Article

Flood Risk Assessment Using TELEMAC-2D Models

Integrated with Multi-Index Analysis in Shenzhen
River Basin, China
Guoyi Li 1,*, Jiahong Liu 1,2,* and Weiwei Shao 1

1 State Key Laboratory of Simulation and Regulation of Water Cycle in River Basin, China Institute of Water
Resource and Hydropower Research, Beijing 100038, China
2 Water Resources and Water Ecological Engineering Technology Research Center of Ministry of Water

Resources, Beijing 100044, China

* Correspondence: [email protected] (G.L.); [email protected] (J.L.)

Abstract: An urban flood simulation model based on TELEMAC-2D was constructed, and the
inundation data of two measured rainstorms (7 June 2018 and 16 September 2018) were selected to
validate the model. Flooding processes were simulated under 12 designed rainfall scenarios with
rainfall return periods of 20, 50 and 100 years and rainfall peak coefficients of 0.2, 0.4, 0.6 and 0.8,
respectively. The hazard-vulnerability (H-V) method was used for urban flood risk assessment. The
selected hazard factors included inundation depth, flood velocity, elevation and slope. The
vulnerability factors included land use type, population density and property distribution. The
analytic hierarchy process (AHP) method was used to calculate the weight values of each indicator
factor, and ArcGIS software was used for overlay calculation. The results of the analysis show that
as the rainfall peak coefficient factor increases, the area of each risk zone increases to varying
degrees. The larger the rainfall peak coefficient factor, the more serious the flooding. As the rainfall
Citation: Li, G.; Liu, J.; Shao, W.
return period increases, the effect of the rainfall peak coefficient factor of the change in the area of
Flood Risk Assessment Using the highest risk zone diminishes. The highest risk zone is the largest within Luohu District (LHD),
TELEMAC-2D Models Integrated accounting for 46.38%, 60.92% and 45.54% of the total highest risk area, respectively. As the return
with Multi-Index Analysis in period increases, the area of the highest risk zone within Futian District (FTD) increases, but its
Shenzhen River Basin, China. Water proportion has a decreasing trend, and the proportion of the highest risk area within Longgang
2022, 14, 2513. https://doi.org/ District (LGD) has an increasing trend. The risk zoning map can better reflect the risk distribution
10.3390/w14162513 of the basin and provide a scientific basis for early warning of flood prevention and drainage in the
Academic Editor: Maria Mimikou Shenzhen River basin.

Received: 11 July 2022

Keywords: urban flood disaster; TELEMAC-2D model; analytic hierarchy process; indicator system
Accepted: 11 August 2022
method; flood risk assessment
Published: 15 August 2022

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays

neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and 1. Introduction
institutional affiliations.
Many countries face serious threats due to the increased frequency and intensity of
extreme weather events (typhoons, heat waves, floods) affected by global climate change
[1]. According to estimates by experts from the World Bank, the average annual flood
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
losses in 136 mega coastal cities in the world in 2005 were about USD 6 billion, and it is
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
expected that this value will increase to USD 52 billion by 2050 [2]. Climate change and
This article is an open access article urbanization continue to accelerate, resulting in widespread casualties and economic
distributed under the terms and losses and seriously threatening the normal functioning of urban social activities [3–5].
conditions of the Creative Commons According to statistics, the losses caused by rainstorms and floods account for 40% of the
Attribution (CC BY) license total losses from various natural disasters worldwide [6]. From 1998 to 2017, over 170
(https://creativecommons.org/license countries and more than 2 billion people worldwide were affected by heavy rainfall and
s/by/4.0/). flooding and caused economic losses of up to USD 656 billion [7]. In its series of reports,

Water 2022, 14, 2513. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14162513 www.mdpi.com/journal/water

Water 2022, 14, 2513 2 of 21

the IPCC 5th has identified extreme rainfall due to global climate change as one of the
main influences on the frequency of rainfall and flooding [8]. China is one of the regions
with frequent rainstorms and floods. Until 2020, China’s urbanization rate exceeded 60%
[9]. Urbanization has changed the type of underlying surface in the original area, resulting
in a significant increase in the area of impervious areas and a consequent increase in the
risk of urban flooding [10]. According to the statistics of China’s housing and construction
department, from 2008 to 2010, 213 cities in China experienced waterlogging of varying
degrees, and 137 cities suffered from waterlogging disasters more than three times [11].
In recent years, phenomena such as “cities looking at the sea” and “cities looking at rivers”
have frequently occurred, and urban flooding disasters have received widespread
attention.
The definition of flood risk is not unique; it is mainly defined as the product of
hazard, exposure and vulnerability [12–16]. In recent years, on a global scale, urban flood
risk assessment has become a hot issue in disaster control and management [17,18].
Scholars have carried out a great deal of research on the analysis of urban flooding
hazards [19,20]. Yashon O. Ouma et al. used the technology combining AHP and
GIS(Geographic Information System) to analyze the flood risk in Eldoret Municipality in
Kenya and draw a flood analysis map [21]. Liu Jiahong et al. delved into the basis of
sponge city flood control, using Tongzhou, Beijing as the study area, and introduced the
GAUSS function for nonlinear fitting to study the flood control mechanism of sponge city
flood control system [22]. Binh Thai Pham et al. took Quang Nam Province, Vietnam, as a
study area and used deep learning methods to evaluate the urban flood risk in the region
[23,24]. Xinxiang Lei et al. adopted the deep learning approach and selected several
different influencing factors to analyze the urban flood risk in Seoul, South Korea [14]. Y.
Budiyono et al. [25] and Foudi et al. [26] provided a comprehensive consideration of the
impact of hazards, exposure and vulnerability on flood risk assessment and risk
assessment at global and local scales. Zhihui Li et al. provided an analytical assessment of
urban flooding processes in Wuhan, China, based on analytic hierarchy process,
considering land use and climate change [27]. The index system approach is one of the
commonly used risk analysis methods, which is widely used and highly adaptable; the
flood risk assessment method based on scenario simulation can achieve dynamic
assessment of flood hazards by setting up rainfall simulation models and setting up
different rainfall scenarios [28].
In this paper, combining the advantages of the scenario simulation method and the
index system approach, taking the SRB (Shenzhen River Basin) in Shenzhen as the
research area, the following research work is carried out:
(i) Constructing an urban flooding simulation model based on the TELEMAC-2D two-
dimensional hydrodynamic model, simulating the urban flooding process under 12
different design rainfall scenarios, and analysing the evolution of the hazard factors
such as inundation depth, inundation area and flood velocity;
(ii) By extracting the inundation depth and flow velocity values calculated by the flood
simulation model, and considering factors such as elevation, slope, land use type,
population density and property distribution, the AHP method was used to calculate
the weight values of different influencing factors, and the H-V method was used to
assess the flood risk in the study area. The study area was classified into different
flood risk classes;
(iii) Analysis of flood risk delineation maps, statistical analysis of the distribution of risk
levels under different rainfall scenarios and analysis of inundation within different
administrative districts within different catchments.
Section 2 provides a detailed introduction to the research area and introduces the
research method and acquisition and pre-treatment of data. Section 3 analyzes the flood
risk assessment results in the study area. Section 4 discusses the main contributions,
Water 2022, 14, 2513 3 of 21

