Technical Papers
Mar 16, 2016

Coastal Flood Damage Estimator: An Alternative to FEMA’s HAZUS Platform

Publication: Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering
Volume 142, Issue 6

Abstract

Floods are the most devastating natural hazards in the United States, and these events lead to significant economic consequences. Estimation of damages and losses at different parts of the floodplain can be used to identify the vulnerable areas susceptible to flood. Floodplain maps combined with damage assessment could identify high-flood-risk areas and present a platform to develop guidelines and zoning resolutions for proper land use, building new infrastructures, and placing and retracting residential areas. In this study, a risk-based methodology is proposed to quantitatively assess damages. For this purpose, a geographic information system (GIS)–based approach is used as an alternative to more complex software packages. The system is called a flood-damage estimator (FDE) and utilizes empirical synthetic depth-damage functions, land-use data, digital elevation model (DEM), raster maps (for featuring the characteristics of the properties at flood risk areas), and floodplain extent for the region in order to estimate flood damage. The results from this model are compared with the results of flood hazard analysis module in the FEMA HAZard United States (HAZUS) software. This model uses different characteristics, such as ground elevation and storm surge elevations to estimate flood damages and losses. In both models, a 100-year floodplain proposed by the FEMA flood insurance studies (FISs) of 2007 and 2013, as well as floodplain developed by the gridded surface subsurface hydrologic analysis (GSSHA)–distributed hydrologic model, are used to determine the flood water depth at different locations. This hydrologic model provides input from simultaneous consideration of inland and coastal flooding to the damage estimation model. The proposed methodology is applied to Manhattan. The results show the significant value of combining GIS-based models with damage-risk analysis to provide a flexible and simple platform for damage estimation as an alternative to the HAZUS model. Flood-risk maps created based on the damage estimation are of great use and importance in proper planning for land use and setting priorities for allocation of financial resources in recovery and reconstruction plans.

Get full access to this article

View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.

Acknowledgments

The first author was formerly a research professor at New York University. The authors would like to thank Jean Occidental, M.S. graduate of the Department of Civil and Urban Engineering, at the Polytechnic Institute of New York University, for providing assistance. The assistance of Ali Razmi, M.S. graduate of Civil Engineering at the Azad University, is also acknowledged.

