydrological Norway 2018 (Mosavi et al., 2018)
161 Empirical Statistical Jamaica 2016 (Nandi et al., 2016)
162 Physically-based 2D UK 2009 (Néelz and Pender, 2009)
163 Physically-based 1D Hydraulic and Hydrological Model Brazil 2016 (Neto et al., 2016)
164 Empirical ML/AI Vietnam 2018 (Ngo et al., 2018)
165 Physically-based Coupled USA 2015 (Nguyen et al., 2015)
166 Physically-based 1D-2D China 2020 (Nie et al., 2020)
167 Empirical MCDM Ethiopia 2019 (Nigusse and Adhanom, 2019)
168 Physically-based Review/Numerical Nigeria 2020 (Nkwunonwo et al., 2020)
169 Physical Physical Turkey 2014 (Ozmen-Cagatay et al., 2014)
170 Empirical MCDM Greece 2015 (Papaioannou et al., 2015)
171 Physically-based Physically-based Hydrological UK 2012 (Pappenberger et al., 2012)
172 Empirical MCDM Iran 2017 (Parhizgar et al., 2017)
173 Empirical MCDM Greece 2018 (Patrikaki et al., 2018)
174 Empirical MCDM Italy 2009 (Pavan and Todeschini, 2009)
175 Physically-based Conceptual, physically-based, data-driven hydrological Australia 2020 (Peel and McMahon, 2020)
176 Empirical MCDM/Conceptual hydrological Laos 2019 (Phrakonkham et al., 2019)
177 Empirical ML/AI & Statistical Romania 2019 (Popa et al., 2019)
178 Physical Physical Italy 2019 (Postacchini et al., 2019)
179 Empirical Statistical Malaysia 2009 (Pradhan, 2009)
180 Physically-based Numerical &Uncertainty UK 2008 (Prinos, 2008)
21
(continued )
NO Method
181 Physically-based Physically-based hydrological USA 2004 (Qu, 2004)

182 Empirical MCDM Spain 2008 (Raaijmakers et al., 2008)
183 Empirical MCDM &ML/AI Bangladesh 2019 (Rahman et al., 2019)
184 Empirical Statistical Iran 2016 (Rahmati et al., 2016a)
185 Empirical MCDM Iran 2016 (Rahmati et al., 2016b)
186 Empirical ML/AI Iran 2019 (Rahmati et al., 2019)
187 Physically-based Physically-based & Conceptual Hydrological USA 2000 (Ramírez, 2000)
188 Physically-based Conceptual Hydrological Iran 2020 (Rezaei-Sadr, 2020)
189 Physically-based Physically-based Hydrological Malaysia 2018 (Romali et al., 2018)
190 Empirical MCDM USA 2000 (Saaty, 2000)
191 Empirical MCDM USA 2008 (Saaty, 2008)
192 Empirical Statistical India 2019 (Sahana and Patel, 2019)
193 Physical Physical UK 2014 (Saidani and Shibani, 2014)
194 Empirical Statistical Papau New Guinea 2018 (Samanta et al., 2018)
195 Empirical MCDM India 2005 (Sanyal and Lu, 2005)
196 Empirical Statistical/ML Malaysia 2014 (Shafapour et al., 2014)
197 Empirical ML/AI Malaysia 2015 (Shafapour et al., 2015)
198 Empirical Statistical China 2017 (Shafapour et al., 2017)
199 Empirical ML/AI Australia 2019 (Shafapour et al., 2019a)
200 Empirical Statistical Australia 2019 (Shafapour et al., 2019b)
201 Empirical ML/AI Iran 2018 (Shafizadeh-Moghadam et al., 2018)
202 Physically-based 1D Hydraulic and Hydrological Model Thailand 2017 (Shrestha and Lohpaisankrit, 2017)
203 Physically-based 2D Italy 2019 (Shustikova et al., 2019)
204 Physically-based Physically-based, Conceptual, & data-driven USA 2017 (Sitterson et al., 2017)
Hydrological
205 Physical Physical & numerical Italy 2009 (Siviglia et al., 2009)
206 Empirical Statistical Namibia 2014 (Skakun et al., 2014)
207 Physically-based 2&3D Hydrodynamic Belgium 2016 (Smolders et al., 2016)
208 Physical Physical Belgium 2007 (Soares-Frazão and Zech, 2007)
209 Empirical MCDM Tunisia 2019 (Souissi et al., 2019)
210 Empirical MCDM/Uncertainty Greece 2014 (Su and Tung, 2014)
211 Physically-based Physically-based Hydrological/3D Malaysia 2018 (Sufiyan and Magaji, 2018)
212 Physical Physical USA 2020 (Taveira-Pinto et al., 2020)
213 Empirical MCDM Malaysia 2019 (Noranis et al., 2019)
214 Physically-based Review Australia 2017 (Teng et al., 2017)
215 Empirical ML/AI Iran 2018 (Termeh et al., 2018)
216 Physically-based 2D Vietnam 2004 (Thang et al., 2004)
217 Physically-based 1D China 2019 (Tian et al., 2019)
218 Physically-based 2D Thailand 2010 (Tingsanchali and Karim, 2010)
219 Physical Physical Japan 2004 (Toda et al., 2004)
220 Physical Physical USA 2020 (Tomiczek et al., 2020)
221 Physically-based 1D, 2D, 3D Australia 2011 (Toombes and Chanson, 2011)
222 Empirical MCDM & Hydrological Iran 2019 (Toosi et al., 2019)
223 Physically-based 2D (Hydrologic-Hydraulic) Greece 2014 (Tsakiris, 2014)
224 Physically-based Data-driven Hydrological Iran 2013 (Valipour et al., 2013)
225 Physically-based Physically-based Hydrological Mexico 2016 (Vargas, 2016)
226 Physically-based Hydrological (Snowmelt) Switzerland 2003 (Voigt et al., 2003)
227 Physically-based Coupled 1D-2D Netherland 2009 (Vojinovic and Tutulic, 2009)
228 Physically-based 2D (Hydrologic-Hydraulic) China 2020 (Wang and Yang, 2020)
229 Empirical MCDM China 2011 (Wang et al., 2011)
230 Empirical MCDM China 2019 (Wang et al., 2019a)
231 Empirical ML/AI China 2019 (Wang et al., 2019b)
232 Empirical ML/AI China 2019 (Wei et al., 2019)
233 Physically-based Review GLOF(Hydroogical-Hydraulic) UK 2014 (Westoby et al., 2014)
234 Empirical ML/AI USA 2013 (Wilson and Mantooth, 2013)
235 Physically-based 3D Germany 2016 (Winchenbach et al., 2016)
236 Physically-based Review GLOF(Hydroogical-Hydraulic) Switzerland 2014 (Worni et al., 2014)
237 Physically-based Review USA 2014 (Wright, 2016; Westoby et al., 2014)
238 Physically-based 3D China 2019 (Wu et al., 2019)
239 Physical Physical China 2014 (Xia et al., 2014)
240 Empirical ML/AI China 2017 (Xiao et al., 2017)
241 Empirical MCDM China 2013 (Yang et al., 2013)
242 Physical Physical China 2018 (Yang et al., 2018)
243 Physical Physical New Zealand 2019 (Yang et al., 2019)
244 Empirical ML/AI UK 2009 (Yang, 2009)
245 Empirical MCDM/Statistical Review China 2014 (Yin et al., 2014)
246 Physically-based Physically-based & Data-driven Hydrological Taiwan 2017 (Young et al., 2017)
247 Empirical Statistical Saudi Arabia 2016 (Youssef et al., 2016)
248 Physically-based Physically-based hydrological Slovakia 2010 (Zeinivand and De Smedt, 2010)
249 Empirical ML/AI China 2018 (Zhao et al., 2018)
22
Appendix B. Number of the reviewed papers by year of publication based on the three modelling methods
Year Empirical Physical Physically-based
2021 0 0 2
2020 5 3 13
2019 37 2 7
2018 17 3 8
2017 7 0 14
2016 10 1 12
2015 7 0 6
2014 8 5 5
2013 4 1 4
2012 2 2 3
2011 4 1 3
2010 1 0 7
2009 3 1 6
2008 2 0 3
2007 1 1 1
2006 2 1 3
2005 2 1 3
2004 0 2 5
2003 1 0 1
2002 0 1 0
2001 0 0 2
2000 2 0 1
Total 115 25 109
Appendix C. Ranking of the reviewed papers by country of publication based on the three modelling methods
Country Total Number of Publication Physically-based Empirical Physical
China 27 8 17 2
Iran 24 4 20 0
USA 24 15 4 5
Malaysia 18 9 8 1
UK 18 14 3 1
Greece 10 1 8 1
Australia 9 4 5 0
Italy 9 6 1 2
India 8 2 5 1
Canada 6 2 4 0
Vietnam 7 2 5 0
Germany 5 5 0 0
Romania 5 1 4 0
Brazil 4 2 2 0
Ethiopia 4 1 3 0
Netherlands 4 2 0 2
Czech Republic 3 3 0 0
Japan 3 0 0 3
Portugal 3 1 0 2
Saudi Arabia 3 0 3 0
South Korea 3 3 0 0
Spain 3 2 1 0
Switzerland 3 3 0 0
Taiwan 3 2 1 0
Thailand 3 3 0 0
Belgium 2 1 0 1
Morocco 2 1 1 0
Nepal 2 2 0 0
Sweden 2 1 1 0
Tunisia 2 1 1 0
Turkey 2 0 0 2
Algeria 1 1 0 0
Argentina 1 0 1 0
Austria 1 1 0 0
Bangladesh 1 0 1 0
Cambodia 1 0 1 0
Croatia 1 1 0 0
Cyprus 1 0 1 0
Egypt 1 0 1 0
Finland 1 1 0 0
France 1 0 1 0
Iraq 1 0 1 0
Jamaica 1 0 1 0
Kenya 1 0 1 0
Korea 1 0 1 0
23
(continued )
Country Total Number of Publication Physically-based Empirical Physical
Laos 1 0 1 0
Mexico 2 1 1 0
Namibia 1 0 1 0
New Zealand 1 0 0 1
Nigeria 1 1 0 0
Norway 1 1 0 0
Palestine 1 0 1 0
Papua New Guinea 1 0 1 0
Rwanda 1 0 1 0
Singapore 1 0 1 0
Serbia 1 0 1 0
Slovakia 1 1 0 0
Slovenia 1 0 0 1
TOTAL 249
Appendix D. Percentage rate of Publication based on the three modelling methods
Modelling Category Number of Publication Percentage rate of Publication
1 Physically-based 109 43.8

