Mapping flood and flooding potential indices: a methodological approach to identifying areas susceptible to flood and flooding risk. Case study: the Prahova catchment (Romania)

doi:10.1007/s11707-017-0636-1

Front. Earth Sci.

2017, Vol. 11

Issue (2) : 229-247 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11707-017-0636-1

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Mapping flood and flooding potential indices: a methodological approach to identifying areas susceptible to flood and flooding risk. Case study: the Prahova catchment (Romania)

Liliana ZAHARIA¹, Romulus COSTACHE^1,²(

), Remus PRĂVĂLIE¹, Gabriela IOANA-TOROIMAC¹

¹. Faculty of Geography, University of Bucharest, 1 Nicolae Bălcescu Str., 010041 Bucharest, Romania
². National Institute of Hydrology and Water Management, 97 Bucureşti-Ploieşti Str., District 1, Bucharest, Romania

Download: PDF(17879 KB) HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks

Abstract

Given that floods continue to cause yearly significant worldwide human and material damages, flood risk mitigation is a key issue and a permanent challenge in developing policies and strategies at various spatial scales. Therefore, a basic phase is elaborating hazard and flood risk maps, documents which are an essential support for flood risk management. The aim of this paper is to develop an approach that allows for the identification of flash-flood and flood-prone susceptible areas based on computing and mapping of two indices: FFPI (Flash-Flood Potential Index) and FPI (Flooding Potential Index). These indices are obtained by integrating in a GIS environment several geographical variables which control runoff (in the case of the FFPI) and favour flooding (in the case of the FPI). The methodology was applied in the upper (mountainous) and middle (hilly) catchment of the Prahova River, a densely populated and socioeconomically well-developed area which has been affected repeatedly by water-related hazards over the past decades. The resulting maps showing the spatialization of the FFPI and FPI allow for the identification of areas with high susceptibility to flash-floods and flooding. This approach can provide useful mapped information, especially for areas (generally large) where there are no flood/hazard risk maps. Moreover, the FFPI and FPI maps can constitute a preliminary step for flood risk and vulnerability assessment.

Keywords flash-flood flooding Flash-flood/Flooding Potential Index Prahova River catchment Romania

Corresponding Author(s): Romulus COSTACHE

Just Accepted Date: 09 January 2017 Online First Date: 13 April 2017 Issue Date: 19 May 2017

Cite this article:

Liliana ZAHARIA,Romulus COSTACHE,Remus PRĂVĂLIE, et al. Mapping flood and flooding potential indices: a methodological approach to identifying areas susceptible to flood and flooding risk. Case study: the Prahova catchment (Romania)[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2017, 11(2): 229-247.

URL:

https://academic.hep.com.cn/fesci/EN/10.1007/s11707-017-0636-1
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fesci/EN/Y2017/V11/I2/229

Fig.1 Study area and its location in the Prahova River’s catchment and in Romania.

Fig.2 Maps of the geographic variables used for estimating the FFPI and FPI: (a) tangential curvature, (b) profile curvature, (c) slope, (d) L-S Factor, (e) absolute elevation, (f) drainage density.

Fig.3 Maps of the geographic variables used for estimating the FFPI and FPI: (a) runoff depth, (b) convergence index, (c) wetness index, (d) altitude above channel, (e) catchment shape, (f) lithology.

Tab.1 Morphometric and hydrologic data for the analyzed rivers

Tab.2 Weighting and classification of geographical factors for determining the FFPI index in the middle and upper sectors of Prahova catchment

Tab.3 Weighting and classification of geographical factors for determining the FPI index in the middle and upper sectors of Prahova catchment

Tab.4 Flash-floods with the highest magnitudes (top five in terms of flood peak value) in the upper and middle Prahova River’s catchment

Fig.4 Left: Buildings on the Prahova River at Comarnic, damaged by riverbank erosion as a result of the flash-flood of July 2005 (photo: Gabriela Ioana-Toroimac). Right: Bridge destroyed by the flash-flood which occurred on the Prahova River in July 2005, at Nedelea (photo: Liliana Zaharia).

Fig.5 Spatial distribution of FFPI values in the upper and middle catchment of the Prahova River: (a) all five classes; (b) only class 5, with the highest accelerated runoff potential. Note: classes 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 (in (a)) correspond respectively to very low, low, moderate, high, and very high potential of flash-floods genesis.

Fig.6 Spatial distribution of FPI values in the upper and middle catchment of the Prahova River: (a) all five classes; (b) only the class 5, with the highest flooding potential. Note: classes 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 (in (a)) correspond respectively to very low, low, moderate, high, and very high potential of flooding genesis.

