literature review on natural disasters

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

Seven Decades of Disasters: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Affiliations.

• 1 1Edith Cowan University,School of Medical and Health Sciences,Joondalup,Western Australia.
• 2 3Harvard Humanitarian Initiative,Harvard Universityand Harvard T.C. Chan School of Public Health,Cambridge,MassachusettsUSA.
• 3 2James Cook University,College of Public Health,Medical,and Veterinary Sciences,Division of Tropical Health and Medicine,Cairns,Australia.
• 4 5School of Public Health, Faculty of Health,Queensland University of Technology,Brisbane,Australia.
• PMID: 30129914
• DOI: 10.1017/S1049023X18000638

IntroductionThe impact of disasters and large-scale crises continues to increase around the world. To mitigate the potential disasters that confront humanity in the new millennium, an evidence-informed approach to disaster management is needed. This study provides the platform for such an evidence-informed approach by identifying peer-reviewed disaster management publications from 1947 through July 2017.

Methods: Peer-reviewed disaster management publications were identified using a comprehensive search of: MEDLINE (US National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health; Bethesda, Maryland USA); CINAHL (EBSCO Information Services; Ipswich, Massachusetts USA); EMBASE (Elsevier; Amsterdam, Netherlands); PsychInfo (American Psychological Association; Washington DC, USA); and the Cochrane Library (The Cochrane Collaboration; Oxford, United Kingdom).

Results: A total of 9,433 publications were identified. The publications were overwhelmingly descriptive (74%) while 18% of publications reported the use of a quantitative methodology and eight percent used qualitative methodologies. Only eight percent of these publications were classified as being high-level evidence. The publications were published in 918 multi-disciplinary journals. The journal Prehospital and Disaster Medicine (World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine; Madison, Wisconsin USA) published the greatest number of disaster-management-related publications (9%). Hurricane Katrina (2005; Gulf Coast USA) had the greatest number of disaster-specific publications, followed by the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks (New York, Virginia, and Pennsylvania USA). Publications reporting on the application of objective evaluation tools or frameworks were growing in number.

Conclusion: The "science" of disaster management is spread across more than 900 different multi-disciplinary journals. The existing evidence-base is overwhelmingly descriptive and lacking in objective, post-disaster evaluations. SmithEC, BurkleFMJr, AitkenP, LeggattP. Seven decades of disasters: a systematic review of the literature. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2018;33(4):418-423.

Keywords: CRED Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters; PPRR Prevention/Preparedness/Response/Recovery; disaster; evidence-based practice; literature review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

• Quality Indicators for Evaluating Prehospital Emergency Care: A Scoping Review. Howard I, Cameron P, Wallis L, Castren M, Lindstrom V. Howard I, et al. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2018 Feb;33(1):43-52. doi: 10.1017/S1049023X17007014. Epub 2017 Dec 10. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2018. PMID: 29223193 Review.
• No Calm After the Storm: A Systematic Review of Human Health Following Flood and Storm Disasters. Saulnier DD, Brolin Ribacke K, von Schreeb J. Saulnier DD, et al. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2017 Oct;32(5):568-579. doi: 10.1017/S1049023X17006574. Epub 2017 Jun 13. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2017. PMID: 28606191 Review.
• Categorization and Analysis of Disaster Health Publications: An Inventory. Birnbaum ML, Adibhatla S, Dudek O, Ramsel-Miller J. Birnbaum ML, et al. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2017 Oct;32(5):473-482. doi: 10.1017/S1049023X17006525. Epub 2017 May 31. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2017. PMID: 28560942
• Three decades of disasters: a review of disaster-specific literature from 1977-2009. Smith E, Wasiak J, Sen A, Archer F, Burkle FM Jr. Smith E, et al. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2009 Jul-Aug;24(4):306-11. doi: 10.1017/s1049023x00007020. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2009. PMID: 19806554 Review.
• Trend analysis of disaster health articles in peer-reviewed publications pre- and post-9/11. Kelen G, Sauer LM. Kelen G, et al. Am J Disaster Med. 2008 Nov-Dec;3(6):369-76. Am J Disaster Med. 2008. PMID: 19202890 Review.
• Hospitals as disaster victims: Lessons not learned? Melnychuk E, Sallade TD, Kraus CK. Melnychuk E, et al. J Am Coll Emerg Physicians Open. 2022 Jan 11;3(1):e12632. doi: 10.1002/emp2.12632. eCollection 2022 Feb. J Am Coll Emerg Physicians Open. 2022. PMID: 35036993 Free PMC article. Review.
• Absorptive capacity facilitates adaptation to novel environmental disasters. Cheong SM, Assenova VA. Cheong SM, et al. PLoS One. 2021 Nov 17;16(11):e0259368. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0259368. eCollection 2021. PLoS One. 2021. PMID: 34788322 Free PMC article.
• Disaster Medicine in Taiwan . Lin CH. Lin CH. J Acute Med. 2019 Sep 1;9(3):83-109. doi: 10.6705/j.jacme.201909_9(3).0002. J Acute Med. 2019. PMID: 32995238 Free PMC article. Review.
• Factors Associated with Food Insecurity Following Hurricane Harvey in Texas. Clay LA, Ross AD. Clay LA, et al. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Jan 25;17(3):762. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17030762. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020. PMID: 31991735 Free PMC article.
• Mitigating the impact of disasters and emergencies on clinical trials site conduct: A site perspective following major and minor unforeseen events. Lunt H, Heenan H. Lunt H, et al. Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2019 Nov 12;16:100487. doi: 10.1016/j.conctc.2019.100487. eCollection 2019 Dec. Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2019. PMID: 31872156 Free PMC article.

Publication types

• Search in MeSH

Related information

• Cited in Books

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

• Cambridge University Press

Other Literature Sources

• scite Smart Citations
• MedlinePlus Health Information
• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

The Human Impact of Floods: a Historical Review of Events 1980-2009 and Systematic Literature Review

• Shannon Doocy Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, United States.
• Amy Daniels Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, United States.
• Sarah Murray Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, United States.
• Thomas D. Kirsch Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, United States.

Background. Floods are the most common natural disaster and the leading cause of natural disaster fatalities worldwide. Risk of catastrophic losses due to flooding is significant given deforestation and the increasing proximity of large populations to coastal areas, river basins and lakeshores. The objectives of this review were to describe the impact of flood events on human populations in terms of mortality, injury, and displacement and, to the extent possible, identify risk factors associated with these outcomes. This is one of five reviews on the human impact of natural disasters

Methods. Data on the impact of floods were compiled using two methods, a historical review of flood events from 1980 to 2009 from multiple databases and a systematic literature review of publications ending in October 2012. Analysis included descriptive statistics, bivariate tests for associations and multinomial logistic regression of flood characteristics and mortality using Stata 11.0.

Findings. There were 539,811 deaths (range: 510,941 to 568,680), 361,974 injuries and 2,821,895,005 people affected by floods between 1980 and 2009. Inconsistent reporting suggests this is an underestimate, particularly in terms of the injured and affected populations. The primary cause of flood-related mortality is drowning; in developed countries being in a motor-vehicle and male gender are associated with increased mortality, whereas female gender may be linked to higher mortality in low-income countries.

Conclusions. Expanded monitoring of floods, improved mitigation measures, and effective communication with civil authorities and vulnerable populations has the potential to reduce loss of life in future flood events.