drawbacks and issues to be addressed in the next step. Section 5 summarizes the main
conclusions.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area
Shenzhen (113°43′–114°38′ E, 22°24′–22°55′ N) has a subtropical oceanic climate with
a mild climate, with an average annual temperature of 22.4 °C and average annual
precipitation of 1830 mm. The spatial distribution of rainfall is uneven, with more in the
southeast and less in the northwest, showing a phenomenon of decreasing from east to
west. The eastern region is about 2000 mm, the central area is 1700–2000 mm, and the
western area is about 1700 mm. The precipitation time distribution in the city is uneven,
and the precipitation is mainly concentrated in the flood season from April to October,
accounting for about 85% of the annual precipitation. Due to the uneven spatial and
temporal distribution of precipitation, droughts and floods often occur alternately.
Shenzhen is a special economic zone in China, a national economic center city and an
international city approved by the State Council. Shenzhen has 9 administrative districts
and 1 new district, with a total area of 1997.47 km2, of which 927.96 km2 are built-up areas
and resident populations. It has reached 13.4388 million people, and the urbanization rate
is 100%, making it the first fully urbanized city in China. In 2020, the GDP of Shenzhen
will be 2767.024 billion yuan. Shenzhen is located on the southeast coast of China and is
affected by typhoons and rainstorms every year, resulting in urban waterlogging. For
instance, in 2018, Super Typhoon Mangkhut was one of the strongest typhoons in
Shenzhen’s history, causing heavy rain in the city. In 2020, Typhoon Higos hit Shenzhen,
and the maximum rainfall in Shenzhen reached 205.3 mm. The heavy rainfall brought by
these typhoons has caused various degrees of waterlogging in Shenzhen, causing serious
social impacts. In this study, the SRB in Shenzhen is selected as the research area. The
research area includes LHD, FTD (portion) and LGD (portion) of Shenzhen City, which is
an economically developed and densely populated area [29]. Once the SRB suffers from
rainstorms and waterlogging disasters, it will cause great economic loss and social impact.
The location of the study area is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Location and Shenzhen River Basin.

Water 2022, 14, 2513 4 of 21

2.2. Research Methods

In this study, the H-V method [30] was adopted to assess the flood risk of the SRB in
Shenzhen, as shown in Figure 2. The urban flood disaster was considered a
comprehensive function of hazard and vulnerability. Referring to the relevant literature,
the disaster risk expression of the H-V method is shown in Equation (1). After the flood
risk index is determined, the weight of each index should be calculated. The AHP method
is widely used in flood risk assessment, especially for urban scale flood risk assessment
[31]. In the 1970s, American operations researcher T.L. Saaty proposed the analytic
hierarchy process (AHP), which is a multi-level weighting analysis of decision-making
methods, a combination of qualitative and quantitative systems analysis [32,33]. The AHP
to determine the indicator weights includes the following four calculation steps: (1)
establishing the hierarchical structure model; (2) constructing the judgment matrix; (3)
calculating the indicator weight values; (4) and conducting consistency tests. When CR <
0.1, it can be considered that the judgment matrix passes the consistency test, and the
weight values are reasonable. Otherwise, the consistency test needs to be conducted again.
In this study, the flood risk assessment system was constructed according to the object
layer, index layer and indicator layer. When the CR values were less than 0.1, the results
obtained were reliable and reasonable through the consistency test. The obtained weight
values of each indicator are shown in the Tables 1 and 2.

 n   n 
R = xH   H i hi   xV  V j v j  (1)
 i =1   j =1 
xH xV
where R is the urban flood disaster risk, and are the weight values of the
Hi Vj hi
hazard and vulnerability indicators, and are specific indicator factors, and
vj
and are the weight values of each specific index factor.

Figure 2. Flood risk assessment indicator system of Shenzhen River basin.

Table 1. Selected index factors and relative weight.

Object Layer Index Layer Relative Weight Indicator Layer Relative Weight
Depth 0.46
Velocity 0.27
Flood risk Hazard 0.67
Elevation 0.19
assessment
Slope 0.08
Population
0.54
density
Vulnerability 0.33
Per unit GDP 0.30
Land use 0.16
Water 2022, 14, 2513 5 of 21

Table 2. Comparison matrix for urban flood risk assessment.

Comparison Matrix for Hazard Indicators

Depth Velocity Elevation Slope Relative Weight
Depth 1 2 3 4 0.46
Velocity 1/2 1 2 3 0.276
Elevation 1/3 1/2 1 4 0.19
Slope 1/4 1/3 1/4 1 0.08
Comparison Matrix for Vulnerability Indicators
Population Density Per Unit GDP Land use Relative Weight
Population density 1 2 3 0.54
Per unit GDP 1/2 1 2 0.30
Land use 1/3 1/2 1 0.16
Note: λ = 4.15, CR = 0.057 < 0.1, passing the consistency verification. λ = 3, CR = 0.0089 < 0.1, passing
the consistency verification.

