| Literature DB >> 35161706 |
Hafiz Suliman Munawar1, Ahmed W A Hammad1, S Travis Waller2.
Abstract
Floods are a major cause of loss of lives, destruction of infrastructure, and massive damage to a country's economy. Floods, being natural disasters, cannot be prevented completely; therefore, precautionary measures must be taken by the government, concerned organizations such as the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction and Office for the coordination of Human Affairs, and the community to control its disastrous effects. To minimize hazards and to provide an emergency response at the time of natural calamity, various measures must be taken by the disaster management authorities before the flood incident. This involves the use of the latest cutting-edge technologies which predict the occurrence of disaster as early as possible such that proper response strategies can be adopted before the disaster. Floods are uncertain depending on several climatic and environmental factors, and therefore are difficult to predict. Hence, improvement in the adoption of the latest technology to move towards automated disaster prediction and forecasting is a must. This study reviews the adoption of remote sensing methods for predicting floods and thus focuses on the pre-disaster phase of the disaster management process for the past 20 years. A classification framework is presented which classifies the remote sensing technologies being used for flood prediction into three types, which are: multispectral, radar, and light detection and ranging (LIDAR). Further categorization is performed based on the method used for data analysis. The technologies are examined based on their relevance to flood prediction, flood risk assessment, and hazard analysis. Some gaps and limitations present in each of the reviewed technologies have been identified. A flood prediction and extent mapping model are then proposed to overcome the current gaps. The compiled results demonstrate the state of each technology's practice and usage in flood prediction.Entities:
Keywords: disaster management; flood forecasting; flood hazard assessment; flood prediction; flood risk analysis; remote sensing
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35161706 PMCID: PMC8838435 DOI: 10.3390/s22030960
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
List of acronyms used in the article.
| Abbreviation | Full-Form |
|---|---|
| AI | Artificial Intelligence |
| ASCAT | Advanced Scatterometer |
| AWEI | Automated Water Extraction Index |
| CNN | Convolutional Neural Network |
| DEM | Digital Elevation Model |
| DSM | Digital Surface Model |
| ECV | Essential Climate Variables |
| ETKF | Ensemble Transform Kalman Filter |
| EO | Earth Observations |
| GIS | Geographic Information System |
| KNN | K-Nearest Neighbour |
| LIDAR | Light Detection and Ranging |
| LSTM | Long Short-Term Memory |
| MNDWI | Modified Normalized Difference Water Index |
| MISDc | Modello Idrologico Semi-Distribution in continuo |
| MODIS | Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer |
| ML | Machine Learning |
| NDWI | Normalized Difference Water Index |
| RGA | Region Growing Algorithm |
| RNDWI | Revised Normalized Difference Water Index |
| RNN | Recurrent Neural Networks |
| SAR | Synthetic Aperture Radar |
| SVM | Support Vector Machine |
| TSRM | Tianshan Snowmelt Runoff Model |
| UK | United Kingdom |
| UAV | Unmanned Aerial Vehicle |
| WRF | Weather Research and Forecasting |
Figure 1Query formulation for the retrieval of articles.
Figure 2The Detailed Screening Process.
Figure 3Year-wise distribution of articles from each category.
Figure 4Classification of remote sensing methods.
Multispectral remote sensing technologies for flood prediction.