Funding Statement

Introduction.

Floods are the leading cause of natural disaster deaths worldwide and were responsible for 6.8 million deaths in the 20th century. Asia is the most flood-affected region, accounting for nearly 50% of flood-related fatalities in the last quarter of the 20th century 1 , 2 , 3 . The Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) defines a flood as “a significant rise of water level in a stream, lake, reservoir or coastal region” 4 . More colloquially, flooding is the “presence of water in areas that are usually dry” 1 . The events and factors that precipitate flood events are diverse, multifaceted, and interrelated. Weather factors include heavy or sustained precipitation, snowmelts, or storm surges from cyclones whereas important human factors include structural failures of dams and levies, alteration of absorptive land cover with impervious surfaces and inadequate drainage systems. Geographic regions such as coastal areas, river basins and lakeshores are particularly at risk from storms or cyclones that generate high winds and storm surge 5 . Environmental/physical land features including soil type, the presence of vegetation, and other drainage basin characteristics also influence flood outcomes 6 . Floods transpire on varying timelines, ranging from flash floods with little warning to those that evolve over days or weeks (riverine). Flash floods, characterized by high-velocity flows and short warning times have the highest average mortality rates per event and are responsible for the majority of flood deaths in developed countries 1 , 3 , 7 . In contrast, riverine floods which are caused by gradual accumulation of heavy rainfall are less likely to cause mortality because of sufficient time for warning and evacuation. Occasionally floods are associated with secondary hazards such as mudslides in mountainous areas.

Recent accelerations in population growth and changes in land use patterns have increased human vulnerability to floods. Harmful impacts of floods include direct mortality and morbidity and indirect displacement and widespread damage of crops, infrastructure and property. Immediate causes of death in floods include drowning and trauma or injury 1 , 8 . Over an extended time period, there may also be increased mortality due to infectious disease 1 , 9 , 10 , 11 . The risks posed by future flood events are significant given population growth, proximities of populations to coastlines, expanded development of coastal areas and flood plains, environmental degradation and climate change 12 . The objectives of this review were to describe the impact of floods on the human population, in terms of mortality, injury, and displacement and to identify risk factors associated with these outcomes. This is one of five reviews on the human impact of natural disasters, the others being volcanoes, cyclones, tsunamis, and earthquakes.

Data on the impact of flood events were compiled using two methods, a historical review of flood events and a systematic literature review for publications relating to the human impacts of flooding with a focus on mortality, injury, and displacement.

Historical Event Review

A historical database of significant floods occurring from 1980 to 2009 was created from publicly available data. Multiple data sources were sought to ensure a complete listing of events, to allow for both human and geophysical factors to be included, and to facilitate cross checking of information between sources. The two primary data sources were CRED International Disaster Database (EM-DAT) 4 and the Dartmouth Flood Observatory (DFO) Global Archive of Large Flood Events database 13 . For inclusion in the EM-DAT database, one or more of the following criteria must be fulfilled: 10 or more people killed or injured; 100 people affected; declaration of a state of emergency; or a call for international assistance. The DFO database provides a comprehensive list of flood events recorded by news, governmental, instrumental, and remote sensing sources from 1985 to 2009. Inclusion criteria are: significant damage to structures or agriculture, long intervals since the last similar event, or fatalities. Flooding specifically related to hurricane storm surge and tsunamis were excluded.

Event lists from both databases were downloaded in July 2007 and merged to create a single database; the database was updated in August 2009. The EM-DAT and DFO databases included 2,678 and 2,910 events, reported, respectively, between 1980 and 2009. Both EM-DAT and DFO reported the date and location of the event, the affected region and the number dead. In addition, the number affected, homeless, and total affected (sum of injured, homeless, and affected) were reported by EM-DAT. DFO also reported the number displaced, duration of the event (days), and ‘flood magnitude.’ Flood magnitude is a composite score of flood severity developed by DFO that encompasses damage level, recurrence interval, duration of the flood in days and the area affected 13 . For flood impacts reported by EM-DAT, zeroes were treated as missing values because they were used as placeholders and their inclusion in the analysis could contribute to the under estimation of tsunami impacts. The final list included 2,678 events reported by EM-DAT and 2,910 reported by DFO; 1,496 events were reported by both sources yielding a total of 4,093 flood events affecting human populations. See https://www.jhsph.edu/refugee/natural_disasters/_Historical_Event_Review_Overview.html for the database of flood events.

To assess risk factors for flood-related mortality the following categories were used: no deaths (0 deaths), low (1-9 deaths), medium (10- 49 deaths) and high (≥50 deaths). Bivariate tests for associations between flood mortality and the following characteristics were performed using χ 2 (categorical measures) and ANOVA (continuous measures): decade, region (defined by the World Health Organization (WHO)), income level (World Bank), gross domestic product (GDP), GINI (measure of income inequality), and flood magnitude. All covariates, with the exception of GINI, which was not strongly associated with flood mortality in adjusted analyses, and GDP, which was highly correlated with per capita World Bank income level, were included in the final multinomial logistic regression model to assess the relative risk of mortality at a given level as compared to events with no deaths. All analyses were performed using Stata Statistical Software, Version 11.0 14 .

Systematic Literature Review

Key word searches in MEDLINE (Ovid Technologies, humans), EMBASE (Elsevier, B.V., humans), SCOPUS (Elsevier B.V., humans), and Web of Knowledge, Web of Science (Thomson Reuters) were performed to identify articles published in July 2007 or earlier that described natural hazards and their impact on human populations. One search was done for all the five natural hazards described in this set of papers. This paper describes the results for cyclones. The systematic review is reported according to the PRISMA guidelines. Key words used to search for natural hazards included natural hazard(s), natural disaster(s), volcano(s), volcanic, volcanic eruption, seismic event, earthquake(s), cyclone(s), typhoon(s), hurricane(s), tropical storm(s), flood(s), flooding, mudslide(s), tsunami(s), and tidal wave(s) . Key words included for impact on human populations were affected, damage(d), injury, injuries, injured, displaced, displacement, refugees, homeless, wounded, wound(s), death(s), mortality, casualty, casualties, killed, died, fatality, fatalities and had to be used in either the title, abstract or as a subject heading/key word. The search resulted in 2,747 articles from MEDLINE, 3,763 articles from EMBASE, 5,219 articles from SCOPUS, and 2,285 articles from ISI Web of Knowledge. Results from the four databases were combined and duplicates were excluded to yield a total of 9,958 articles.

A multi-stage screening process was used. First, title screening was performed to identify articles that were unrelated to natural disasters or human populations. Each title was screened by two independent reviewers and was retained if either or both reviewers established that inclusion criteria were met. To ensure consistent interpretation of inclusion criteria, percent agreement was assessed across reviewers for a small sample of articles, and title screening began after 80% agreement on inclusion was achieved. A total of 4,873 articles were retained for abstract review. Articles that met one or more of the following criteria were excluded in the abstract screening: language other than English; editorial or opinion letter without research-based findings; related to environmental vulnerability or hazard impact but not human populations; individual case report/study; focus on impact/perceptions of responders; and not related to human or environmental vulnerabilities or impacts of hazards. As with the title screening, 80% overall agreement between reviewers was needed before abstract screening started. Each abstract was screened by two independent reviewers and was retained if either or both established that inclusion criteria were met. Included abstracts were coded for event type, timeframe, region, subject of focus, and vulnerable population focus. A total of 3,687 articles were retained for full article review. Articles discussing the impacts of natural disasters on human populations in terms of mortality, injury, and displacement were prioritized for review. A total of 119 articles on flood events meeting the criteria were retained for full review. Upon full review, 27 articles were retained including 17 that underwent standard data abstraction and 11 that were identified as review articles (Figure 1).