In this paper, TELEMAC-2D was used to conduct a two-dimensional hydrodynamic

simulation of urban waterlogging. The TELEMAC-2D model is a two-dimensional
module in the TELEMAC-MASCARET model developed by the French National
Laboratory for Hydraulics and Environment. The TELEMAC-2D model is widely used in
coastal and other large-scale storm surge simulations, but there are few studies on urban
flood simulation. The article uses the v7p2r3 version for urban flood simulation, and the
model uses the finite element method to solve the non-conservative two-dimensional
shallow water equation, which can be calculated as follows:
h  ( hu )  ( hv )
+ + =0 (2)
t x y
u u u Z 1
+ u + v = −g + Fx + div ( hveu ) (3)
t x y x h
v v u Z 1
+u +v = −g + Fy + div ( hvev ) (4)
t x y y h
where h is the water depth (m), Z is the free surface elevation (m), u and v are the
velocity components (m/s), t is the time (s),
g is the gravity acceleration (m2/s), x
y ve Fx
and are the horizontal space coordinates (m), is the coefficient of viscosity, and
Fy
and are the bottom bed friction coefficients.
The SCS-CN (soil conservation service) rainfall-runoff model is an empirical model
proposed by the Soil Conservation Department of the United States in 1954. The model is
derived from the rainfall and runoff data of small watersheds in different regions. The
SCS-CN infiltration model in the United States is used in TELEMAC-2D. The calculation
formula of the SCS model is as follows:
( P − Ia )
2

Q= (5)
( P − Ia ) + S
I a = 0.2S (6)

( P − 0.2S )
2

Q= (7)
( P + 0.8S )
1000
S = − 10 (8)
CN
Water 2022, 14, 2513 6 of 21

where Q is the runoff (m3), P is the precipitation (mm), is the potential maximum
Ia
retention after runoff begins (mm), is the initial abstraction (mm), and the CN (curve
number) value can be determined by an empirical value table.
The TELEMAC-2D two-dimensional hydrodynamic model was used for urban flood
analysis, and the BlueKenue 64 software was used to divide the study area into nonlinear
triangular meshes with a total of 240,570 nodes and 477,797 meshes. The boundary
conditions of the model are free outflow boundary conditions, and the Courant number
is 0.75. Considering that Shenzhen is located in the southeastern coastal area of China, the
climate is humid and rainy, and referring to the research results in similar areas [34,35],
the soil water content in the early stage is set to AMC-II (the soil moisture condition was
moderate). The duration of this flood simulation is 6 h, and the time step is 0.5 s. The
relevant parameter values are shown in Tables 3 and 4. The properties of the underlying
surface in the study area are shown in Figure 3

Table 3. CN value.

Land Use B C D
Buildings 90 92 94
Road 98 98 98
Bare 83 88 90
Green 61 74 80
Water 98 100 100
Others 80 88 97
Note: B is silt loam or loam, with good permeability; C is sandy clay loam, with medium
permeability; D is clay loam, silty clay loam, sandy clay, silty clay, or clay, with poor permeability.
The CN value is determined according to the World Soil Database and the American SCS Model
Soil Classification Standard.

Table 4. Manning coefficient.

Land Use Buildings Road Bare Green Water Others

n 0.2 0.05 0.065 0.08 0.015 0.05
Note: The Manning coefficients are grouped according to the land use type and soil hydrology in
the study area.
Water 2022, 14, 2513 7 of 21

Figure 3. Condition of underlying surface: (a) remote sensing image, (b) elevation, m, (c) land use
type, (d) soil classification, (e) CN value, (f) Manning coefficient, (g) NPP-VIIRS light data, (h)
population density, people/km2, (i) GDP distribute, yuan/km2.
Water 2022, 14, 2513 8 of 21

2.3. Design Rain Scenarios

In this study, by constructing an urban flood simulation model, different rainfall
scenarios are designed to simulate and analyze the urban flood process in the study area.
A total of 12 rainfall scenarios were set up, and the design rainstorm was calculated using
the latest rainstorm intensity formula compiled by the Shenzhen Meteorological Bureau.
The design formula of storm intensity is shown as Equation (9):
8.701(1 + 0.594 lg P)
i= (9)
(t + 11.13) 0.555
where i is the storm intensity(mm/min), P is the design return period(year), and t is
rainfall duration (min).
Hyetographs of differently designed rainfall were determined using the Chicago
Hydrograph Model commonly used in the world. The designed rainstorms had three
return periods (p = 20, 50 and 100 years) and four rain peak coefficients (r = 0.2,0.4,0.6 and
0.8), the time interval was 1 min, and the rainfall duration was assumed as 120 min. In the
process of surface two-dimensional flood simulation, because it is very difficult to obtain
the pipeline network data in the study area, the underground pipeline network is
generalized in this flood simulation. An equivalent drainage method is used to generalize
the underground pipe network. Considering the adverse conditions such as aging,
blockage and silting of the pipeline network, the drainage capacity of the pipeline network
in the study area is 1-year rainfall scenario. The rainfall calculated according to the
rainstorm intensity formula is used as the estimated amount of pipe network drainage,
and this part of rainfall is equivalent to that deducted in the rainfall data and regarded as
the rainfall discharged through the drainage pipe network. The designed rainstorm
process obtained after synthesizing the rainfall process and the equivalent drainage effect
of the pipe network is shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Synthetic hyetographs of the 12 design scenarios in the Shenzhen River Basin used in this
study.
Water 2022, 14, 2513 9 of 21

3. Results
3.1. Model Validation
Based on the TELEMAC-2D hydrodynamic model, the urban flood risk assessment
in the SRB is carried out. In order to verify the accuracy and reliability of the model, the
measured rainfall data, the collection of waterlogged monitoring point data and the
investigation of the actual inundation situation are selected to verify the accuracy of the
model. After investigation and analysis, two measured rainfalls (7 June 2018 and 16
September 2018, Figure 5) were selected for simulation of the model, and the information
on the actual waterlogged monitoring equipment in the study area was collected, with a
total of 16 waterlogged monitoring points. The flooding process of the two rainfall events
was simulated by the flood simulation model, and the inundation situation is shown in
the Figure 6. The analysis shows that the actual waterlogging points are located in areas
with high submerged water depth, and the simulation results are consistent with the
actual situation, which proves that the established flood simulation model meets the
requirements of accuracy and reliability. The actual submerged water depth data of some
waterlogging points when the rainfall occurred was collected, and the data were
compared with the numerical simulation results. It can be seen from Table 5 that the error
between the submerged water depth obtained by the two actual rainfall simulations and
the data of the submerged water depth obtained by the actual monitoring is small, which
is basically controlled within 2 cm. The above two points show that the numerical
simulation model established is relatively reliable in simulation accuracy and can be used
for urban flood simulation in the study area.

Figure 5. Rainfall processes of events on 7 June 2018 and 16 September 2018.

Figure 6. Measured rainfall inundation and location of waterlogging points.

Water 2022, 14, 2513 10 of 21

Table 5. Maximum submerged water depth of waterlogging points.