2 Physical 25 10.0
3 Empirical 115 46.2
Total 249
Appendix E. Percentage rate of Publication based on the empirical modelling methods
Empirical Modelling Method
Modelling Sub-category Number of Publication Percentage
MCDM 63 54.8
Statistical 21 18.3
ML/AI 31 27.0
Total 115
Appendix F. Percentage rate of Publication based on the physically-based modelling methods
Physically-based Modelling Method
Modelling Sub-category Number of Publication Percentage
1D 10 9.2
2D 14 12.8
Coupled 1-2D 18 16.5
3D 8 7.3
Coupled 2 & 3D, 1–2-3D 4 3.7
Hydrological Models 36 33.0
Uncertainty 7 6.4
Review and others 12 11.0
Total 109
Appendix G. Ranking of the reviewed papers by country of publication based on the three empirical modelling methods
Year MCDM Statistical ML/AI
2020 4
2019 20 8 9
2018 7 3 7
2017 4 1 2
2016 4 5 1
2015 6 0 1
2014 4 3 1
2013 3 0 1
2012 0 0 2
2011 4 0 0
2010 1 0 0
2009 1 1 1
2008 2 0 0
2007 1 0 0
24
(continued )
Year MCDM Statistical ML/AI
2006 1 0 1
2005 2 0 0
2004 0 0 0
2003 1 0 0
2002 0 0 0
2001 0 0 0
2000 2 0 0
63 21 30
References Arianpour, M., Jamali, A.A., 2015. Flood hazard zonation using spatial multi-criteria
evaluation (SMCE) in GIS (Case study: Omidieh-Khuzestan). Eur. Online J. Nat. Soc.
Sci. (ISI Thomsonreuters) 4, 39–49.
Abdi, I., Meddi, M., 2021. Comparison of conceptual rainfall–runoff models in semi-arid
Arseni, M., Rosu, A., Calmuc, M., Calmuc, V.A., Iticescu, C., Georgescu, L.P., 2020.
watersheds of eastern Algeria. J. Flood Risk Manag. 14, 1–17. https://doi.org/
Development of flood risk and hazard maps for the lower course of the Siret River.
10.1111/jfr3.12672.
Romania. Sustain. 12 (16), 6588. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12166588.
Abdurrasheed, A.S., Yusof, K.W., Hussein Alqadami, E.H., Takaijudin, H., Ghani, A.A.,
Aryal, D., Wang, L., Adhikari, T.R., Zhou, J., Li, X., Shrestha, M., Wang, Y., Chen, D.,
Muhammad, M.M., Sholagberu, A.T., Zainalfikry, M.K., Osman, M., Patel, M.S.,
2020. A model-based flood hazard mapping on the southern slope of Himalaya.
2019. Modelling of flow parameters through subsurface drainage modules for
Water (Switzerland) 12 (2), 540. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12020540.
application in BIOECODS. Water (Switzerland) 11, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3390/
Aziz, K., Rahman, A., Fang, G., Shrestha, S., 2014. Application of artificial neural
w11091823.
networks in regional flood frequency analysis: A case study for Australia. Stoch.
Adeogun, A.G., Daramola, M.O., Pathirana, A., 2015. Coupled 1D-2D hydrodynamic
Environ. Res. Risk Assess. 28 (3), 541–554. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-013-
inundation model for sewer overflow: Influence of modeling parameters. Water Sci.
0771-5.
29, 146–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsj.2015.12.001.
Azizat, N., Wan Omar, W.M.S., Mohamed Noor, N., Azhari, A.W., 2018. Assessment of
Agterberg, F.P., 1992. Combining indicator patterns in weights of evidence modeling for
Three Flood Hazard Mapping Methods: A Case Study of Perlis. E3S Web Conf. 34,
resource evaluation. Nonrenewable Resour. 1 (1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/
02028. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/20183402028.
BF01782111.
Di Baldassarre, G., Castellarin, A., Montanari, A., Brath, A., 2009. Probability-weighted
Ahmad, S.S., Simonovic, S.P., 2015. System dynamics and hydrodynamic modelling
hazard maps for comparing different flood risk management strategies: a case study.
approaches for spatial and temporal analysis of flood risk 5124. https://doi.org/
Nat. Hazards 50 (3), 479–496. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-009-9355-6.
10.1080/15715124.2015.1016954.
Di Baldassarre, G., Schumann, G., Bates, P.D., Freer, J.E., Beven, K.J., 2010. Flood-plain
Ahmed, C.F., Kranthi, N., 2018. Flood Vulnerability Assessment using Geospatial
mapping: a critical discussion of deterministic and probabilistic approaches. Hydrol.
Techniques: Chennai, India. Indian J. Sci. Technol. 11, 1–13. https://doi.org/
Sci. J. 55 (3), 364–376. https://doi.org/10.1080/02626661003683389.
10.17485/ijst/2018/v11i6/110831.
Bales, J.D., Wagner, C.R., 2009. Sources of uncertainty in flood inundation maps.
Al-Abadi, A.M., 2018. Mapping flood susceptibility in an arid region of southern Iraq
J. Flood Risk Manag. 2, 139–147. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1753-
using ensemble machine learning classifiers: a comparative study. Arab. J. Geosci. 11
318X.2009.01029.x.
(9) https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-018-3584-5.
Banihabib, M.E., Revelli, R., 2016. Performance of conceptual and black-box models in
Ali, K., Bajracharya, R.M., Koirala, H.L., 2016. A Review of Flood Risk Assessment. Int. J.
flood warning systems. Cogent Eng. 3 (1), 1127798. https://doi.org/10.1080/
Environ. Agric. Biotechnol. 1, 1065–1077. https://doi.org/10.22161/ijeab/1.4.62.
23311916.2015.1127798.
Al-Juaidi, A.E.M., Nassar, A.M., Al-Juaidi, O.E.M., 2018. Evaluation of flood
Begam, S., Sen, D., Dey, S., 2018. Moraine dam breach and glacial lake outburst flood
susceptibility mapping using logistic regression and GIS conditioning factors. Arab.
generation by physical and numerical models. J. Hydrol. 563, 694–710. https://doi.
J. Geosci. 11 (24) https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-018-4095-0.
org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.06.038.
Al-Zubaidi, H.A.M., Wells, S.A., 2018. Comparison of a 2D and 3D Hydrodynamic and
Bellos, V., 2012. Ways for flood hazard mapping in urbanised environments : A short
Water Quality Model for Lake Systems. World Environ. Water Resour. Congr. 2018
literature review. Water Util. J. 25–31.
Watershed Manag. Irrig. Drainage, Water Resour. Plan. Manag. - Sel. Pap. from
Berbić, J., Kuspilić, N., Ocvirk, E., 2015. Uncertainties in flood event estimation, in.
World Environ. Water Resour. Congr. 2018, 74–84. https://doi.org/10.1061/
Beven, K., Binley, A., 1992. The future of distributed models: Model calibration and
9780784481400.007.
uncertainty prediction. Hydrol. Process. 6 (3), 279–298. https://doi.org/10.1002/
Hadimlioglu, I.A., King, S.A., Starek, M.J., 2020. FloodSim: Flood simulation and
hyp.3360060305.
visualization framework using position-based fluids. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Information 9
Beven, K., Kirkby, M., Freer, E., Lamb, J., 2021. A history of TOPMODEL. Hydrol. Earth
(3), 163. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi9030163.
Syst. Sci. 25, 527–549. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-527-2021.
Althuwaynee, O.F., Pradhan, B., Lee, S., 2012. Application of an evidential belief
Blazkova, S., Beven, K., 2009. Uncertainty in flood estimation. Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 5
function model in landslide susceptibility mapping. Comput. Geosci. 44, 120–135.
(4), 325–332. https://doi.org/10.1080/15732470701189514.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2012.03.003.
Borah, D.K., 2011. Hydrologic procedures of storm event watershed models: A
Amason, H., 2005. Interactions between an Incident Bore and a Free-Standing Coastal
comprehensive review and comparison. Hydrol. Process. 25, 3472–3489. https://do
Structure. A Diss. Submitt. Partial fulfillment Requir. degree Dr. Philos. University of
i.org/10.1002/hyp.8075.
Washington. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0165115300023299.
Bradbrook, K., 2006. JFLOW: A multiscale two-dimensional dynamic flood model. Water
Amiri, M., Pourghasemi, H.R., Arabameri, A., Vazirzadeh, A., Yousefi, H., Kafaei, S.,
Environ. J. 20, 79–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-6593.2005.00011.x.
2019. Prioritization of Flood Inundation of Maharloo Watershed in Iran Using
Brocca, L., Liersch, S., Melone, F., Moramarco, T., Volk, M., 2013. Application of a
Morphometric Parameters Analysis and TOPSIS MCDM Model, Spatial Modeling in
model-based rainfall-runoff database as efficient tool for flood risk management.
GIS and R for Earth and Environmental Sciences. Elsevier Inc. https://doi.org/
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 17, 3159–3169. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-3159-
10.1016/b978-0-12-815226-3.00016-8.
2013.
Anees, M.T., Abdullah, K., Nawawi, M.N.M., Ab Rahman, N.N.N., Piah, A.R.M.,
Bui, D.T., Hoang, N.D., Pham, T.D., Ngo, P.T.T., Hoa, P.V., Minh, N.Q., Tran, X.T.,
Zakaria, N.A., Syakir, M.I., Mohd. Omar, A.K., 2016. Numerical modeling techniques
Samui, P., 2019a. A new intelligence approach based on GIS-based Multivariate
for flood analysis. J. African Earth Sci. 124, 478–486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Adaptive Regression Splines and metaheuristic optimization for predicting flash
jafrearsci.2016.10.001.
flood susceptible areas at high-frequency tropical typhoon area. J. Hydrol. 575,
Anees, M.T., Abdullah, K., Nordin, M.N.M., Rahman, N.N.N.A., Syakir, M.I., Kadir, M.O.
314–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.05.046.
A., 2017. One- and Two-Dimensional Hydrological Modelling and Their
Bui, D.T., Khosravi, K., Shahabi, H., Daggupati, P., Adamowski, J.F., M.Melesse, A.,
Uncertainties, in: Intech. p. 38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfa.2011.12.014.
Pham, B.T., Pourghasemi, H.R., Mahmoudi, M., Bahrami, S., Pradhan, B.,
Anuar, B.M.A., 2018. Flood Inundation Modeling and Hazard Mapping under
Shirzadi, A., Chapi, K., Lee, S., 2019b. Flood spatial modeling in Northern Iran using
Uncertainty in the Sungai Johor Basin. Delft University of Technology, Malaysia.
remote sensing and GIS: A comparison between evidential belief functions and its
Apel, H., Thieken, A.H., Merz, B., Bl, G., Apel, H., Thieken, A.H., Merz, B., Bl, G., 2004.
ensemble with a multivariate logistic regression model. Remote Sens. 11. https
Flood risk assessment and associated uncertainty. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 4,
://doi.org/10.3390/rs11131589.
295–308.
Bui, D.T., Ngo, P.T.T., Pham, T.D., Jaafari, A., Minh, N.Q., Hoa, P.V., Samui, P., 2019c.
Arabameri, A., Rezaei, K., Cerdà, A., Conoscenti, C., Kalantari, Z., 2019. A comparison of
A novel hybrid approach based on a swarm intelligence optimized extreme learning
statistical methods and multi-criteria decision making to map flood hazard
machine for flash flood susceptibility mapping. Catena 179, 184–196. https://doi.
susceptibility in Northern Iran. Sci. Total Environ. 660, 443–458. https://doi.org/
org/10.1016/j.catena.2019.04.009.
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.01.021.
Bui, Q.-T., Nguyen, Q.-H., Nguyen, X.L., Pham, V.D., Nguyen, H.D., Pham, V.-M., 2020.
Arduino, G., Reggiani, P., Todini, E., 2005. Recent advances in flood forecasting and
Verification of novel integrations of swarm intelligence algorithms into deep
flood risk assessment. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 9, 280–284. https://doi.org/10.5194/