Fig. 1: Overview of the systematic literature review process for floods

Following the systematic review, a search was conducted to identify relevant articles published after the initial search up to October 2012. This search identified seven additional articles, including three articles with primary data that underwent full review and four review articles. Summaries of abstracted (n=21) and review articles (n=15) are presented in Tables 1 and 2, respectively.

Overall, an average of 131 (range 35-287) floods affected human populations annually with the majority (81%) occurred during or after the 1990s. Part of this increase can be explained by improved reporting and by the DFO reporting beginning in 1985. There was great variation in the number of events reported annually between EM-DAT (range 35-213) and DFO (42-235) (Figure 2). While the frequency of flood events increased gradually over time, their impacts on human populations in terms of mortality and affected populations varied greatly between years and were often concentrated around large-scale events (Figure 3). Using the WHO regions the Americas (AMRO) and Western Pacific (WPRO) regions experienced the most flooding events while the fewest were reported in Europe (EURO) (Figure 4). Deaths were overwhelmingly concentrated in South East Asia (SEARO), which accounted for 69% of global flood mortality, though both the Americas (AMRO) and Western Pacific (WPRO) had significant minorities of flood fatalities. The great majority of the flood affected population was in WPRO (59%) and SEARO (35%) of the global total. Overall, the human impacts of floods in Europe, Africa, and the Eastern Mediterranean regions were limited; together the regions accounted for no more than 8% of flood deaths and 4% flood affected populations, respectively. The overall impact of flooding on human populations is summarized in Table 3.

Fig. 2: Reporting of flood events by source and year

Fig. 3: Flood events affecting human populations by year

Fig. 4: Regional summary of flood events and their effects on human populations, 1980-2009*

Affected Population. An estimated 2.8 billion people were reported to be affected by flood events between 1980 and 2009, including nearly 4.6 million rendered homeless. However, these figures likely substantially underestimate the true impact of floods on human populations because estimates of the total affected population and the homeless population were reported in only 64.3% (n=2,632) and 14.9% (n=611) of events, respectively. The distribution of the number affected was highly skewed with mean and median affected populations of 1,071,829 and 6,000 per event, respectively, which indicates that the median affected population may better reflect the impact of a typical flood event.

Mortality and Injury. When mortality data from the two sources were combined, deaths were reported in 96.8% (n=3,960) of floods since 1980. This figure excludes 13.9% of floods where no information on mortality was reported; if no deaths are presumed and these events are included, deaths occurred in 65.3% (n=2,673) of floods. 539,811 deaths (range: 510,941-568,680) resulting from flood events were reported. For floods where mortality was reported, there was a median of 9 (mean=135; range 0-138,000) deaths per event when using the highest reported death toll. Mortality exceeded 10,000 in only 4 events and 100,000 in two. The two deadliest events occurred in Bangladesh (138,000 deaths in 1991) and Myanmar (100,000 deaths in 2008). Injuries were reported in 401 (9.8%) events, where a total of 361,974 injuries were documented. In events where injuries were reported, there was a median of 12.5 (mean=904: range 1-249,378) per flood event. To estimate the total number of injuries due to flood events, it was presumed that injuries would occur in events where deaths were reported. There were 2,673 floods with fatalities but only 401 (9.8%) with injuries reported. When the median and mean for injuries were applied to the remaining 3,077 events, it was estimated that between 38,463 and 2,717,681 additional unreported flood related injuries may have occurred between 1980 and 2009.

Bivariate associations between country-level characteristics and flood-related mortality from 1980 through 2009 are presented in Table 4. Findings suggests that the proportion of events with high mortality ( > 50 deaths) have decreased over time. Income level was also significantly associated with flood mortality, where for both low and lower-middle income countries, a greater proportion of events fell in the medium and high death categories as compared to higher income countries. Higher mortality events were concentrated in the South East Asian and Western Pacific regions.

Findings from the adjusted analyses (Table 5) modeling the relative risk of flood related mortality show that all predictors were significantly associated with flood mortality. The relative risk of medium- and high-level mortality events compared to events with no deaths significantly decreased over time. There was also a significant decreased relative risk of mortality in excess of 50 deaths for events in higher income countries compared with lower income country events. Additionally, as magnitude of a flood increased, so did the risk of having high mortality when adjusting for all other predictors. A flood rated as high magnitude as compared to one with low magnitude was associated with an increased relative risk of having high mortality as compared to no mortality (RR=13.20, 95% CI 8.25, 22.11). Caution should be taken when interpreting such findings, however, as magnitude estimates were missing for a large proportion of events, and missing magnitude was associated with the outcome in this study. Regional differences in reported mortality were also supported by the analysis. Higher mortality events were concentrated in the South East Asian and Western Pacific regions, compared to events occurring in the Americas (Southeast Asia RR=3.35, 95 CI: 2.21, 5.72; Western Pacific RR=2.38, 95 CI: 1.62, 3.34).

Mortality. Fourteen of the reviewed articles reported mortality data including ten that provided information on direct or indirect causes of mortality and/or risk factors for flood-related deaths (Table 6) 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 . Most articles provided some information about the distribution of deaths across population subgroups (i.e. gender, age) and/or an individual’s location at the time of the event; seven of these ten articles reported on floods in the United States. Nearly all articles reporting cause of death cited drowning as the most frequent cause of death 1 , 15 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 22 , 29 . Cumulatively, drowning accounted for 75% of deaths; other causes of death included falls, electrocution, heart attack, hypothermia, trauma, snake bites, and carbon monoxide poisoning.

All studies in the United States examined mortality related to motor vehicles and found an increased risk of mortality among individuals in motor vehicles during the event, of all deaths 74% were motor vehicle related 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 . This compares to a motor vehicle related death rate of 63% in a recent review of US flood fatalities between 1959 and 2005 7 . Higher proportions of deaths among males (64%) were consistently observed in the United States, except for Puerto Rico where 57% (13/23) of flood related fatalities were female and hurricane Katrina where deaths evenly divided between the sexes (51% male, 49% female) 16 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 28 . In contrast, the one article describing flood mortality in the less developed country of Nepal found that females of all age groups faced increased mortality risk and 58% of all deaths were women 23 Other factors found to be associated with flood-related mortality included storm course/time storm hit landfall 19 , 22 summer months 17 , 30 , low socioeconomic status 23 , poor housing construction 16 , 23 , 24 , 31 and timing of warning messages 19 , 22 .

