...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Ocean & coastal management >Hydrodynamic versus GIS modelling for coastal flood vulnerability assessment: Which is better for guiding coastal management?
【24h】

Hydrodynamic versus GIS modelling for coastal flood vulnerability assessment: Which is better for guiding coastal management?

机译：用于沿海洪水脆弱性评估的流体力学与GIS建模：哪种方法对指导沿海管理更为有效？

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Under climate change, sea-level rise and increasing storm surge intensity will increase the likelihood of floods for low-lying coastal areas. Therefore, Coastal Flood Vulnerability Assessments (CFVA) are necessary to inform decision making for coastal management, where applicable. Two types of tools, hydrodynamic models and Geographic Information Systems (GIS), are commonly employed for these evaluations. Using Pigeon Point, Southwest Tobago, as a case study, this paper compares the application of both to determine the best approach for CFVA that can be used to guide coastal management. For hydrodynamic modelling, available and surveyed data on bathymetry, topography and tides along with current and future estimates of mean sea-level were used to create a structured and an unstructured grid model via the LISFLOOD-FP and TELEMAC-2D codes, respectively. For the GIS assessment, a coastal digital elevation model was developed using the same data on bathymetry and elevation. These models were used to project the present and future impact of storm surges on coastal flood extent at Pigeon Point. Outputs generated were compared and analysed within a GIS. Using predictions from TELEMAC-2D (full shallow water equations) as the baseline for comparison, average results acquired revealed that projections generated by all three models were consistent (less than 5.00% difference in flood predictions). To add certainty to the modelling results, all models were used to simulate an observed spring high tide event for model validation purposes. The Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE) was calculated as an indication of model performance. RMSE values indicated that all models were consistent and matched well to the field observations. However, further analysis revealed that inherent in the use of GIS for CFVA is hydraulic connectivity issues due to exclusion of flow dynamics, which leads to over-estimation in flood extent. Acknowledging the theory that over-estimation leads to over-management, it is suggested that hydrodynamic models are better suited for detailed CFVA, while GIS can be used rapidly as a potential indicator of flood exposure for large sites. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
机译：在气候变化下，海平面上升和风暴潮强度增加将增加低洼沿海地区发生洪灾的可能性。因此，在适用的情况下，有必要进行沿海洪水脆弱性评估（CFVA），以为沿海管理决策提供依据。这些评估通常采用两种工具，即水动力模型和地理信息系统（GIS）。本文以西南多巴哥的Pigeon Point为例，对两者的应用进行了比较，以确定可用于指导沿海管理的CFVA最佳方法。对于流体动力学建模，分别使用LISFLOOD-FP和TELEMAC-2D代码，使用了有关测深，地形和潮汐的可用和调查数据，以及当前和未来的平均海平面估计，分别创建了结构化和非结构化网格模型。为了进行GIS评估，使用了相同的测深和高程数据开发了沿海数字高程模型。这些模型用于预测风暴潮对鸽子点海岸洪水泛滥的当前和未来影响。生成的输出在GIS中进行比较和分析。使用TELEAC-2D（全浅水方程）的预测作为比较基准，获得的平均结果表明，所有三个模型生成的预测都是一致的（洪水预测相差不到5.00％）。为了增加建模结果的确定性，所有模型均用于模拟观测到的春季高潮事件，以进行模型验证。计算均方根误差（RMSE）作为模型性能的指标。 RMSE值表明，所有模型都是一致的，并且与现场观察结果非常匹配。但是，进一步的分析表明，由于不考虑流量动态，因此将GIS用于CFVA的内在原因是水力连通性问题，这导致对洪水范围的高估。认识到过高估计会导致过度管理的理论，建议采用水动力模型更适合详细的CFVA，而GIS可以迅速用作大型站点洪水泛滥的潜在指标。 （C）2015 Elsevier Ltd.保留所有权利。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号