Number of Measured
Measured Simulated Water
Waterlogging Water Depth Error (cm)
Rainfall Depth (cm)
Points (cm)
023 5 3 −2
027 29 42.4 13.4
20180607 074 2 3.2 1.2
116 20 18.1 −1.9
170 40 48 8
0.23 4 4.5 0.5
116 14 13.9 −0.1
20180916
121 20 17.8 −2.2
122 2 2.6 −0.6

3.2. Analysis of Simulation Results

Based on the flood simulation model established by TELEMAC-2D two-dimensional
hydrodynamic software, 12 design rainfall scenarios were simulated and calculated, and
the inundation situation of the study area at the end of the simulation was obtained. The
depth of inundation is one of the most important impact factors that should be considered
when assessing flooding and the inundation of the entire study area is analyzed. Referring
to the relevant literature, when the depth of inundation is greater than 0.15 m, there is a
certain impact on road traffic; when the depth of inundation is greater than 0.3 m, it poses
a hazard to the safety of people and generates more serious economic losses. The area
when the inundation depth is greater than 0.15 m, 0.3 m and 0.5 m is calculated,
respectively, in this paper, and the calculation results are shown in Table 6 and Figures 7
and 8. The analysis shows that with the increase in rainfall return period, the inundated
area in the study area increases gradually. For the same rainfall return period, with the
increase in the rain peak coefficient, the submerged area tends to increase. For example,
when the return period is the 50-year rainfall scenario and the submerged water depth is
greater than 0.5 m, the increase in the rain peak coefficient increased, and the submerged
area was 19.73, 20, 20.732 and 21.641 hectares, respectively. When the return period is the
100-year rainfall scenario and the rain peak coefficient is 0.8, the area with submerged
water depth >0.5 m is the largest, which is 0.74 km2. When the return period is the 100-
year rainfall scenario and the rain peak coefficient is 0.2, the area with submerged water
depth >0.15 m is 5.37 km2, which is the maximum submerged area;
Water 2022, 14, 2513 11 of 21
Water 2022, 14, 2513 12 of 21

Figure 7. Inundation of Shenzhen River Basin in the Shenzhen River Basin (m): (a–d) p = 20a, r = 0.2,
0.4, 0.6 and 0.8; (e–h) p = 50a, r = 0.2, 0.4, 0.6 and 0.8; (i–l) p = 100a, r = 0.2, 0.4, 0.6 and 0.8.

Table 6. Inundation area statistics under different rainfall scenarios.

Area (10,000 m2)

Design Scenario
>0.15 m >0.3 m >0.5 m
20a 108.161 22.676 3.931
r = 0.2 50a 319.162 91.363 19.73
100a 531.901 226.641 73.745
>0.15 m >0.3 m >0.5 m
20a 109.263 24.102 4.064
r = 0.4 50a 319.527 89.959 20
100a 531.91 228.919 71.296
>0.15 m >0.3 m >0.5 m
20a 110.265 24.623 4.083
r = 0.6 50a 320.41 90.396 20.732
100a 533.744 233.845 68.495
>0.15 m >0.3 m >0.5 m
20a 113.467 24.834 4.095
r = 0.8 50a 321.956 90.908 21.641
100a 537.239 238.401 67.493

Figure 8. Inundation area map under different rainfall scenarios (20a0.4: rainfall return periods of
20 years and rainfall peak coefficients of 0.4).
Water 2022, 14, 2513 13 of 21

Flood velocity is another important hazard factor in flood disasters. The flow rate of
floods in the study area is mainly generated by gravity, so the flow rate and direction of
water are closely related to the slope and elevation of the terrain, as shown in Table 7.
With the increase of the rainfall return period, the maximum velocity increases gradually.
In the case of the same rainfall return period, the maximum flow velocity values gradually
increase as the rain peak coefficient increases. For example, in a 50-year flood scenario,
the rain peak coefficient increases from 0.2 to 0.8, and the maximum flow velocities are
0.636, 0.652, 0.666 and 0.668 m/s, with relative increases of 2.03%, 2.15%, and 3.30%
respectively. In the design scenario for this simulation, a maximum flow velocity of 0.765
m/s was obtained for the 100-year flood scenario when the rain peak coefficient was 0.8.

Table 7. Maximum flood velocity statistics under different rainfall scenarios.

Design Scenario Vmax (m/s) Relative Growth

r = 0.2 0.567
r = 0.4 0.584 3.00%
20a
r = 0.6 0.601 2.91%
r = 0.8 0.624 3.83%
r = 0.2 0.639
r = 0.4 0.652 2.03%
50a
r = 0.6 0.666 2.15%
r = 0.8 0.688 3.30%
r = 0.2 0.716
r = 0.4 0.728 1.68%
100a
r = 0.6 0.742 1.92%
r = 0.8 0.765 3.10%

3.3. Flood Disaster Risk Assessment

In this study, the H-V risk assessment method was used to assess the risk of urban
flooding in the SRB. The hazard indicators considered include inundation depth, flow
velocity, elevation and slope; vulnerability indicators include land use type, population
density and property distribution. The weight value of each index was calculated based
on the AHP method, the hazard and vulnerability index value of each grid unit was
calculated by GIS, and the risk value of each grid unit was calculated according to the
flood disaster risk expression formula. The flood risk distribution of the entire study area
was obtained, and the calculated flood risk results were divided into four levels by using
the natural discontinuity method: class I (highest risk), II (high risk), III (medium risk) and
IV (least risk), represented by red, orange, yellow and blue, respectively. A flood risk
zoning map under different rainfall scenarios is shown in Figure 9. In the SRB, the risk
distribution of flood disasters is most affected by the inundation depth factor, followed
by flood velocity and population density. The higher the above index factors, the higher
the risk level of flood disasters.
Water 2022, 14, 2513 14 of 21
Water 2022, 14, 2513 15 of 21

Figure 9. Flood risk zoning in the Shenzhen River Basin: (a–d) p = 20a, r = 0.2, 0.4, 0.6 and 0.8; (e–h)
p = 50a, r = 0.2, 0.4, 0.6 and 0.8; (i–l) p = 100a, r = 0.2, 0.4, 0.6 and 0.8. I: highest risk, II: high risk, III:
medium risk and IV: least risk.

The area and proportion of each risk area under different rainfall scenarios are
counted, and the calculation results are shown in Table 8 and Figure 10. Analysis shows
that under the 12 calculated rainfall scenarios, the class III area has the largest area,
followed by the class IV area, and the class I area is the smallest. With the increase in the
rainfall return period, the areas of highest-risk areas and high-risk areas increased, while
the areas of medium-risk areas and least-risk areas decreased. As the rain peak coefficient
gradually increased from 0.2 to 0.8, the area of each risk area increased, indicating that the
larger the rain peak coefficient, the greater the risk of flooding in the study area. For
instance, for a return period with a 20-year rainfall scenario, as the rain peak coefficient
increases from 0.2 to 0.8, the highest-risk areas are 0.67, 0.68, 0.7 and 0.71 km2, respectively.
With increases in the rain peak coefficient, for the highest-risk areas, the area increases the
fastest. For a return period of 20 years, as the rain peak coefficient increases from 0.2 to
0.8, the growth rate of the highest-risk areas is 1.49%, 2.94% and 1.43%. With the increase
in the return period, the rain peak coefficient has no obvious effect on the area change of
the highest-risk area. When the return period is 20 years, the rain peak coefficient has a
greater impact on the area of risk area, especially for the highest-risk area, the area that
has the fastest growth rate.
Water 2022, 14, 2513 16 of 21

Table 8. Flood risk area statistics under different rainfall scenarios.

