ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Flood Hazard Assessment and Mapping: A Case Study from Australia's Hawkesbury-Nepean Catchment.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Floods are among the costliest natural hazards, in Australia and globally. In this study, we used an indicator-based method to assess flood hazard risk in Australia's Hawkesbury-Nepean catchment (HNC). Australian flood risk assessments are typically spatially constrained through the common use of resource-intensive flood modelling. The large spatial scale of this study area is the primary element of novelty in this research. The indicators of maximum 3-day precipitation (M3DP), distance to river-elevation weighted (DREW), and soil moisture (SM) were used to create the final Flood Hazard Index (FHI). The 17-26 March 2021 flood event in the HNC was used as a case study. It was found that almost 85% of the HNC was classified by the FHI at 'severe' or 'extreme' level, illustrating the extremity of the studied event. The urbanised floodplain area in the central-east of the HNC had the highest FHI values. Conversely, regions along the western border of the catchment had the lowest flood hazard risk. The DREW indicator strongly correlated with the FHI. The M3DP indicator displayed strong trends of extreme rainfall totals increasing towards the eastern catchment border. The SM indicator was highly variable, but featured extreme values in conservation areas of the HNC. This study introduces a method of large-scale proxy flood hazard assessment that is novel in an Australian context. A proof-of-concept methodology of flood hazard assessment developed for the HNC is replicable and could be applied to other flood-prone areas elsewhere.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.