the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 10 Jul 2023
Effects of High-Quality Elevation Data and Explanatory Variables on the Accuracy of Flood Inundation Mapping via Height Above Nearest Drainage
Abstract. Given the availability of high quality and high spatial resolution digital elevation models (DEMs) from the United States Geological Survey’s 3-Dimensional Elevation Program (3DEP) derived from mostly Light Detection and Ranging sensors, we examined the effects of these DEMs at various spatial resolutions on the quality of flood inundation map (FIM) extents derived from a terrain index known as Height Above Nearest Drainage (HAND). We found that using these DEMs improved the quality of resulting FIMs at around 80 % of the catchments analyzed when compared to using DEMs from the National Hydrography Dataset Plus High Resolution program. Additionally, we varied the spatial resolution of the 3DEP DEMs from 3, 5, 10, 15, and 20 meters and the results showed no significant overall effect on FIM extent quality across resolutions. However, our experiments demonstrated a significant burden on the computational time to produce HAND. We fit a multiple linear regression model to help explain catchment scale variation in the four metrics employed and found that the lack of reservoir flooding, or inundation upstream of river retention systems, was a significant factor in our analysis. For validation, we used Interagency Flood Risk Management Base Level Engineering produced FIM extents and streamflows at the 100 and 500 year event magnitudes in a sub-region in Eastern Texas.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(6846 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(6846 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1205', Anonymous Referee #1, 25 Jul 2023
The manuscript explores the impact of DEM source and resolution on the NOAA Office of Water Predictions (OWP) Flood Inundation Mapping (FIM) framework. The framework is based on the topographic Height Above Nearest Drainage (HAND) approach and is thus very sensitive to DEM quality. The OWP HAND-FIM is an operational framework at the US Weather Service and its simplicity (relative to hydraulic solvers) is a tradeoff between numerical/physics complexity and computation costs. Exploring sources of uncertainty and pathways for improving its accuracy is thus of great importance and interest. The manuscript is very well written, the methodology is sound and the interpretation of the results is, overall, fair and meaningful. Below I highlight issues that could be quite easily addressed with limited additional analyses and edits.
Major Issues:
Consider extending the analysis for 30 and 90 m resolutions - these are the most common DEM resolution for many national and global DEMs
Figure 4. A very busy map that makes it hard to read - consider aggregating the key classes into 4-5 major LULC classes.
Section 3.1 and Figure 6: I found it hard to understand what is the actual/overall improvement in HAND-FIM predictions using 3DEP. The authors should provide summary statistics in a table and/or additional plots (e.g. PDF, Box Violine).
Section 3.2 and Figure 7: this was the most unclear section of the manuscript. The results did not make much sense to me and the figure was hard to read/understand. The authors should re-think how to present and analyze the results. They may want to consider removing this section altogether.
Section 3.3 and Figure 8: I don't recall that the authors explained how these distributions were calculated. Similar to section 3.1, summary (overall) statistics of the FIM accuracy metrics should be reported.
Figure 9 and relevant text: report the computer hardware that was used.
Minor Issues:
Line 35: '...scales [often] requires'
Line 109: 'omb' ?
Line 168: 'due to the (...'
Line 183: '?'
Line 256: '(of DEMs ,...'; '(, WBM)...'
Line 257: '(, MRLC)'
Line 373: 'we used investigate...'
Line 400: 'two-way interactions' - do you mean cross-correlation?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1205-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Fernando Aristizabal, 06 Nov 2023
Dear RC1 Reviewer,
We sincerely thank you for your constructive feedback and the positive remarks regarding the
writing, methodology, and interpretation of our manuscript. We are encouraged by your recognition
of the importance of our work in exploring the uncertainties and improving the accuracy within
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Office of Water Prediction (OWP)
flood inundation map (FIM) framework.We understand the significance of the issues you have highlighted and are fully committed
to addressing these to further enhance the quality and impact of our manuscript. Our primary
objective remains to explore and elucidate the effects of digital elevation model (DEM) source and
resolution on FIM extents, thereby contributing valuable insights toward improving the accuracy
and reliability of the OWP Height Above Nearest Drainage (HAND) FIM framework for operational
forecasting.We will address each of the issues you have highlighted in the subsequent sections of our response
letter, providing clarifications and making necessary revisions as suggested. We appreciate the
opportunity to enhance our manuscript through this revision and are committed to making all
requisite amendments to meet the high standards of Hydrology and Earth System Sciences (HESS).Thank you once again for your insightful feedback.
