Urbanization impacts on flood risks based on urban growth data and coupled flood models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Urbanization increases regional impervious surface area, which generally reduces hydrologic response time and therefore increases flood risk. The objective of this work is to investigate the sensitivities of urban flooding to urban land growth through simulation of flood flows under different urbanization conditions and during different flooding stages. A sub-watershed in Toronto, Canada, with urban land conversion was selected as a test site for this study. In order to investigate the effects of urbanization on changes in urban flood risk, land use maps from six different years (1966, 1971, 1976, 1981, 1986, and 2000) and of six simulated land use scenarios (0%, 20%, 40%, 60, 80%, and 100% impervious surface area percentages) were input into coupled hydrologic and hydraulic models. The results show that urbanization creates higher surface runoff and river discharge rates and shortened times to achieve the peak runoff and discharge. Areas influenced by flash flood and floodplain increases due to urbanization are related not only to overall impervious surface area percentage but also to the spatial distribution of impervious surface coverage. With similar average impervious surface area percentage, land use with spatial variation may aggravate flash flood conditions more intensely compared to spatially uniform land use distribution.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".