Understanding historical changes in flood damage and the underlying mechanisms is critical for predicting future changes for better adaptations. In this study, a detailed assessment of flood damage for 1950–1999 is conducted at the state level in the conterminous United States (CONUS). Geospatial datasets on possible influencing factors are then developed by synthesizing natural hazards, population, wealth, cropland and urban area to explore the relations with flood damage. A considerable increase in flood damage in CONUS is recorded for the study period which is well correlated with hazards. Comparably, runoff indexed hazards simulated by the Variable Infiltration Capacity (VIC) model can explain a larger portion of flood damage variations than precipitation in 84% of the states. Cropland is identified as an important factor contributing to increased flood damage in central US while urbanland exhibits positive and negative relations with total flood damage and damage per unit wealth in 20 and 16 states, respectively. Overall, flood damage in 34 out of 48 investigated states can be predicted at the 90% confidence level. In extreme cases, ~76% of flood damage variations can be explained in some states, highlighting the potential of future flood damage prediction based on climate change and socioeconomic scenarios.
A growing body of research has investigated flood damage arising from hydro-climatic extremes due to its devastating impacts on society and environment, in particular in the context of climate change and socioeconomic development1,2,3,4,5,6,7. In the United States, flood damage ranks as the top weather-caused loss and is still on the rise with increasing extreme weather and socioeconomic growth5, 7,8,9,10,11,12,13. Over the second half of the 20th century, annual losses by US floods have almost tripled from $1.7 billion/year in the 1950s to $5 billion/year in the 1990s (all in 1995 dollars)14. Against this background, a better understanding of the drivers of flood damage is crucial for improving our capabilities in predicting flood losses for better adaptations4, 15, 16.
Changes in flood damage can be attributed to not only the changes in frequency and magnitude of natural hazards (e.g., precipitation and runoff extremes), but also the level of exposure (the population and economic assets located in flood hazardous areas) and vulnerability (the susceptibility of the exposed elements to hazards) in flood prone areas17,18,19,20,21,22. Empirical approach has been well adopted in previous studies for linking flood damage to a set of hazard, exposure and vulnerability indicators23, 24. This allows prediction of future flood damage based on historical relations fed with scenarios of future flood hazard, exposure and vulnerability conditions25,26,27. To serve different purposes of damage estimation, the selected indicators and the temporal and spatial scales vary largely in previous studies. Hazards are commonly described by climate variability, such as extreme precipitations. Flood hazards are then related to exposure and vulnerability indicators which account for social and economic conditions, ranging from highly aggregated factors (e.g., GDP, population) to localized ones (e.g., building type and value, defense facilities)16, 20, 28, 29. During the past decades, a stronger signal of change in the frequency rather than in the magnitude of flood events has been reported11,12,13, 30, which is well correlated with the increase in flood damage in the United States31, 32. Pielke and Downton 14 showed that the 2-day heavy rainfall events and the number of wet days have significant correlations with observed flood damage at the national level, which are further regulated by socioeconomic factors. However, Changnon et al.9 argued that most of the upward trend of flood damage is induced by socioeconomic development resulting in larger exposure and vulnerability to flood hazards. Choi and Fisher 33 stated that growth in reported flood damage from weather-related disasters is mainly caused by three socioeconomic factors: inflation, growth of population and per capita wealth.
Built upon previous studies, this paper advances our understanding on US flood damage through: (1) assessing the spatial pattern of observed trends in flood damage at the state level. Previous studies on US flood damage assessments were typically carried out at the national or regional level9, 14, which ignored the spatial heterogeneities of hazard, exposure and vulnerability indictors. In fact, trends in flood damage and the influencing factors may differ greatly in individual states under various weather, topographical, demographic and economic conditions; (2) considering runoff as one of the physical hazard indicators to explain flood damage variations. Historical flood damage is commonly linked to precipitation related hazards in previous studies5, 14, 31, 34, without considering runoff related factors. Runoff can reflect the combined influence of climatic (e.g., precipitation) and land surface conditions (e.g., topography, soil and land cover), which would theoretically better explain flood damage variations than precipitation; (3) investigating the role of exposure as well as vulnerability in regulating flood damage response to hazards. Gross domestic product (GDP) and Population (POP) are the most commonly used indicators to describe exposure and vulnerability of a region14, 33, 35. However, it gives limited information on what (e.g., changes in land use or asset values) has driven the increasing flood damage; (4) exploring the potential of flood damage prediction based on revealed empirical relations for each state.
