MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record 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 on OpenAlexaff
Raffaele Albano, Jan Adamowski

Bibliographic record

VenueNatural Hazards · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFlood Risk Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersUniversità degli Studi della Basilicata
KeywordsDigital elevation modelFlood mythHydrology (agriculture)Natural hazardElevation (ballistics)HydrogeologyEnvironmental scienceGeologyGeographyGeotechnical engineeringRemote sensingArchaeologyEngineeringOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from 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.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.730
Threshold uncertainty score0.505

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.255 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNatural HazardsSame topicFlood Risk Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207