learning neural network for flood susceptibility mapping. J. Hydrol. 581, 124379.
hess-9-280-2005.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.124379.
25
Bui, D.T., Tsangaratos, P., Ngo, P.T.T., Pham, T.D., Pham, B.T., 2019d. Flash flood Douass, S., Kbir, M.A., 2019. 3D Modeling of Flood Areas, in: The Proceedings of the
susceptibility modeling using an optimized fuzzy rule based feature selection Third International Conference on Smart City Applications. pp. 465–471. https://
technique and tree based ensemble methods. Sci. Total Environ. 668, 1038–1054. doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11196-0_39.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.422. Duethmann, D., Blöschl, G., Parajka, J., 2020. Why does a conceptual hydrological model
Bulti, D.T., Abebe, B.G., 2020. A review of flood modeling methods for urban pluvial fail to correctly predict discharge changes in response to climate change? Hydrol.
flood application. Model. Earth Syst. Environ. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-02 Earth Syst. Sci. 24 (7), 3493–3511. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-3493-2020.
0-00803-z. Dutta, D., Herath, S., 2004. Trend of floods in Asia and flood risk management with
Cao, C., Xu, P., Wang, Y., Chen, J., Zheng, L., Niu, C., 2016. Flash flood hazard integrated river basin approach. … 2nd Int. Conf. Asia- … 1–8.
susceptibility mapping using frequency ratio and statistical index methods in El-Magd, S.A.A., 2019. Flash Flood Hazard Mapping Using GIS and Bivariate Statistical
coalmine subsidence areas. Sustain. 8 (9), 948. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8090948. Method at Wadi Bada’a, Gulf of Suez, Egypt Journal of Geoscience and Environment
Carmo, J.S.A. do, 2020. Physical Modelling vs. Numerical Modelling: Complementarity Protection. J. Geosci. Environ. Prot. 07 (08), 372–385. https://doi.org/10.4236/
and Learning. Prepr. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202007.0753.v1. gep.2019.78025.
Carmo, J.S.A., 2016. Nonlinear and dispersive wave effects in coastal processes. J. Integr. Elkhrachy, I., 2015. Flash Flood Hazard Mapping Using Satellite Images and GIS Tools : A
Coast. Zo. Manag. 16, 343–355. https://doi.org/10.5894/rgci660. case study of Najran City , Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). Egypt. J. Remote Sens.
Chan, H.K., Sun, X., Chung, S.-H., 2019. When should fuzzy analytic hierarchy process be Sp. Sci. 18, 261–278. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrs.2015.06.007.
used instead of analytic hierarchy process? Decis. Support Syst. 125, 113114. Van Emelen, S., Soares-Frazão, S., Riahi-Nezhad, C.K., Hanif Chaudhry, M., Imran, J.,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2019.113114. Zech, Y., 2012. Simulations of the New Orleans 17th Street Canal breach flood.
Chandio, I.A., Matori, A.N.B., WanYusof, K.B., Talpur, M.A.H., Balogun, A.-L., Lawal, D. J. Hydraul. Res. 50 (1), 70–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221686.2011.642578.
U., 2013. GIS-based analytic hierarchy process as a multicriteria decision analysis Erena, H.S., Worku, H., 2018. Flood risk analysis: causes and landscape based mitigation
instrument: A review. Arab. J. Geosci. 6 (8), 3059–3066. https://doi.org/10.1007/ strategies in Dire Dawa city, Ethiopia. Geoenviron. Disasters 5 (16), 1–19. htt
s12517-012-0568-8. ps://doi.org/10.1186/s40677-018-0110-8.
Chapi, K., Singh, V.P., Shirzadi, A., Shahabi, H., Bui, D.T., Pham, B.T., Khosravi, K., 2017. Fan, Y., Ao, T., Yu, H., Huang, G., Li, X., 2017. A coupled 1D–2D hydrodynamic model
A novel hybrid artificial intelligence approach for flood susceptibility assessment. for urban flood inundation. Adv. Meteorol. 2017, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1155/
Environ. Model. Softw. 95, 229–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. 2017/2819308.
envsoft.2017.06.012. Fatapour, E., Afroos, A., Nejad, B.A., Saremi, A., Khosrowjerdi, A., 2020. Evaluation of
Chen, C.-T., Lin, C.-T., Huang, S.-F., 2006. A fuzzy approach for supplier evaluation and the Two-Dimensional Hydraulic Model LISFLOOD-FP in Floodplain Predictions of
selection in supply chain management. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 102 (2), 289–301. https:// Various Return Periods 11, 84–93.
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2005.03.009. Feloni, E., Mousadis, I., Baltas, E., 2019. Flood vulnerability assessment using a GIS-
Chen, Y., Barrett, D., Liu, R., Gao, L., Zhou, M., Renzullo, L., Cuddy, S., Emelyanova, I., based multi-criteria approach—The case of Attica region. J. Flood Risk Manag. 13
2014. A spatial framework for regional-scale flooding risk assessment. Proc. - 7th Int. (S1) https://doi.org/10.1111/jfr3.v13.S110.1111/jfr3.12563.
Congr. Environ. Model. Softw. Bold Visions Environ. Model. iEMSs 2014 3, Fernández-pato, J., 2018. Development of a New Simulation Tool Coupling a 2D Finite
1777–1783. Volume Overland Flow Model and a Drainage Network Model 1–19. https://doi.org/
Chen, Y., Li, J., Xu, H., 2016. Improving flood forecasting capability of physically based 10.3390/geosciences8080288.
distributed hydrological models by parameter optimization. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Fernández, D.S., Lutz, M.A., 2010. Urban flood hazard zoning in Tucumán Province,
20, 375–392. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-375-2016. Argentina, using GIS and multicriteria decision analysis. Eng. Geol. 111 (1-4),
Cho, Y., Engel, B.A., Merwade, V.M., 2018. A spatially distributed Clark’s unit 90–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2009.12.006.
hydrograph based hybrid hydrologic model (Distributed-Clark). Hydrol. Sci. J. 63 Ferrari, A., Dazzi, S., Vacondio, R., Mignosa, P., 2019. A methodology based on
(10), 1519–1539. https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2018.1516042. numerical models for enhancing the resilience to flooding induced by levee breaches
Choi, C.C., 2013. Coupled Hydrologic And Hydraulic Models And Applications. Ms. in lowland areas. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 132 https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-
Clark, C.O., 1945. Storage and the Unit Hydrograph. Trans. Am. Soc. Civ. Eng. https:// 2019-132.
doi.org/10.1061/taceat.0005800. Franci, F., Bitelli, G., Mandanici, E., Hadjimitsis, D., Agapiou, A., 2016. Satellite remote
Clark, M.P., Bierkens, M.F.P., Samaniego, L., Woods, R.A., Uijlenhoet, R., Bennett, K.E., sensing and GIS-based multi-criteria analysis for flood hazard mapping. Nat. Hazards
Pauwels, V.R.N., Cai, X., Wood, A.W., Peters-Lidard, C.D., 2017. The evolution of 83 (S1), 31–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-016-2504-9.
process-based hydrologic models: Historical challenges and the collective quest for Gerritsen, H., Sutherland, J., Deigaard, R., Sumer, M., Fortes, C.J.E.M., Sierra, J.P.,
physical realism. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 21, 3427–3440. https://doi.org/10.519 Schmidtke, U., 2011. Composite modelling, in: Users Guide to Physical Modelling
4/hess-21-3427-2017. and Experimentation.
Costache, R., 2019a. Flood Susceptibility Assessment by Using Bivariate Statistics and Getahun, S.Y., Gebre, S.L., 2015. Flood Hazard Assessment and Mapping of Flood
Machine Learning Models - A Useful Tool for Flood Risk Management. Water Resour. Inundation Area of the Awash River Basin in Ethiopia using GIS and HEC-GeoRAS/
Manag. 33 (9), 3239–3256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-019-02301-z. HEC-RAS Model. J. Civ. Environ. Eng. 05 https://doi.org/10.4172/2165-
Costache, R., 2019b. Flash-flood Potential Index mapping using weights of evidence, 784x.1000179.
decision Trees models and their novel hybrid integration. Stoch. Environ. Res. Risk Gharbi, M., Soualmia, A., Dartus, D., Masbernat, L., 2016. Comparison of 1D and 2D
Assess. 33 (7), 1375–1402. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-019-01689-9. Hydraulic Models for Floods Simulation on the Medjerda Riverin Tunisia. J. Mater.
Costache, R., Bui, D.T., 2019. Spatial prediction of flood potential using new ensembles Environ. Sci 7, 3017–3026.
of bivariate statistics and artificial intelligence: A case study at the Putna river Gigović, L., Pamučar, D., Bajić, Z., Drobnjak, S., 2017. Application of GIS-interval rough
catchment of Romania. Sci. Total Environ. 691, 1098–1118. https://doi.org/ AHP methodology for flood hazard mapping in Urban areas. Water (Switzerland) 9,
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.07.197. 1–26. https://doi.org/10.3390/w9060360.
Cozannet, G.L., Garcin, M., Bulteau, T., Mirgon, C., Yates, M.L., Méndez, M., Baills, A., Gilles, D.W., 2010. Application of numerical models for improvement of flood
Idier, D., Oliveros, C., 2013. An AHP-derived method for mapping the physical preparedness. MS (Master of Science) thesis, University of Iowa, 2010. https://doi.
vulnerability of coastal areas at regional scales. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 13, org/10.17077/etd.x52rw6gi.
1209–1227. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-13-1209-2013. Giustarini, L., Chini, M., Hostache, R., Pappenberger, F., Matgen, P., 2015. Flood hazard
Cunha, L.K., Krajewski, W.F., Mantilla, R., Cunha, L., 2011. A framework for flood risk mapping combining hydrodynamic modeling and multi annual remote sensing data.
assessment under nonstationary conditions or in the absence of historical data. Remote Sens. 7, 14200–14226. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs71014200.
J. Flood Risk Manag. 4, 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1753-318X.2010.01085.x. Goswami, P., Schlegel, P., Solenthaler, B., Pajarola, R., 2010. Interactive SPH simulation
Dano, U., Balogun, A.-L., Matori, A.-N., Wan Yusouf, K., Abubakar, I., Said Mohamed, M., and rendering on the GPU. Comput. Animat. 2010 - ACM SIGGRAPH / Eurographics
Aina, Y., Pradhan, B., 2019. Flood susceptibility mapping using GIS-based analytic Symp. Proceedings, SCA 2010, 55–64.
network process: A case study of Perlis. Malaysia. Water (Switzerland) 11 (3), 615. Gujarati, D.N., 2003. Basic econometrics. McGraw Hill.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w11030615. Güney, M.S., Tayfur, G., Bombar, G., Elci, S., 2014. Distorted physical model to study
Devi, G.K., Ganasri, B.P., Dwarakish, G.S., 2015. A Review on Hydrological Models. sudden partial dam break flows in an urban area. J. Hydraul. Eng. 140, 1–11.
Aquat. Procedia 4, 1001–1007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aqpro.2015.02.126. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0000926.
Dhondia, J.F., Stelling, G.S., 2004. Sobek One Dimensional – Two Dimensional Haddad, K., Rahman, A., 2012. Regional flood frequency analysis in eastern Australia:
