the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 20 Aug 2024
Review Article: A Comprehensive Review of Compound Flooding Literature with a Focus on Coastal and Estuarine Regions
Abstract. Compound flooding, where the combination or successive occurrence of two or more flood drivers leads to a greater impact, can exacerbate the adverse consequences of flooding, particularly in coastal/estuarine regions. This paper reviews the practices and trends in coastal/estuarine compound flood research and synthesizes regional to global findings. Systematic review is employed to construct a literature database of 271 studies relevant to compound flooding in a coastal/estuarine context. This review explores the types of compound flood events, their mechanistic processes, and synthesizes terminology throughout the literature. Considered in the review are six flood drivers (fluvial, pluvial, coastal, groundwater, damming/dam failure, and tsunami) and five precursor events and environmental conditions (soil moisture, snow, temp/heat, fire, and drought). Furthermore, this review summarizes research methodology and study applications trends, and considers the influences of climate change and urban environments. Finally, this review highlights knowledge gaps in compound flood research and discusses the implications on future practices. Our five recommendations for compound flood research are: 1) adopt consistent terminology and approaches; 2) expand the geographic coverage of research; 3) pursue more inter-comparison projects; 4) develop modelling frameworks that better couple dynamic Earth systems; and 5) design urban and coastal infrastructure with compounding in mind.
Competing interests: At least one of the (co-)authors is a member of the editorial board of Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences. The peer-review process was guided by an independent editor, and the authors also have no other competing interests to declare.
Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this preprint. The responsibility to include appropriate place names lies with the authors.-
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
(9689 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(9689 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2247', Anonymous Referee #1, 16 Sep 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-2247/egusphere-2024-2247-RC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Joshua Green, 06 Nov 2024
Dear Referee,
Thank for you for the comments and valuable feedback. Please find the attached document addressing each of your points and highlighting any corresponding modifications. We believe these changes greatly enhance the paper.
Regards,
Joshua Green on behalf of all authors
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Joshua Green, 06 Nov 2024
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2247', Tim Hermans, 19 Sep 2024
I thank the authors for their extensive review article on compound flooding literature. I have some comments about Section 6.4, on compound flooding in a changing climate:
1) the authors mention that many studies project an increase in compound flood risk or changes in drivers of compound flooding implying increased flood risk. However, studies have also shown that in some regions the probability of compound flooding may decrease (e.g., in the Mediteranean), at least when excluding SLR. I think it would be good to mention this.
2) Sorry for the shameless self-promotion, but I think it would be good to add that projections of changes in compound flooding are sensitive to internal variability and robust projections require large ensembles of climate model simulations (https://doi.org/10.1029/2023EF004188). This raises several issues such as how to efficiently translate climate model simulations to changes in compound flooding drivers and impact. In general, I think that robust projections of compound flooding are lacking and this should be reflected more strongly in the review.
With kind regards,
Tim Hermans
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2247-CC1 -
AC3: 'Reply on CC1', Joshua Green, 06 Nov 2024
Dear Dr. Hermans,
Thank for you for the comments and valuable feedback. Please find the attached document addressing each of your points and highlighting any corresponding modifications. We believe these changes greatly enhance the paper.
Regards,
Joshua Green on behalf of all authors
-
AC3: 'Reply on CC1', Joshua Green, 06 Nov 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2247', Hamed Moftakhari, 03 Oct 2024
kudos to the authors for such a timely and well drafted review article on compound coastal flooding (CCF). A a good systematic review of practices and trends in CCF that synthesizes regional to global findings, considering various types of events with their underlying drivers and precursor events, their mechanistic processes, and their relevant terminology in the existing literature up to 2022. The review is well structured, comprehensive and insightful. highlight the identified knowledge gaps and the associated recommendations are useful too. I'd recommend considering this submission for publication in EGUSphere, after a minor revision.
L113-115 and 301-312: in various points throughout the article, authors have referred to the fluvial, pluvial, coastal, groundwater, damming/dam failure, and Tsunami sources of flooding as drivers, and in L115 they refer to these as sources. To me, here and in the previous literature, this is one of the unclear points that needs further thought and agreement. To my understanding, these six items are basically the sources or the components of a compound flooding events that are driven by drivers like hydro-meteorological forcing. I think this is a point that authors could put more thought and come up with a good selection that helps the community of CCF to use a homogeneous language in distinguishing between sources/components and drivers.
L240-248: better to be consistent with the direct quotations in various points of the article. i.e. here L240-242 with single quotation mark, and in L244-248 with double quotation mark and italic font.