References

Apel, H., Annegret, W., Thieken, H., Merz, B., and Bloschl, G. (2006). “A probabilistic modelling system for assessing flood risks.” Nat. Hazard., 38(1-2), 79–100.
Banks, J. C., Camp, J. V., and Abkowitz, M. D. (2014). “Scale and resolution considerations in the application of HAZUS-MH 2.1 to flood risk assessments.” Nat. Hazard. Rev., 04014025.
Berman, E., and Schwitzer, T. (2012). “Update on HAZUS AAL study and data.” ASFPM Annual National Conf., Association of State Floodplain Managers, San Antonio.
Burby, R. J. eds. (1998). Cooperating with nature: Confronting natural hazards with land-use planning for sustainable communities, Joseph Henry Press, Washington, DC, 368.
Dawson, R. J., Speight, L., Hall, J. W., Djordjević, S., Savić, D., and Leandro, J. (2008). “Attribution of flood risk in urban areas.” J. Hydroinform., 10(4), 275–288.
De Moel, H., and Aerts, J. C. J. H. (2011). “Effect of uncertainty in land use, damage models and inundation depth on flood damage estimates.” Nat. Hazard., 58(1), 407–425.
DMSG (Disaster Management Support Group). (2001). “The use of earth observing satellites for hazard support: Assessments & scenarios.”, NOAA, Dept. Commerce, Univ. of Michigan Library, Ann Arbor, MI.
Downer, C., and Ogden, F. (2004). “GSSHA: Model to simulate diverse stream flow producing processes.” J. Hydrol. Eng., 161–174.
Downer, C. W., and Ogden, F. L. (2012). “GSSHA user manual.” U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.
Downton, M. W., and Pielke, R. A. Jr. (2005). “How accurate are disaster loss data? The case of US flood damage.” Nat. Hazard., 35(2), 211–228.
Dutta, D., Herath, S., and Musiake, K. (2003). “A mathematical model for flood loss estimation.” J. Hydrol., 277(1), 24–49.
FEMA. (2007). Flood insurance study, New York.
FEMA. (2012). HAZUS-MH 2.1 flood technical manual, Dept. of Homeland Security, Washington, DC.
FEMA. (2013). Preliminary flood insurance, New York.
Goharian, E., Burian, S., Bardsley, T., and Strong, C. (2015). “Incorporating potential severity into vulnerability assessment of water supply systems under climate change conditions.” J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 04015051.
Haq, M., Akhtar, M., Muhammad, S., Paras, S., and Rahmatullah, J. (2012). “Techniques of remote sensing and GIS for flood monitoring and damage assessment: A case study of Sindh province, Pakistan.” Egypt. J. Remote Sens. Space. Sci., 15(2), 135–141.
Horritt, M. S. and Bates, P. D. (2001). “Predicting floodplain inundation: Raster-based modelling versus the finite-element approach.” Hydrol. Process., 15(5), 825–842.
Jonge, T. D., Matthijs, K., and Hogeweg, M. (1996). “Modeling floods and damage assessment using GIS.”, IAHS, CEH, Oxfordshire, U.K., 299–306.
Jongman, B., et al. (2012). “Comparative flood damage model assessment: Towards a European approach.” Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 12(12), 3733–3752.
Jonkman, S. N., Van Gelder, P. H. A. J. M., and Vrijling, J. K. (2003). “An overview of quantitative risk measures for loss of life and economic damage.” J. Hazard. Mater., 99(1), 1–30.
Karamouz, M., Razmi, A., Nazif, S., and Zahmatkesh, Z. (2016). “Integration of inland and coastal storms for flood vulnerability assessment using a distributed hydrologic model.” J. Hydrol. Eng., in press.
Karamouz, M., Zahmatkesh, Z., Goharian, E., and Nazif, S. (2014). “Combined impact of inland and coastal floods: Mapping knowledge base for development of planning strategies.” J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 04014098.
Komolafe, A. A., Adegboyega, S. A. A., and Akinluyi, F. O. (2015). “A review of flood risk analysis in Nigeria.” Am. J. Environ. Sci., 11(3), 157–166.
Kreibich, H., Seifert, I., Merz, B., and Thieken, A. H. (2010). “Development of FLEMOcs—A new model for the estimation of flood losses in the commercial sector.” Hydrol. Sci. J., 55(8), 1302–1314.
MapPLUTO-Manhattan. (2014). “Department of City Planning.” 〈http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/download/bytes/mn_mappluto_14v1.zip〉 (Dec. 20, 2014).
McGrath, H., Stefanakis, E., and Nastev, M. (2015). “Sensitivity analysis of flood damage estimates: A case study in Fredericton, New Brunswick.” Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct., 14(4), 379–387.
Merz, B., Kreibich, H., Schwarze, R., and Thieken, A. (2010). “Review article: Assessment of economic flood damage.” Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 10(8), 1697–1724.
Mileti, D. S. (1999). Disasters by design: A reassessment of natural hazards in the United States, Joseph Henry Press, Washington, DC, 351.
Mohammadi, S. A., Nazariha, M., and Mehrdadi, N. (2014). “Flood damage estimate (quantity), using HEC-FDA model. Case study: The Neka River.” Procedia Eng., 70, 1173–1182.
Multi-hazard Loss Estimation Methodology. (2012). “HAZUS-MH 2.1 software.” Dept. of Homeland Security, FEMA, Mitigation Division, Washington, DC.