Integrated Hydraulic Model for Flood Simulation – Its Capabilities and Features Bayesian GLS regression-based methods within fixed region and ROI framework -
Explained, in: 6th International Conference on Hydroinformatics - Liong, Phoon & Quantile Regression vs. Parameter Regression Technique. J. Hydrol. 430–431,
Babovic (Eds). pp. 1867–1874. https://doi.org/10.1142/9789812702838_0230. 142–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.02.012.
Díez-Herrero, A., Huerta, L.L., Isidro, M.L., 2009. A handbook on flood hazard mapping Hall, J.W., 2014. Flood risk management: Decision making under uncertainty. Appl.
methodologies. Uncertain. Anal. Flood Risk Manag. 3–24 https://doi.org/10.1142/9781848162716_
Dikshit, A., Pradhan, B., Alamri, A.M., 2020. Pathways and challenges of the application 0001.
of artificial intelligence to geohazards modelling. Gondwana Res. https://doi.org/10 Hamzah, H.B., 2005. RoadmapToward Effective Flood Hazard Mapping in Malaysia.
.1016/j.gr.2020.08.007. Harun, S., Ph, D., Irwan, N., Nor, A., Eng, M., 2001. Rainfall-Runoff Modeling Using
Dodangeh, E., Choubin, B., Eigdir, A.N., Nabipour, N., Panahi, M., Shamshirband, S., Artificial Neural Network. J. Kejuruter. Awam 13, 37–50. https://doi.org/10.11113/
Mosavi, A., 2020. Integrated machine learning methods with resampling algorithms mjce.v13.90.
for fl ood susceptibility prediction. Sci. Total Environ. 705, 135983. https://doi.org/ Han, S., Coulibaly, P., 2017. Bayesian flood forecasting methods: A review. J. Hydrol.
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135983. 551, 340–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.06.004.
Domeneghetti, A., Vorogushyn, S., Castellarin, A., Merz, B., Brath, A., 2013. Probabilistic Hategekimana, Y., Yu, L., Nie, Y., Zhu, J., Liu, F., Guo, F., 2018. Integration of multi-
flood hazard mapping: Effects of uncertain boundary conditions. Hydrol. Earth Syst. parametric fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and GIS along the UNESCO World
Sci. 17, 3127–3140. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-3127-2013. Heritage: a flood hazard index, Mombasa County, Kenya. Nat. Hazards 92,
1137–1153. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-018-3244-9.
26
Herman, L., Russnák, J., Řezník, T., 2017. Flood modelling and visualizations of floods Kuldeep, Garg, P.K., 2011. The Role of Satellite Derived Data for flood inundation
through 3D open data. IFIP Adv. Inf. Commun. Technol. 507, 139–149. https://doi. Mapping using GIS, in: S. Zlatanova, G. Sithole, M. Nakagawa, and Q.Z. (Ed.), The
org/10.1007/978-3-319-89935-0_12. International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial
Hiraishi, T., Yasuda, T., 2006. Numerical Simulation of Tsunami Inundation in Urban Information Sciences,. Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences. https://
Areas. J. Disaster Res. 1 (1), 148–156. doi.org/10.5194/isprsarchives-XL-3-W3-235-2015.
Hong, H., Tsangaratos, P., Ilia, I., Liu, J., Zhu, A.X., Chen, W., 2018. Application of fuzzy Kumar, R., 2016. Flood hazard assessment of 2014 floods in Sonawari sub-district of
weight of evidence and data mining techniques in construction of flood susceptibility Bandipore district (Jammu & Kashmir): An application of geoinformatics, Remote
map of Poyang County. China. Sci. Total Environ. 625, 575–588. https://doi.org/ Sensing Applications: Society and Environment. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.12.256. rsase.2016.10.002.
Hosseini, F.S., Choubin, B., Mosavi, A., Nabipour, N., Shamshirband, S., Darabi, H., Kvočka, D., Falconer, R.A., Bray, M., 2016. Flood hazard assessment for extreme flood
Haghighi, A.T., 2019. Flash-flood hazard assessment using Ensembles and Bayesian- events 84, 1569–1599. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-016-2501-z.
based machine learning models: application of the simulated annealing feature Kvočka, D., Ahmadian, R., Falconer, R.A., 2017. Flood inundation modelling of flash
selection method. Sci. Total Environ. 135161. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/ floods in steep river basins and catchments. Water, Switzerland, p. 9. https://doi.
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135161. org/10.3390/w9090705.
Hosseiny, H., Nazari, F., Smith, V., Nataraj, C., 2020. A framework for Modeling flood Kwon, M., Kwon, H.-H., Han, D., 2020. A hybrid approach combining conceptual
Depth Using a Hybrid of Hydraulics and Machine Learning. Sci. Rep. 10 (1) https:// hydrological models, support vector machines and remote sensing data for rainfall-
doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-65232-5. runoff modeling. Remote Sens. 12 (11), 1801. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12111801.
Huang, G.-B., Zhu, Q.-Y., Siew, C.-K., 2006. Extreme learning machine: Theory and Lappas, I., Kallioras, A., 2019. Flood Susceptibility Assessment through GIS-Based Multi-
applications. Neurocomputing 70 (1-3), 489–501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Criteria Approach and Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) in a River Basin in Central
neucom.2005.12.126. Greece. Int. Res. J. Eng. Technol. 6, 738–751.
Ishigaki, T., Nakagawa, H., Baba, Y., 2004. Hydraulic model test and calculation of flood LaRocque, L.A., Imran, J., Chaudhry, M.H., 2013. Experimental and numerical
in urban area with underground space, in: Environmental Hydraulics and investigations of two-dimensional dam-break flows. J. Hydraul. Eng. 139 (6),
Sustainable Water Management, Two Volume Set. CRC Press, pp. 1411–1416. 569–579. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0000705.
https://doi.org/10.1201/b16814-232. Leal, J., Ferreira, R.M.L., Cardoso, A.H., Bousmar, D., Zech, Y., 2002. Dam-break waves
Jaiswal, R.K., Ali, S., Bharti, B., 2020. Comparative evaluation of conceptual and on movable bed. River Flow 981–990.
physical rainfall–runoff models. Appl. Water Sci. 10, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/ Lee, G., Jun, K.S., Chung, E.S., 2014. Robust spatial flood vulnerability assessment for
s13201-019-1122-6. Han River using fuzzy TOPSIS with cut level set. Expert Syst. Appl. 41, 644–654.
Janizadeh, S., Avand, M., Jaafari, A., Van Phong, T., Bayat, M., Ahmadisharaf, E., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2013.07.089.
Prakash, I., Pham, B.T., Lee, S., 2019. Prediction success of machine learning Levy, J.K., 2005. Multiple criteria decision making and decision support systems for
methods for flash flood susceptibility mapping in the Tafresh watershed. Iran. flood risk management. Stoch. Environ. Res. Risk Assess. 19 (6), 438–447. https://
Sustain. 11, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11195426. doi.org/10.1007/s00477-005-0009-2.
Ji, J., Choi, C., Yu, M., Yi, J., 2012. Comparison of a data-driven model and a physical Li, B., Phillip, M., Fleming, C.A., 2006. Application of 3D hydrodynamic model to flood
model for flood forecasting. WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ. 159, 133–141. https://doi. risk assessment, in: Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers Water
org/10.2495/FRIAR120111. Management 159 March 2006 Issue WM1. pp. 63–75.
Kalantari, Z., Nickman, A., Lyon, S.W., Olofsson, B., Folkeson, L., 2014. A method for Li, Q., Zhou, J., Cai, J., Zhou, J., 2018. The environmental study on flash flood risk
mapping flood hazard along roads. J. Environ. Manage. 133, 69–77. https://doi.org/ zonation based on trapezoidal fuzzy number and grey clustering. Ekoloji 27,
10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.11.032. 2015–2025.
Kan, G., He, X., Ding, L., Li, J., Liang, K., Hong, Y., 2017. Study on applicability of Lim, N.J., 2018. Modelling , mapping and visualisation of flood inundation uncertainties.
conceptual hydrological models for flood forecasting in humid, semi-humid semi- Lin, B., Wicks, J.M., Falconer, R.A., Adams, K., 2006. Integrating 1D and 2D
arid and arid basins in China. Water (Switzerland) 9, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.3390/ hydrodynamic models for flood simulation, in: Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
w9100719. Engineers. Water Management, pp. 19–25.
Kanani-Sadat, Y., Arabsheibani, R., Karimipour, F., Nasseri, M., 2019. A new approach to Lin, L., Wu, Z., Liang, Q., 2019. Urban flood susceptibility analysis using a GIS-based
flood susceptibility assessment in data-scarce and ungauged regions based on GIS- multi-criteria analysis framework. Nat. Hazards 97 (2), 455–475. https://doi.org/
based hybrid multi criteria decision-making method. J. Hydrol. 572, 17–31. https:// 10.1007/s11069-019-03615-2.
doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.02.034. Liu, J., Xu, Z., Chen, F., Chen, F., Zhang, L., 2019. Flood hazard mapping and assessment
Kazakis, N., Kougias, I., Patsialis, T., 2015. Assessment of flood hazard areas at a regional on the Angkor World Heritage Site. Cambodia. Remote Sens. 11, 1–19. https://doi.
scale using an index-based approach and Analytical Hierarchy Process: Application org/10.3390/rs11010098.
in Rhodope-Evros region. Greece. Sci. Total Environ. 538, 555–563. https://doi.org/ Liu, Z., Wang, Y., Xu, Z., Duan, Q., 2017. Conceptual Hydrological Models. Handb.
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.08.055. Hydrometeorol. Ensemble Forecast. 1–23 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-
Khaleghi, S., Mahmoodi, M., 2017. Assessment of flood hazard zonation in a 40457-3_22-1.
mountainous area based on gis and analytical hierarchy process. Carpathian J. Earth Luque-Chang, A., Cuevas, E., Fausto, F., Zald-Var, D., Pérez, M., 2018. Review Article
Environ. Sci. 12, 311–322. Social Spider Optimization Algorithm: Modifications, Applications, and Perspectives.
Khosravi, K., Pham, B.T., Chapi, K., Shirzadi, A., Shahabi, H., Revhaug, I., Prakash, I., Math. Probl. Eng. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/6843923.
Bui, D.T., 2018. A comparative assessment of decision trees algorithms for flash Mackey, B.P., Krishnamurti, T.N., 2001. Ensemble forecast of a typhoon flood event.
flood susceptibility modeling at Haraz watershed, northern Iran. Sci. Total Environ. Weather Forecast. 16, 399–415. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0434(2001)
627, 744–755. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.01.266. 016<0399:EFOATF>2.0.CO;2.
Khosravi, K., Pourghasemi, H.R., Chapi, K., Bahri, M., 2016. Flash flood susceptibility Madruga, D.B.M., 2018. A participatory multi-criteria approach for flood vulnerability
analysis and its mapping using different bivariate models in Iran: a comparison assessment. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-16-1019-2016.
between Shannon’s entropy, statistical index, and weighting factor models. Environ. Madruga, D.B.M., Evers, M., 2016. Multi-criteria decision-making for flood risk
