IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/nathaz/v120y2024i4d10.1007_s11069-023-06341-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Performance benchmarking on several regression models applied in urban flash flood risk assessment

Author

Listed:
  • Haibo Hu

    (Chinese Academy of Meteorological Sciences)

  • Miao Yu

    (Chinese Academy of Meteorological Sciences)

  • Xiya Zhang

    (Institute of Urban Meteorology)

  • Ying Wang

    (Beijing Normal University)

Abstract

To evaluate the performances of regression models applied in the urban flash flood risk assessment, the historical urban flash flood occurrences points were used to build the Voronoi polygon networks for calculating Ripley’s K values which can be adopted to be the risk value and the predictands in regression. The first level risk indicators of hazard, vulnerability, sensitivity and exposure risk factors in the risk assessment, as well as the sensitivity subordinate indicators of imperviousness and terrain factor, were listed to be the predictors in the regression model. Subsequently, methods of the linear regression equation (LRE), nonlinear regression power-form function (PF) and a simplified power-form function (SPF), as well as support vector machine (SVM) model and random forests (RF) model, were all nominated for the performance evaluation and comparison of the fitness of their regression relationships between the predictors and the predictands. With the support of samples, the benchmarking firstly demonstrated the SPF is the best of the regression equation; but the full PF equation cannot be figured out on account of the sample data deficiency. The SVM model behaves better than the regression equations of SPE and LRE, while the SVM of nonlinear polynomial kernel function is slightly better than that of the nonlinear Gaussian kernel function. Above all, the RF model performed perfectly in the regression fitting, which the relative bias index is − 0.009 and the relative mean squared error is 0.0773. Meanwhile, it mostly resolves the problems of overfitting, outliers and noise in regression. The variable importance (VI) evaluated by the RF model indicated that the top four important risk factors are the imperviousness, terrain factor, vulnerability, and exposure factor, which the VI index value is 0.38, 0.16, 0.11 and 0.1, respectively. Unexpectedly, the hazard factor appears to be the least important factor with a VI value of 0.04. The homogeneity of invariable hazard being preserved in regional climate background makes the hazard a minor role in risk contribution. The model performance evaluation demonstrated the artificial intelligence RF model should be recommended to be the common-use model for aftermath meteorology-related risk assessment. On the other hand, the VI analysis tools of RF were also recognized to be a welcome toolbox items for the risk analysis.

Suggested Citation

  • Haibo Hu & Miao Yu & Xiya Zhang & Ying Wang, 2024. "Performance benchmarking on several regression models applied in urban flash flood risk assessment," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 120(4), pages 3487-3504, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:nathaz:v:120:y:2024:i:4:d:10.1007_s11069-023-06341-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s11069-023-06341-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11069-023-06341-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11069-023-06341-y?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:nathaz:v:120:y:2024:i:4:d:10.1007_s11069-023-06341-y. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.