Injury and Displacement. Injury or morbidity data were reported in ten of the 18 included articles, of which nine provided information on injury type and/or risk factors 15 , 16 , 24 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 54 . The majority of flood-related injuries are minor. The two studies that captured a large number of injuries, both in the United States, found that musculoskeletal injuries were most common (46% and 34%), followed by lacerations (21% and 24%). Other flood-related injuries included abrasions and contusions, motor vehicle related injuries, and falls 33 , 34 , 54 . In less developed settings, increased incidence of snake bites and fires were also cited as causes of injury or death 2 , 36 . Among care seekers in flood-affected areas of Bangladesh 5.1% of wounds were infected. Another review suggested that the proportion of survivors requiring medical attention is less than 2% 2 . A distribution of injuries across population subgroups was reported by only one study in India which found that injuries were more common in males (67% vs. 33%), that the 11-40 year age group comprised 68% of the injured, and that those age 50 and above accounted for 18% of flood deaths 34 . Seven articles reported displacement or evacuation figures however none described risk factors associated with flood-related displacement 15 , 17 , 21 , 24 , 25 , 35 , 37 .

Main findings

In the past 30 years approximately 2.8 billion people have been affected by floods with 4.5 million left homeless, at approximately 540,000 deaths and 360,000 injuries, excluding an estimated 38,000 to 2.7 million injuries that went unrecorded. While the mortality estimate presented in this study is consistent with the range of estimates presented in other studies 1 , 38 , approximations of numbers injured and displaced are likely gross underestimates of the true values given the infrequency with which figures are reported. Floods events with high levels of mortality are relatively rare: despite their increasing frequency, there were only four events with >10,000 deaths and 58 events with >1000 deaths between 1977 and 2009. A slight decrease in the average number of fatalities per event was observed which is in keeping with broader natural disaster trends that show an increase in the size of the affected population and a decrease in the average number of deaths per event 4 . Higher numbers of fatalities were reported in flash floods than river floods, however, river floods affected larger populations and land areas 3 , 7 . Lower mortality rates in river floods can mostly be attributed to their slower onset allowing for longer time for warning and evacuation 3 , 39 . The widespread use of effective early warning methods for hydrological events has likely contributed declining flood mortality.

Findings from the historical event review are consistent with previous observations that flood mortality varies by region, economic development level, and the severity of the event 12 , 40 . The majority of flood-related deaths are concentrated in less developed and heavily populated countries, with Southeast Asia and the Western Pacific region experiencing the highest risk of flood-related deaths. Flood mortality rates are relatively similar across continents, but Asian floods kill and affect more people because they affect substantially larger areas with larger populations 3 . At the country level, lower GDP per capita was linked to higher mortality, which is in keeping with the established relationship between poverty and increased disaster risk 41 . Human and social vulnerabilities and inequalities, urbanization, population density, terrain and geo-physical characteristics and variation in the frequency and precipitating causes of floods by region are also factors that contribute flood risk levels 3 , 6 , 12 , 42 . Temporal changes and development trends have also contributed to changing influences of some of these factors over time 42 . Economic development increases the risk of disaster-related economic losses however improved emergency preparedness, response, and coping capacity may reduce disaster vulnerability 3 . That countries with greater resources are able to better predict and respond to impending flood events suggests that building systems and capacity to detect and respond to floods in less developed countries should be a priority 40 .

Causes of and risks for flood-related mortality and injury identified in the systematic literature review are consistent with previous reviews on the human impact of flooding 1 , 29 , 43 , 44 . In comparison, a recent review of 13 flood events in Europe and the United States found that 68% of deaths were due to drowning, 12% trauma, 6% heart attack, 4% fire, 3% electrocution, 1% carbon monoxide poisoning, and 7% other/unknown 1 . Studies reporting the gender breakdown for flood-related deaths, most of which are accounts of flood events in the United States, consistently show a greater proportion of males as compared with female deaths. These observations are aligned with previous studies, including a review of flood events in Europe and the US which estimated that males account for 70% of flood related deaths 1 , 44 , 45 , 46 . While limited to only a few countries, these findings suggest there may be increased mortality risk for males in more developed settings and for females in less developed countries 23 , 47 . An increased risk of death in younger and older populations was also observed which is consistent with broader natural disaster mortality trends 7 , 45 , 46 , 48 , 49 . In Nepal, children had the highest crude mortality rates of all age groups and were nearly twice as likely to die in the flood as their same-sex parent 23 . However, recent reviews of age-specific risk for flood mortality have been inconclusive because attempts to aggregate data were hampered by high proportions of deaths where age is unreported 1 . While the prevailing notion is that women and children are more vulnerable in disasters 50 , there is a paucity of research in less developed countries where the majority of flood deaths occur. Future research on the human impacts of floods should focus on these less developed settings, most notably Asia where flood deaths are concentrated, with the aim of identifying the most at-risk and vulnerable population sub-groups to better target early warning and preparedness efforts.

The ecological nature of the study of event characteristics did not allow for an examination of specific factors within a country or region that may be associated with increased mortality following a flood event. Population density in coastal regions, which are particularly vulnerable to flooding, is twice of the world’s average population density and many of the world’s coasts are becoming increasingly urbanized 51 . Currently, 50.6% of the world’s population lives in urban settings; by 2050 this figure is projected to increase to 70% with the majority of urbanization occurring in less developed regions of Asia and Africa 52 . Unabated urbanization and land use changes, high concentrations of poor and marginalized populations, and a lack of regulations and preparedness efforts are factors that will likely contribute to an increasing impact of floods in the future 38 . From the natural hazard perspective, climate change is also likely to contribute to future increases in flooding. Increased frequency of intense rainfall, as a result of higher temperatures and intensified convection will likely lead to a rise in extreme rainfall events, more flash floods and urban flooding due to excessive storm water. Additionally, sea level rise and increasing storm frequency will lead to additional storm surges in coastal areas while seasonal changes, notably warmer winters, will contribute more broadly to increased precipitation and flood risk 38 . Together, changes in socioeconomic, demographic, physical terrain features and climatologic factors suggests that floods will become more frequent and have greater effects on human populations in the coming decades.

Given that flood losses are likely to increase in future years, increased attention to flood prevention and mitigation strategies is necessary. To date, early warning systems have been an effective mechanism for reducing the impact of floods 38 , however, they are not ubiquitous and should be prioritized in less developed countries with large at-risk populations and high frequencies of flooding. It is important that messaging and targeted communication strategies accompany early warnings so that the population understands the impending risk and can respond appropriately. Many flood fatalities are associated with risk-taking behaviors, thus messages to avoid entering flood waters and to curtail risky activities in all stages of the event may be successful in reducing flood fatalities 1 . Additional, improved land use planning and regulation of development can mitigate flood impacts. Studies on the relationships between flood losses, natural hazard characteristics, and societal and demographic vulnerability factors can aid in informing and prioritizing flood prevention and mitigation strategies. Finally, comparisons of the effectiveness of different policies and mitigation strategies can inform future strategy and policy actions and ensure they are appropriate in specific contexts.