Monit. Assess. 188 (12) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-016-5665-9. management: A survey of the current state of the art. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.
Khosravi, K., Shahabi, H., Pham, B.T., Adamowski, J., Shirzadi, A., Pradhan, B., Dou, J., 16, 1019–1033. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-16-1019-2016.
Ly, H.B., Gróf, G., Ho, H.L., Hong, H., Chapi, K., Prakash, I., 2019. A comparative Mahmoody Vanolya, N., Jelokhani-Niaraki, M., 2021. The use of subjective–objective
assessment of flood susceptibility modeling using Multi-Criteria Decision-Making weights in GIS-based multi-criteria decision analysis for flood hazard assessment: a
Analysis and Machine Learning Methods. J. Hydrol. 573, 311–323. https://doi.org/ case study in Mazandaran. Iran. Geo J. 86 (1), 379–398. https://doi.org/10.1007/
10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.03.073. s10708-019-10075-5.
Kia, M.B., Pirasteh, S., Pradhan, B., Mahmud, A.R., Sulaiman, W.N.A., Moradi, A., 2012. Mahmoud, S.H., Gan, T.Y., 2018. Multi-criteria approach to develop flood susceptibility
An artificial neural network model for flood simulation using GIS: Johor River Basin. maps in arid regions of Middle East. J. Clean. Prod. 196, 216–229. https://doi.org/
Malaysia. Environ. Earth Sci. 67 (1), 251–264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665- 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.047.
011-1504-z. Mai, D., De Smedt, F., 2017. A combined hydrological and hydraulic model for flood
Kim, T.H., Kim, B., Han, K.Y., 2019. Application of Fuzzy TOPSIS to flood hazard prediction in Vietnam applied to the Huong river basin as a test case study. Water
mapping for levee failure. Water (Switzerland) 11, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.3390/ (Switzerland) 9 (11), 879. https://doi.org/10.3390/w9110879.
w11030592. Malczewski, J., 2000. On the use of weighted linear combination method in GIS:
Van Der Knijff, J.M., Younis, J., De Roo, A.P.J., 2010. LISFLOOD: A GIS-based distributed Common and best practice approaches. Trans. GIS 4, 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1111
model for river basin scale water balance and flood simulation. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci. /1467-9671.00035.
24 (2), 189–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/13658810802549154. Malczewski, J., 2007. GIS-based multicriteria decision analysis: a survey of the literature.
Koivumäki, L., Alho, P., Lotsari, E., Käyhkö, J., Saari, A., Hyyppä, H., 2010. Uncertainties Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci. ISSN 20 (7), 703–726. https://doi.org/10.1080/
in flood risk mapping: A case study on estimating building damages for a river flood 13658810600661508.
in Finland. J. Flood Risk Manag. 3, 166–183. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1753- Malczewski, J., 1999. GIS and Multicriteria Decision Analysis. John Wiley & Sons Inc,
318X.2010.01064.x. Department of Geography, University of Western Ontario.
Kourgialas, N.N., Karatzas, G.P., 2017. A national scale flood hazard mapping Malczewski, J., Rinner, C., 2015. Multicriteria Decision Analysis in Geographic
methodology: The case of Greece – Protection and adaptation policy approaches. Sci. Information Science, Advances in Geographic Information Science. Springer New
Total Environ. 601–602, 441–452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. York Heidelberg Dordrecht London. https://doi.org/http://www.springer.com/
scitotenv.2017.05.197. series/7712.
Kourgialas, N.N., Karatzas, G.P., 2011. Flood management and a GIS modelling method Mao, W., Wang, F.-Y., 2012. Cultural Modeling for Behavior Analysis and Prediction, in:
to assess flood-hazard areas—a case study. Hydrol. Sci. J. 56 (2), 212–225. https:// Advances in Intelligence and Security Informatics. Elsevier, pp. 91–102. https://doi.
doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2011.555836. org/10.1016/b978-0-12-397200-2.00008-7.
27
Masseroni, D., Cislaghi, A., Camici, S., Massari, C., Brocca, L., 2017. A reliable rainfall- Nigusse, A.G., Adhanom, O.G., 2019. Flood Hazard and Flood Risk Vulnerability
runoff model for flood forecasting: Review and application to a semi-urbanized Mapping Using Geo-Spatial and MCDA around Adigrat, Tigray Region. Northern
watershed at high flood risk in Italy. Hydrol. Res. 48, 726–740. https://doi.org/ Ethiopia. Momona Ethiop. J. Sci. 11 (1), 90. https://doi.org/10.4314/mejs.v11i1.6.
10.2166/nh.2016.037. Nkwunonwo, U.C., Whitworth, M., Baily, B., 2020. A review of the current status of flood
Mathur, N., Glesk, I., Buis, A., 2016. Comparison of adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference modelling for urban flood risk management in the developing countries. Sci. African
system (ANFIS) and Gaussian processes for machine learning (GPML) algorithms for 7, e00269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sciaf.2020.e00269.
the prediction of skin temperature in lower limb prostheses. Med. Eng. Phys. https:// Noranis, M.A.T., Maslina, Z., Noraini, C.P., 2019. Fuzzy AHP in a Knowledge-Based
doi.org/10.1016/j.medengphy.2016.07.003. Framework for Early Flood Warning. Appl. Mech. Mater. 892, 143–149. https://doi.
McFadden, D., 1974. Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior. https:// org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/amm.892.143.
doi.org/10.1080/07373937.2014.997882. Ozcift, A., Gulten, A., 2011. Classifier ensemble construction with rotation forest to
McKane, R.B., Brookes, A., Djang, K., Stieglitz, M., Abdelnour, A.G., Pan, F., Halama, J.J., improve medical diagnosis performance of machine learning algorithms. Comput.
B.Pettus, P., Phillips, D.L., 2014. VELMA 2.0 User Manual and Technical Methods Programs Biomed. 104 (3), 443–451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Documentation. Corvallis, Oregon. cmpb.2011.03.018.
Mendez, M., Calvo-Valverde, L., 2016. Development of the HBV-TEC Hydrological Ozmen-Cagatay, H., Kocaman, S., Guzel, H., 2014. Investigation of dam-break flood
Model. Procedia Eng. 154, 1116–1123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. waves in a dry channel with a hump. J. Hydro-Environment Res. 8 (3), 304–315.
proeng.2016.07.521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jher.2014.01.005.
Merwade, V., Olivera, F., Arabi, M., Edleman, S., 2008. Uncertainty in Flood Inundation Papaioannou, G., Vasiliades, L., Loukas, A., 2015. Multi-Criteria Analysis Framework for
Mapping: Current Issues and Future Directions 13, 608–620. https://doi.org/ Potential Flood Prone Areas Mapping. Water Resour. Manag. 29 (2), 399–418.
10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0699(2008)13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-014-0817-6.
Merz, B., Kreibich, H., Apel, H., 2008. Flood risk analysis: Uncertainties and Pappenberger, F., Dutra, E., Wetterhall, F., Cloke, H.L., 2012. Deriving global flood
validationHochwasserrisikoanalysen: Unsicherheiten und Validierung. Osterr. hazard maps of fluvial floods through a physical model cascade. Hydrol. Earth Syst.
Wasser- und Abfallwirtschaft 60 (5-6), 89–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00506-008- Sci. 16, 4143–4156. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-16-4143-2012.
0001-4. Parhizgar, S.M., Shahidi, A., Pourreza-Bilondi, M., Khashei-Siuki, A., 2017. Comparison
Merz, B., Thieken, A.H., 2005. Separating natural and epistemic uncertainty in flood of classic and fuzzy analytic hierarchy processes for mapping the flood hazard of
frequency analysis. J. Hydrol. 309 (1-4), 114–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Birjand plain. Water Harvest. Res. 2, 43–56. https://doi.org/10.22077/
jhydrol.2004.11.015. jwhr.2017.595.
Merz, B., Thieken, A.H., Gocht, M., 2007. Flood risk mapping at the local scale: Concepts Patrikaki, O., Kazakis, N., Kougias, I., Patsialis, T., Theodossiou, N., Voudouris, K., 2018.
and challenges. Adv. Nat. Technol. Hazards Res. 25, 231–251. https://doi.org/ Assessing flood hazard at river basin scale with an index-based approach: The case of
10.1007/978-1-4020-4200-3_13. mouriki, greece. Geosci. 8 (2), 50. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences8020050.
Mignot, E., Rivière, N., Perkins, R., Paquier, A., 2008. Flow Patterns in a Four-Branch Pavan, M., Todeschini, R., 2009. Multicriteria Decision-Making Methods. In:
Junction with Supercritical Flow. J. Hydraul. Eng. 134 (6), 701–713. https://doi. Comprehensive Chemometrics. Elsevier, pp. 585–615. https://doi.org/10.1016/
org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2008)134:6(701). B978-0-444-64165-6.04035-0.
Mikhailov, L., 2003. Deriving priorities from fuzzy pairwise comparison judgements. Peel, M.C., McMahon, T.A., 2020. Historical development of rainfall-runoff modeling.
Fuzzy Sets Syst. 134 (3), 365–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-0114(02)00383- Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Water 7 (5). https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.v7.510.1002/
4. wat2.1471.
Mind’je, R., Li, L., Amanambu, A.C., Nahayo, L., Nsengiyumva, J.B., Gasirabo, A., Phrakonkham, S., Kazama, S., Komori, D., Sopha, S., 2019. Distributed Hydrological
Mindje, M., 2019. Flood susceptibility modeling and hazard perception in Rwanda. Model for Assessing Flood Hazards in Laos. J. Water Resour. Prot. 11 (08), 937–958.
Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 38, 101211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. https://doi.org/10.4236/jwarp.2019.118056.
ijdrr.2019.101211. Popa, M.C., Peptenatu, D., Draghici, C.C., Diaconu, D.C., 2019. Flood hazard mapping
Mirzaei, M., Faghih, M., Ying, T.P., El-Shafie, A., Huang, Y.F., Lee, J., 2016. Application using the flood and Flash-Flood Potential Index in the Buzau River catchment,
of a rainfall-runoff model for regional-scale flood inundation mapping for the Langat Romania. Water (Switzerland) 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11102116.
River Basin. Water Pract. Technol. 11, 373–383. https://doi.org/10.2166/ Postacchini, M., Zitti, G., Giordano, E., Clementi, F., Darvini, G., Lenci, S., 2019. Flood
wpt.2016.044. impact on masonry buildings: The effect of flow characteristics and incidence angle.
Miyashita, T., Mori, N., 2018. Tsunami Inundation Simulations in Urban Topography. J. Fluids Struct. 88, 48–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfluidstructs.2019.04.004.
Coast. Eng. Proc. (36), 62. https://doi.org/10.9753/icce:v36.currents.62. Pradhan, B., 2009. Flood susceptible mapping and risk area delineation using logistic
Moghadas, M., Asadzadeh, A., Vafeidis, A., Fekete, A., Kötter, T., 2019. A multi-criteria regression, GIS and remote sensing. J. Spat. Hydrol. 9, 1–18.
approach for assessing urban flood resilience in Tehran. Iran. Int. J. Disaster Risk Prinos, P., 2008. Review of Flood Hazard Mapping. HR Wallingford, UK.
