2007
DOI: 10.1016/j.jag.2006.06.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An innovative methodology for the prioritization of sub-catchments for flood control

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
14
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
3
2
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 29 publications
(18 citation statements)
references
References 5 publications
4
14
0
Order By: Relevance
“…At Linstock, the RMSE error is ±0.32 m and the NashSutcliffe coefficient is 0.96, while the prediction of the peak stage has an error of -3.56% and 5.3% in terms of magnitude and timing respectively. These are all within cited recommended limits of model performance (Roughani et al 2007;Wu and Johnston, 2008). However, any error in water level gives larger errors in predicted damages that will occur from flooding.…”
Section: Goodness Of Fit Statistics For Steps In Model Developmentsupporting
confidence: 64%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…At Linstock, the RMSE error is ±0.32 m and the NashSutcliffe coefficient is 0.96, while the prediction of the peak stage has an error of -3.56% and 5.3% in terms of magnitude and timing respectively. These are all within cited recommended limits of model performance (Roughani et al 2007;Wu and Johnston, 2008). However, any error in water level gives larger errors in predicted damages that will occur from flooding.…”
Section: Goodness Of Fit Statistics For Steps In Model Developmentsupporting
confidence: 64%
“…The performance of the calibrated Eden iSIS model at three gauging stations is shown in Table 6.16. Overall, the performance of the model is good, with errors within the range found in the literature (Roughani et al, 2007;Wu and Johnston, 2008). However, the model performs less well at Linstock gauging station.…”
Section: Spatial Downscaling Of Catchment Scale Flood Risk -Hydraulicsupporting
confidence: 64%
See 3 more Smart Citations