L315: large volumes of "excessive rainfall and snowmelt"... this way is more clear
L326: I'd replace "rapid heavy rainfall" with "intense rainfall". The term intense encompass both depth (heavy) and time (rapid) characteristics of a rainstorm.
L376: I'd replace "reservoirs" with "control infrastructure" as not all the examples (levees/dykes) are suitable to be called water reservoirs.
L391: abnormally high or elevated soil moisture conditions?
L396-400: Prolonged drought and wildfire yield in vegetation loss that in turn promotes reduced roughness against flood water movement so more intense flooding. Also, the loosened soil after wildfire favors mudflows that are significantly more destructive than freshwater flooding.
L403: being close to the end of 2024, and given the fact highlighted in L493-495 and Figure 2 that the CCF literature is growing exponentially, I am curious why 2023 is excluded?
L435: Among the terms in Table 2, I am afraid there are few alternative terms that could have been used in the literature that is not included here, which may result in missing published literature. For example, the terms "sequence" or "consecutive" could be used when referring to "cascading" events, or "simultaneous" is suitable alternative and commonly used at places where co-occurrence is the case. Also, while various components of sea level (i.e. tide, surge, wave) are included, the term "sea level" itself is not included.
L453: I guess the definition of drivers and precursor events are scale dependant. For example sea level rise can be considered an environmental condition that alter the interaction among various flood drivers (i.e. through altered frictional characteristics). Later SLR is considered among the drivers in L879.
L606: if possible would be much more impactful if you create a map to summarize the contents under the section 6.1
L618: storm surge and intense rainfall which exacerbate pluvial and/or fluvial flooding
L771: the following papers can be useful citations here
Hoitink and Jay (2016), Tidal river dynamics: Implications for deltas, Reviews of Geophysics, https://doi.org/10.1002/2015RG000507.
Lanzoni, S., and G. Seminara (1998), On tide propagation in convergent estuaries, J. Geophys. Res., 103(C13), 30,793–30,812.L852-855: however published after 2022, it can be a good resource for interested readers on this topic
Radfar, S., Mahmoudi, S., Moftakhari, H., Mckelvey, T., Bilskie, M. V., Collini, R., Alizad, K., Cherry, J. A., Moradkhani, H. (2024). Nature-based solutions as buffers against coastal compound flooding: Exploring potential framework for process-based modeling of hazard mitigation. Science of the Total Environment, 938, 173529, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.173529.L1012: copulas
L1032: I believe here is a point that a definition for "hybrid" compound flood modeling must be proposed. Here it says "involving linking numerical and statistical approaches ... can complement each other or focus on multiple aspects of modelling in a way that would not be possible when using numerical or statistical approaches in isolation." These days there is a lack of consistent definition for this term in the community. What constitutes hybrid modeling, that distinguishes from other categories of modeling. I encourage the authors to use this opportunity to clarify this. To me (mostly in line with the descriptions already in the article, hybrid modeling consists reasonable integration of various modeling schemes (process-based and data-driven) with complementary skills, that together can provide a level of understanding/information that cannot be achieved efficiently in isolation.
L1151-1180: I am not convinced that this category is significantly different than the "risk assessment", as all the examples mentioned too are common examples for risk assessment, and I think adding a new category here would be more confusing than helpful.
L1226: UNDRR
L1224-1252: While published after 2022, could enhance the discussions on the policy challenges regarding CCF
Lewis, M., Moftakhari, H., & Passalacqua, P. (2024). Challenges for compound coastal flood risk management in a warming climate: a case study of the Gulf Coast of the United States. Frontiers in Water, 6, https://doi.org/10.3389/frwa.2024.1405603.L1332: ASCE-MOP can be another example
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023esoar.56062915G/abstract
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023AGUFMNH24A..05G/abstractL1364: parameter choice and interpretation of outputs.
L1397: further recommendations under section 7 could be:
- strategic data collection for CCF at data sparse regions
- curricular development and creating educational materials to train the next generation of scientists and practitioners for CCFIn the supplementary materials accidentally found that there are two items Bevacqua et al., 2020a, and Bevacqua et al., 2020b, while there is only one Bevacqua et al., 2020 item listed in the reference list. Worth checking the consistency.
In appendix 2: some coupled versions of models or submodules (ADCIRC-SWAN or Delft3D-Wave, or CoSMoS vs Hydro-CoSMoS) are listed as a separate model. I think given the possibility of coupling between any of the models mentioned in this table better to avoid listing coupled versions as a separate model. In terms of implications I don't think SWMM and XPSWMM are conceptually different (however the latter offers more features, but one is listed as a hydrologic model and the other as a H&H model.