Fig.7 Spatial distribution of FPI values, areas affected by significant historical floods and number of flood events recorded in the period 2009–2016, in the upper and middle catchment of the Prahova River.

Fig.8 Transport infrastructure (the national/European road DN1/E60 and railroad) and buildings exposed to flood and flooding risk in the upper Prahova Valley, in city of Sinaia (pictures taken by Gabriela Ioana-Toroimac during the flood of March 2007).

1	C Arghiuş, V Arghiuş (2011). The quantitative estimation of the soil erosion using USLE type ROMSEM model. Case-study: the Codrului ridge and piedmont (Romania). Carpath J Earth Environ Sci, 6(2): 59–66
2	K Auerswald, J Haider (1996). Runoff curve numbers for small grain under German cropping conditions. J Environ Manage, 47(3): 223–228 https://doi.org/10.1006/jema.1996.0048
3	S Balica, Q Dinh, I Popescu, Vo Q T, D Q Pham (2014). Flood impact in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. J Maps, 10(2): 257–268 https://doi.org/10.1080/17445647.2013.859636
4	Ş Bilaşco (2008). Implementing GIS in slope flash-flood modelling (in Romanian). Casa Cărţii de Ştiinţă Cluj-Napoca, Romania
5	Ş Bilaşco, C Horvath, P Cocean, V Sorocovschi, M Oncu (2009). Implementation of the USLE model using GIS techniques. Case study the Someşean Plateau. Carpath J Earth Environ Sci, 4(2): 123–132
6	M V Bîrsan, L Zaharia, V Chendeş, E Brănescu (2014). Seasonal trends in Romanian streamflow. Hydrol Processes, 28(15): 4496–4505 https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.9961
7	O Bogdan (1983). Climatic and topoclimatic regions in Romanian Geography (in Romanian). Physical Geography, Ed. Academiei R.S.R., p. 277–279, Bucharest, Romania
8	I Braud, H Roux, S Anquetin, M M Maubourguet, C Manus, P Viallet, D Dartus (2010). The use of distributed hydrological models for the Gard 2002 flash flood event: analysis of associated hydrological processes. J Hydrol (Amst), 394(1): 162–181 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.03.033
9	A Busuioc, M Caian, S Cheval, R Bojariu, C Boroneanţ, M Baciu, A Dumitrescu (2010). Climate variability and change in Romania (in Romanian). Pro Universitaria Publishing, Bucharest, Romania
10	V Chendeş (2007). Liquid and solid runoff in the Curvature Subcarpathians (in Romanian). Dissertation for PhD degree. Romanian Academy, Geography Institute, Library of the Geography Institute, Bucharest, Romania
11	CLC (2006). Corine Land cover (raster data). European Environment Agency. Accessed at
12	C Conoscenti, C Di Maggio, E Rotigliano (2008). GIS analysis to assess landslide susceptibility in a fluvial basin of NW Sicily (Italy). Geomorphology, 94(3–4): 325–339 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2006.10.039
13	Ş Constantinescu (2006). Observations on morphometric indicators computed based on DEM (in Romanian).
14	R Costache, F Fontanine, E Corodescu (2014). Assessment of surface runoff depth changes in Sǎrǎţel River basin, Romania using GIS techniques. Cent Eur J Geosci, 6(3): 363–372
15	R Costache, R Prăvălie (2012). The use of GIS techniques in the evaluation of the susceptibility of the floods genesis in the hydrographical basin of Bâsca Chiojdului river. Analele Universităţii din Oradea. Seria Geografie, 22(2): 284–293
16	R Costache, R Prăvălie, I Mitof, C Popescu (2015). Flood vulnerability assessment in the low sector of Saratel catchment. Case study: Joseni village. Carpath J Earth Environ Sci, 10(1): 161–169
17	CRED (2015). Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters – Report on Human cost of Natural Disasters. A global perspective.
18	A E Croitoru, I Minea (2015). The impact of climate changes on rivers discharge in Eastern Romania. Theor Appl Climatol, 120(3–4): 563–573 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00704-014-1194-z
19	A E Croitoru, A Piţicar, D C Burada (2016). Changes in precipitation extremes in Romania. Quat Int, 415: 325–335 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.07.028
20	DEPC (2007). Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on the assessment and management of flood risks, Official Journal of the European Union L 288(27) 8p.
21	M Diakakis (2011). A method for flood hazard mapping based on basin morphometry: application in two catchments in Greece. Nat Hazards, 56(3): 803–814 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-010-9592-8