Warm regards,
Corresponding Author
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Fernando Aristizabal, 06 Nov 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1205', Anonymous Referee #2, 07 Aug 2023
The paper analyzes the improvement expected from the availability of high quality and high resolution digital elevation models (3DEP) with respect to performances of a HAND (Height Above Nearest Drainage) based procedure to recognize flood inundation maps trugh topographic information.
To this purpose a set of analyses is performed involving the use of different metrics for performance evaluation and different factors\covariates used to diagnose the different metrics performances with respect to the increase in spatial resolution of dem.
The paper is well written and organized and also the topic is quite relevant and up-to-date with respect to institutional and scientifical purposes that could be achieved in this framework.
One of the most important outcomes stems from the analysis of Figure 6 where the comparison in terms of metric enhancements is shown with respect to the benchmark provided by the use of dems sourced from the NHDPlusHR program.
Less intriguing are results produced in the analysis of the role of different spatial resolution on FIM detection and on the capability of explanatory factors and covariates on explaining the variance of obtained results.
While the methodology is clearly depicted and can be considered of general purpose, results generality is limited by the presence of only one study area characterized by “low terrain slope and minimal anthropogenic influence”.
The most important perplexity in my reading of the paper regards the choice of the basic source of information for both evaluation and validation of the method, which is a 1D HEC-RAS flood inundation extents, involving hydrologic and 1-dimensional hydraulic of Saint Venant equations. From the reading it seems that the BLE (Base Level Engineering) cross sections provided by InFRM were used both for comparison of flood inundation maps (validation) and for the evaluation of the HAND metric. If this is true, I believe the authors should better specify the reason of such a choice. I may imagine that such a choice can make sense in the aim of a larger comparison at the continental scale, on the other hand I think that it is hard to look for improvements based on higher quality and higher resolution DEM, whenever the benchmark has not the same quality. I would suggest, maybe for future works, a comparison with flood inundation maps obtained with a shallow-water complete 2D hydraulic modeling supported by high resolution dems. Another feasible analysis could be carried out over real inundation maps.
Minor comments
The sentence in lines 320-321 seems not consistent with equation (1).
Lines 343 (and around it) it is not clear the difference between covariates and factors. The different role they play in the regression analysis and also how their combination are made.
It is not clear if and/or how the spatial resolution of dem affects results in figures 11 and 12.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1205-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Fernando Aristizabal, 06 Nov 2023
Dear RC2 Reviewer,
Thank you for your valuable and thorough feedback. We are grateful for your positive remarks
concerning the organization, relevance, and topicality of our paper, as well as your appreciation for
the importance of the outcomes depicted in Figure 6.We acknowledge your concern regarding the generality of our results, given that they are based
on a single study area with ‘low terrain slope and minimal anthropogenic influence.’ We understand
that the scope of inference could be broadened with a more varied selection of study areas in
future works as National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)’s Office of Water
Prediction (OWP) continues to expand its coverage regions. The unique characteristics of the
study area were chosen to minimize extraneous variables and to allow a focused examination of
the digital elevation model (DEM) quality’s impact. Nonetheless, we see the benefit of including
more diverse terrain and environmental conditions in future analysis to make the findings more
generalizable.We also recognize your comments on the less intriguing results regarding the role of different
spatial resolution on flood inundation map (FIM) detection and the explanatory factors and co-
variates’ capacity in explaining the variance of the obtained results. We value this observation and
plan to delve deeper into these aspects, aiming to provide a more comprehensive understanding
and clearer exposition of these relationships in future works.Further, we are committed to revisiting the analyses and expanding on the discussions to address
the concerns you’ve raised, with a particular focus on enriching the examination of spatial resolution
effects and the explanatory power of different factors and covariates on the metrics’ performances.We sincerely appreciate your insightful feedback, which provides us with a clear pathway to
enhance the quality and breadth of our manuscript.Thank you once again for your time and constructive critique.