Area (km2)
Designed Scenarios
I II III IV
20a 0.67 34.18 91.34 68.62
r = 0.2 50a 3.07 37.22 87.81 68.12
100a 5.56 38.59 85.69 66.38
I II III IV
20a 0.68 34.23 91.62 68.82
r = 0.4 50a 3.08 37.21 87.86 68.08
100a 5.49 38.57 85.74 66.43
I II III IV
20a 0.7 34.25 91.89 69.39
r = 0.6 50a 3.05 37.25 87.86 68.07
100a 5.44 38.61 85.72 66.45
I II III IV
20a 0.71 34.26 91.9 69.36
r = 0.8 50a 3.10 37.27 87.78 68.08
100a 5.52 38.66 85.59 66.46

Figure 10. Percentage of risk areas under different rainfall scenarios. I: highest risk, II: high risk,
III: medium risk and IV: least risk; (20a0.4: rainfall return periods of 20 years and rainfall peak
coefficients of 0.4).

The SRB mainly includes LHD, FTD (part) and LGD (part), Shenzhen. When the rain
peak coefficient is 0.4, the return period is 20, 50 and 100 years, respectively, to analyze
the flood disaster risk zoning in different administrative areas, as shown in Table 9. With
the increase in the return period, the areas of highest- and high-risk areas tended to
increase, and the areas of highest-risk areas were 0.69, 3.07 and 5.49 km2, respectively. The
highest- and high-risk areas are mainly distributed in LHD, Shenzhen. The proportion of
the highest-risk areas in LHD in Shenzhen and the high-risk areas in the basin is as
follows. The proportion is 46.38% under the 20-year rainfall scenario, 60.91% under the
50-year rainfall scenario, and 38.28% under the 100-year rainfall scenario. The proportion
of the high-risk area in LHD to Shenzhen and the high-risk area in the basin is as follows.
Under the 20-year rainfall scenario, the proportion is 44.59%, in the 50-year rainfall
scenario, the proportion is 40.64%, and in the 100-year rainfall scenario, the proportion is
66.4%. With the increase in the return period, although the area of highest-risk areas in
FTD increases, its proportion has a downward trend, and the proportion of highest-risk
Water 2022, 14, 2513 17 of 21

areas in LGD has an increasing trend. The terrain in LHD is flat, the population is
concentrated, and the property distribution density is large. Once the flood disaster
occurs, LHD will usually have a serious social impact and bring huge economic losses, so
the risk of flood disaster is high.

Table 9. The area of flood risk area under different administrative regions.

Area (km2) Percentage (%)

District I II III IV I II III IV
LHD 0.32 15.26 23.31 40.41 46.38 44.59 25.45 59.4
20a0.4 FTD 0.21 12.47 25.45 8.48 30.43 36.44 27.8 12.47
LGD 0.16 6.49 42.8 19.14 23.19 18.97 46.75 28.13
sum 0.69 34.22 91.56 68.03 1 1 1 1
LHD 1.87 15.13 22.68 33.64 60.92 40.64 25.82 59.04
50a0.4 FTD 0.6 13.64 24.2 8.4 19.54 36.64 27.54 12.51
LGD 0.6 8.46 40.97 19.1 19.54 22.72 46.64 28.45
sum 3.07 37.23 87.85 67.14 1 1 1 1
LHD 2.5 45.54 22.98 38.28 45.54 66.4 26.81 58.45
100a0.4 FTD 1.23 14.67 22.63 8.31 22.4 21.39 26.4 12.69
LGD 1.76 8.37 40.11 18.9 32.06 12.2 46.79 28.86
sum 5.49 68.58 85.72 65.49 1 1 1 1

4. Discussion
With climate change and increased urbanization, the frequency and intensity of
extreme rainfall events have increased, leading to frequent urban flooding events [36–38].
Shenzhen city is located in the southeast coastal region of China, with abundant rainfall,
and is hit by typhoons every year. Urban flooding events often occur. This paper selects
the Shenzhen River Basin in Shenzhen as the study area, which includes Luohu District,
Futian District (partly) and Longgang District (partly) and belongs to the economically
developed and densely populated area of Shenzhen, while the topography of the study
area is flat and surrounded by hills on three sides, which makes it highly susceptible to
urban flooding. The results of the analysis show that as the rainfall peak coefficient factor
increases, the area of each risk zone increases to varying degrees. The larger the rainfall
peak coefficient factor, the more serious the flooding. As the rainfall return period
increases, the effect of the rainfall peak coefficient factor on the change in the area of the
highest risk zone diminishes. The highest risk zone is the largest within Luohu District
(LHD), accounting for 46.38%, 60.92% and 45.54% of the total highest-risk area,
respectively. As the return period increases, the area of the highest-risk zone within Futian
District (FTD) increases, but its proportion has a decreasing trend, and the proportion of
highest risk area within Longgang District (LGD) has an increasing trend. The article is of
great significance in assessing the urban flood risk in the Shenzhen River Basin.
There are many methods for flood risk assessment, including hydrological and
hydrodynamic methods [39], scenario simulation methods [30], GIS-based analysis
methods [40–42], and machine learning-based methods [43,44]. A great deal of research
has been carried out by scholars at home and abroad in the area of urban flood risk
assessment, and fruitful results have been achieved [40,45–47,48]. Flood risk assessment
methods are varied [49–51]. This paper proposes a novel approach to urban flood risk
assessment based on the TELEMAC-2D two-dimensional hydrodynamic model for the
simulation of urban flooding processes, coupled with natural geographic, social and
economic distributions, to comprehensively assess urban flood risk levels. The method
simulates the flooding process and extracts the inundation depth, flow velocity as well as
elevation and slope factors from the simulation results as the causative factors while
considering the commonly used H-V risk assessment method [52–54]. This study selects
Water 2022, 14, 2513 18 of 21