22	M Domniţa (2012). Runoff modeling using GIS. Application in torrential basins in the Apuseni Mountains. Dissertation for PhD degree. Cluj Napoca, Romania
23	R Drobot (2007). Methodology for determining torrential catchments in which human settlements are exposed to flash floods (in Romanian). Technical University of Civil Engineering, Bucharest, Romania
24	A Dumitrescu, R Bojariu, M V Bîrsan, L Marin, A Manea (2015). Recent climatic changes in Romania from observational data (1961–2013). Theor Appl Climatol, 122(1–2): 111–119 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00704-014-1290-0
25	I Fontanine, R D Costache (2013). The potential for water diffuse pollution with heavy metals in Arieş river basin. Analele Ştiintifice ale Universităţii" Alexandru Ioan Cuza" din Iasi. Seria Geografie, 59(2): 59–72
26	K P Georgakakos (2006). Analytical results for operational flash flood guidance. J Hydrol (Amst), 317(1–2): 81–103 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.05.009
27	A Gobin, R Jones, M Kirkby, P Campling, G Govers, C Kosmas, A R Gentile (2004). Indicators for pan-European assessment and monitoring of soil erosion by water. Environ Sci Policy, 7(1): 25–38 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2003.09.004
28	A Godfrey, R L Ciurean, van C J Westen, N C Kingma, T Glade (2015). Assessing vulnerability of buildings to hydro-meteorological hazards using an expert based approach – An application in NehoiuValley, Romania. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct, 13: 229–241 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2015.06.001
29	P Gonçalves, I Marafuz, A Gomes (2015). Flood hazard, Santa Cruz do Bispo Sector, Leça River, Portugal: a methodological contribution to improve land use planning. J Maps, 11(5): 760–771 https://doi.org/10.1080/17445647.2014.974226
30	S Grimaldi, A Petroselli, N Romano (2013). Green‐Ampt Curve‐Number mixed procedure as an empirical tool for rainfall–runoff modelling in small and ungauged basins. Hydrol Processes, 27(8): 1253–1264 https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.9303
31	M Hooshyar, D Wang (2016). An analytical solution of Richards’ equation providing the physical basis of SCS curve number method and its proportionality relationship. Water Resour Res, 52(8): 6611–6620 https://doi.org/10.1002/2016WR018885
32	IESP (2016). Communicate-buletine (in Romanian).
33	G Ioana-Toroimac (2009). La dynamique hydromorphologique de la rivière Prahova (Roumanie) : fonctionnement actuel, évolution récente et conséquences géographiques. PhD Thesis in Geography, University of Lille 1, France
34	G Ioana-Toroimac (2016). Inventory of long-term braiding activity at a regional scaleas a tool for detecting alterations to a rivers’ hydromorphological state: a case study for Romania’s south-eastern Subcarpathians. Environ Manage, 58(1): 93–106 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-016-0701-7
35	G Ioana-Toroimac, R Dobre, F Grecu, L Zaharia (2010). A 2D active channel’s evolution of the Upper Prahova River (Romania) during the last 150 years. Géomorphologie, 16(3): 275–286 https://doi.org/10.4000/geomorphologie.7988
36	R Jacinto, N Grosso, E Reis, L Dias, F D Santos, P Garrett (2015). Continental Portuguese territory flood susceptibility index – contribution to a vulnerability index. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci, 15(8): 1907–1919 https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-15-1907-2015
37	M K Jain, U C Kothyari (2000). Estimation of soil erosion and sediment yield using GIS. Hydrol Sci J, 45(5): 771–786 https://doi.org/10.1080/02626660009492376
38	N T Kottegoda, L Natale, E Raiteri (2000). Statistical modelling of daily streamflows using rainfall input and curve number technique. J Hydrol (Amst), 234(3–4): 170–186 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(00)00252-3
39	N N Kourgialas, G P Karatzas (2011). Flood management and a GIS modelling method to assess floodhazard areas—A case study. Hydrol Sci J, 56(2): 212–225 https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2011.555836
40	Z W Kundzewicz, I Pińskwar, G R Brakenridge (2013). Large floods in Europe, 1985–2009. Hydrol Sci J, 58(1): 1–7 https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2012.745082
41	S H Mahmoud, A A Alazba, J Adamowski, A M El-Gindy (2015). GIS methods for sustainable stormwater harvesting and storage using remote sensing for land cover data-location assessment. Environ Monit Assess, 187(9): 598–616 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-015-4822-x