Warm regards,
Corresponding Author
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Fernando Aristizabal, 06 Nov 2023
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1205', Anonymous Referee #1, 25 Jul 2023
The manuscript explores the impact of DEM source and resolution on the NOAA Office of Water Predictions (OWP) Flood Inundation Mapping (FIM) framework. The framework is based on the topographic Height Above Nearest Drainage (HAND) approach and is thus very sensitive to DEM quality. The OWP HAND-FIM is an operational framework at the US Weather Service and its simplicity (relative to hydraulic solvers) is a tradeoff between numerical/physics complexity and computation costs. Exploring sources of uncertainty and pathways for improving its accuracy is thus of great importance and interest. The manuscript is very well written, the methodology is sound and the interpretation of the results is, overall, fair and meaningful. Below I highlight issues that could be quite easily addressed with limited additional analyses and edits.
Major Issues:
Consider extending the analysis for 30 and 90 m resolutions - these are the most common DEM resolution for many national and global DEMs
Figure 4. A very busy map that makes it hard to read - consider aggregating the key classes into 4-5 major LULC classes.
Section 3.1 and Figure 6: I found it hard to understand what is the actual/overall improvement in HAND-FIM predictions using 3DEP. The authors should provide summary statistics in a table and/or additional plots (e.g. PDF, Box Violine).
Section 3.2 and Figure 7: this was the most unclear section of the manuscript. The results did not make much sense to me and the figure was hard to read/understand. The authors should re-think how to present and analyze the results. They may want to consider removing this section altogether.
Section 3.3 and Figure 8: I don't recall that the authors explained how these distributions were calculated. Similar to section 3.1, summary (overall) statistics of the FIM accuracy metrics should be reported.
Figure 9 and relevant text: report the computer hardware that was used.
Minor Issues:
Line 35: '...scales [often] requires'
Line 109: 'omb' ?
Line 168: 'due to the (...'
Line 183: '?'
Line 256: '(of DEMs ,...'; '(, WBM)...'
Line 257: '(, MRLC)'
Line 373: 'we used investigate...'
Line 400: 'two-way interactions' - do you mean cross-correlation?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1205-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Fernando Aristizabal, 06 Nov 2023
Dear RC1 Reviewer,
We sincerely thank you for your constructive feedback and the positive remarks regarding the
writing, methodology, and interpretation of our manuscript. We are encouraged by your recognition
of the importance of our work in exploring the uncertainties and improving the accuracy within
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Office of Water Prediction (OWP)
flood inundation map (FIM) framework.We understand the significance of the issues you have highlighted and are fully committed
to addressing these to further enhance the quality and impact of our manuscript. Our primary
objective remains to explore and elucidate the effects of digital elevation model (DEM) source and
resolution on FIM extents, thereby contributing valuable insights toward improving the accuracy
and reliability of the OWP Height Above Nearest Drainage (HAND) FIM framework for operational
forecasting.We will address each of the issues you have highlighted in the subsequent sections of our response
letter, providing clarifications and making necessary revisions as suggested. We appreciate the
opportunity to enhance our manuscript through this revision and are committed to making all
requisite amendments to meet the high standards of Hydrology and Earth System Sciences (HESS).Thank you once again for your insightful feedback.
Warm regards,
Corresponding Author
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Fernando Aristizabal, 06 Nov 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1205', Anonymous Referee #2, 07 Aug 2023
The paper analyzes the improvement expected from the availability of high quality and high resolution digital elevation models (3DEP) with respect to performances of a HAND (Height Above Nearest Drainage) based procedure to recognize flood inundation maps trugh topographic information.
To this purpose a set of analyses is performed involving the use of different metrics for performance evaluation and different factors\covariates used to diagnose the different metrics performances with respect to the increase in spatial resolution of dem.
