MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4407371074 · doi:10.1007/s11069-025-07144-z

Use of digital elevation models for flood susceptibility assessment via a hydrogeomorphic approach: A case study of the Basento River in Italy

2025· article· en· W4407371074 sur OpenAlexaff
Raffaele Albano, Jan Adamowski

Notice bibliographique

RevueNatural Hazards · 2025
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEnvironmental Science
ThématiqueFlood Risk Assessment and Management
Établissements canadiensMcGill University
Organismes subventionnairesUniversità degli Studi della Basilicata
Mots-clésDigital elevation modelFlood mythHydrology (agriculture)Natural hazardElevation (ballistics)HydrogeologyEnvironmental scienceGeologyGeographyGeotechnical engineeringRemote sensingArchaeologyEngineeringOceanography

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Floods are the most common and threatening natural risk for many countries in the world. Flood risk mapping is therefore of great importance for managing socio-economic and environmental impacts. Several researchers have proposed low-complexity and cost-effective flood mapping solutions that are useful for data scarce environments or at large-scale. Among these approaches, a line of recent research focuses on hydrogeomorphic methods that, due to digital elevation models (DEMs), exploit the causality between past flood events and the hydraulic geometry of floodplains. This study aims to compare the use of freely-available DEMs to support an advanced hydrogeomorphic method, Geomorphic Flood Index (GFI), to map flood-prone areas of the Basento River basin (Italy). The five selected DEMs are obtained from different sources, are characterized by different resolutions, spatial coverage, acquisition process, processing and validation, etc., and include: (i) HydroSHEDS v.1.1 (resolution 3 arc-seconds), hydrologically conditioned, derived primarily from STRM (NASA) and characterized by global coverage; (ii) ASTER GDEM v.3 with a res. of around 30 m (source: METI and NASA) and global coverage; (iii) EU-DEM v. 1.1 (res. 1 arc-second), Pan-European and combining SRTM and ASTER GDEM, customized to obtain a consistency with the EU-Hydro and screened to remove artefacts (source: Copernicus Land Monitoring Service); (iv) TinItaly DEM v. 1.1, (res. 10 m-cell size grid) and produced and distributed by INGV with coverage of the entire Italian territory; (v) Laser Scanner DEM with high resolution (5 m cell size grid) produced on the basis of Ground e Model Keypoint and available as part of the RSDI geoportal of the Basilicata Region with coverage at the regional administrative level. The effects of DEMs on the performance of the GFI calibration on the main reach of the Basento River, and its validation on one of its mountain tributaries (Gallitello Creek), were evaluated with widely accepted statistical metrics, i.e., the Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) curve (AUC), Accuracy, Sensitivity and Specificity. Results confirmed the merits of the GFI in flood mapping using simple watershed characteristics and showed high Accuracy (AUC reached a value over 0.9 in all simulations) and low dependency on changes in the adopted DEMs and standard flood maps (1D and 2D hydraulic models or three return periods). The EU-DEM was identified as the most suitable data source for supporting GFI mapping with an AUC > 0.97 in the calibration phase for the main river reach. This may be due in part to its appropriate resolution for hydrological application but was also due to its customized pre-processing that supported an optimal description of the river network morphology. Indeed, EU-DEM obtained the highest performances (e.g., Accuracy around 98%) even in the validation phase where better results were expected from the high-resolution DEM (due to the very small size of Gallitello Creek cross-sections). For other DEMs, GFI generally showed an increase in metrics performance when, in the calibration phase, it neglected the floodplains of the river delta, where the standard flood map is produced using a 2D hydraulic model. However, if the DEMs were hydrologically conditioned with a relatively simple algorithm that forced the stream flow in the main river network, the GFI could be applied to the whole Basento watershed, including the delta, with a similar performance.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,730
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,505

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,025
Tête enseignante GPT0,280
Écart entre enseignants0,255 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations8
Publié2025
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueNatural HazardsMême sujetFlood Risk Assessment and ManagementTravaux en français237 207