Reduct. 35, 101069. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101069. Qu, Y., 2004. An integrated hydrologic model for multi-process simulation using semi-
Mohamad, M.F., Kamarul, M., Samion, H., Hamzah, S.B., 2014. Physical Modelling for discrete finite volume approach 143.
Flood Evaluation of Selangor River Under Tidal Influence 98–102. https://doi.org/ Raaijmakers, R., Krywkow, J., van der Veen, A., 2008. Flood risk perceptions and spatial
10.15242/iie.e0214013. multi-criteria analysis: An exploratory research for hazard mitigation. Nat. Hazards
Monte, B., Costa, D., Chaves, M., Magalhães, L., Uvo, C., 2016. Hydrological and 46, 307–322. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-007-9189-z.
hydraulic modelling applied to the mapping of flood-prone areas. Rev. Bras. Recur. Rahman, M., Ningsheng, C., Islam, M.M., Dewan, A., Iqbal, J., Washakh, R.M.A.,
Hídricos 21, 152–167. https://doi.org/10.21168/rbrh.v21n1.p152-167. Shufeng, T., 2019. Flood Susceptibility Assessment in Bangladesh Using Machine
El Morjani, Z.E.A., 2011. Methodology document for the WHO e-atlas of disaster risk. Ibn Learning and Multi-criteria Decision Analysis. Earth Syst. Environ. 3 (3), 585–601.
Zohr Univ. 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41748-019-00123-y.
Mosavi, A., Ozturk, P., Chau, K.-W., 2018. Flood Prediction Using Machine Learning Rahmati, O., Darabi, H., Haghighi, A.T., Stefanidis, S., Kornejady, A., Nalivan, O.A.,
Models: Literature Review. Water (Switzerland) 10, 1–40. Bui, D.T., 2019. Urban flood hazard modeling using self-organizing map neural
Nandi, A., Mandal, A., Wilson, M., Smith, D., 2016. Flood hazard mapping in Jamaica network. Water (Switzerland) 11, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11112370.
using principal component analysis and logistic regression. Environ. Earth Sci. 75, Rahmati, O., Pourghasemi, H.R., Zeinivand, H., 2016a. Flood susceptibility mapping
1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-016-5323-0. using frequency ratio and weights-of-evidence models in the Golastan Province, Iran.
Nasiri, H., Johari Mohd Yusof, M., Ahmad Mohammad Ali, T., 2016. An overview to Geocarto Int. 31, 42–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/10106049.2015.1041559.
flood vulnerability assessment methods. Sustain. Water Resour. Manag. 2, 331–336. Rahmati, O., Zeinivand, H., Besharat, M., 2016b. Flood hazard zoning in Yasooj region,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40899-016-0051-x. Iran, using GIS and multi-criteria decision analysis. Geomatics. Nat. Hazards Risk 7
Néelz, S., Pender, G., 2009. Desktop Review of 2D Hydraulic Modelling Packages. (3), 1000–1017. https://doi.org/10.1080/19475705.2015.1045043.
DEFRA/Environment Agency, UK. Ramírez, J.A., 2000. Prediction and modeling of flood hydrology and hydraulics.
Neto, A., Batista, L., Coutinho, R., 2016. Methodologies for generation of hazard Cambridge University Press., Inland Flood Hazards: Human, Riparian and Aquatic
indicator maps and flood prone areas: municipality of Ipojuca/PE. Rev. Bras. Recur. Communities Eds. Ellen Wohl.
Hídricos 21, 377–390. https://doi.org/10.21168/rbrh.v21n2.p377-390. Ramsbottom, D., Surendran, S., 2006. Flood risks to people – Phase 2 Joint Defra / EA
Ngo, P.-T., Hoang, N.-D., Pradhan, B., Nguyen, Q., Tran, X., Nguyen, Q., Nguyen, V., Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management R & D programme. https://doi.org/
Samui, P., Tien Bui, D., 2018. A novel hybrid swarm optimized multilayer neural 10.13140/RG.2.1.4663.6246.
network for spatial prediction of flash floods in tropical areas using sentinel-1 SAR Rehman, S., Sahana, M., Hong, H., Sajjad, H., AhmedBin, B., 2019. A systematic review
imagery and geospatial data. Sensors (Switzerland) 18 (11), 3704. https://doi.org/ on approaches and methods used for flood vulnerability assessment: framework for
10.3390/s18113704. future research. Nat. Hazards 96, 975–998. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-01
Nguyen, P., Thorstensen, A., Sorooshian, S., Hsu, K., AghaKouchak, A., Sanders, B., 8-03567-z.
Koren, V., Cui, Z., Smith, M., 2015. A high resolution coupled hydrologic-hydraulic Rezaei-Sadr, H., 2020. Flood hydrograph prediction in a semiarid mountain catchment:
model (HiResFlood-UCI) for flash flood modeling. J. Hydrol. 541, 401–420. https:// The role of catchment subdivision. J. Flood Risk Manag. 13, 1–16. https://doi.org/
doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.10.047. 10.1111/jfr3.12568.
Nguyen, T.T., Vu Quynh, N., Van Dai, L., 2018. Improved Firefly Algorithm: A Novel Romali, N.S., Yusop, Z., Ismail, A.Z., 2018. Hydrological Modelling using HEC-HMS for
Method for Optimal Operation of Thermal Generating Units. Complexity 2018, 1–23. Flood Risk Assessment of Segamat Town, Malaysia. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/7267593. 318, 012029. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/318/1/012029.
Nie, Y., Liu, W., Liu, Q., Hu, X., Westoby, M.J., 2020. Reconstructing the Chongbaxia Saaty, T., 2008. Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int. J. Serv. Sci. 1,
Tsho glacial lake outburst flood in the Eastern Himalaya: Evolution, process and 83–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-0483(87)90016-8.
impacts. Geomorphology 370, 107393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Saaty, T., 2000. Fundamentals of decision making and priority theory with the analytic
geomorph.2020.107393. hierarchy process.
Saaty, T., 1996. The Analytic Network Process. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh, PA (1996).
28
Saaty, T.L., 1990. How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. Eur. J. Oper. analysis. Environ. Model. Softw. 90, 201–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Res. 48 (1), 9–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(90)90057-I. envsoft.2017.01.006.
Saaty, T., 1987. The Analytical Hierarchy Process- What and Why it is Used. Math. Termeh, S.V.R., Kornejady, A., Pourghasemi, H.R., Keesstra, S., 2018. Flood
Model. 9, 161–176. susceptibility mapping using novel ensembles of adaptive neuro fuzzy inference
Sahana, M., Patel, P.P., 2019. A comparison of frequency ratio and fuzzy logic models for system and metaheuristic algorithms. Sci. Total Environ. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
flood susceptibility assessment of the lower Kosi River Basin in India. Environ. Earth scitotenv.2017.09.262.
Sci. 78, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-019-8285-1. Thang, N.K., Inoue, K., Toda, K., Kawaike, K., 2004. A model for flood inundation
Saidani, M., Shibani, A., 2014. Use of Physical and Numerical Models in Engineering analysis in urban area: verification and application. Annu. Disas. Prev. Res. Inst
Design Education 61–67. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.4483.8884. Kyoto Univ. 47, 303–316.
Samanta, S., Pal, D.K., Palsamanta, B., 2018. Flood susceptibility analysis through Tian, F., Ma, B., Yuan, X., Wang, X., Yue, Z., 2019. Hazard assessments of riverbank
remote sensing, GIS and frequency ratio model. Appl. Water Sci. 8, 1–14. https://doi. flooding and backward flows in dike-through drainage ditches during moderate
org/10.1007/s13201-018-0710-1. frequent flooding events in the Ningxia Reach of the upper Yellow River (NRYR).
Santos, P.P., Reis, E., Pereira, S., Santos, M., 2019. A flood susceptibility model at the Water (Switzerland) 11 (7), 1477. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11071477.
national scale based on multicriteria analysis. Sci. Total Environ. 667, 325–337. Tingsanchali, T., Karim, F., 2010. Flood-hazard assessment and risk-based zoning of a
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.328. tropical flood plain: case study of the Yom River. Thailand. Hydrol. Sci. J. 55 (2),
Sanyal, J., Lu, X.X., 2005. Remote sensing and GIS-based flood vulnerability assessment 145–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/02626660903545987.
of human settlements: A case study of Gangetic West Bengal. India. Hydrol. Process. Toda, K., Inoue, K., Oyagi, R., Nakai, T., Takemura, N., 2004. Hydraulic Model Test of
19 (18), 3699–3716. https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1099-1085. Inundation Water Intrusion into Complicated Underground Space. Proc. Hydraulic
Sarkis, J., 2003. A strategic decision framework for green supply chain management. Eng. 48, 583–588.
J. Clean. Prod. 11 (4), 397–409. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-6526(02)00062-8. Tomiczek, T., Wargula, A., Lomónaco, P., Goodwin, S., Cox, D., Kennedy, A., Lynett, P.,
Shafapour Tehrany, M., Kumar, L., Neamah Jebur, M., Shabani, F., 2019. Evaluating the 2020. Physical model investigation of mid-scale mangrove effects on flow
application of the statistical index method in flood susceptibility mapping and its hydrodynamics and pressures and loads in the built environment. Coast. Eng. 162,
comparison with frequency ratio and logistic regression methods. Geomatics. Nat. 103791. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coastaleng.2020.103791.
Hazards Risk 10 (1), 79–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/19475705.2018.1506509. Toombes, L., Chanson, H., 2011. Numerical Limitations of Hydraulic Models, in: 34th
Shafapour, T.M., Jones, S., Shabani, F., 2019a. Identifying the essential flood IAHR World Congress - Balance and Uncertainty 33rd Hydrology & Water Resources
conditioning factors for flood prone area mapping using machine learning Symposium 10th Hydraulics Conference. Brisbane, Australia, pp. 2322–2329.
techniques. Catena 175, 174–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2018.12.011. Toosi, A.S., Calbimonte, G.H., Nouri, H., Alaghmand, S., 2019. River basin-scale flood
Shafapour, T.M., Pradhan, B., Jebur, M.N., 2014. Flood susceptibility mapping using a hazard assessment using a modified multi-criteria decision analysis approach: A case
novel ensemble weights-of-evidence and support vector machine models in GIS. study. J. Hydrol. 574, 660–671. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.04.072.
J. Hydrol. 512, 332–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.03.008. Tsakiris, G., 2014. Flood risk assessment: Concepts, modelling, applications. Nat.
Shafapour, T.M., Pradhan, B., Mansor, S., Ahmad, N., 2015. Flood susceptibility Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 14, 1361–1369. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-14-1361-
assessment using GIS-based support vector machine model with different kernel 2014.
types. Catena 125, 91–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2014.10.017. TUFLOW, 2020. Flood, Urban Stormwater, Coastal and Water Quailty computer
Shafapour Tehrany, M., Shabani, F., Neamah Jebur, M., Hong, H., Chen, W., Xie, X., modelling software [WWW Document]. URL https://www.tuflow.com/ (accessed