Well done,
Hamed MoftakhariCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2247-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Joshua Green, 06 Nov 2024
Dear Dr. Moftakhari,
Thank for you for the comments and valuable feedback. Please find the attached document addressing each of your points and highlighting any corresponding modifications. We believe these changes greatly enhance the paper.
Regards,
Joshua Green on behalf of all authors
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Joshua Green, 06 Nov 2024
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2247', Anonymous Referee #1, 16 Sep 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-2247/egusphere-2024-2247-RC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Joshua Green, 06 Nov 2024
Dear Referee,
Thank for you for the comments and valuable feedback. Please find the attached document addressing each of your points and highlighting any corresponding modifications. We believe these changes greatly enhance the paper.
Regards,
Joshua Green on behalf of all authors
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Joshua Green, 06 Nov 2024
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2247', Tim Hermans, 19 Sep 2024
I thank the authors for their extensive review article on compound flooding literature. I have some comments about Section 6.4, on compound flooding in a changing climate:
1) the authors mention that many studies project an increase in compound flood risk or changes in drivers of compound flooding implying increased flood risk. However, studies have also shown that in some regions the probability of compound flooding may decrease (e.g., in the Mediteranean), at least when excluding SLR. I think it would be good to mention this.
2) Sorry for the shameless self-promotion, but I think it would be good to add that projections of changes in compound flooding are sensitive to internal variability and robust projections require large ensembles of climate model simulations (https://doi.org/10.1029/2023EF004188). This raises several issues such as how to efficiently translate climate model simulations to changes in compound flooding drivers and impact. In general, I think that robust projections of compound flooding are lacking and this should be reflected more strongly in the review.
With kind regards,
Tim Hermans
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2247-CC1 -
AC3: 'Reply on CC1', Joshua Green, 06 Nov 2024
Dear Dr. Hermans,
Thank for you for the comments and valuable feedback. Please find the attached document addressing each of your points and highlighting any corresponding modifications. We believe these changes greatly enhance the paper.
Regards,
Joshua Green on behalf of all authors
-
AC3: 'Reply on CC1', Joshua Green, 06 Nov 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2247', Hamed Moftakhari, 03 Oct 2024
kudos to the authors for such a timely and well drafted review article on compound coastal flooding (CCF). A a good systematic review of practices and trends in CCF that synthesizes regional to global findings, considering various types of events with their underlying drivers and precursor events, their mechanistic processes, and their relevant terminology in the existing literature up to 2022. The review is well structured, comprehensive and insightful. highlight the identified knowledge gaps and the associated recommendations are useful too. I'd recommend considering this submission for publication in EGUSphere, after a minor revision.
L113-115 and 301-312: in various points throughout the article, authors have referred to the fluvial, pluvial, coastal, groundwater, damming/dam failure, and Tsunami sources of flooding as drivers, and in L115 they refer to these as sources. To me, here and in the previous literature, this is one of the unclear points that needs further thought and agreement. To my understanding, these six items are basically the sources or the components of a compound flooding events that are driven by drivers like hydro-meteorological forcing. I think this is a point that authors could put more thought and come up with a good selection that helps the community of CCF to use a homogeneous language in distinguishing between sources/components and drivers.
L240-248: better to be consistent with the direct quotations in various points of the article. i.e. here L240-242 with single quotation mark, and in L244-248 with double quotation mark and italic font.
L315: large volumes of "excessive rainfall and snowmelt"... this way is more clear
L326: I'd replace "rapid heavy rainfall" with "intense rainfall". The term intense encompass both depth (heavy) and time (rapid) characteristics of a rainstorm.
L376: I'd replace "reservoirs" with "control infrastructure" as not all the examples (levees/dykes) are suitable to be called water reservoirs.
L391: abnormally high or elevated soil moisture conditions?
L396-400: Prolonged drought and wildfire yield in vegetation loss that in turn promotes reduced roughness against flood water movement so more intense flooding. Also, the loosened soil after wildfire favors mudflows that are significantly more destructive than freshwater flooding.
L403: being close to the end of 2024, and given the fact highlighted in L493-495 and Figure 2 that the CCF literature is growing exponentially, I am curious why 2023 is excluded?
L435: Among the terms in Table 2, I am afraid there are few alternative terms that could have been used in the literature that is not included here, which may result in missing published literature. For example, the terms "sequence" or "consecutive" could be used when referring to "cascading" events, or "simultaneous" is suitable alternative and commonly used at places where co-occurrence is the case. Also, while various components of sea level (i.e. tide, surge, wave) are included, the term "sea level" itself is not included.