Limitations

The effects of flood events are the subject of gross approximations and aggregations that have a great deal of imprecision. The availability and quality of data has likely increased and improved over time and the use multiple data sources increased reporting. However, in many events deaths are unknown or unrecorded; for other outcomes such as injured and affected, reporting frequency is even lower which likely contributes to a substantial underestimation of the impacts of flood events on human populations. While available data is sufficient for a cursory analysis of global flood impacts and trends, improved reporting of flood outcomes, including the development of national systems capable of more accurately reporting mortality and injury would be beneficial. Regarding the measures used in this study, our multivariable model included a broad classification of income level according to the World Bank, as opposed to GDP. While we believe GDP to be a more precise measure of wealth, it was nonetheless excluded in the analysis because we did not obtain GDP estimates that were time specific to each event. Inconsistencies and errors were common in data files from different sources, and in some cases inclusion criteria were not ideal for the purposes of this review, which created a challenge in reconciling event lists. For example, the 2004 Asian tsunami was classified as a flood by Dartmouth but not by EM-DAT; this event was ultimately removed from the data set, however, it represented the highest mortality event in the study period, which has potentially important implications for analysis. Consistent definitions and categorization of events across sources such as that initiated by EM-DAT in 2007 would be useful for streamlining future analysis and comparing the impacts of different types of flood events. Other principal limitations of the literature review are 1) that an in-depth quality analysis of all reviewed articles was not undertaken, and 2) the fact that only English language publications were included which likely contributed to incomplete coverage of studies published in other languages originating from low and middle income countries.

Conclusions

Interpretation of flood fatality data is challenging given the occurrence of occasional extreme events, temporal trends and the completeness and accuracy of available data. The continuing evolution of socio-demographic factors such as population growth, urbanization, land use change, and disaster warning systems and response capacities also influences trends. Between 1980 and 2009 there were an estimated 539,811 deaths (range 510,941 -568,584) and 361,974 injuries attributed to floods; a total of nearly 2.8 billion people were affected by floods during this timeframe. The primary cause of flood-related mortality was drowning. In developed countries being in a motor-vehicle at the time of a flood event and male gender were associated with increased mortality risk. Female gender may be linked to higher mortality risk in low-income countries. Both older and younger population sub-groups also face an increased mortality risk. The impact of floods on humans in terms of mortality, injury, and affected populations, presented here is a minimum estimate because information for many flood events is either unknown or unreported.

Data from the past quarter of a century suggest that floods have exacted a significant toll on the human population when compared to other natural disasters, particularly in terms of the size of affected populations. However, human vulnerability to floods is increasing, in large part due to population growth, urbanization, land use change, and climatological factors associated with an increase in extreme rainfall events. In the future, the frequency and impact of floods on human populations can be expected to increase. Additional attention to preparedness and mitigation strategies, particularly in less developed countries, where the majority of floods occur, and in Asia, a region disproportionately affected by floods, can lessen the impact of future flood events.

Competing Interest

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Correspondence

Shannon Doocy, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 N. Wolfe St, Suite E8132, Baltimore, MD 21230. Tel: 410-502-2628. Fax: 410-614-1419. Email: [email protected] .

Acknowledgements

Prisma checklist.

Download PDF

• Jonkman SN & Kelman I. An analysis of the causes and circumstances of flood disaster deaths. Disasters. 2005; 29(1):75-97.
• Noji E. Public Health Issues in Disasters. Critical Care Medicine. 2000; 33(1):S29-S33.
• Jonkman, SN. Global perspectives on loss of human life caused by floods. Natural Hazards. 2005; 34(2): 151-175.
• EM-DAT the International Disaster Database. (2009). Retrieved Jan 12, 2009, from www.emdat.be/
• Hunt, JC. Inland and coastal flooding: Developments in prediction and prevention. Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences. 2005; 363(1831): 1475-1491.
• Tobin GA and Montz, BE (Eds.). Natural hazards: Explanations and integration. New York: Guilford Press, 1997.
• Ashley ST and Ashley WA . Flood Fatalities in the United States. Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology. 2008; 47:805-818
• Beinin L. Medical Consequences of Natural Disasters. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. 1985.
• Alajo SO, Nakavuma J, Erume J. Cholera in endemic districts of Uganda during El Nino rains: 2002-2003. African Health Sciences. 2006; 6(2):93- 97.
• Li, SQ, Tan HZ, Li, XL, et al. A study on the health status of residents affected by flood disaster. Chinese Journal of Epidemiology. 2004; 25:36-39.
• French JG, Ing R, Von Allmen S, et al. Mortality from flash flood: A review of National Weather Service Reports. Public Health Reports. 1983; 98:584-588.
• Kahn M. The death toll from natural disasters: the role of income, geography, and institutions. The Review of Economics and Statistics. 2005; 87(2):271-284.
• Dartmouth Flood Observatory: Global Active Archive of Large Flood Events. Available at https:///www.dartmouth.edu/~floods/Archives/index.html. Accessed July 2007 and August 2009.
• StataCorp. Chicago, IL. Stata Statistical Software: Release 11.0.
• Duclos P, Vidonne O, Beuf P, et al. (1991). Flash flood disaster--Nimes, France, 1988. European Journal of Epidemiology, 7(4), 365-371.
• Siddique AK. Baqui AH. Eusof A, et al. 1988 floods in Bangladesh - pattern of illness and causes of death. Journal of Diarrhoeal Diseases Research. 1991; 9(4):310-314.
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Morbidity surveillance following the Midwest flood--Missouri, 1993. MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 1993; 42(41):797-798.
• Duke C, Bon E, Reeves J, et al. (1994). Flood-related mortality - Georgia, July 4-14, 1994. MMWR. 1994; 43(29):526-530
• Staes C, Orengo JC, Malilay J, et al. Deaths due to flash floods in Puerto Rico, January 1992: Implications for prevention. International Journal of Epidemiology. 1994; 23(5): 968-975.
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Storm-related mortality--central Texas, October 17-31, 1998. MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 2000; 49(7): 133-135.
• Rashid SF. The urban poor in Dhaka city: Their struggles and coping strategies during the floods of 1998. Disasters. 2000; 24(3); 240-253.
• Yale JD. Cole TB, Garrison HG, et al. Motor vehicle-related drowning deaths associated with inland flooding after Hurricane Floyd: A field investigation. Traffic Injury Prevention. 2003; 4(4):279-284.
• Pradhan EK, West KP, Katz J, et al. Risk of flood-related mortality in Nepal. Disasters. 2007; 31(1):57-70.
• Baxter PJ. The east coast big flood, 31 January-1 February 1953: A summary of the human disaster. Philosophical Transactions: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences (Series A). 2005; 363(1831): 1293-1312.
• Gerritsen H. What happened in 1953? The big flood in the Netherlands in retrospect. Philosophical Transactions: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences (Series A), 2005; 363(1831):1271-1291.
• Spencer J and Myer R. A population and economic overview of Cambria County, Pennsylvania following the 1977 Johnstown flood. Disaster Prevention and Management. 2007; 16(2):259-264.
• Grigg NS, Doesken NJ, Frick DM, et al. Fort Collins flood 1997: Comprehensive view of an extreme event. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management. 1999; 125(5):255-262.
• Jonkman SN, Maaskant B, Boyd E, et al. Loss of life caused by the flooding of New Orleans after Hurrican Katrina: Analysis of the relationship between flood characteristics and mortality. Risk Analysis. 2009; 29(5):676-698.
• Ahern M, Kovats RS, Wilkinson P, et al. Global health impact of floods: epidemiological evidence. Epidemiologic Reviews; 2005 27(1):36-46.
• Beyhun N, Altintas KH and Noji, E. Analysis of registered floods in Turkey. International Journal of Disaster Medicine. 2005; 3(1-4): 50-54.
• Tarhule A. Damaging rainfall and flooding: The other Sahel hazards. Climatic Change. 2005; 72(3), 355-377.
• Ogden CL, Gibbs-Scharf LI, Kohn MA et al. (2001). Emergency health surveillance after severe flooding in Louisiana, Prehospital and Disaster Medicine. 1995; 16(3):138-144.
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Morbidity surveillance following the Midwest flood--Missouri, 1993. MMWR. 1993; 42(41):97-798.
• Cariappa MP and Khanduri P. Health emergencies in large populations: The Orissa experience. Medical Journal of the Armed Forces of India. 2003; 59(4):286-289.
• Schnitzler J, Benzler J, Altmann D, et al. Survey on the population's needs and the public health response during floods in Germany 2002. Public Health Management and Practice. 2007; 13(5):461-464.
• Biswas A, Rahman A, Mashreky S, et al. Unintentional injuries and parental violence against children during flood: a study in rural Bangladesh. Rural and Remote Health. 2010; 10:1199.
• Sanchez-Crispin A an d Propin-Frejomil E. Social and economic dimensions of the 1998 extreme floods in coastal Chiapas, Mexico. IAHS-AISH Publication. 2002;(271):385-390.
• Berz, G. Flood disasters: Lessons from the past - worries for the future. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Water, Maritime and Energy. 2000;142(1):3-8.
• Graham W. A procedure for estimating loss of life caused by dam failure. Dam Safety Office Report 99-06. USBR: Denver CO, 1999.
• Stromberg, D. Natural Disasters, Economic Development, and Humanitarian Aid. The Journal of Economic Perspectives. 2007; 21(3):199-222.
• UNISDR. Linking disaster risk reduction and poverty reduction: good practices and lessons learned. Geneva: UNISDR, 2008.
• Haque C. Perspectives of natural disasters in East and South Asia and the Pacific Island States: socioeconomic correlates and needs assessment. Natural Hazards. 2003; 29:465-483.
• Lllewellyn M. Floods and Tsunamis. Surgical clinics of North America. 2006; 86:557-578.
• French J, Ing R, Von Allmen S, et al. Mortality from flash floods: A review of national weather service reports, 1969-81. Public Health Reports. 1983; 98(6):584-588.
• Mooney LE. Applications and implications of fatality statistics to the flash flood problem. The American Meteorological Society Fifth Conference on Hydrometeorology, 1983. Preprints, p127–129.
• Coates L. Flood fatalities in Australia, 1788–1996. Australian Geographer. 1999; 30:391–408.
• Chowdhury AR, Mushtaque AU, Bhuyia AY, et al. The Bangladesh Cyclone of 1991: Why So Many People Died. Disasters. 1993; 17(4):291–304.
• Jonkman SN and Vrijling JK. Loss of life due to floods. Journal of Flood Risk Management. 2008; 1: 43-56.
• FitzGerald G, Du W, Jamal A, et al. Flood fatalities in contemporary Australia (1997-2008). Emergency Medicine Australasia. 2010; 22:80-186.
• Guha-Sapir, D. Natural and man-made disasters: the vulnerability of women-headed households and children without families. World Health Statistics Quarterly. 1993; 46:227-233.
• Creel L. Ripple effects: Population and coastal regions. Population Reference Bureau. 2003. URL: https://www.prb.org/Publications/PolicyBriefs/RippleEffectsPopulationandCoastalRegions.aspx.
• UN Habitat. State of the World’s Cities 2010/2011: Bridging the Urban Divide. March 18, 2010. UN Human Settlements Programme: Nairobi, Kenya.
• Janerich D T, Stark AD, Greenwald P, et al. Increased leukemia, lymphoma, and spontaneous abortion in Western New York following a flood disaster. Public Health Reports. 1981; 96(4):350-356.
• Bich TH, Quang LN, Ha LTT, Hanh TTD, Guha-Sapir D. Impacts of flood on health: epidemiologic evidence from Hanoi, Vietnam. Global Healh Action. 2011; 4:6356.
• Mortality from tornadoes, hurricanes, and floods. Statistical Bulletin of the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. 1974; 55:4-7.
• Avakyan AB and Istomina MN. Floods in the world late in the XX century. Water Resources. 2000; 27(5): 469-475.
• Guzzetti F, Stark CP, Salvati P. Evaluation of flood and landslide risk to the population of Italy. Environmental Management. 2005; 36(1):15-36.
• Lastoria B, Simonetti MR, Casaioli M, et al. Socio-economic impacts of major floods in Italy from 1951 to 2003. Advances in Geosciences. 2006; 7:223-229.
• United Nations Development Program. Human Development Reports. (2009). Available at: https://hdrstats.undp.org/en/indicators/#G. Accessed May 18, 2010.