2017. GIS-based spatial prediction of flood prone areas using standalone frequency 12.15.20).
ratio, logistic regression, weight of evidence and their ensemble techniques. Valipour, M., Banihabib, M.E., Behbahani, S.M.R., 2013. Comparison of the ARMA,
Geomatics. Nat. Hazards Risk 8 (2), 1538–1561. https://doi.org/10.1080/ ARIMA, and the autoregressive artificial neural network models in forecasting the
19475705.2017.1362038. monthly inflow of Dez dam reservoir. J. Hydrol. 476, 433–441. https://doi.org/
Shafizadeh-Moghadam, H., Valavi, R., Shahabi, H., Chapi, K., Shirzadi, A., 2018. Novel 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.11.017.
forecasting approaches using combination of machine learning and statistical models Toombes, L., Chanson, H., 2011. Numerical Limitations of Hydraulic Models, in: 34th
for flood susceptibility mapping. J. Environ. Manage. 217, 1–11. https://doi.org/ IAHR World Congress - Balance and Uncertainty 33rd Hydrology & Water Resources
10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.03.089. Symposium 10th Hydraulics Conference. Brisbane, Australia, pp. 2322–2329.
Shobha, G., Rangaswamy, S., 2018. Machine Learning, in: Handbook of Statistics. Voigt, S., Kleindienst, H., Baumgartner, M.F., 2003. Snowmelt Forecasting as a
Elsevier B.V., pp. 197–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.host.2018.07.004. Contribution to Operational Flood Warning: A System Integrating Remote Sensing
Shrestha, S., Lohpaisankrit, W., 2017. Flood hazard assessment under climate change Data and Meteorological Model Output. In: Zschau, J., Küppers, A. (Eds.), Early
scenarios in the Yang River Basin, Thailand. Int. J. Sustain. Built Environ. https:// Warning Systems for Natural Disaster Reduction. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin,
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsbe.2016.09.006. Heidelberg, pp. 247–252. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-55903-7_31.
Shustikova, I., Domeneghetti, A., Neal, J.C., Bates, P., Castellarin, A., 2019. Comparing Vojinovic, Z., Tutulic, D., 2009. On the use of 1D and coupled 1D–2D modelling
2D capabilities of HEC-RAS and LISFLOOD-FP on complex topography. Hydrol. Sci. approaches for assessment of flood damage in urban areas. Urban Water J. 6 (3),
J. 64, 1769–1782. https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2019.1671982. 183–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/15730620802566877.
Shafapour, T.M., Kumar, L., Shabani, F., 2019b. A novel GIS-based ensemble technique Wang, Y., Hong, H., Chen, W., Li, S., Pamučar, D., Gigović, L., Drobnjak, S., Bui, D.T.,
for flood susceptibility mapping using evidential belief function and support vector Duan, H., 2019a. A hybrid GIS multi-criteria decision-making method for flood
machine: Brisbane, Australia. PeerJ 2019. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.7653. susceptibility mapping at Shangyou. China. Remote Sens. 11 (1), 62. https://doi.
Sitterson, J., Knightes, C., Parmar, R., Wolfe, K., Muche, M., Avant, B., 2017. An org/10.3390/rs11010062.
Overview of Rainfall-Runoff Model Types. U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency. Wang, Y., Hong, H., Chen, W., Li, S., Panahi, M., Khosravi, K., Shirzadi, A., Shahabi, H.,
Siviglia, A., Stocchino, A., Colombini, M., 2009. Case Study: Design of Flood Control Panahi, S., Costache, R., 2019b. Flood susceptibility mapping in Dingnan County
Systems on the Vara River by Numerical and Physical Modeling. J. Hydraul. Eng. (China) using adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system with biogeography based
135 (12), 1063–1072. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0000135. optimization and imperialistic competitive algorithm. J. Environ. Manage. 247,
Skakun, S., Kussul, N., Shelestov, A., Kussul, O., 2014. Flood Hazard and Flood Risk 712–729. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.06.102.
Assessment Using a Time Series of Satellite Images: A Case Study in Namibia. Risk Wang, Y., Li, Z., Tang, Z., Zeng, G., 2011. A GIS-Based Spatial Multi-Criteria Approach
Anal. 34 (8), 1521–1537. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa:2014.34.issue-810.1111/ for Flood Risk Assessment in the Dongting Lake Region, Hunan. Central China. Water
risa:12156. Resour. Manag. 25 (13), 3465–3484. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-011-9866-2.
Smolders, S., Leroy, A., Joao Teles, M., Maximova, T., Vanlede, J., 2016. Culverts Wang, Y., Yang, X., 2020. A coupled hydrologic-hydraulic model (XAJ-HiPIMS) for flood
modelling in TELEMAC-2D and TELEMAC-3D. Proc. 23rd TELEMAC-MASCARET simulation. Water (Switzerland) 12 (5), 1288. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12051288.
User Conf. 2016 11–13. Wangpimool, W., 2012. Introduction ISIS Model. CH2M Hill https://www.floodmo
Soares-Frazão, S., Zech, Y., 2007. Experimental study of dam-break flow against an deller.com/products/isis/isis.
isolated obstacle. J. Hydraul. Res. 45 (sup1), 27–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/ Wei, C., Hong, H., Li, S., Shahabi, H., Wang, Y., Wang, X., Ahmad, B.B., 2019. Flood
00221686.2007.9521830. susceptibility modelling using novel hybrid approach of reduced-error pruning trees
Souissi, D., Zouhri, L., Hammami, S., Msaddek, M.H., Zghibi, A., Dlala, M., 2020. GIS- with bagging and random subspace ensembles. J. Hydrol. 575, 864–873. https://doi.
based MCDM–AHP modeling for flood susceptibility mapping of arid areas, org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.05.089.
southeastern Tunisia. Geocarto Int. 35 (9), 991–1017. https://doi.org/10.1080/ Westoby, M.J., Glasser, N.F., Brasington, J., Hambrey, M.J., Quincey, D.J., Reynolds, J.
10106049.2019.1566405. M., 2014. Modelling outburst floods from moraine-dammed glacial lakes. Earth-
Su, H.-T., Tung, Y.-K., 2014. Multi-criteria decision making under uncertainty for flood Science Rev. 134, 137–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2014.03.009.
mitigation. Stoch. Environ. Res. Risk Assess. 28 (7), 1657–1670. https://doi.org/ Wilson, P., Mantooth, H.A., 2013. Model-Based Optimization Techniques. In: Model-
10.1007/s00477-013-0818-7. Based Engineering for Complex Electronic Systems. Elsevier, pp. 347–367. https://
Sufiyan, I., Magaji, J., 2018. Modeling Flood Hazard Using Swat and 3D Analysis in doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-385085-0.00010-5.
Terengganu Watershed. J. CleanWAS 2, 19–24. https://doi.org/10.26480/ Winchenbach, R., Hochstetter, H., Kolb, A., 2016. Constrained Neighbor Lists for SPH-
jcleanwas.02.2018.19.24. based Fluid Simulations. Ladislav Kavan and Chris Wojtan 49–56. https://doi.org/
Svasek, F., 2020. FINEL/Svasek [WWW Document]. URL https://www.svasek.nl/en/mo 10.2312/sca.20161222.
del-research/finel/ (accessed 12.15.20). Woolhiser, R., SMITH, D., Goodrich, D., 1990. A Kinematic Runoff and Erosion Model:
Taveira-Pinto, F., Rosa-Santos, P., Neves, L. das, Silva, R., 2020. Scaling Issues in Doc. User Man. 130.
Hydraulic Modelling [WWW Document]. URL http://www.coastalwiki.org/wiki/ Worni, R., Huggel, C., Clague, J.J., Schaub, Y., Stoffel, M., 2014. Coupling glacial lake
Scaling_Issues_in_Hydraulic_Modelling (accessed 12.16.20). impact, dam breach, and flood processes: A modeling perspective. Geomorphology
Teng, J., Jakeman, A.J., Vaze, J., Croke, B.F.W., Dutta, D., Kim, S., 2017. Flood 224, 161–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2014.06.031.
inundation modelling: A review of methods, recent advances and uncertainty
29
Wright, D., 2016. Methods in Flood Hazard and Risk Management. International Bank for Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics). pp. 169–178. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-
Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank 1818 H Street NW Washington, 04944-6_14.
DC 20433. Yang, Y., Melville, B.W., Macky, G.H., Shamseldin, A.Y., 2019. Local scour at complex
Wu, Y., Peng, F., Peng, Y., Kong, X., Liang, H., Li, Q., 2019. Dynamic 3D simulation of bridge piers in close proximity under clear-water and live-bed flow regime. Water
flood risk based on the integration of spatio-temporal GIS and hydrodynamic (Switzerland) 11 (8), 1530. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11081530.
models. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Information 8 (11), 520. https://doi.org/10.3390/ Yin, J., Ye, M., Yin, Z., Xu, S., 2014. A review of advances in urban flood risk analysis
ijgi8110520. over China. Stoch. Environ. Res. Risk Assess. 29, 1063–1070. https://doi.org/10.100
Xia, J., Falconer, R.A., Wang, Y., Xiao, X., 2014. New criterion for the stability of a 7/s00477-014-0939-7.
human body in floodwaters. J. Hydraul. Res. 52 (1), 93–104. https://doi.org/ Young, C.C., Liu, W.C., Wu, M.C., 2017. A physically based and machine learning hybrid
10.1080/00221686.2013.875073. approach for accurate rainfall-runoff modeling during extreme typhoon events.
Xiao, Y., Yi, S., Tang, Z., 2017. Integrated flood hazard assessment based on spatial Appl. Soft Comput. J. 53, 205–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2016.12.052.
ordered weighted averaging method considering spatial heterogeneity of risk Youssef, A.M., Pradhan, B., Saleh, Sefry, A., 2016. Flash flood susceptibility assessment
preference. Sci. Total Environ. 599–600, 1034–1046. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. in Jeddah city (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) using bivariate and multivariate statistical
scitotenv.2017.04.218. models. Environ. Earth Sci. 75 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-015-4830-8.
Yang, W., Wen, Z., Li, F., Li, Q., 2018. Study on tsunami force mitigation of the rear Zeinivand, H., De Smedt, F., 2010. Prediction of snowmelt floods with a distributed
house protected by the front house. Ocean Eng. 159, 268–279. https://doi.org/ hydrological model using a physical snow mass and energy balance approach. Nat.
10.1016/j.oceaneng.2018.04.034. Hazards 54 (2), 451–468. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-009-9478-9.
Yang, X.-ling., Ding, J.-hua., Hou, H., 2013. Application of a triangular fuzzy AHP Zhao, G., Pang, B., Xu, Z., Yue, J., Tu, T., 2018. Mapping flood susceptibility in
approach for flood risk evaluation and response measures analysis. Nat. Hazards 68 mountainous areas on a national scale in China. Sci. Total Environ. 615, 1133–1142.
(2), 657–674. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-013-0642-x. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.10.037.
Yang, X.S., 2009. Firefly algorithms for multimodal optimization, in: Lecture Notes in Zoppis, I., Mauri, G., Dondi, R., 2019. Kernel Machines: Introduction. In: Encyclopedia of
Computer Science (Including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Bioinformatics and Computational Biology. Elsevier, pp. 495–502. https://doi.org/
10.1016/B978-0-12-809633-8.20341-5.
30