Spatial and temporal changes in flood damage and socioeconomic conditions
As illustrated in Fig. 1, flood damage is a combined product of flood hazard, exposure and vulnerability. Here, we first show the spatial and temporal patterns of the indicators for flood damage, hazard, exposure and vulnerability before examining the mechanisms behind flood damage. A distinct spatial pattern is observed for historical flood damage across CONUS with highest damage occurring in the state of Louisiana, Iowa, California, North Dakota and Texas (Fig. 2a). Among the five states, large inter-annual variability of flood damage is found in Louisianan and North Dakota (Fig. 2b). For the country as a whole, total flood damage during 1955–99 is about 85 billion dollars with mean annual damage up to 1.89 billion. The spatial distributions of median annual GDP and the ratio to POP of each state are shown in Fig. 2 (c) and (d), respectively. It is not surprising to find that the states experiencing highest flood damage, such as California, Texas, Illinois and Pennsylvania, are generally characterized with higher levels of wealth as indicated by GDP. However, in the state of New York, Ohio and Michigan, despite their high GDP levels, flood damage during the historical period is relatively low, possibly due to the low level of hazard occurrence/magnitudes (Supplementary Figure S1), which are explored in the following analysis. The unit level of wealth (i.e., per capital GDP) is consistent with the gross wealth in the state of California, Illinois, New York and Texas, but with highest value in Wyoming and Nevada given their small population.
Temporally, flood damage shows an increasing tendency in the study period, and more than two thirds of major damaging events (highlighted in bone color) occurred over the last 15 years (Fig. 3). In particular, the hydrological year 1993 is the most damaging and devastating year in the country during the study period with most states experiencing extremely high losses from floods than in other years. The periods of 1984–86 and 1996–99 also stand out from the yearly assessment and are categorized as high-flood-cost periods. This finding is consistent with previous studies reporting a larger increasing rate in flood hazard frequency than its magnitude in US11,12,13, 30. Although there are no evident trends of annual total precipitation and runoff, the extreme events have become more frequent towards the end of the study period (1983–99). Notably, the increasing trend in the frequency of 1-day extreme events coincides with the high flood damage events. Meanwhile, GDP exhibits an upward trend in most states over time while population remains relatively stable, with largest increase in the state of California, Texas and New York by 149%, 128% and 14% respectively. Concurrently, the areas of urban and crop lands have increased considerably in several states since 1955, with California, Texas and Florida ranked as the top three experiencing largest urbanland growth, while Texas, Kansas and North Dakota ranked as the top three states in cropland.
Empirical relations between hazard and flood damage
Overall, flood damage has exerted an increasing trend during the study period, and the change pattern of which resembles well those of extreme weather events, exposure and vulnerability variables as shown in Fig. 3. Next, we show the quantitative relations between flood damage and the potential influencing factors. For most states, there are significant correlations between hazards as indicated by precipitation and runoff extremes and flood damage (Fig. 4). This indicates that variations of flood damage can be well explained by hazards, which is in line with the findings from Pielke and Downton 14 and Karl and Knight 31. Nevertheless, in North Dakota, Wyoming, New Mexico, Nevada, Florida and Maine, the relations between flood damage and hazard are weak. This implies that variation of flood damage in those states could be mainly attributed to social-economic conditions, such as growth in wealth and demographic shifts.
Notably, the results show a strong correlation between flood damage and runoff. Specifically, there are 32 states (highlighted in Fig. 4) out of 48 where flood damage can be explained significantly by both precipitation and runoff totals, in which up to 84% of damage variation can be better explained by annual total runoff. As for the 1-day extreme events, statistically significant relations are found in 26 states, 73% of which (19 states) have stronger correlations between flood damage and runoff than precipitation. In extreme cases, the correlation coefficient between extreme runoff events and flood damage is up to 0.9 in the state of Mississippi, followed by Kansas, Iowa and Illinois. That is, runoff-indexed hazards have comparable power in explaining flood damage and can even outperform precipitation in certain regions. This has great implications for better understanding the variations in flood damage as runoff related indicators have been neglected in previous studies.
