CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 213Hydrology and Watershed Management StudiesFlood Risk Assessment and ManagementClimate variability and models

Detection and attribution of urbanization effect on flood extremes using nonstationary flood‐frequency models

Open access
Prosdocimi, I., Kjeldsen, T. R., Miller, J. D.·2015·Water Resources Research
DOI 10.1002/2015wr017065PMC PMC4736694
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This study investigates whether long‐term changes in observed series of high flows can be attributed to changes in land use via nonstationary flood‐frequency analyses. A point process characterization of threshold exceedances is used, which allows for direct inclusion of covariates in the model; as well as a nonstationary model for block maxima series. In particular, changes in annual, winter, and summer block maxima and peaks over threshold extracted from gauged instantaneous flows records in two hydrologically similar catchments located in proximity to one another in northern England are investigated. The study catchment is characterized by large increases in urbanization levels in recent decades, while the paired control catchment has remained undeveloped during the study period (1970–2010). To avoid the potential confounding effect of natural variability, a covariate which summarizes key climatological properties is included in the flood‐frequency model. A significant effect of the increasing urbanization levels on high flows is detected, in particular in the summer season. Point process models appear to be superior to block maxima models in their ability to detect the effect of the increase in urbanization levels on high flows.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/2015wr017065

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Enhanced runoff causes erosion and transport of sediment, and at high rates it also contributes to higher river discharge and flooding.

    “Enhanced runoff causes erosion and transport of sediment, and at high rates it also contributes to higher river discharge and flooding (Huang et al. 2008; Prosdocimi et al. 2015; Pumo et al. 2017).”

    From The cost of rapid and haphazard urbanization: lessons learned from the Freetown landslide disaster (2019) · cites this paper as Prosdocimi et al. 2015

    The Introduction (page not supplied) says impervious surfaces increase storm runoff and discusses increased peak flows in urbanizing catchments. The Conclusions (page not supplied) report that flood magnitude and frequency increased with urbanization. The passages do not address erosion or sediment transport, so they support only the runoff-and-flooding part of the claim. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 30