land use type, population density and GDP as vulnerability indicators and uses the
powerful data processing function in ArcGIS for overlay analysis and classification to
obtain an urban flood risk map of the Shenzhen River basin under the designed rainfall
scenario.
The main advantage of this approach is that it takes into account multiple natural,
social and economic indicators, simulates the urban flooding process based on the two-
dimensional hydrodynamic model, and uses the powerful data analysis function of GIS
to realize the visualization of flood risk. The proposed method can be applied to other
urban areas for flood analysis and assessment.
The application of this approach has some challenges. In the article, due to the
difficulties in obtaining information on the underground drainage network in the study
area, an equivalent drainage method was used to generalize the network during the
flooding simulation, and there were certain errors in the flooding simulation results of
this method, but the impact on the flood risk level assessment was small. The spatial
resolution of the physical, social and economic distribution of information in the text
varies from one source to another. In the text, the data are divided into the same size raster
to make the results more reliable, and the spatial resolution of the indicator factors in
subsequent studies should be the same so the analysis results will be more accurate. There
are many factors affecting urban flood risk assessment, most of which change over time,
such as rainfall intensity, rainfall volume, population density and property distribution,
making it particularly difficult to build a unified urban flood risk assessment system. The
current research mostly selects a few of the important indicators for analysis and
assessment according to the selected study area. While there is also a large uncertainty in
the determination of the weighting of each indicator factor, the size of the weighting has
a large impact on the flood risk rating results, and the weighting should be determined
objectively and carefully. Some scholars [55] study emergency rescue programs under
heavy rainfall and flooding events. Analyzing and evaluating urban flooding can provide
scientific references for urban emergency rescue programs, which is also the direction of
future research[56].

5. Conclusions
Urban flood risk assessment and analysis is an important means of non-engineering
measures in urban flood prevention and mitigation. In this paper, the SRB is used as the
study area to carry out urban flood risk assessment work, and the main conclusions are
as follows.
(1) This paper proposes a method for urban flood risk assessment, which is based on the
TLELMAC-2D two-dimensional hydrodynamic model for urban flood simulation
and coupled with multi-index factors such as natural geographical conditions and
social and economic conditions to assess urban flood risk and is able to give urban
flood risk assessment results with a spatial resolution of 30 m. The accuracy and
reliability of the method have been verified in the Shenzhen River basin, and the
results are reliable. The method can also be used in other research areas for urban
flood risk analysis, providing a scientific basis for urban disaster prevention and
mitigation early warning.
(2) Based on the TELEMAC-2D two-dimensional hydrodynamic model, an urban flood
simulation model was constructed, and the equivalent drainage method was used to
generalize the drainage capacity of the urban underground pipe network. The
accuracy and reliability of the model were verified by using two measured rainfall
data. The results show that the established model has good accuracy and reliability
and can be used to simulate flooding processes in the study area and obtain the
disaster-causing factors of urban floods;
(3) The H-V method was used to assess the flood risk in the SRB, and a total of seven
index evaluation factors were selected: inundation depth, flood velocity, elevation,
Water 2022, 14, 2513 19 of 21

slope, land use type, population density and property distribution. The AHP method
was used to determine the weight values of each index factor, and the natural
interruption method and threshold division were used to carry out overlay analysis
in ArcGIS to draw an urban flood risk zoning map for the SRB under different design
rainfall scenarios.
(4) Inundation depth is the most important influencing factor for flooding in the SRB,
followed by flood flow velocity and population density. The greater the depth of
inundation, the faster the flow velocity and the more concentrated the population
distribution; thus, the more severe the flooding situation. With the increase in the
rain peak coefficient, the area of each risk area increased to different degrees,
indicating that the larger the rain peak coefficient, the more serious the flood disaster.
As the rain peak coefficient increased, the area of highest-risk areas increased the
fastest. In the 20 years rainfall scenario, as the rain peak coefficient increases from 0.2
to 0.8, the growth rates of highest-risk areas are 1.49%, 2.94% and 1.43%. As the
rainfall return period increases, the effect of the rain peak coefficient on the change
in the area of the highest risk zone diminishes.
(5) An analysis of the distribution of flood risk levels within different administrative
areas of the SRB under three scenarios with a rain peak coefficient of 0.4 and rainfall
return periods of 20, 50 and 100 years is conducted. Within the LHD, the highest-risk
area is the largest and accounts for the largest proportion of the total highest-risk
area, at 46.38%, 60.92% and 45.54%, respectively. As the return period increases, the
area of highest-risk areas within FTD increases, but its proportion tends to decrease,
and the proportion of highest-risk areas within LGD tends to increase. The flood risk
zoning map made in this study can better reflect the actual inundation situation in
the study area and can provide a reference basis for urban flood control and drainage
decisions in the SRB.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, G.L. and J.L.; methodology, G.L. and J.L.; software, G.L.;
validation, G.L. and J.L.; formal analysis, G.L.; investigation, G.L.; resources, G.L. and J.L.; data
curation, G.L.; writing—original draft preparation, G.L.; writing—review and editing, G.L.;
visualization, G.L.; supervision, G.L.; project administration, J.L.; funding acquisition, G.L., J.L. and
W.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This study was supported by the Chinese National Natural Science Foundation (No.
51979285 and 51739011), and the Research Fund of the State Key Laboratory of Simulation and
Regulation of Water Cycle in River Basin (SKL2022TS11).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The datasets used and analyzed during the current study are available
from the corresponding authors upon reasonable request.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Wesley, W.; Mohammad, M.; Maziar, Y.; Kamyar, K. The Alignment of Australia’s National Construction Code and the Sendai
Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction in Achieving Resilient Buildings and Communities. J. Build. 2021, 11, 429.
https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings11100429.
2. Haasnoot, M.; Middelkoop, H.; Offermans, A.; Beek, E.V.; Deursen, W.J. Exploring pathways for sustainable water management
in river deltas in a changing environment. Clim. Chang. 2012, 115, 795–819.
3. Adolfo, Q.-R. Flood risk index development at the municipal level in Costa Rica: A methodological framework. Environ. Sci.
Policy 2022, 133, 98–106.
4. 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.; et al. Global drivers of future river flood risk. J. Nat. Clim. Change 2016, 6, 381–385.
5. Aerts, J.C.J.H.; Botzen, W.J.; Clarke, K.C.; Cutter, S.L.; Hall, J.W.; Merz, B.; Michel-Kerjan, E.; Mysiak, J.; Surminski, S.;
Kunreuther, H. Integrating human behaviour dynamics into flood disaster risk assessment. J. Nat. Clim. Change 2018, 8, 193–
199.
Water 2022, 14, 2513 20 of 21