Leave a Comment (cancel)

You must be logged in to post a comment.

• Advanced Search

Using Recommendation Systems in Disaster Management: A Systematic Literature Review

New citation alert added.

This alert has been successfully added and will be sent to:

You will be notified whenever a record that you have chosen has been cited.

To manage your alert preferences, click on the button below.

New Citation Alert!

Please log in to your account

Information & Contributors

Bibliometrics & citations, view options, recommendations, design and evaluation of a role improvisation exercise for crisis and disaster response teams.

This paper reports a case study, which aimed to investigate what role improvisation plays in crisis and disaster response teams and how improvisation performance of such teams can be simulated in representative contexts and constraints. The case study ...

Dynamic and Time Critical Emergency Management for Level Three Disaster: A Case Study Analysis of Kerala Floods 2018

Extreme variability of weather conditions has contributed to the increase in multi hazards events in Kerala, India. This work analyses the processes, systems and solutions used for management of a 24hr call center for an effective emergency response ...

A Fuzzy Integer Programming Model to Locate Temporary Medical Facilities as Part of Pre-Disaster Management

The number and the scale of natural disasters have drastically increased over the last decades. One of the most vital stages of disaster preparedness is disaster response planning, and it plays an important role in limiting material and immaterial ...

Information

Published in.

Elsevier Science Publishers B. V.

Netherlands

Publication History

Author tags.

• disaster management
• emergency management
• recommendation systems
• systematic literature review
• Research-article

Contributors

Other metrics, bibliometrics, article metrics.

• 0 Total Citations
• 0 Total Downloads
• Downloads (Last 12 months) 0
• Downloads (Last 6 weeks) 0

View options

Login options.

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Share this publication link.

Copying failed.

Share on social media

Affiliations, export citations.

• Please download or close your previous search result export first before starting a new bulk export. Preview is not available. By clicking download, a status dialog will open to start the export process. The process may take a few minutes but once it finishes a file will be downloadable from your browser. You may continue to browse the DL while the export process is in progress. Download
• Download citation
• Copy citation

We are preparing your search results for download ...

We will inform you here when the file is ready.

Your file of search results citations is now ready.

Your search export query has expired. Please try again.

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Evolution of flood prediction and forecasting models for flood early warning systems: a scoping review.

1. Introduction

• To examine the most advanced methods/technologies for flood forecasting in the context of FEWSs,
• To provide an overview of the chronological evolution of flood forecasting in the context of FEWSs between 1993–2023,
• To provide an overview of flood forecasting models for data-scarce regions to help in model selection for FEWSs in such areas.

2. Materials and Methods

• The generation of the main keywords to be used in database search,
• Choosing the relevant databases, as well as structuring the querying process,
• Screening and sorting the relevant quality documents for analysis and,
• Processing the results into understandable information for reporting.

