Journal cover Journal topic
Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences An interactive open-access journal of the European Geosciences Union
Journal topic

Journal metrics

Journal metrics

  • IF value: 2.883 IF 2.883
  • IF 5-year value: 3.321 IF 5-year
    3.321
  • CiteScore value: 3.07 CiteScore
    3.07
  • SNIP value: 1.336 SNIP 1.336
  • IPP value: 2.80 IPP 2.80
  • SJR value: 1.024 SJR 1.024
  • Scimago H <br class='hide-on-tablet hide-on-mobile'>index value: 81 Scimago H
    index 81
  • h5-index value: 43 h5-index 43
Discussion papers
https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2019-418
© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2019-418
© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Submitted as: brief communication 23 Jan 2020

Submitted as: brief communication | 23 Jan 2020

Review status
This preprint is currently under review for the journal NHESS.

Brief communication: Comparing top-down and bottom-up paradigms for global flood hazard mapping

Giuliano Di Baldassarre1,2,3, Fernando Nardi4,5, Antonio Annis4, Vincent Odongo1,3, Maria Rusca1,3, and Salvatore Grimaldi6 Giuliano Di Baldassarre et al.
  • 1Department of Earth Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
  • 2IHE-Delft Institute for Water Education, Delft, the Netherlands
  • 3Centre of Natural Hazards and Disaster Science, CNDS, Sweden
  • 4WARREDOC, University for Foreigners of Perugia, Perugia, Italy
  • 5Institute of Water & Environment, Florida International University, Miami, USA
  • 6Tuscia University, Viterbo, Italy

Abstract. Global floodplain mapping has rapidly progressed over the past few years. Different methods have been proposed to identify areas prone to flooding, resulting into a plethora of freely available products. Here we assess the potential and limitations of two main paradigms, and provide guidance on the use of these global products in assessing flood risk in data-poor regions.

Giuliano Di Baldassarre et al.

Interactive discussion

Status: open (until 19 Mar 2020)
Status: open (until 19 Mar 2020)
AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment
[Subscribe to comment alert] Printer-friendly Version - Printer-friendly version Supplement - Supplement

Giuliano Di Baldassarre et al.

Data sets

GFPLAIN250m F. Nardi, A. Annis, G. Di Baldassarre, E. R. Vivoni, and S. Grimaldi https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2018.309

Giuliano Di Baldassarre et al.

Viewed

Total article views: 356 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total BibTeX EndNote
273 82 1 356 0 4
  • HTML: 273
  • PDF: 82
  • XML: 1
  • Total: 356
  • BibTeX: 0
  • EndNote: 4
Views and downloads (calculated since 23 Jan 2020)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 23 Jan 2020)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 297 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 295 with geography defined and 2 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 

Cited

Saved

No saved metrics found.

Discussed

No discussed metrics found.
Latest update: 18 Feb 2020
Publications Copernicus
Download
Short summary
Global floodplain mapping has rapidly progressed over the past few years. Different methods have been proposed to identify areas prone to flooding, resulting into a plethora of freely available products. Here we assess the potential and limitations of two main paradigms, and provide guidance on the use of these global products in assessing flood risk in data-poor regions.
Global floodplain mapping has rapidly progressed over the past few years. Different methods have...
Citation