| Method | Domain | Features | Imaging Technology | Study Area | Results | Limitation | Ref |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Convolutional Neural Network | Machine Learning | Water level Monitoring | Landsat TM, Sentinel-2 | Bihar, India | Overall accuracy (OA) = 0.93 | Need enhanced segmentation to support higher resolution imagery | [ |
| Modello Idrologico Semi-Distribuito in continuo (MISDc) Model | Hydrological Modelling | Flood Forecasting | Metop A and B | Mediterranean Sea | Satellite-based data show improved results than ground-based data, with 100% efficiency | Results may be case specific | [ |
| Bagging-Cubic-KNN | Machine Learning | Flood Susceptibility Mapping and detection | Sentinel-1 | Haraz, Iran | The area under the ROC curve (AUC) = 0.80 | - | [ |
| Bayesian Linear | Machine Learning | Urban Pluvial Flood Forecasting | Sentinel-1 | Pattani, Thailand | Improved results over a neural network and decision tree | Rainfall intensity found to be a weak predictor of floods | [ |
| Support Vector Machines | Machine Learning | Urban Flood Mapping | MODIS & Landsat | New Orleans | Blending multisource images produce better results | Over or underestimation of flooded regions for urban areas | [ |
| Continuum | Hydrological Modelling | Flash Flood Forecasting | Sentinel-1 | Mediterranean catchment | Discharge Prediction results improved using Sentinel-1 data | Data recorded for a short period | [ |
| Geodetically level gauge stations in water bodies | Hydrological Modelling | Modelling floodplain flow, processes, and fluxes in rivers | ICESat spaceborne Earth-orbiting laser altimeter | 400km Amazon River | Accuracies of 10 ± 27 cm | Some uncertainties in results due to tidal influences | [ |
| Generation of essential climate variables (ECV) for lakes | Numerical Modelling | Water surface-level variation calculation | Public web databases providing imagery of satellites instruments | - | Accuracy up to a decimeter level | - | [ |
| WRF Model | Numerical Modelling | Flood Prediction | DEM, MODIS | Juntanghu Watershed, China | Determination Coefficients = 0.85, 0.82 for 2 years respectively | WRF Model | [ |
| Classification, RGA, Thresholding | Image Processing | Mapping Flood Prone Areas | Sentinel-1, SAR, DEM | Po River, Italy | User Accuracy = 60–80% | - | [ |
| MNDWI | Hydrological Modelling | Open Surface River Extraction | Sentinel-2, DEM | Upper Yellow River, Tibetan Plateau | Root mean square error (RMSE) = 16.148 m | - | [ |
LIDAR Technologies for Flood Prediction.
| Method | Domain | Features | Imaging Technology | Study Area | Results | Limitation | Ref |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 3D Modelling | Flood risk mapping | LIDAR, GPS | Annapolis Royal, Nova | Accuracy > 30 cm | - | [ |
|
| 3D Modelling, Hydraulic Modelling | Flood Warning System | LIDAR | Grand River near the City of | RMSE = 0.37–0.98 | Need accurate river streamflow data | [ |
|
| Hydraulic Modelling | Flood return period prediction | LIDAR, Survey data | River Reach, Piedmont | LIDAR data predictions are 7% more accurate than survey data predictions | The method needs to be tested under varying climates | [ |
|
| Hydraulic Modelling | Flood Forecasting & Early Warning | LIDAR | Philippines | Provide flood forecasts for the next 6–12 h | Method not backed by experiments and validation results | [ |
|
| Hydraulic Modelling, 3D Modelling | Flood risk mapping | LIDAR | North-Eastern Romania | Accuracy = 0.5 m | Need high-resolution DEMs for accurate results | [ |
Radar technologies for flood prediction.
| Method | Domain | Features | Imaging Technology | Study Area | Results | Limitation | Ref |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Electromagnetic Modelling | Real-time assessment of flooded regions | SAR | Urban Areas | Demonstrate successful flood mapping in the presence of wind | Concerns about the reliability of wind speed data | [ |
|
| Machine Learning | Online Flood mapping | TerraSAR-X SAR, 175 images | Thailand and Germany | Thailand: 87.5%, Germany: 91.6% | Increased missed alarm rates due to noise | [ |
|
| Numerical Modelling | Flood Warning System | SAR | Dubuque, Iowa | Rainfall totals estimated comparable to the observed event | Need to develop a more generalized picture of the dynamics | [ |
|
| Numerical Modelling | Flood Forecasting | SAR | Severn & Avon rivers, UK | Feasible to work as a standalone model | - | [ |
|
| Hydrological Modelling | Flash Flood Forecasting | S-band NEXRAD | Austin City | RMSE = 0.89 m | [ |
Figure 5Methods adopted in studies.
Figure 6Schematic diagram of proposed system for flood detection and extent mapping.