Similar spatial patterns are found for the relations between hazard indicators and the other two damage categories (i.e., DPC and DPW) in Fig. 5. Specifically, population variations are shown to have little impacts on the relations between flood hazard and damage14 as indicated by the similar spatial correlation patterns based on DPC (which excluded the population effects) and that based on total damage (i.e., D without excluding the population effects). However, this should not demise the important contribution of population to flood damage as demonstrated in previous studies9, 35. But rather, this indicates that the interannual variability of population has minor effects on the correlations between flood damage and hazard indicators. Based on DPW, states with statistically significant relations between flood damage and hazard indicators decreased considerably, demonstrating the role of social wealth growth (i.e., GDP) in regulating flood damage to physical hazards. In general, DPC and DPW are more correlated with runoff indicators for most states, except for Mississippi, Kansas, Iowa, Texas and Montana based on DPW, confirming the importance of considering runoff extremes as hazard indicators.
The role of exposure and vulnerability in regulating flood damage
Figure 6 shows the correlation coefficients of D, DPC and DPW with urbanland and cropland, which have not been explored in previous studies. The positive relations indicate that regional exposure and vulnerability contribute to the increasing damage and vice versa for negative relations. Indeed, urbanized areas are often associated with a stronger economy and more valuable assets, which increase the exposure to flood hazards and result in potentially higher flood damage36, 37. It is found that D is positively related to urban land in investigated states except for Connecticut and Rhode Island, especially in Florida and Georgia, indicating that flood damage in most states has exhibited an increasing trend along with urbanization. This is consistent with findings from Kunkel et al.38, Barnolas and Llasat 39, and Huong and Pathirana 40 that emphasized the contribution of urban development to the increasing flood damage in various regions worldwide. As for cropland, a noticeable regional difference is found with positive correlations in central regions and negative relationships in the rest areas. A possible explanation is that central states are primarily agriculture dominant regions where extreme floods can have direct impacts on crop growth, leading to agriculture production losses. Accounting for population effects has little impacts on the revealed patterns (Fig. 6c and d).
Interestingly, the correlation pattern changed considerably after accounting for the effects of GDP (Fig. 6e and f). For example, the states originally with positive relations in Fig. 6a became statistically insignificant after excluding the effects of wealth variations. Meanwhile, 16 other states where no significant correlations were found show negative relations with urbanland based on DPW. That is, given an identical hazard, flood damage is a combined result of both exposure (wealth/costs) and vulnerability (defense capability) (Fig. 1). Here, it is shown that growth of social wealth (i.e., GDP) played an important role in contributing to the increasing flood damage in US. After removing the effects of wealth growth, the role of urbanization in mitigating flood impacts is revealed. The changes in relations are in line with previous findings on ‘safe development paradox’ discussed in e.g., Burby 37, Kates et al.36 and Cutter and Emrich 41. Indeed, on the one hand, urban areas have more concentrated population and assets exposed to flood hazards, thus exhibiting positive relations with total flood damage. On the other hand, urbanization can enhance regional capability to cope with floods through upgrading of flood protection facilities and drainage systems in cities, thus implying a negative relation with flood damage. In fact, after excluding the effects of social wealth exposed to floods, the mitigation role of urbanland and related defensive capacity are revealed. This least understood aspect of hazard-exposure-vulnerability in urban areas has important implications for understanding the mechanisms behind flood damage.
Predictability of flood damage at the state level
Based upon the above analyses, we then construct multivariate regression models for each state, with flood damage as the dependent variable, and hazard, exposure and vulnerability indicators as independent variables. Here, the most highly related indicator (precipitation versus runoff, annual totals versus the 1-day extreme events) is selected as the hazard variable, while socio-economic indicators (i.e., GDP, POP, urban and crop lands) are used. Figure 7 shows the performance of established statistical models in explaining the variations of flood damage based on those indicators for each state. The light blue bar indicates that the relation is statistically significant at the 90% confidence level. In total, flood damage can be predicted in 34 of 48 investigated states at the 90% confidence level. The inability to build significant relationships in the remaining 14 states indicates that the methodology is not applicable in all regions. Therefore, more regionalized studies might improve the specifications of flood damage relation with hazard-exposure-vulnerability. Overall, 42% of flood damage variations can be explained by our statistical model for the country as a whole. In particular, 76% and 68% of flood damage variations can be predicted in the state of Mississippi and Montana, respectively, demonstrating the feasibility of predicting future flood damage under various climate change and social-economic scenarios.
