Comparative Evaluation of Depth-Damage Estimation Approaches Using High-Resolution Building Inventory Data and Hydraulic Model Outputs
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32628/IJSRCE26104Keywords:
flood risk assessment, depth-damage functions, hydraulic modeling, building inventory data, economic loss estimation, vulnerability modelingAbstract
Accurate estimation of flood-induced economic losses remains a critical challenge in flood risk assessment due to uncertainties associated with vulnerability modeling and exposure representation. This study presents a comparative evaluation of depth-damage estimation approaches by integrating high-resolution building inventory data with hydraulic model outputs. A two-dimensional hydrodynamic model was developed to simulate spatial flood depth distributions, which were subsequently intersected with structure-level building datasets to enable object-based damage assessment. Three depth-damage estimation approaches were evaluated: an empirical curve model, a parametric relative damage function, and a multi-parameter vulnerability model incorporating structural attributes. Model performance was assessed using statistical metrics including Mean Absolute Error (MAE), Root Mean Square Error (RMSE), bias ratio, and sensitivity analysis under controlled hydraulic depth perturbations. Results indicate that high-resolution exposure data significantly influence loss estimation magnitude and spatial distribution, reducing aggregation bias commonly observed in traditional approaches. Depth-only formulations were found to systematically overestimate damages under shallow flooding conditions, while the multi-parameter model demonstrated improved robustness and reduced sensitivity to hydraulic uncertainty. Comparative analysis further revealed that vulnerability formulation contributes substantially to overall uncertainty in flood loss prediction, often exceeding hydraulic modeling variability. The findings highlight the importance of integrating asset-level exposure datasets and locally calibrated vulnerability relationships for reliable economic loss estimation. The proposed framework provides methodological guidance for flood risk practitioners, supports improved disaster loss accounting, and contributes to resilience-oriented urban planning. Future research directions include adaptive artificial intelligence–based damage functions and real-time digital twin systems for dynamic flood loss estimation.
Downloads
References
Arnold, C. L., & Gibbons, C. J. (1996). Impervious surface coverage: The emergence of a key environmental indicator. Journal of the American Planning Association, 62(2), 243–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944369608975688 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01944369608975688
Adewale, L.D. (2026). Machine Learning Surroagte Models Replacing Physics Simulations International Journal of Computer Applications Technology and Research Volume 12–Issue 12, 341 - 352, DOI:10.7753/IJCATR1212.1030 DOI: https://doi.org/10.7753/IJCATR1212.1030
Tom-Ayegunle, K., Jamil, Y., Echouffo-Tcheugui, J., et al. (2025). Cumulative Burden of Geriatric Conditions and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Older Adults: Analysis From ARIC. JACC Adv. 2025 Dec, 4 (12_Part_1) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacadv.2025.102308 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacadv.2025.102308
Apel, H., Aronica, G. T., Kreibich, H., & Thieken, A. H. (2009). Flood risk analyses—How detailed do we need to be? Natural Hazards, 49(1), 79–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-008-9277-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-008-9277-8
Bates, P. D., Horritt, M. S., & Fewtrell, T. J. (2010). A simple inertial formulation of the shallow water equations for efficient two-dimensional flood inundation modelling. Journal of Hydrology, 387(1–2), 33–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.03.027 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.03.027
Biljecki, F., Ledoux, H., & Stoter, J. (2016). An improved LOD specification for 3D building models. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 59, 25–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2016.04.005 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2016.04.005
Chow, V. T., Maidment, D. R., & Mays, L. W. (1988). Applied hydrology. McGraw-Hill.
de Moel, H., & Aerts, J. C. J. H. (2011). Effect of uncertainty in land use, damage models and inundation depth on flood damage estimates. Natural Hazards, 58(1), 407–425. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-010-9675-6 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-010-9675-6
Figueiredo, R., & Martina, M. L. V. (2016). Using open building data in flood damage assessment. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 16(2), 415–437. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-16-415-2016 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-16-417-2016
Gerl, T., Kreibich, H., Franco, G., Marechal, D., & Schröter, K. (2016). A review of flood loss models as basis for comparative risk analyses. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 16(7), 1723–1739. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-16-1723-2016 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0159791
Horritt, M. S., & Bates, P. D. (2002). Evaluation of 1D and 2D numerical models for predicting river flood inundation. Journal of Hydrology, 268(1–4), 87–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(02)00121-X DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(02)00121-X
Hunter, N. M., Bates, P. D., Horritt, M. S., & Wilson, M. D. (2007). Simple spatially distributed models for predicting flood inundation: A review. Geomorphology, 90(3–4), 208–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2006.10.021 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2006.10.021
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2021). Climate change 2021: The physical science basis. Cambridge University Press.
