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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mark Stevens & Yan Song & Philip Berke, 2010. "New Urbanist developments in flood-prone areas: safe development, or safe development paradox?," 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. 53(3), pages 605-629, June.
    2. Dorota Rucinska, 2015. "Spatial Distribution of Flood Risk and Quality of Spatial Management: Case Study in Odra Valley, Poland," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(2), pages 241-251, February.
    3. Volker Meyer & Sebastian Scheuer & Dagmar Haase, 2009. "A multicriteria approach for flood risk mapping exemplified at the Mulde river, Germany," 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. 48(1), pages 17-39, January.
    4. Zaiwu Gong & Jeffrey Forrest, 2014. "Special issue on meteorological disaster risk analysis and assessment: on basis of grey systems theory," 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. 71(2), pages 995-1000, March.
    5. HaiBo Hu, 2016. "Rainstorm flash flood risk assessment using genetic programming: a case study of risk zoning in Beijing," 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. 83(1), pages 485-500, August.
    6. Xiao-ling Yang & Jie-hua Ding & Hui Hou, 2013. "Application of a triangular fuzzy AHP approach for flood risk evaluation and response measures analysis," 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. 68(2), pages 657-674, September.
    7. Zewen Hu & Xiaocai Zhang & Jingjing Cui & Lijie Zhang & Wasim Ahmed, 2021. "A survey-based analysis of the public’s willingness for disaster relief in China," 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. 107(3), pages 2205-2225, July.
    8. Stefanos Stefanidis & Dimitrios Stathis, 2013. "Assessment of flood hazard based on natural and anthropogenic factors using analytic hierarchy process (AHP)," 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. 68(2), pages 569-585, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cailin Li & Na Sun & Yihui Lu & Baoyun Guo & Yue Wang & Xiaokai Sun & Yukai Yao, 2022. "Review on Urban Flood Risk Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-24, December.
    2. Kerim Koc & Zeynep Işık, 2020. "A multi-agent-based model for sustainable governance of urban flood risk mitigation measures," 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. 104(1), pages 1079-1110, October.
    3. Chengguang Lai & Xiaohong Chen & Xiaoyu Chen & Zhaoli Wang & Xushu Wu & Shiwei Zhao, 2015. "A fuzzy comprehensive evaluation model for flood risk based on the combination weight of game theory," 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. 77(2), pages 1243-1259, June.
    4. Chengwei Lu & Jianzhong Zhou & Zhongzheng He & Shuai Yuan, 2018. "Evaluating typical flood risks in Yangtze River Economic Belt: application of a flood risk mapping framework," 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. 94(3), pages 1187-1210, December.
    5. HaiBo Hu, 2016. "Rainstorm flash flood risk assessment using genetic programming: a case study of risk zoning in Beijing," 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. 83(1), pages 485-500, August.
    6. Chengguang Lai & Xiaohong Chen & Zhaoli Wang & Haijun Yu & Xiaoyan Bai, 2020. "Flood Risk Assessment and Regionalization from Past and Future Perspectives at Basin Scale," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(7), pages 1399-1417, July.
    7. G. Papaioannou & L. Vasiliades & A. Loukas, 2015. "Multi-Criteria Analysis Framework for Potential Flood Prone Areas Mapping," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 29(2), pages 399-418, January.
    8. Ebrahim Ahmadisharaf & Alfred Kalyanapu & Eun-Sung Chung, 2015. "Evaluating the Effects of Inundation Duration and Velocity on Selection of Flood Management Alternatives Using Multi-Criteria Decision Making," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 29(8), pages 2543-2561, June.
    9. Ebrahim Ahmadisharaf & Alfred J. Kalyanapu & Eun-Sung Chung, 2017. "Sustainability-Based Flood Hazard Mapping of the Swannanoa River Watershed," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-15, September.
    10. Kadriye Burcu Yavuz Kumlu & Şule Tüdeş, 2019. "Determination of earthquake-risky areas in Yalova City Center (Marmara region, Turkey) using GIS-based multicriteria decision-making techniques (analytical hierarchy process and technique for order pr," 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. 96(3), pages 999-1018, April.
    11. Omid Rahmati & Ali Haghizadeh & Stefanos Stefanidis, 2016. "Assessing the Accuracy of GIS-Based Analytical Hierarchy Process for Watershed Prioritization; Gorganrood River Basin, Iran," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 30(3), pages 1131-1150, February.
    12. Ireneusz Laks & Zbigniew Walczak, 2020. "Efficiency of Polder Modernization for Flood Protection. Case Study of Golina Polder (Poland)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-27, September.
    13. Guangpeng Wang & Yong Liu & Ziying Hu & Yanli Lyu & Guoming Zhang & Jifu Liu & Yun Liu & Yu Gu & Xichen Huang & Hao Zheng & Qingyan Zhang & Zongze Tong & Chang Hong & Lianyou Liu, 2020. "Flood Risk Assessment Based on Fuzzy Synthetic Evaluation Method in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei Metropolitan Area, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-30, February.
    14. Enliang Guo & Jiquan Zhang & Xuehui Ren & Qi Zhang & Zhongyi Sun, 2014. "Integrated risk assessment of flood disaster based on improved set pair analysis and the variable fuzzy set theory in central Liaoning Province, China," 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. 74(2), pages 947-965, November.
    15. Nimrabanu Memon & Dhruvesh P. Patel & Naimish Bhatt & Samir B. Patel, 2020. "Integrated framework for flood relief package (FRP) allocation in semiarid region: a case of Rel River flood, Gujarat, India," 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. 100(1), pages 279-311, January.
    16. Jiayang Zhang & Yangbo Chen, 2019. "Risk Assessment of Flood Disaster Induced by Typhoon Rainstorms in Guangdong Province, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-20, May.
    17. A.-P. Theochari & M. Develekou & E. Baltas, 2022. "GIS-Based Multi-criteria Approach Towards Sustainability of Flood-Susceptible Areas in Giofiros River Basin, Greece," Circular Economy and Sustainability, Springer, vol. 2(4), pages 1615-1626, December.
    18. Moumita Palchaudhuri & Sujata Biswas, 2016. "Application of AHP with GIS in drought risk assessment for Puruliya district, India," 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. 84(3), pages 1905-1920, December.
    19. Sebastian Scheuer & Dagmar Haase & Volker Meyer, 2011. "Exploring multicriteria flood vulnerability by integrating economic, social and ecological dimensions of flood risk and coping capacity: from a starting point view towards an end point view of vulnera," 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. 58(2), pages 731-751, August.
    20. Kwan Ok Lee & Hyojung Lee, 2022. "Public responses to COVID‐19 case disclosure and their spatial implications," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(3), pages 732-756, June.

    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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.