Discussion and Conclusion
Flood damage is influenced not only by climate variability, but also by non-climatic factors that shape regional exposure and vulnerability to weather extremes at various spatial scales. Understanding historical trends of flood damage and the underlying driving forces is important for better planning and adaptations. This study builds upon previous studies by including various hazard, exposure and vulnerability indicators for explaining US flood damage at a finer spatial scale, i.e., state level. Besides commonly used physical and socioeconomic factors, several important explanatory variables for explaining flood damage as ignored in previous studies are investigated. Statistical models are then established for each state, aiming to explore the predictability of flood damage.
It is found that runoff indicators have comparable power in explaining flood damage variations and can even outperform the commonly used precipitation ones in most of US states. In extreme cases, the correlation coefficient between runoff extremes and flood damage in the state of Mississippi is up to 0.9, followed by Kansas, lowa and Illinois. The wealth growth is more vital and complex in regulating flood damage than population. The cropland can be used as an important indicator for damage growth in central United States. Importantly, results suggest that urbanization can to certain degree mitigate regional flood hazards in certain states of US and thereby can be considered as a proxy measure of flood defense capability based on DPW. The results emphasize the importance of considering the least-understood role of runoff indexed hazards and regional defensive capability for a better understanding of flood damage variations.
Overall, flood damage in 34 of 48 investigated states can be explained significantly by the statistical model, but with large variations at the state level. In particular, 76% and 68% of flood damage can be predicted in the state of Mississippi and Montana, respectively, demonstrating the model feasibility to predict future flood damage. However, several assumptions have to be made for future predictions. For example, the non-stationary assumption on historical response function adopted in this study may not hold in the future as future socio-economic activities can not only effect the exposure and vulnerability42, 43 conditions, but also change the hydrological regime44, 45. Especially, impacts of future social dynamics on hydrological systems are highly unpredictable42. Examining the uncertainty arising from the non-stationarity assumption would be non-trivial, meriting a separate study. There are several approaches to explore this, e.g., by dividing the study period into two sub-periods, simulating flood damage based on the response function derived from the first sub-period with inputs from the second sub-period and comparing the simulations with observed records in the second period to examine the validity of the assumption. In addition, probabilistic methods could be used to deal with the variations in the response functions for future implications46. Also, socio-hydrological modeling approaches42,43,44 can be adopted in order to capture the complex interactions between social and hydrological processes. Nevertheless, the focus of this study is to explore the relation of flood damage to hazard, exposure and vulnerability in the study period 1955–1999, which plays a critical and fundamental role in future predictions.
The limitation on the accuracy and consistency of flood damage records should be acknowledged as the collection and processing of the data may suffer potential uncertainties. Specifically, individual damage estimate by small and moderate flood event is occasionally omitted or largely underestimated, which may introduce uncertainties and/or biased estimates in the total damage in reality. For example, the impacts of coastal flooding which can cause considerable damage to coastal communities along the coasts of US47,48,49 are not included in current flood damage records. Moftakhari et al.50 reported that the low-cost frequent floods could aggregate over time and the cumulative costs of such floods can even exceed the costs induced by the extreme but infrequent floods in coastal areas. Hence, more robust conclusions require longer time series and improved data quality to verify the trends and the statistical relationships obtained in the study and to investigate the contribution of coastal flooding to total flood damage. In addition, uncertainty in simulated runoff by the VIC model arising from e.g., model structure, parameter and forcing may propagate and affect the state-specific relations as constructed in this study.
Notwithstanding these limitations, the framework and methodology laid out in this study provide valuable tools for flood characterization based on historical records. The large spatial heterogeneity of flood damage as well as the distinct pattern of the underlying causes as revealed in this study demonstrates the importance to assess flood damage at a finer scale. Also it is important to note that, besides the commonly adopted indicators (i.e., GDP and POP), other types of land use or economic indicators can be used to explain the variability in flood damage. However, to explore the causes of increasing flood damage is extremely difficult due to lack of data on population and economy development within floodplains, and the information on the performance of various flood control and management measures across US. Based on the developed geospatial datasets on natural hazards, population, wealth, cropland and urban area, we highlight the predictability of US state level flood damage and emphasize the importance of accounting for the least-understood effects of runoff, urbanland and cropland in conditioning flood damage, which have been neglected in previous studies.