4. Discussion

4.1. overview of flood early warning systems (fewss) in the context of information systems, 4.2. flood monitoring and forecasting in fewss, 4.3. flood forecasting models in fewss, 4.3.1. deterministic models, 4.3.2. data-driven models, 4.3.3. chronological evolution of flood forecasting models in fewss, 4.3.4. ensemble predictions, 4.4. flood forecasting in data scarce regions, 4.4.1. challenges of data-scarce regions and fewss, 4.4.2. solutions of data-scarce regions and fewss, 4.5. challenges and opportunities, 5. conclusions, author contributions, acknowledgments, conflicts of interest.

• Perera, D.; Seidou, O.; Agnihotri, J.; Rasmy, M.; Smakhtin, V.; Coulibaly, P.; Mehmood, H. Flood Early Warning Systems: A Review of Benefits, Challenges and Prospects ; UNU-INWEH: Hamilton, ON, Canada, 2019. [ Google Scholar ]
• EM-DAT. Inventorying Hazards & Disasters Worldwide. 2023. Available online: https://www.emdat.be (accessed on 24 December 2023).
• Milly, P.C.D.; Wetherald, R.T.; Dunne, K.; Delworth, T.L. Increasing risk of great floods in a changing climate. Nature 2002 , 415 , 514–517. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Hirabayashi, Y.; Mahendran, R.; Koirala, S.; Konoshima, L.; Yamazaki, D.; Watanabe, S.; Kim, H.; Kanae, S. Global flood risk under climate change. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2013 , 3 , 816–821. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ali, H.; Modi, P.; Mishra, V. Increased flood risk in Indian sub-continent under the warming climate. Weather Clim. Extrem. 2019 , 25 , 100212. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Najibi, N.; Devineni, N. Recent trends in the frequency and duration of global floods. Earth Syst. Dyn. 2018 , 9 , 757–783. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lee, H.-C.; Chen, H. Implementing the Sendai Framework for disaster risk reduction 2015–2030: Disaster governance strategies for persons with disabilities in Taiwan. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2019 , 41 , 101284. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nhamo, L.; Matchaya, G.; Mabhaudhi, T.; Nhlengethwa, S.; Nhemachena, C.; Mpandeli, S. Cereal production trends under climate change: Impacts and adaptation strategies in southern Africa. Agriculture 2019 , 9 , 30. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Scholes, R.; Engelbrecht, F. Climate impacts in southern Africa during the 21st Century. In Report for Earthjustice and the Centre for Envrionmental Rights ; Global Change Instiute, University of Witwatersrand: Johannesburg, South Africa, 2021. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bedeke, S.B. Climate change vulnerability and adaptation of crop producers in sub-Saharan Africa: A review on concepts, approaches and methods. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2023 , 25 , 1017–1051. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bouchard, J.-P.; Pretorius, T.B.; Kramers-Olen, A.L.; Padmanabhanunni, A.; Stiegler, N. Global warming and psychotraumatology of natural disasters: The case of the deadly rains and floods of April 2022 in South Africa. Ann. Médico-Psychol. Rev. Psychiatr. 2023 , 181 , 234–239. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Busayo, E.T.; Kalumba, A.M.; Afuye, G.A.; Olusola, A.O.; Ololade, O.O.; Orimoloye, I.R. Rediscovering South Africa: Flood disaster risk management through ecosystem-based adaptation. Environ. Sustain. Indic. 2022 , 14 , 100175. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Madzivhandila, T.S.; Maserumule, M.H. The Irony of a “Fire Fighting” Approach towards Natural Hazards in South Africa: Lessons from Flooding Disaster in KwaZulu-Natal ; South African Association of Public Administration and Management (SAAPAM): Soshanguve, South Africa, 2022; Volume 57, pp. 191–194. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gleick, P.H. Global freshwater resources: Soft-path solutions for the 21st century. Science 2003 , 302 , 1524–1528. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Brandes, O.; Brooks, D.B.; Gurman, S. Making the Most of the Water We Have: The Soft Path Approach to Water Management ; Routledge: London, UK, 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jamasy, O.; Siagian, E.; Movianto, G.E.; Pranoto, Y.; Nisa, K. Impact Analysis of Structural and Non-Structural Program and Collaboration of Stakeholder to Productivity of Sustainable Flood Mitigation Management. Int. J. Soc. Sci. Res. Rev. 2023 , 6 , 698–709. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yildirim, E.; Alabbad, Y.; Demir, I. Non-structural Flood Mitigation Optimization at Community Scale: Middle Cedar Case Study. J. Environ. Manag. 2023 , 346 , 119025. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Hapuarachchi, H.; Wang, Q.; Pagano, T. A review of advances in flash flood forecasting. Hydrol. Process. 2011 , 25 , 2771–2784. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jain, S.K.; Mani, P.; Jain, S.K.; Prakash, P.; Singh, V.P.; Tullos, D.; Kumar, S.; Agarwal, S.; Dimri, A. A Brief review of flood forecasting techniques and their applications. Int. J. River Basin Manag. 2018 , 16 , 329–344. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mosavi, A.; Ozturk, P.; Chau, K.-W. Flood prediction using machine learning models: Literature review. Water 2018 , 10 , 1536. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Aljohani, F.H.; Alkhodre, A.B.; Sen, A.A.A.; Ramazan, M.S.; Alzahrani, B.; Siddiqui, M.S. Flood Prediction using Hydrologic and ML-based Modeling: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Adv. Comput. Sci. Appl. 2023 , 14 , 538. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Antwi-Agyakwa, K.T.; Afenyo, M.K.; Angnuureng, D.B. Know to predict, forecast to warn: A review of flood risk prediction tools. Water 2023 , 15 , 427. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Diaconu, D.C.; Costache, R.; Popa, M.C. An overview of flood risk analysis methods. Water 2021 , 13 , 474. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Munawar, H.S.; Hammad, A.W.; Waller, S.T. Remote sensing methods for flood prediction: A review. Sensors 2022 , 22 , 960. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sheikh, M.R.; Coulibaly, P. Review of Recent Developments in Hydrologic Forecast Merging Techniques. Water 2024 , 16 , 301. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G.; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Ann. Intern. Med. 2009 , 151 , 264–269. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Pulwarty, R.S.; Sivakumar, M.V. Information systems in a changing climate: Early warnings and drought risk management. Weather Clim. Extrem. 2014 , 3 , 14–21. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Molinari, D.; Menoni, S.; Ballio, F. Flood Early Warning Systems: Knowledge and Tools for Their Critical Assessment ; Wit Press: Southampton, UK, 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sukhwani, V.; Gyamfi, B.A.; Zhang, R.; AlHinai, A.M.; Shaw, R. Understanding the barriers restraining effective operation of flood early warning systems. Int. J. Disaster Risk Manag. 2019 , 1 , 1–19. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bajracharya, S.R.; Khanal, N.R.; Nepal, P.; Rai, S.K.; Ghimire, P.K.; Pradhan, N.S. Community assessment of flood risks and early warning system in Ratu Watershed, Koshi Basin, Nepal. Sustainability 2021 , 13 , 3577. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Perera, D.; Seidou, O.; Agnihotri, J.; Mehmood, H.; Rasmy, M. Challenges and technical advances in flood early warning systems (FEWSs). In Flood Impact Mitigation and Resilience Enhancement ; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2020. [ Google Scholar ]