NAP (National Academy Press). (1999). The impacts of natural disasters: A framework for loss estimation, Washington, DC, 68.
NCEI (National Centers for Environmental Information). (2013). “Climate data online search for Central Park, NY.” 〈http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/search?datasetid=PRECIP_HLY〉 (Aug. 10, 2013).
Neubert, M., Naumann, T., Hennersdorf, J., and Nikolowski, J. (2014). “The geographic information system based flood damage simulation model HOWAD.” J. Flood Risk Manage., in press.
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). (2013). “Tides/water levels for the Battery, NY.” 〈http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/waterlevels.html?id=8518750〉 (Aug. 10, 2013).
Notaro, V., De Marchis, M., Fontanazza, C. M., La Loggia, G., Puleo, V, and Freni, G. (2014). “The effect of damage functions on urban flood damage appraisal.” Proc. Eng., 70, 1251–1260.
Occidental, J. (2014). “Economic vulnerability of NYC coastal communities: Residential properties.” M.Sc. thesis, Polytechnic Institute of New York Univ., New York.
Oliveri, E., and Santoro, M. (2000). “Estimation of urban structural flood damages: The case study of Palermo.” Urban Water J., 2(3), 223–234.
Parker, D. J. (1992). “The assessment of the economic and social impacts of natural hazards.” Int. Conf. on Preparedness and Mitigation for Natural Disasters, Vol. 92, Flood Hazard Research Centre (FHRC), London.
Parker, D. J., ed. (2000). Floods, Routledge, London, 748.
Parker, D. J., Green, C. H., and Thompson, P. M. (1987). Urban flood protection benefits, Gower Technical Press, Hants, England.
Penning-Rowsell, E. C., and Chatterton, J. B. (1977). The benefits of flood alleviation: A manual of assessment techniques, Ashgate Publishing, Aldershot, U.K.
Petersen, M. S. (1999). “Impacts of flash floods.” Coping with flash floods, E. Gruntfest and J. Handmer, eds., Springer, Rotterdam, Netherlands, 11–13.
Pielke, R. A. (2000). “Flood impacts on society: Damaging floods as a framework for assessment.” Floods, D. J. Parker, ed., Routledge, London, 133–155.
Razmi, A. (2012). “Assessment of climate change impacts on coastal flood risk management.” M.Sc. thesis, Azad Univ., Tehran, Iran.
Romali, N. S., Yusop, Z., and Ismail, Z. (2015). “Flood damage assessment: A review of flood stage–damage function curve.” Proc., Int. Symp. on Flood Research and Management, Springer, Singapore, 147–159.
RSMeans. (2006). Means square foot costs, Rockland, MA.
Scawthorn, C., et al. (2006a). “HAZUS-MH flood loss estimation methodology. I: Overview and flood hazard characterization.” Nat. Hazard. Rev., 60–71.
Scawthorn, C., et al. (2006b). “HAZUS-MH flood loss estimation methodology. II. Damage and loss assessment.” Nat. Hazard. Rev., 72–81.
Sharif, H. O., Sparks, L., Hassan, A. A., Zeitler, J., and Xie, H. (2010). “Application of a distributed hydrologic model to the November 17, 2004, flood of Bull Creek watershed, Austin, Texas.” J. Hydrol. Eng., 651–657.
Taramelli, A., Valentini, E., and Sterlacchini, S. (2014). “A GIS-based approach for hurricane hazard and vulnerability assessment in the Cayman Islands.” 〈https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2014.07.021〉 (Sep. 2, 2014).
Tingsanchali, T. (2012). “Urban flood disaster management.” Proc. Eng., 32, 25–37.
Toda, K., Inoue, K., Nishikori, T., and Nakagawa, Y. (2005). “Inundation analysis by heavy rainfall in urban area considering branch sewer effect.” Proc., Int. Conf. on Monitoring, Prediction and Mitigation of Water-Related Disasters, Disaster Prevention Research Institute, Kyoto, Japan, 137–141.
USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). (2003). “Economic guidance memorandum (EGM) 04-01: Generic depth damage relationships for residential structures with basements.” Washington, DC.
USDA. (2013). “Geospatial data gateway: Order data for NY.” 〈https://gdg.sc.egov.usda.gov/〉 (Aug. 10, 2013).
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2015). “Community Block Grant Program.” 〈http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/comm_planning/communitydevelopment/programs〉 (Jul. 10, 2015).
Van der Sande, C. J., de Jong, S. M., and de Roo, A. P. J. (2003). “A segmentation and classification approach of IKONOS-2 imagery for land cover mapping to assist flood risk and flood damage assessment.” Int. J. Appl. Earth Observ. Geo Inform., 4(3), 217–229.
Velasco, M., Cabello, À., and Russo, B. (2015). “Flood damage assessment in urban areas. Application to the Raval District of Barcelona using synthetic depth damage curves.” Urban Water J., 1–15.
Yang, J., Townsend, R. D., and Daneshfar, B. (2006). “Applying the HEC-RAS model and GIS techniques in river network floodplain delineation.” Can. J. Civ. Eng., 33(1), 19–28.
Zahmatkesh, Z., Karamouz, M., Goharian, E., and Burian, S. (2014). “Analysis of the effects of climate change on urban storm water runoff using statistically downscaled precipitation data and a change factor approach.” J. Hydrol. Eng., 05014022.