Jongman, B., Kreibich, H., Apel, H., Barredo, J. I., Bates, P. D., Feyen, L., Gericke, A., Neal, J., Aerts, J. C. J. H., & Ward, P. J. (2012). Comparative flood damage model assessment: Towards a European approach. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 12(12), 3733–3752. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-12-3733-2012 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-12-3733-2012
Jongman, B., Ward, P. J., & Aerts, J. C. J. H. (2015). Global exposure to river and coastal flooding: Long-term trends and changes. Global Environmental Change, 22(4), 823–835. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.07.004 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.07.004
Kreibich, H., Seifert, I., Merz, B., & Thieken, A. H. (2010). Development of FLEMOcs—A new model for the estimation of flood losses in the commercial sector. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 55(8), 1302–1314. https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2010.529815 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2010.529815
Kreibich, H., Thieken, A. H., Petrow, T., Müller, M., & Merz, B. (2017). Flood loss reduction through private precautionary measures. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 5(6), 117–126. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-5-117-2005
Merz, B., Kreibich, H., Schwarze, R., & Thieken, A. (2010). Review article: Assessment of economic flood damage. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 10(8), 1697–1724. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-10-1697-2010 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-10-1697-2010
Molinari, D., Scorzini, A. R., Gallazzi, A., & Ballio, F. (2020). AGRIDE-c: A conceptual model for flood damage assessment of residential buildings. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 65(14), 2453–2468. https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2019.1677907 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2019.1677907
Neal, J., Schumann, G., Fewtrell, T., Budimir, M., Bates, P., & Mason, D. (2012). Evaluating a new LISFLOOD-FP formulation with subgrid-scale topography for flood inundation modelling. Journal of Hydrology, 428–429, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.01.027 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.01.027
Penning-Rowsell, E., Priest, S., Parker, D., Morris, J., Tunstall, S., Viavattene, C., Chatterton, J., & Owen, D. (2013). Flood and coastal erosion risk management: A manual for economic appraisal. Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203066393
Scorzini, A. R., & Frank, E. (2017). Flood damage curves: New insights from the 2013 flood in Germany. Water, 9(2), 52. https://doi.org/10.3390/w9020052
Tate, E., Muñoz, C., Suchan, J., Chini, M., & Anderson, J. (2015). Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis of flood loss models. Risk Analysis, 35(3), 571–588. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12318 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)NH.1527-6996.0000167
Teng, J., Jakeman, A. J., Vaze, J., Croke, B. F. W., Dutta, D., & Kim, S. (2017). Flood inundation modelling: A review of methods, recent advances and uncertainty analysis. Environmental Modelling & Software, 90, 201–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2017.01.006 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2017.01.006
Wagenaar, D. J., de Bruijn, K. M., Bouwer, L. M., & de Moel, H. (2018). Uncertainty in flood damage estimates and its potential effect on investment decisions. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 18(8), 2247–2264. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-18-2247-2018
Wing, O. E. J., Bates, P. D., Sampson, C. C., Smith, A. M., Johnson, K. A., & Erickson, T. A. (2019). Validation of a 30 m resolution flood hazard model of the conterminous United States. Water Resources Research, 55(11), 9540–9559. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019WR025824
Awolola, O. J., Jethva, H. B., & Kataria, B. C. (2026). Computer device for construction site monitoring and contractor coordination. UK Design No. 6429828.
Wing, O. E. J., Bates, P. D., Sampson, C. C., Smith, A. M., Johnson, K. A., & Erickson, T. A. (2020). Validation of a high-resolution flood hazard model of the conterminous United States. Water Resources Research, 56(5), e2019WR025824. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019WR025824
Winsemius, H. C., Aerts, J. C. J. H., van Beek, L. P. H., Bierkens, M. F. P., Bouwman, A., Jongman, B., Kwadijk, J. C. J., Ligtvoet, W., Lucas, P. L., van Vuuren, D. P., & Ward, P. J. (2016). Global drivers of future river flood risk. Nature Climate Change, 6(4), 381–385. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2893 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2893
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