Flash Flood Mapping

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Flash Flood Mapping

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Hydrology 603 (2021) 126846

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Flood hazard mapping methods: A review

Table 1 subsequent searches.

Fig. 2. Illustration of the search strategy for this review study.

Fig. 6. Distribution of publications covering the three categories of FHM by country.

Classification Authors Subject Area Area of Focus Publication

(ANFIS) (Mathur et al., 2016), etc. Table 3

1. Physically- • Founded on the • Accuracy • Sediment

3.2.1.1. Conceptual, physically-based, and data-driven hydrological mod­

Table 4 Table 4 (continued )

Infoworks RS 1D Implicit Structured mesh 1D SWE Finite Volume Open Source

* Navier-Stokes Equation (NSE), shallow water equation (SWE)

remote sensing data experienced the availability of Landsat Multi- Table 6

(Elkhrachy, 2015; Khaleghi and AHP Pairwise Comparison ✓ Crisp ✓ ✓

This paper presents a comprehensive review of methodologies in Declaration of Competing Interest

Appendix A. Categorization by modelling methods in FHM for all reviewed papers

S/ Category by Modelling Method sub-category Study Area Year Authors

1 Physically-based Conceptual Hydrological Algeria 2021 (Abdi and Meddi, 2021)

33 Physically-based Review USA 2011 (Borah, 2011)

108 Empirical MCDM Iran 2017 (Khaleghi and Mahmoodi, 2017)

181 Physically-based Physically-based hydrological USA 2004 (Qu, 2004)

Year Empirical Physical Physically-based

Country Total Number of Publication Physically-based Empirical Physical

Appendix D. Percentage rate of Publication based on the three modelling methods

Modelling Category Number of Publication Percentage rate of Publication

1 Physically-based 109 43.8

Appendix E. Percentage rate of Publication based on the empirical modelling methods

Empirical Modelling Method

Modelling Sub-category Number of Publication Percentage

Appendix F. Percentage rate of Publication based on the physically-based modelling methods

Physically-based Modelling Method

Modelling Sub-category Number of Publication Percentage

Year MCDM Statistical ML/AI

You might also like

3.2.1.1. Conceptual, physically-based, and data-driven hydrological mod