L453: I guess the definition of drivers and precursor events are scale dependant. For example sea level rise can be considered an environmental condition that alter the interaction among various flood drivers (i.e. through altered frictional characteristics). Later SLR is considered among the drivers in L879.
L606: if possible would be much more impactful if you create a map to summarize the contents under the section 6.1
L618: storm surge and intense rainfall which exacerbate pluvial and/or fluvial flooding
L771: the following papers can be useful citations here
Hoitink and Jay (2016), Tidal river dynamics: Implications for deltas, Reviews of Geophysics, https://doi.org/10.1002/2015RG000507.
Lanzoni, S., and G. Seminara (1998), On tide propagation in convergent estuaries, J. Geophys. Res., 103(C13), 30,793–30,812.L852-855: however published after 2022, it can be a good resource for interested readers on this topic
Radfar, S., Mahmoudi, S., Moftakhari, H., Mckelvey, T., Bilskie, M. V., Collini, R., Alizad, K., Cherry, J. A., Moradkhani, H. (2024). Nature-based solutions as buffers against coastal compound flooding: Exploring potential framework for process-based modeling of hazard mitigation. Science of the Total Environment, 938, 173529, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.173529.L1012: copulas
L1032: I believe here is a point that a definition for "hybrid" compound flood modeling must be proposed. Here it says "involving linking numerical and statistical approaches ... can complement each other or focus on multiple aspects of modelling in a way that would not be possible when using numerical or statistical approaches in isolation." These days there is a lack of consistent definition for this term in the community. What constitutes hybrid modeling, that distinguishes from other categories of modeling. I encourage the authors to use this opportunity to clarify this. To me (mostly in line with the descriptions already in the article, hybrid modeling consists reasonable integration of various modeling schemes (process-based and data-driven) with complementary skills, that together can provide a level of understanding/information that cannot be achieved efficiently in isolation.
L1151-1180: I am not convinced that this category is significantly different than the "risk assessment", as all the examples mentioned too are common examples for risk assessment, and I think adding a new category here would be more confusing than helpful.
L1226: UNDRR
L1224-1252: While published after 2022, could enhance the discussions on the policy challenges regarding CCF
Lewis, M., Moftakhari, H., & Passalacqua, P. (2024). Challenges for compound coastal flood risk management in a warming climate: a case study of the Gulf Coast of the United States. Frontiers in Water, 6, https://doi.org/10.3389/frwa.2024.1405603.L1332: ASCE-MOP can be another example
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023esoar.56062915G/abstract
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023AGUFMNH24A..05G/abstractL1364: parameter choice and interpretation of outputs.
L1397: further recommendations under section 7 could be:
- strategic data collection for CCF at data sparse regions
- curricular development and creating educational materials to train the next generation of scientists and practitioners for CCFIn the supplementary materials accidentally found that there are two items Bevacqua et al., 2020a, and Bevacqua et al., 2020b, while there is only one Bevacqua et al., 2020 item listed in the reference list. Worth checking the consistency.
In appendix 2: some coupled versions of models or submodules (ADCIRC-SWAN or Delft3D-Wave, or CoSMoS vs Hydro-CoSMoS) are listed as a separate model. I think given the possibility of coupling between any of the models mentioned in this table better to avoid listing coupled versions as a separate model. In terms of implications I don't think SWMM and XPSWMM are conceptually different (however the latter offers more features, but one is listed as a hydrologic model and the other as a H&H model.
Well done,
Hamed MoftakhariCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2247-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Joshua Green, 06 Nov 2024
Dear Dr. Moftakhari,
Thank for you for the comments and valuable feedback. Please find the attached document addressing each of your points and highlighting any corresponding modifications. We believe these changes greatly enhance the paper.
Regards,
Joshua Green on behalf of all authors
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Joshua Green, 06 Nov 2024
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 559 | 270 | 257 | 1,086 | 14 | 20 |
- HTML: 559
- PDF: 270
- XML: 257
- Total: 1,086
- BibTeX: 14
- EndNote: 20
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| United States of America | 1 | 336 | 31 |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 100 | 9 |
| China | 3 | 87 | 8 |
| Germany | 4 | 63 | 5 |
| Netherlands | 5 | 38 | 3 |
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
- 336
Cited
2 citations as recorded by crossref.
Ivan Haigh
Niall Quinn
Jeff Neal
Thomas Wahl
Melissa Wood
Dirk Eilander
Marleen de Ruiter
Philip Ward
Paula Camus
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(9689 KB) - Metadata XML