Materials and Methods
Figure 1 shows the conceptual framework adopted in this study for exploring the underlying causes of flood damage. Specifically, precipitation extremes associated with climate variability/change could exert major impacts on flood damage18, 51. Yet, in the long term, changes in geographical and land surface characteristics of an area due to frequent flooding can lead to transformation of city land use and assets relocation to avoid disruptions of service and damage2. Urbanization and economic growth are considered to be the most common causes of increased exposure and can affect the level of vulnerability22, 40, 52,53,54. Meanwhile, humans and related socio-economic developments are likely to affect the hydrological regime42, surface routing process and planning of countermeasures, and thus have a secondary effect on hazard55. Effective flood control policies can enhance flood resilience system such that hazard (e.g., runoff), exposure and vulnerability could be reduced.
Generally, flood damage can be described as a joint function of hazard, exposure and vulnerability22, 49. Here, hazard characterizes the natural occurrence and magnitude of a damage-producing flood resulting from weather extremes, without human interference. In addition to the commonly adopted precipitation-related indicators (e.g., number of wet days, precipitation totals), we consider the use of runoff indicators (e.g., 1_day runoff, annual totals) as proxy of the combined effects of climatic and land surface conditions. Exposure is the expected number of population and economic assets exposed to the hazardous conditions in flood-prone areas. In this study, exposure mainly characterizes the population, landuse and socioeconomic conditions. Specially, we include areas of urban and crop lands as measures of exposure besides the two widely adopted indicators (GDP and POP). Vulnerability is the susceptibility of exposed elements to flood hazard. Here, vulnerability is mainly considered to include man-made efforts to mitigate the impacts of natural flood hazards on exposure10, 22, e.g., defense capability (i.e., the ability to mitigate the hazard impacts) (Fig. 1). That is, places with both low exposure and low vulnerability (i.e., high defense capacities) are less adversely affected by flood hazard. To address the gap on the relations between flood damage and regional defense capacity, we use the urbanland and its interactions with exposure indicators to reflect the vulnerability level of the system under threat, due to the absence of other relevant observations.
State level flood damage records for the period 1955–99 are obtained from the National Weather Service (NWS), which is responsible for maintaining long-term flood damage statistics. The NWS damage records refer to the direct economic damage (including loss of property and crops, costs of repairing damaged building and roads) caused by significant flood events due to rainfall and/or snowmelt14. The damage data are compiled right after each major flood event and updated accordingly in the dataset. Annual flood damage is provided for each hydrological year from 1 October to 30 September of the following year in thousands of current dollars. Though the NWS estimates are obtained from various sources, data quality is argued to be sufficient for use in trend analysis14.
Historical daily climate including precipitation is obtained from Maurer et al.56 which provides gridded products at 0.125 degree across the conterminous United States. Daily runoff is simulated using the Variable Infiltration Capacity (VIC) model57, 58 driven by observed climate. The VIC model is a macro scale hydrologic model accounting for subgrid-scale variability and has been widely used at the regional and global scale59,60,61,62. The annual total and maximum 1-day extreme precipitation and runoff are calculated at each grid cell and then aggregated into the state level for our analysis.
Four socio-economic factors are selected. The state-level POP and GDP data are obtained from the US’s Department of Commerce, Census Bureau (https://www.census.gov/) and Bureau of Economic analysis (BEA, http://www.bea.gov/), respectively. The population is provided for 1 July of each year, in thousands. The GDP estimates are given for 31 December of each year, in millions of current dollars. The USDA (United States Department of Agriculture, http://www.usda.gov/) provides major land use data for the past 50 years, including forestland, grassland pasture and rangeland, cropland, special uses (primarily parks and wildlife areas), miscellaneous uses (like tundra or swamps) and urban land. Here, areas of urban and crop lands for the same period, in thousands of acres, are obtained for use.
The damage estimates are first standardized following Pielke and Downton 14, Barredo 35, and Changnon and Changnon 63. The inflation-adjusted damage data are then normalized by GDP and POP to minimize the time-variant socio-economic influences on damage estimates. Here, three categories of flood damage are used in the subsequent analysis: total annual damage (D), damage per capita (DPC), and damage per unit of GDP (DPW), such that the relative impacts of other indicators on the damage can be quantified while controlling the population and wealth effects. For example, the total annual damage is likely to be higher in states with high level of wealth, such as California given the same level of hazard.
