Journal metrics

Journal metrics

  • IF value: 2.281 IF 2.281
  • IF 5-year value: 2.693 IF 5-year 2.693
  • CiteScore value: 2.43 CiteScore 2.43
  • SNIP value: 1.193 SNIP 1.193
  • SJR value: 0.965 SJR 0.965
  • IPP value: 2.31 IPP 2.31
  • h5-index value: 40 h5-index 40
  • Scimago H index value: 73 Scimago H index 73
Discussion papers | Copyright
https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2017-303
© Author(s) 2017. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Invited perspectives 31 Aug 2017

Invited perspectives | 31 Aug 2017

Review status
This discussion paper is a preprint. It has been under review for the journal Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences (NHESS). A final paper in NHESS is not foreseen.

Review Article: Validation of flood risk models: current practice and innovations

Daniela Molinari1, Karin De Bruijn2, Jessica Castillo3, Giuseppe T. Aronica4, and Laurens M. Bouwer2 Daniela Molinari et al.
  • 1Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, 20133, Italy
  • 2Deltares, Delft, 2629-HD, The Netherlands
  • 3Research Institute on Water and Environmental Engineering, Universitat Politècnica de València, Valencia, 46022, Spain
  • 4Department of Engineering, University of Messina, Messina, 98166, Italy

Abstract. Although often neglected, model validation is a key topic in flood risk analysis, as flood risk estimates are characterised by significant levels of uncertainty. In this paper, we discuss the state of art of flood risk models validation, as concluded from the discussion among more than 50 experts at two main scientific events. The events aimed at identifying policy and research recommendations towards promoting more common practice of validation, and an improvement of flood risk models reliability. We pay specific attention to the different components of the risk modelling chain (i.e. flood hazard, defence failure and flood damage analysis) as well as to their role into risk estimates, to highlight specificities and commonalities with respect to implemented techniques and research needs. The main conclusions from this review can be summarised as the need of higher quality data to perform validation and of benchmark solutions to be followed in different contexts, along with a greater involvement of end-users in the debate on flood risk models validation.

Download & links
Daniela Molinari et al.
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
Status: closed
AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment
Printer-friendly Version - Printer-friendly version Supplement - Supplement
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
Status: closed
AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment
Printer-friendly Version - Printer-friendly version Supplement - Supplement
Daniela Molinari et al.
Daniela Molinari et al.
Viewed
Total article views: 697 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total BibTeX EndNote
462 225 10 697 2 11
  • HTML: 462
  • PDF: 225
  • XML: 10
  • Total: 697
  • BibTeX: 2
  • EndNote: 11
Views and downloads (calculated since 31 Aug 2017)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 31 Aug 2017)
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Total article views: 694 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 689 with geography defined and 5 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 
Cited
Saved
No saved metrics found.
Discussed
No discussed metrics found.
Latest update: 15 Jul 2018
Publications Copernicus
Download
Short summary
Flood risk estimates are characterised by significant uncertainties; accordingly, evaluating the reliability of such estimates (i.e. validating flood risk models) is crucial. Here, we discuss the state of art of flood risk models validation with the aim of identifying policy and research recommendations towards promoting more common practice of validation. The main conclusions from this review can be summarised as the need of higher quality data to perform validation and of benchmark solutions.
Flood risk estimates are characterised by significant uncertainties; accordingly, evaluating the...
Citation
Share