42	L Marchi, M Borga, E Preciso, E Gaume (2010). Characterisation of selected extreme flash floods in Europe and implications for flood risk management. J Hydrol (Amst), 394(1–2): 118–133 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.07.017
43	MEWM (2006). Ministry of Environment and Water Management – Report on the effects of flooding and dangerous meteorological phenomena in 2005, implemented measures, actions taken to repair affected units and to diminish or prevent future damages (in Romanian), 40 p, Bucharest, Romania
44	G Minea (2013). Assessment of the flash flood potential of Bâsca River Catchment (Romania) based on physiographic factors. Cent Eur J Geosci, 5(3): 344–353 https://doi.org/10.2478/s13533-012-0137-4
45	I D Moore, R B Grayson, A R Landson (1993). Digital terrain modelling: a review of hydrological, geomorphological, and biological applications. In Beven K J, Moore I D, eds. Terrain Analysis and Distributed Modelling in Hydrology. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, 7–34
46	A Mustăţea (2005). Exceptional flash floods on Romanian territory. Genesis and effects (in Romanian). National Institute of Hydrology and Water Mangement, Bucharest, Romania
47	A Musy, C Higy (2011). Hydrology. A Science of Nature. Enfield: CRC Press,Taylor & Francis Group, Science Publishers
48	V Mutihac, M I Stratulat, R M Fechet (2007). Geology of Romania (in Romanian). Didactică şi Pedagogică, Bucharest, Romania
49	NIRDSSAEP (2002). National Institute of Research and Development for Soil Science, Agrochemistry and Environmental Protection – Spatial data regarding the soil types in the study region, Bucharest, Romania
50	D Norbiato, M Borga, Espoti S Degli, E Gaume, S Anquetin (2008). Flash flood warning based on rainfall thresholds and soil moisture conditions: An assessment for gauged and ungauged basins. J Hydrol (Amst), 362(3–4): 274–290 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2008.08.023
51	K C Patra (2008). Hydrology and water resources engineering. Alpha Science International Ltd, Oxford, U.K.
52	R Perju (2012). Characteristics of floods in Valea Cerbului Catchment. In: Gâştescu P, Lewis W, Breţcan P, eds. Conference Proceedings Water resources and Wetlands, September 14–16, 2012, Tulcea, Romania
53	D Pimentel (2006). Soil erosion: a food and environmental threat. Environ Dev Sustain, 8(1): 119–137 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-005-1262-8
54	R Prăvălie, G Bandoc, C Patriche, M Tomescu (2016a). Spatio-temporal trends of mean air temperature during 1961–2009 and impacts on crop (maize) yields in the most important agricultural region of Romania. Stochastic Environ Res Risk Assess, doi: 10.1007/s00477-016-1278-7
55	R Prăvălie, R Costache (2013). The vulnerability of the territorial-administrative units to the hydrological phenomena of risk (Flash-Floods). Case study: the subcarpathian sector of Buzău Catchment. Analele Universității din Oradea–SeriaGeografie, 23(1): 91–98
56	R Prăvălie, L Zaharia, G Bandoc, A Petrişor, O Ionuş, I Mitof (2016b). Hydroclimatic dynamics in southwestern Romania drylands over the past 50 years. J Earth Syst Sci, 125(6): 1255–1271 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12040-016-0730-x
57	J A Reistetter, M Russell (2011). High-resolution land cover datasets, composite curve numbers, and storm water retention in the Tampa Bay, FL region. Appl Geogr, 31(2): 740–747 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2010.12.005
58	Romanian Waters National Administration (RWNA) (2013). Report on a Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment. Bucharest, Romania
59	Romanian Waters National Administration (RWNA) (2014). Hazard and Flood Risk Maps. Bucharest, Romania.
60	A D Roo, J Barredo, C Lavalle, K Bodis, R Bonk (2007). Potential flood hazard and risk mapping at Pan-European scale. In: Peckham R J, Jordan G, eds. Digital Terrain Modelling Development and Applications in a Policy Support Environment. Berlin: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
61	I Sandu, V I Pescaru, I Poiana, A Geicu, I Candea, D Tastea (2008). The Climate of Romania (in Romanian). Bucharest: Romanian Academy Publishing
62	A Shaban, M Khawlie, C Abdallah (2006). Use of remote sensing and GIS to determine recharge potential zones: the case of Occidental Lebanon. Hydrogeol J, 14(4): 433–443 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-005-0437-6