Information & Authors

Information

Published In

Go to Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering
Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering
Volume 142Issue 6June 2016

History

Received: Apr 18, 2015
Accepted: Dec 17, 2015
Published online: Mar 16, 2016
Published in print: Jun 1, 2016
Discussion open until: Aug 16, 2016

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Authors

Affiliations

Mohammad Karamouz, F.ASCE [email protected]
Professor, School of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Tehran, 1417614418 Tehran, Iran (corresponding author). E-mail: [email protected]
Mohammad Fereshtehpour [email protected]
Ph.D. Candidate, School of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Tehran, 1417614418 Tehran, Iran. E-mail: [email protected]
Forough Ahmadvand [email protected]
Research Assistant, School of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Tehran, 1417614418 Tehran, Iran. E-mail: [email protected]
Zahra Zahmatkesh [email protected]
Research Associate, School of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Tehran, 1417614418 Tehran, Iran. E-mail: [email protected]

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

Citations

Download citation

If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.

Cited by

View Options

Get Access

Access content

Please select your options to get access

Log in/Register Log in via your institution (Shibboleth)
ASCE Members: Please log in to see member pricing

Purchase

Save for later Information on ASCE Library Cards
ASCE Library Cards let you download journal articles, proceedings papers, and available book chapters across the entire ASCE Library platform. ASCE Library Cards remain active for 24 months or until all downloads are used. Note: This content will be debited as one download at time of checkout.

Terms of Use: ASCE Library Cards are for individual, personal use only. Reselling, republishing, or forwarding the materials to libraries or reading rooms is prohibited.
ASCE Library Card (5 downloads)
$105.00
Add to cart
ASCE Library Card (20 downloads)
$280.00
Add to cart
Buy Single Article
$35.00
Add to cart

Get Access

Access content

Please select your options to get access

Log in/Register Log in via your institution (Shibboleth)
ASCE Members: Please log in to see member pricing

Purchase

Save for later Information on ASCE Library Cards
ASCE Library Cards let you download journal articles, proceedings papers, and available book chapters across the entire ASCE Library platform. ASCE Library Cards remain active for 24 months or until all downloads are used. Note: This content will be debited as one download at time of checkout.

Terms of Use: ASCE Library Cards are for individual, personal use only. Reselling, republishing, or forwarding the materials to libraries or reading rooms is prohibited.
ASCE Library Card (5 downloads)
$105.00
Add to cart
ASCE Library Card (20 downloads)
$280.00
Add to cart
Buy Single Article
$35.00
Add to cart

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Copy the content Link

Share with email

Email a colleague

Share