6. Yuehua, Z.; Tao, P.; Ruiqin, S. Research progress on risk assessment of heavy rainfall and flood disasters in China. Torrential
Rain Disasters 2019, 38, 494–501.
7. Junfei, C.; Jiamin, D.; Menghua, D. Research Progress on Risk Assessment and Management for Urban Stormwater. J.
Catastrophology 2020, 35, 154–159+166.
8. Carraro, C.; Lanza, A.; Tavoni, M. All You Need to Know about the IPCC 5th Assessment Report. Mitigation of Climate Change.
In Review of Environment, Energy and Economics—Re3; 2014. Available online: https://ideas.repec.org/a/fem/femre3/2014.04-
03.html (accessed on 10 July 2022).
9. National Bureau of Statistics of China. Statistical Bulletin of the People’s Republic of China on National Economic and Social
Development in 2019; 2019.
10. Guoru, H.; Xin, W.; Wei, H. Simulation of Rainstorm Water Logging in Urban Area Based on InfoWorks ICM Model. Water
Resour. Power 2017, 35, 66–70+60.
11. Zhang, J.; Wang, Y.; He, R.; Hu, Q.; Song, X. Discussion on the urban flood and waterlogging and causes analysis in China. Adv.
Water Sci. 2016, 27, 7. https://doi.org/10.14042/j.cnki.32.1309.2016.04.001.
12. Islam, A.R.M.T.; Talukdar, S.; Mahato, S.; Kundu, S.; Eibek, K.U.; Pham, Q.B.; Kuriqi, A.; Linh, N.T.T. Flood susceptibility
modelling using advanced ensemble machine learning models. Geosci. Front. 2021, 12, 101075.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2020.09.006.
13. Zhang, D.; Shi, X.; Xu, H.; Jing, Q.; Pan, X.; Liu, T.; Wang, H.; Hou, H. A GIS-based spatial multi-index model for flood risk
assessment in the Yangtze River Basin, China. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2020, 83, 106397.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2020.106397.
14. Mishra, K.; Sinha, R. Flood risk assessment in the Kosi megafan using multi-criteria decision analysis: A hydro-geomorphic
approach. Geomorphology 2020, 350, 106861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2019.106861.
15. Lei, X.; Chen, W.; Panahi, M.; Falah, F.; Rahmiti, O.; Uuemaa, E.; Kalantari, Z.; Ferreira, C.S.S.; Rezaie, F.; Tiefenbacher, J.P.; et
al. Urban flood modeling using deep-learning approaches in Seoul, South Korea. J. Hydrol. 2021, 601, 126684.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.126684.
16. Tomar, P.; Singh, S.K.; Kanga, S.; Meraj, G.; Kranji, N.; Urin, B.; Pattanaik, A.J.S. GIS-Based Urban Flood Risk Assessment and
Management—A Case Study of Delhi National Capital Territory (NCT), India. Sustainability 2021, 13, 12850.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su132212850.
17. Chen, X.; Zhang, H.; Chen, W.; Huang, G. Urbanization and climate change impacts on future flood risk in the Pearl River Delta
under shared socioeconomic pathways. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 762, 143144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143144.
18. Salman, A.M.; Li, Y. Flood Risk Assessment, Future Trend Modeling, and Risk Communication: A Review of Ongoing Research.
Nat. Hazards Rev. 2018, 19. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)NH.1527-6996.0000294.
19. Jiahong, L.; Zhouran, L.; Yongxiang, Z.; Jinjun, Z.; Weiwei, S. Influence of urbanization on spatial distribution of extreme
precipitation in Henan Province. Water Resour. Prot. 2022, 38, 100–105.
20. Jiahong, L.; Xiangyi, D.; Weiwei, S.; Zhiyong, Y.; Chao, M. Characteristics of total runoff control rate of sponge cities for different
hydrological year types. J. Hydraul. Eng. 2019, 50, 1072–1077. https://doi.org/10.13243/j.cnki.slxb.20190044.
21. Yashon, O.; Ryutaro, T.J.W. Urban Flood Vulnerability and Risk Mapping Using Integrated Multi-Parametric AHP and GIS:
Methodological Overview and Case Study Assessment. Water 2014, 6, 1515–1545.
22. Jiahong, L.; Jia, W.; Hao, W.; Chao, M. Effectiveness of urban inundation control system in sponge city construction. Adv. Water
Sci. 2020, 31, 611–618.
23. Pham, B.T.; Luu, C..; Van Dao, D.; Phong, T.V.; Nguyen, H.D.; Van Le, H.; von Meding, J.; Prakash, I. Flood risk assessment
using deep learning integrated with multi-criteria decision analysis. Knowl. Based Syst. 2021, 219, 106899.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2021.106899.
24. Pham, B.T.; Luu, C.; Phong, T.V.; Nguyen, H.D.; Prakash, I. Flood risk assessment using hybrid artificial intelligence models
integrated with multi-criteria decision analysis in Quang Nam Province, Vietnam. J. Hydrol. 2021, 592, 125815.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.125815.
25. Budiyono, Y.; Aerts, J.; Brinkman, J.J.; Marfai, M.A.; Ward, P. Flood risk assessment for delta mega-cities: A case study of Jakarta.
Nat. Hazards 2015, 75, 389–413.
26. Foudi, S.; Osés-Eraso, N.; Tamayo, I. Integrated spatial flood risk assessment: The case of Zaragoza. Land Use Policy 2015, 42,
278–292.
27. Li, Z.; Song, K.; Peng, L. Flood Risk Assessment under Land Use and Climate Change in Wuhan City of the Yangtze River Basin,
China. Land 2021, 10, 878. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10080878.
28. Guoru, H.; Haiwan, L.; Xinxiang, L.; Conghui, Y.; Zheng, W.; Ting, H.; Jingguang, M. Study on risk analysis and zoning method
of urban flood disaster. Water Resour. Prot. 2020, 36, 7. https://doi.org/10.3880/j.issn.1004-6933.2020.06.001.
29. Xin, S.; Weiwei, S.; Jiahong, L.; Yunzhong, J.; Kaibo, W. Dynamic Assessment of the Impact of Flood Disaster on Economy and
Population under Extreme Rainstorm Events. Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 3924. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13193924.
30. Baky, M.; Islam, M.; Paul, S.J. Flood Hazard, Vulnerability and Risk Assessment for Different Land Use Classes Using a Flow
Model. Earth Syst. Environ. 2020, 4, 225–244.
31. Penggen, C.; Yin, H. Flood risk assessment of Nanchang City based on AHP and Entropy Method. Yangtze River 2021, 52, 8.
32. Saaty, T.L. A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. J. Math. Psychol. 2000, 15, 234–281.
Water 2022, 14, 2513 21 of 21