63	A Shaban, M Khawlie, R Bou Kheir, C Abdallah (2001). Assessment of road instability along a typical mountainous road using GIS and aerial photos, Lebanon–eastern Mediterranean. Bull Eng Geol Environ, 60(2): 93–101 https://doi.org/10.1007/s100640000092
64	G Smith (2003). Flash flood potential: determining the hydrologic response of ffmp basins to heavy rain by analyzing their physiographic characteristics. A white paper available from the NWS Colorado Basin River Forecast Center.
65	B D Stocker, R Roth, F Joos, R Spahni, M Steinacher, S Zaehle, L Bouwman, R Xu, I C Prentice (2013). Multiple greenhouse-gas feedbacks from the land biosphere under future climate change scenarios. Nat Clim Chang, 3(7): 666–672 https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1864
66	S Teodor, S Mătreaţă (2011). A way of determining how small river basins of somes river are susceptible to flash-floods. Carpath J Earth Environ Sci, 6(1): 89–98
67	UNISDR (2009). United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction – Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction, Geneva, Switzerland
68	R F Valle Junior, S G P Varandas, L F Sanches Fernandes , F A L Pacheco (2014). Environmental land use conflicts: a threat to soil conservation. Land Use Policy, 41: 172–185 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.05.012
69	B Xiao, Q H Wang, J Fan, F P Han, Q H Dai (2011). Application of the SCS-CN model to runoff estimation in a small watershed with high spatial heterogeneity. Pedosphere, 21(6): 738–749 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1002-0160(11)60177-X
70	D F Young, J N Carleton (2006). Implementation of a probabilistic curve number method in the PRZM runoff model. Environ Model Softw, 21(8): 1172–1179 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2005.06.004
71	L Zaharia (2005a). Waters, in Natural Hazards in the Carpathians and Subcarpathians located between Trotuş and Teleajen. In: Ars Docendi, Geographical Study (in Romanian). Ed. Bucharest, Romania, 47–59
72	L Zaharia (2005b). Study on water resources in the Curvature Carpathians and Subcarpathians in order to maximize their use for population supply in the counties adjoining the region (in Romanian). In: "Lucrări şi Rapoarte de Cercetare". Vol. I, Ed. Universităţii Bucureşti, Bucharest, Romania, 137–171
73	L Zaharia, G Beltrando (2007). Variabilité spatiale et temporelle de la pluviométrie dans la région de la Courbure de l’Arc Carpatique : étude par Analyse en Composantes Principales, Revue Roumaine de Géographie, Bucharest, Romania, 175–184
74	L Zaharia, G Beltrando, G Nedelcu, C Boroneant, G Toroimac (2006). Les inondations de 2005 en Roumanie. Actes du XIXeme Colloque International de Climatologie, 6–9 September, Epernay, France, 557–562
75	L Zaharia, R Costache, R Prăvalie, G Minea (2015). Assessment and mapping of flood potential in the Slănic catchment in Romania. J Earth Syst Sci, 124(6): 1311–1324 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12040-015-0608-3
76	L Zaharia, F Grecu, G Toroimac, G Neculau (2011). Sediment transport and river channel dynamics in Romania – Variability and control factors. In: Manning A J, ed. Sediment Transport in Aquatic Environments. InTech, 293–316 https://doi.org/10.5772/21416
77	L Zaharia, G Minea, G Toroimac, R Barbu, I Sârbu (2012). Estimation of the Areas with Accelerated Surface Runoff in the Upper Prahova Watershed (Romanian Carpathians), Balwois, Republic of Macedonia.
78	X Zhan, M L Huang (2004). ArcCN-Runoff: an ArcGIS tool for generating curve number and runoff maps. Environ Model Softw, 19(10): 875–879 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2004.03.001

[1]	Wanben WU, Wei WANG, Michael E. Meadows, Xinfeng YAO, Wei PENG. Cloud-based typhoon-derived paddy rice flooding and lodging detection using multi-temporal Sentinel-1&2[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2019, 13(4): 682-694.
[2]	Xiaoting WANG, Zhan’e YIN, Xuan WANG, Pengfei TIAN, Yonghua HUANG. A study on flooding scenario simulation of future extreme precipitation in Shanghai[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2018, 12(4): 834-845.
[3]	Asma AYARI, Huan YANG, Shucheng XIE. Flooding impact on the distribution of microbial tetraether lipids in paddy rice soil in China[J]. Front Earth Sci, 2013, 7(3): 384-394.

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed