The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Modeling dependence between extreme rainfall and storm surge to estimate coastal flooding risk
Abstract
Accounting for dependence between extreme rainfall and storm surge can be critical for correctly estimating coastal flood risk. Several statistical methods are available for modeling such extremal dependence, but the comparative performance of these methods for quantifying the exceedance probability of rare coastal floods is unknown. This paper compares three classes of statistical methods—threshold‐excess, point process, and conditional—in terms of their ability to quantify flood risk. The threshold‐excess method offers approximately unbiased estimates for dependence parameters, but its application for quantifying flood risk is limited because it is unable to handle situations where only one of the two variables is extreme. In contrast, the point process method (with the logistic and negative logistic models) and the conditional method describe the full distribution of extremes, but they overestimate and underestimate the dependence strength, respectively. We conclude that the point process method is the most suitable approach for modeling dependence between extreme rainfall and storm surge when the dependence is relatively strong, while none of the three methods produces satisfactory results for bivariate extremes with very weak dependence. It is therefore important to take the bias of each method into account when applying them to flood estimation problems. A case study is used to demonstrate the three statistical methods and illustrate the implication of dependence to flood risk.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
An Introduction to Statistical Modeling of Extreme Values
Coles, S. (2001) · Springer Series in Statistics · doi:10.1007/978-1-4471-3675-0 · Cited by 7,352
Bootstrap Methods and their Application
Davison, A. C., & Hinkley, D. V. (1997) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511802843 · Cited by 7,350 · cited 2×
“de Haan [1984] described the bivariate extreme value distribution using the limiting Poisson process.”
MethodInfluential
Cited by
Westra, S., Fowler, H. J., Evans, J. P., Alexander, L. V., Berg, P., Johnson, F., Kendon, E. J., Lenderink, G., & Roberts, N. M. (2014) · Reviews of Geophysics · doi:10.1002/2014rg000464 · Cited by 1,533
Self-citationA global reanalysis of storm surges and extreme sea levels
Muis, S., Verlaan, M., Winsemius, H. C., Aerts, J. C. J. H., & Ward, P. J. (2016) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/ncomms11969 · Cited by 731
Bevacqua, E., Maraun, D., Hobæk Haff, I., Widmann, M., & Vrac, M. (2017) · Hydrology and Earth System Sciences · doi:10.5194/hess-21-2701-2017 · Cited by 373
A review of quantification methodologies for multi-hazard interrelationships
Tilloy, A., Malamud, B. D., Winter, H., & Joly-Laugel, A. (2019) · Earth-Science Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.earscirev.2019.102881 · Cited by 364
Ward, P. J., Couasnon, A., Eilander, D., Haigh, I. D., Hendry, A., Muis, S., Veldkamp, T. I. E., Winsemius, H. C., & Wahl, T. (2018) · Environmental Research Letters · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aad400 · Cited by 320
Metadata
- Authors
- Zheng, F., Westra, S., Leonard, M., & Sisson, S. A.
- Venue
- Water Resources Research
- Publisher
- American Geophysical Union (AGU)
- Published
- 2014-03
- Volume
- 50
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 2050-2071
- ISSN
- 0043-1397 (ISSN-L)
- 1944-7973
- OpenAlex
- W2098390252
- Cited by
- 191
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 5.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Modeling dependence between extreme rainfall and storm surge to estimate coastal flooding risk. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/2013wr014616
- The paper
- Zheng, F., Westra, S., Leonard, M., & Sisson, S. A. (2014). Modeling dependence between extreme rainfall and storm surge to estimate coastal flooding risk. Water Resources Research. https://doi.org/10.1002/2013wr014616
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.