33. Kazakis, N.; Kougias, I.; Patsialis, T. Assessment of flood hazard areas at a regional scale using an index-based approach and
Analytical Hierarchy Process: Application in Rhodope–Evros region, Greece. Sci. Total Environ. 2015, 538, 555–563.
34. Yiheng, X.; Chunxia, Y.; Yiyao, L.; Yuequn, L.; Xiaoyue, Z.; Qitang, H. Relationship between Landscape Pattern and Surface
Runoff in Fuzhou Based on GIS. Water Resour. Power 2017, 5. Available online: http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTOTAL-
SDNY201706004.htm (accessed on 10 July 2022).
35. Jiahong, L.; Zejin, L.; Chao, M.; Kaibo, W.; Guannan, Z. Urban flood analysis for different design storm hyetographs in Xiamen
Island based on TELEMAC-2D. Chin. Sci. Bull. 2019, 64, 2055–2066.
36. Bera, A.; Taloor, A.; Meraj, G.; Kanga, S.; Singh, S.K.; Đurin, B.; Anand, S. Climate vulnerability and economic determinants:
Linkages and risk reduction in Sagar Island, India; A geospatial approach. Quat. Sci. Adv. 2021, 4, 100038.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.qsa.2021.100038.
37. Camorani, G.; Castellarin, A.; Brath, A. Effects of land-use changes on the hydrologic response of reclamation systems. Phys.
Chem. Earth Parts A/B/C 2005, 30, 561–574.
38. Halgamuge, M.N.; Nirmalathas, A. Analysis of Large Flood Events: Based on Flood Data During 1985–2016 in Australia and
India. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2017, 24, S2212420916308056. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.05.011.
39. Gharbi, M.; Soualmia, A.; Dartus, D.; Masbernat, L. Comparison of 1D and 2D hydraulic models for floods simulation on the
medjerda riverin tunisia. J. Mater. Environ. Sci. 2016, 7, 3017–3026.
40. Waghwala, R.K.; Agnihotri, P.G. Flood risk assessment and resilience strategies for flood risk management: A case study of
Surat City. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2019, 40, 101155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101155.
41. Qra, B.; Bca, C.; Gb, B.; Cb, B.; Msac, D.J.G. Improving regional flood risk assessment using flood frequency and
dendrogeomorphic analyses in mountain catchments impacted by tropical cyclones. Geomorphology 2022, 396, 108000.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2021.108000.
42. Quesada-Román, A.; Villalobos-Chacón, A. Flash flood impacts of Hurricane Otto and hydrometeorological risk mapping in
Costa Rica. Geogr. Tidsskr. Dan. J. Geogr. 2020, 120, 1822195. https://doi.org/10.1080/00167223.2020.1822195.
43. Khan, T.A.; Shahid, Z.; Alam, M.; Su’ud, M.M.; Kadir, K. Early Flood Risk Assessment using Machine Learning: A Comparative
study of SVM, Q-SVM, K-NN and LDA. In Proceedings of the 2019 13th International Conference on Mathematics, Actuarial
Science, Computer Science and Statistics (MACS), Karachi, Pakistan, 14–15 December 2019.
44. Chen, J.; Huang, G.; Chen, W. Towards better flood risk management: Assessing flood risk and investigating the potential
mechanism based on machine learning models. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 293, 112810.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112810.
45. Fariza, A.; Basofi, A.; Prasetyaningrum, I.; Pratiwi, V.I. Urban Flood Risk Assessment in Sidoarjo, Indonesia, Using Fuzzy Multi-
Criteria Decision Making. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2020, 1444, 012027. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1444/1/012027.
46. Hosseinzadehtalaei, P.; Ishadi, N.K.; Tabari, H.; Willems, P. Climate change impact assessment on pluvial flooding using a
distribution-based bias correction of regional climate model simulations. J. Hydrol. 2021, 598, 126239.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.126239.
47. Tabari, H.; Asr, N.M.; Willems, P. Developing a framework for attribution analysis of urban pluvial flooding to human-induced
climate impacts. J. Hydrol. 2021, 598, 126352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.126352.
48. Ferguson, C.; Fenner, R. The impact of Natural Flood Management on the performance of surface drainage systems: A case
study in the Calder Valley. J. Hydrol. 2020, 590, 125354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.125354.
49. Lee, G.; Jun, K.-S.; Chung, E.-S. Integrated multi-criteria flood vulnerability approach using fuzzy TOPSIS and Delphi technique.
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2013, 13, 1293–1312.
50. Winsemius, H.C.; Beek, L.P.H.V.; Jongman, B.; Ward, P.J.; Bouwman, A. A framework for global river flood risk assessments.
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2013, 17, 1871–1892.
51. Brenden, J.; Ward, P.J.; Aerts, J.C.J.H. Global exposure to river and coastal flooding: Long term trends and changes. Glob. Environ.
Change 2012, 22, 823–835.
52. Huang, G.R.; Xian, Z.Y.; Cheng, G.D.; Chen, Z.L.; Zhou, X.M. Risk Assessment of Mountain Torrent Disaster at Yaoan Small
Watershed in Qingyuan City Based on GIS Technique. J.W.R. Power 2015, 33, 43–47.
53. Luo, H.; Chen, W.; Zhiwei, L.I.; Pan, J.; Gao, Q.; Huang, G.; School of Civil Engineering and Transportation,South China
University of Technology;Guangzhou Water Science Research Institute; State Key Laboratory of Subtropical Building Science,
South China University of Technology;Guangdong Engineering Technology Research Center of Safety and Greenization for
Water Conservancy Project. Flood simulation of Donghaochong Basin in Guangzhou City based on coupled hydrodynamic
model. J. Water Resour. Water Eng. 2019, 3, 46–52.
54. Park, K.; Won, J.-H. Analysis on distribution characteristics of building use with risk zone classification based on urban flood
risk assessment. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2019, 38, 101192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101192.
55. Yazdani, M.; Mojtahedi, M.; Loosemore, M.; Sanderson, D. A modelling framework to design an evacuation support system for
healthcare infrastructures in response to major flood events. Prog. Disaster Sci. 2022, 13, 100218.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pdisas.2022.100218.
56. Tong, J.; Zhang, H.; Liu, H.; Huang, J.; Hao, Y. XGBoost model-based risk assessment and influencing factors analysis of
waterlogging in core cities of Yangtze River Delta. Water Resour. Hydropower Eng. 2021, 52, 1–11.
https://doi.org/10.13928/j.cnki.wrahe.2021.10.001.