Statistic distributions of selected indicators are examined by calculating the range, mean, median and standard deviation (STDEV). Due to the large variation in the damage estimates, log transformation is used for all the three damage categories (i.e., D, DPC and DPW) for better fitting the normal distribution. Statistical analysis is then conducted by investigating the relations between log-transformed flood damage and selected indicators using the software package Matlab 2015a. Pearson correlation coefficients are computed for all pairwise variable combinations based on their linear dependence. The statistical significance of the linear trend is tested at the 90% confidence level. The correlation analysis is conducted to select appropriate hazard and vulnerability indicators for construction of statistical model for predicting flood damage. Multi-variable linear regression is subsequently employed to establish the flood damage model based on selected indicators.
Dankers, R. et al. First look at changes in flood hazard in the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project ensemble. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 111, 3257–3261 (2014).
Jongman, B. et al. Increasing stress on disaster-risk finance due to large floods. Nature Clim. Change 4, 264–268 (2014).
Bouwer, L. M., Crompton, R. P., Faust, E., Hoppe, P. & Pielke, R. A. Confronting disaster losses. Science. Science 318, 753 (2007).
Barredo, J. I. Major flood disasters in Europe: 1950-2005. Nat. Hazards 42, 125–148 (2007).
Easterling, D. R. et al. Climate Extremes: Observations, Modeling, and Impacts. Science 289, 2068–2074 (2000).
Liu, J., Hertel, T. W., Diffenbaugh, N. S., Delgado, M. S. & Ashfaq, M. Future property damage from flooding: sensitivities to economy and climate change. Clim. Change 132, 741–749 (2015).
Pielke, R. A. Nine Fallacies of Floods. Clim. Change 42, 413–438 (1999).
Gall, M., Borden, K. A. & Emrich, C. T. & Cutter, S. L. The Unsustainable Trend of Natural Hazard Losses in the United States. Sustainability 3, 2157–2181 (2011).
Changnon, S. A., Pielke, R. A., Changnon, D., Sylves, R. T. & Pulwarty, R. Human factors explain the increased losses from weather and climate extremes. Bull. Amer. Meteorol. Soc. 81, 437–442 (2000).
Aerts, J. et al. Evaluating Flood Resilience Strategies for Coastal Megacities. Science 344, 472–474 (2014).
Slater, L. J. & Villarini, G. Recent trends in U.S. flood risk. Geophys. Res. Lett. 43(12), 428–436 (2016).
Mallakpour, I. & Villarini, G. The changing nature of flooding across the central United States. Nature Clim. Change 5, 250–254 (2015).
Mallakpour, I. & Villarini, G. Analysis of changes in the magnitude, frequency, and seasonality of heavy precipitation over the contiguous USA. Theor. App. Climatol. 1–19 (2016).
Pielke, R. A. & Downton, M. W. Precipitation and Damaging Floods: Trends in the United States, 1932–97. J. Clim. 13, 3625–3637 (2000).
Bubeck, P., de Moel, H., Bouwer, L. M. & Aerts, J. How reliable are projections of future flood damage? Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 11, 3293–3306 (2011).
Merz, B., Kreibich, H., Schwarze, R. & Thieken, A. Review article ‘Assessment of economic flood damage’. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 10, 1697–1724 (2010).
Visser, H., Petersen, A. C. & Ligtvoet, W. On the relation between weather-related disaster impacts, vulnerability and climate change. Clim. Change 125, 461–477 (2014).
Bouwer, L. M. Have disaster losses increased due to anthropogenic climate change? Bull. Amer. Meteorol. Soc. 92, 39–46 (2011).
Kron, W. Flood Risk = Hazard • Values • Vulnerability. Water Int. 30, 58–68 (2005).
Zhou, Q., Mikkelsen, P. S., Halsnaes, K. & Arnbjerg-Nielsen, K. Framework for economic pluvial flood risk assessment considering climate change effects and adaptation benefits. J. Hydrol. 414, 539–549 (2012).
Tanoue, M., Hirabayashi, Y. & Ikeuchi, H. Global-scale river flood vulnerability in the last 50 years. Sci. Rep. 6, 36021 (2016).
Jongman, B. et al. Declining vulnerability to river floods and the global benefits of adaptation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 112, E2271–E2280 (2015).
Thieken, A. H., Müller, M., Kreibich, H. & Merz, B. Flood damage and influencing factors: New insights from the August 2002 flood in Germany. Water Resour. Res. 41, WR004177 (2005).