The paper is well written and organized and also the topic is quite relevant and up-to-date with respect to institutional and scientifical purposes that could be achieved in this framework.
One of the most important outcomes stems from the analysis of Figure 6 where the comparison in terms of metric enhancements is shown with respect to the benchmark provided by the use of dems sourced from the NHDPlusHR program.
Less intriguing are results produced in the analysis of the role of different spatial resolution on FIM detection and on the capability of explanatory factors and covariates on explaining the variance of obtained results.
While the methodology is clearly depicted and can be considered of general purpose, results generality is limited by the presence of only one study area characterized by “low terrain slope and minimal anthropogenic influence”.
The most important perplexity in my reading of the paper regards the choice of the basic source of information for both evaluation and validation of the method, which is a 1D HEC-RAS flood inundation extents, involving hydrologic and 1-dimensional hydraulic of Saint Venant equations. From the reading it seems that the BLE (Base Level Engineering) cross sections provided by InFRM were used both for comparison of flood inundation maps (validation) and for the evaluation of the HAND metric. If this is true, I believe the authors should better specify the reason of such a choice. I may imagine that such a choice can make sense in the aim of a larger comparison at the continental scale, on the other hand I think that it is hard to look for improvements based on higher quality and higher resolution DEM, whenever the benchmark has not the same quality. I would suggest, maybe for future works, a comparison with flood inundation maps obtained with a shallow-water complete 2D hydraulic modeling supported by high resolution dems. Another feasible analysis could be carried out over real inundation maps.
Minor comments
The sentence in lines 320-321 seems not consistent with equation (1).
Lines 343 (and around it) it is not clear the difference between covariates and factors. The different role they play in the regression analysis and also how their combination are made.
It is not clear if and/or how the spatial resolution of dem affects results in figures 11 and 12.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1205-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Fernando Aristizabal, 06 Nov 2023
Dear RC2 Reviewer,
Thank you for your valuable and thorough feedback. We are grateful for your positive remarks
concerning the organization, relevance, and topicality of our paper, as well as your appreciation for
the importance of the outcomes depicted in Figure 6.We acknowledge your concern regarding the generality of our results, given that they are based
on a single study area with ‘low terrain slope and minimal anthropogenic influence.’ We understand
that the scope of inference could be broadened with a more varied selection of study areas in
future works as National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)’s Office of Water
Prediction (OWP) continues to expand its coverage regions. The unique characteristics of the
study area were chosen to minimize extraneous variables and to allow a focused examination of
the digital elevation model (DEM) quality’s impact. Nonetheless, we see the benefit of including
more diverse terrain and environmental conditions in future analysis to make the findings more
generalizable.We also recognize your comments on the less intriguing results regarding the role of different
spatial resolution on flood inundation map (FIM) detection and the explanatory factors and co-
variates’ capacity in explaining the variance of the obtained results. We value this observation and
plan to delve deeper into these aspects, aiming to provide a more comprehensive understanding
and clearer exposition of these relationships in future works.Further, we are committed to revisiting the analyses and expanding on the discussions to address
the concerns you’ve raised, with a particular focus on enriching the examination of spatial resolution
effects and the explanatory power of different factors and covariates on the metrics’ performances.We sincerely appreciate your insightful feedback, which provides us with a clear pathway to
enhance the quality and breadth of our manuscript.Thank you once again for your time and constructive critique.
Warm regards,
Corresponding Author
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Fernando Aristizabal, 06 Nov 2023
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Data sets
noaa-nws-owp-fim/hand_fim Aristizabal et al https://doi.org/10.4211/hs.3d98a9e5a6d84020b72800fd27c87f9a
Model code and software
NOAA-OWP/inundation-mapping Aristizabal et al https://github.com/NOAA-OWP/inundation-mapping
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 413 | 203 | 26 | 642 | 14 | 15 |
- HTML: 413
- PDF: 203
- XML: 26
- Total: 642
- BibTeX: 14
- EndNote: 15
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Fernando Aristizabal
Taher Chegini
Gregory Petrochenkov
Fernando Renzo Salas
Jasmeet Judge
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(6846 KB) - Metadata XML