  1. Akaike, H. (1973), Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle, in 2nd International Symposium on Information Theory, edited by Petrov B. N. and Csaki F., pp. 267– 281, Akad. Kiado, Budapest.
  2. Alila, Y., P. K. Kuraś, M. Schnorbus, and R. Hudson (2009), Forests and floods: A new paradigm sheds light on age‐old controversies, Water Resour. Res., 45, W08416, doi: 10.1029/2008WR007207. · DOI
  3. Andréassian, V., J. Lerat, N. Le Moine, and C. Perrin (2012), Neighbors: Nature's own hydrological models, J. Hydrol., 414–415, 49– 58, doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.10.007. · DOI
  4. Beighley, R. E., and G. E. Moglen (2002), Trend assessment in rainfall‐runoff behavior in urbanizing watersheds, J. Hydrol. Eng., 7(1), 27– 34.
  5. Brath, A., A. Montanari, and G. Moretti (2006), Assessing the effect on flood frequency of land use change via hydrological simulation (with uncertainty), J. Hydrol., 324(1–4), 141– 153, doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.10.001. · DOI
  6. Brown, A. E., L. Zhang, T. A. McMahon, A. W. Western, and R. A. Vertessy (2005), A review of paired catchment studies for determining changes in water yield resulting from alterations in vegetation, J. Hydrol., 310(1–4), 28– 61, doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2004.12.010. · DOI
  7. Delgado, J. M., H. Apel, and B. Merz (2010), Flood trends and variability in the Mekong river, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 14(3), 407– 418, doi: 10.5194/hess-14-407-2010. · DOI
  8. Fuller, R., G. Smith, J. Sanderson, R. Hill, and A. Thomson (2002), The UK Land Cover Map 2000: Construction of a parcel‐based vector map from satellite images, Cartogr. J., 39(1), 15– 25.
  9. Galiatsatou, P., and P. Prinos (2007), Outliers and trend detection tests in rainfall extremes, in Proceedings of 32nd IAHR Congress, SS10–15‐O, Venice, Italy.
  10. Hannaford, J., and T. Marsh (2008), High‐flow and flood trends in a network of undisturbed catchments in the UK, Int. J. Climatol., 28(10), 1325– 1338.
  11. Harrigan, S., C. Murphy, J. Hall, R. L. Wilby, and J. Sweeney (2014), Attribution of detected changes in streamflow using multiple working hypotheses, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 18(5), 1935– 1952, doi: 10.5194/hess-18-1935-2014. · DOI
  12. Hollis, G. (1975), The effect of urbanization on floods of different recurrence interval, Water Resour. Res., 11(3), 431– 435.
  13. Hosking, J. R. M., and J. R. Wallis (1997), Regional Frequency Analysis: An Approach Based on L‐Moments, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, U. K.
  14. Kjeldsen, T. R. (2010), Modelling the impact of urbanization on flood frequency relationships in the UK, Hydrol. Res., 41(5), 391– 405, doi: 10.2166/nh.2010.056. · DOI
  15. Kjeldsen, T. R., J. D. Miller, and J. C. Packman (2013), Modelling design flood hydrographs in catchments with mixed urban and rural land cover, Hydrol. Res., 44(6), 1040– 1057, doi: 10.2166/nh.2013.158. · DOI
  16. Kyselý, J., Picek, J., and Beranová R. (2010), Estimating extremes in climate change simulations using the peaks‐over‐threshold method with a non‐stationary threshold, Global Planet. Change, 72(1–2), 55– 68, doi: 10.1016/j.gloplacha.2010.03.006. · DOI
  17. Lins, H. F., and T. A. Cohn (2011), Stationarity: Wanted dead or alive?, J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc., 47(3), 475– 480, doi: 10.1111/j.1752-1688.2011.00542.x. · DOI
  18. López, J., and F. Francés (2013), Non‐stationary flood frequency analysis in continental Spanish rivers, using climate and reservoir indices as external covariates, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 17(8), 3189– 3203, doi: 10.5194/hess-17-3189-2013. · DOI
  19. Madsen, H., P. F. Rasmussen, and D. Rosbjerg (1997), Comparison of annual maximum series and partial duration series methods for modeling extreme hydrologic events: 1. At‐site modeling, Water Resour. Res., 33(4), 747– 757, doi: 10.1029/96WR03848. · DOI
  20. Madsen, H., D. Lawrence, M. Lang, M. Martinkova, and T. Kjeldsen (2014), Review of trend analysis and climate change projections of extreme precipitation and floods in Europe, J. Hydrol., 519, 3634– 3650, doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.11.003. · DOI
  21. Merz, B., S. Vorogushyn, S. Uhlemann, J. Delgado, and Y. Hundecha (2012), HESS Opinions “More efforts and scientific rigour are needed to attribute trends in flood time series,” Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 16(5), 1379– 1387, doi: 10.5194/hess-16-1379-2012. · DOI
  22. Miller, J. D., and S. Grebby (2014), Mapping long‐term temporal change in imperviousness using topographic maps, Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinform., 30, 9– 20, doi: 10.1016/j.jag.2014.01.002. · DOI
  23. Miller, J. D., H. Kim, T. R. Kjeldsen, J. Packman, S. Grebby, and R. Dearden (2014), Assessing the impact of urbanization on storm runoff in a peri‐urban catchment using historical change in impervious cover, J. Hydrol., 515, 59– 70, doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.04.011. · DOI
  24. Montanari, A., and D. Koutsoyiannis (2014), Modeling and mitigating natural hazards: Stationarity is immortal!, Water Resour. Res., 50, 9748– 9756, doi: 10.1002/2014WR016092. · DOI
  25. Prosdocimi, I., T. R. Kjeldsen, and C. Svensson (2014), Non‐stationarity in annual and seasonal series of peak flow and precipitation in the UK, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 14(5), 1125– 1144, doi: 10.5194/nhess-14-1125-2014. · DOI
  26. Shuster, W. D., J. Bonta, H. Thurston, E. Warnemuende, and D. R. Smith (2005), Impacts of impervious surface on watershed hydrology: A review, Urban Water J., 2(4), 263– 275, doi: 10.1080/15730620500386529. · DOI
  27. Stedinger, J., and V. Griffis (2011), Getting from here to where?: Flood frequency analysis and climate, J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc., 47(3), 506– 513.
  28. Sun, X., M. Thyer, B. Renard, and M. Lang (2014), A general regional frequency analysis framework for quantifying local‐scale climate effects: A case study of ENSO effects on Southeast Queensland rainfall, J. Hydrol., 512, 53– 68, doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.02.025. · DOI
  29. Villarini, G., J. A. Smith, F. Serinaldi, J. Bales, P. D. Bates, and W. F. Krajewski (2009), Flood frequency analysis for nonstationary annual peak records in an urban drainage basin, Adv. Water Resour., 32(8), 1255– 1266, doi: 10.1016/j.advwatres.2009.05.003. · DOI
  30. Vogel, R. M., C. Yaindl, and M. Walter (2011), Nonstationarity: Flood magnification and recurrence reduction factors in the United States, J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc., 47(3), 464– 474, doi: 10.1111/j.1752-1688.2011.00541.x. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Prosdocimi, I., Kjeldsen, T. R., & Miller, J. D.
Affiliations
  • UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology (GB)
  • University of Bath (GB)
Corresponding author
Prosdocimi, I.
ORCID
Venue
Water Resources Research
Publisher
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
Published
2015-06
Volume
51
Issue
6
Pages
4244-4262
ISSN
  • 0043-1397 (ISSN-L)
  • 1944-7973
DOI
10.1002/2015wr017065
PMC
PMC4736694
OpenAlex
W2101261195
Cited by
213
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 13
FWCI
7.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Water Resources Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • NERC Open Research Archive (Natural Environment Research Council) (acceptedVersion)
  • The University of Bath Online Publications Store (The University of Bath) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • ARCA (Università Ca' Foscari Venezia) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
CEH National Capability
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Hydrology and Watershed Management Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Flood Risk Assessment and Management
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Climate variability and models
Keywords
urbanization, land use change, point process models, peaks over threshold, block maxima, high flows, covariate effects, paired catchments, Northern England

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