Barredo, J. I., Sauri, D. & Llasat, M. C. Assessing trends in insured losses from floods in Spain 1971-2008. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 12, 1723–1729 (2012).
Pistrika, A. Flood Damage Estimation based on Flood Simulation Scenarios and a GIS Platform. Eur. Water 30, 3–11 (2010).
Rojas, R., Feyen, L. & Watkiss, P. Climate change and river floods in the European Union: Socio-economic consequences and the costs and benefits of adaptation. Glob. Environ. Change 23, 1737–1751 (2013).
Sampson, C. C. et al. The impact of uncertain precipitation data on insurance loss estimates using a flood catastrophe model. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 18, 2305–2324 (2014).
de Moel, H. et al. Flood risk assessments at different spatial scales. Mitig. Adapt. Strat. Glob. Chang 20, 865–890 (2015).
Koks, E. E., Jongman, B., Husby, T. G. & Botzen, W. J. Combining hazard, exposure and social vulnerability to provide lessons for flood risk management. Environ. Sci. Policy 47, 42–52 (2015).
Villarini, G., Serinaldi, F., Smith, J. A. & Krajewski, W. F. On the stationarity of annual flood peaks in the continental United States during the 20th century. Water Resour. Res. 45, WR007645 (2009).
Karl, T. R. & Knight, R. W. Secular Trends of Precipitation Amount, Frequency, and Intensity in the United States. Bull. Amer. Meteorol. Soc. 79, 231–241 (1998).
Kunkel, K. E., Andsager, K. & Easterling, D. R. Long-Term Trends in Extreme Precipitation Events over the Conterminous United States and Canada. J. Clim. 12, 2515–2527 (1999).
Choi, O. & Fisher, A. The impacts of socioeconomic development and climate change on severe weather catastrophe losses: Mid-Atlantic Region (MAR) and the US. Clim. Change 58, 149–170 (2003).
Chang, H., Franczyk, J. & Kim, C. What is responsible for increasing flood risks? The case of Gangwon Province, Korea. Nat. Hazards 48, 339–354 (2009).
Barredo, J. I. Normalised flood losses in Europe: 1970–2006. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 9, 97–104 (2009).
Kates, R. W., Colten, C. E., Laska, S. & Leatherman, S. P. Reconstruction of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina: A research perspective. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 103, 14653–14660 (2006).
Burby, R. J. Hurricane Katrina and the Paradoxes of Government Disaster Policy: Bringing About Wise Governmental Decisions for Hazardous Areas. Ann. Am. Acad. Pol. Soc. Sci. 604, 171–191 (2006).
Kunkel, K. E., Pielke, R. A. & Changnon, S. A. Temporal fluctuations in weather and climate extremes that cause economic and human health impacts: A review. Bull. Amer. Meteorol. Soc. 80, 1077–1098 (1999).
Barnolas, M. & Llasat, M. C. A flood geodatabase and its climatological applications: the case of Catalonia for the last century. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 7, 271–281 (2007).
Huong, H. T. L. & Pathirana, A. Urbanization and climate change impacts on future urban flooding in Can Tho city, Vietnam. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 17, 379–394 (2013).
Cutter, S. L. & Emrich, C. Are natural hazards and disaster losses in the U.S. increasing? Eos, Trans. Amer. Geophys. Union. 86, 381–389 (2005).
Di Baldassarre, G., Brandimarte, L. & Beven, K. The seventh facet of uncertainty: wrong assumptions, unknowns and surprises in the dynamics of human-water systems. Hydrolog. Sci. J. 61, 1748–1758 (2016).
Ceola, S. et al. Adaptation of water resources systems to changing society and environment: a statement by the International Association of Hydrological Sciences. Hydrolog. Sci. J. 61, 2803–2817 (2016).
Ciullo, A., Viglione, A., Castellarin, A., Crisci, M. & Di Baldassarre, G. Socio-hydrological modelling of flood-risk dynamics: comparing the resilience of green and technological systems. Hydrolog. Sci. J. 1–12 (2016).
Viglione, A. et al. Attribution of regional flood changes based on scaling fingerprints. Water Resour. Res. 52, 5322–5340 (2016).
Montanari, A. & Koutsoyiannis, D. A blueprint for process-based modeling of uncertain hydrological systems. Water Resour. Res. 48, W09555 (2012).
Hinkel, J. et al. Coastal flood damage and adaptation costs under 21st century sea-level rise. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 111(9), 3292–3297 (2014).
Hallegatte, S., Green, C., Nicholls, R. J. & Corfee-Morlot, J. Future flood losses in major coastal cities. Nature Clim. Change 3, 802–806 (2013).
Tessler, Z. D. et al. Profiling risk and sustainability in coastal deltas of the world. Science 349, 638–643 (2015).
Moftakhari, H. R., AghaKouchak, A., Sanders, B. F. & Matthew, R. A. Cumulative hazard: The case of nuisance flooding. Earth’s Future 5, 214–223 (2017).
Milly, P. C. D., Wetherald, R. T., Dunne, K. A. & Delworth, T. L. Increasing risk of great floods in a changing climate. Nature 415, 514–517 (2002).
Li, G. F., Xiang, X. Y., Tong, Y. Y. & Wang, H. M. Impact assessment of urbanization on flood risk in the Yangtze River Delta. Stoch. Environ. Res. Risk Assess. 27, 1683–1693 (2013).
Dawson, R. J. et al. Integrated analysis of risks of coastal flooding and cliff erosion under scenarios of long term change. Clim. Change 95, 249–288 (2009).
Nirupama, N. & Simonovic, S. P. Increase of flood risk due to urbanisation: a Canadian example. Nat. Hazards 40, 25–41 (2007).
Braud, I. et al. Evidence of the impact of urbanization on the hydrological regime of a medium-sized periurban catchment in France. J. Hydrol. 485, 5–23 (2013).
Maurer, E. P., Wood, A. W., Adam, J. C., Lettenmaier, D. P. & Nijssen, B. A long-term hydrologically based dataset of land surface fluxes and states for the conterminous United States. J. Clim. 15, 3237–3251 (2002).
Liang, X., Lettenmaier, D. P., Wood, E. F. & Burges, S. J. A simple hydrologically based model of land surface water and energy fluxes for general circulation models. J. Geophys. Res. 99, 14415–14428 (1994).
Liang, X., Wood, E. F. & Lettenmaier, D. P. Surface soil moisture parameterization of the VIC-2L model: Evaluation and modification. Glob. Planet. Change 13, 195–206 (1996).
Leng, G. Y. et al. Emergence of new hydrologic regimes of surface water resources in the conterminous United States under future warming. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 114003 (2016).
Leng, G. Y., Tang, Q. H. & Rayburg, S. Climate change impacts on meteorological, agricultural and hydrological droughts in China. Glob. Planet. Change 126, 23–34 (2015).
Vano, J. A. & Lettenmaier, D. P. A sensitivity-based approach to evaluating future changes in Colorado River discharge. Clim. Change 122, 621–634 (2014).
Wood, A. W., Leung, L. R., Sridhar, V. & Lettenmaier, D. P. Hydrologic implications of dynamical and statistical approaches to downscaling climate model outputs. Clim. Change 62, 189–216 (2004).
Changnon, D. & Changnon, S. A. Evaluation of Weather Catastrophe Data for Use in Climate Change Investigations. Clim. Change 38, 435–445 (1998).
The work was funded by the Public welfare research and ability construction project of Guangdong Province (Grant No. 2017A020219003), Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province, China (Grant No. 2014A030310121) and the Scientific Research Foundation for the Returned Overseas Chinese Scholars, State Education Ministry. G. Leng is supported by the Integrated Assessment Research program through the Integrated Multi-sector, Multi-scale Modeling (IM3) Scientific Focus Area (SFA) sponsored by the Biological and Environmental Research Division of Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy. The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) is operated for the U.S. DOE by Battelle Memorial Institute under contract DE-AC05–76RL01830.
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Publisher's note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
About this article
Cite this article
Zhou, Q., Leng, G. & Feng, L. Predictability of state-level flood damage in the conterminous United States: the role of hazard, exposure and vulnerability. Sci Rep 7, 5354 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-05773-4
This article is cited by
Quantifying the inundation impacts of earthquake-induced surface elevation change by hydrological and hydraulic modeling
Scientific Reports (2021)
Earth Systems and Environment (2021)
Higher-order statistics based multifractal predictability measures for anisotropic turbulence and the theoretical limits of aviation weather forecasting
Scientific Reports (2019)
Scientific Reports (2018)
Nature Communications (2018)