• Osman, S.; Aziz, N.A.; Husaif, N.; Sidek, L.M.; Shakirah, A.; Hanum, F.; Basri, H. Application of stochastic flood forecasting model using regression method for Kelantan catchment. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Civil, Offshore & Environmental Engineering 2018 (ICCOEE 2018), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 13–14 August 2018; p. 07001. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kumar, V.; Azamathulla, H.M.; Sharma, K.V.; Mehta, D.J.; Maharaj, K.T. The state of the art in deep learning applications, challenges, and future prospects: A comprehensive review of flood forecasting and management. Sustainability 2023 , 15 , 10543. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yang, C.; Yu, M.; Hu, F.; Jiang, Y.; Li, Y. Utilizing cloud computing to address big geospatial data challenges. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 2017 , 61 , 120–128. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• WMO. Manual on Flood Forecasting and Warning ; World Meteorological Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2011; p. 1072. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lavers, D.A.; Ramos, M.-H.; Magnusson, L.; Pechlivanidis, I.; Klein, B.; Prudhomme, C.; Arnal, L.; Crochemore, L.; Van Den Hurk, B.; Weerts, A.H. A vision for hydrological prediction. Atmosphere 2020 , 11 , 237. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kauffeldt, A.; Wetterhall, F.; Pappenberger, F.; Salamon, P.; Thielen, J. Technical review of large-scale hydrological models for implementation in operational flood forecasting schemes on continental level. Environ. Model. Softw. 2016 , 75 , 68–76. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Okiria, E.; Okazawa, H.; Noda, K.; Kobayashi, Y.; Suzuki, S.; Yamazaki, Y. A Comparative Evaluation of Lumped and Semi-Distributed Conceptual Hydrological Models: Does Model Complexity Enhance Hydrograph Prediction? Hydrology 2022 , 9 , 89. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• WMO. Mission Report, WMO Fact-Finding and Needs-Assessment Mission to Pakistan. 2000. Available online: https://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/dra/rap/documents/PakistanMissionReport.pdf (accessed on 12 December 2023).
• Sidle, R.C. Strategies for smarter catchment hydrology models: Incorporating scaling and better process representation. Geosci. Lett. 2021 , 8 , 24. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Singh, A. A concise review on introduction to hydrological models. Glob. Res. Dev. J. Eng. 2018 , 3 , 14–19. [ Google Scholar ]
• Girihagama, L.; Naveed Khaliq, M.; Lamontagne, P.; Perdikaris, J.; Roy, R.; Sushama, L.; Elshorbagy, A. Streamflow modelling and forecasting for Canadian watersheds using LSTM networks with attention mechanism. Neural Comput. Appl. 2022 , 34 , 19995–20015. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, K.; Li, Z.; Yao, C.; Chen, J.; Zhang, K.; Saifullah, M. Coupling the k-nearest neighbor procedure with the Kalman filter for real-time updating of the hydraulic model in flood forecasting. Int. J. Sediment Res. 2016 , 31 , 149–158. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, Z.; Guo, S.; Zhang, H.; Liu, D.; Yang, G. Comparative Study of Three Updating Procedures for Real-Time Flood Forecasting. Water Resour. Manag. 2016 , 30 , 2111–2126. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Grini, N.; Montanari, A. Real Time Flood Forecasting for the Reno River (Italy) through the TOPKAPI Rainfall-Runoff Model. Master’s Thesis, Università di Bologna, Bologna, Italy, 2018. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rana, S.K.; Rana, H.K.; Luo, D.; Sun, H. Estimating climate-induced ‘Nowhere to go’range shifts of the Himalayan Incarvillea Juss. using multi-model median ensemble species distribution models. Ecol. Indic. 2021 , 121 , 107127. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lee, G.; Kim, W.; Oh, H.; Youn, B.D.; Kim, N.H. Review of statistical model calibration and validation—From the perspective of uncertainty structures. Struct. Multidiscip. Optim. 2019 , 60 , 1619–1644. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Merz, R.; Blöschl, G. A process typology of regional floods. Water Resour. Res. 2003 , 39 . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vogel, E.; Lerat, J.; Pipunic, R.; Frost, A.; Donnelly, C.; Griffiths, M.; Hudson, D.; Loh, S. Seasonal ensemble forecasts for soil moisture, evapotranspiration and runoff across Australia. J. Hydrol. 2021 , 601 , 126620. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Moradkhani, H.; Sorooshian, S. General Review of Rainfall-Runoff Modeling: Model Calibration, Data Assimilation, and Uncertainty Analysis ; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2008. [ Google Scholar ]
• Liu, Y.; Zhang, K.; Li, Z.; Liu, Z.; Wang, J.; Huang, P. A hybrid runoff generation modelling framework based on spatial combination of three runoff generation schemes for semi-humid and semi-arid watersheds. J. Hydrol. 2020 , 590 , 125440. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Karki, M.; Khadka, D.B. Simulation of Rainfall-Runoff of Kankai River Basin Using SWAT Model: A Case Study of Nepal. Int J Res. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol. 2020 , 8 , 308–326. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bharat, S.; Mishra, V. Runoff sensitivity of Indian sub-continental river basins. Sci. Total Environ. 2021 , 766 , 142642. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Yin, H.; Guo, Z.; Zhang, X.; Chen, J.; Zhang, Y. RR-Former: Rainfall-runoff modeling based on Transformer. J. Hydrol. 2022 , 609 , 127781. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ahrens, S.R. Flood forecasting for the Buffalo Bayou using CRWR-PrePro and HEC-HMS. Tech. Rep. Univ. Tex. Austin Cent. Res. Water Resour. 1999 , 1999 , ii-139. [ Google Scholar ]
• Oleyiblo, J.O.; Li, Z.J. Application of HEC-HMS for flood forecasting in Misai and Wan’an catchments in China. Water Sci. Eng. 2010 , 3 , 14–22. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Haile, A.T.; Tefera, F.T.; Rientjes, T. Flood forecasting in Niger-Benue basin using satellite and quantitative precipitation forecast data. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 2016 , 52 , 475–484. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ali, S.; Cheema, M.J.M.; Bakhsh, A.; Khaliq, T. Near real time flood forecasting in the transboundary chenab river using global satellite mapping of precipitation. Pak. J. Agric. Sci. 2020 , 57 , 1327–1335. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Agarwal, A.; Ghimire, U.; Than, H.H.; Srinivasan, G.; Dash, I.; Shakya, N.; Oo, M.T. Operationalizing a flood forecasting decision support system for Ayeyarwady river, Myanmar. Int. J. River Basin Manag. 2021 , 19 , 509–522. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chowdhury, M.E.; Islam, A.S.; Lemans, M.; Hegnauer, M.; Sajib, A.R.; Pieu, N.M.; Das, M.K.; Shadia, N.; Haque, A.; Roy, B.; et al. An efficient flash flood forecasting system for the un-gaged Meghna basin using open source platform Delft-FEWS: Flash Flood Forecasting System using Delft-FEWS Platform. Environ. Model. Softw. 2023 , 161 , 105614. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sahu, S.; Pyasi, S.; Galkate, R. A review on the HEC-HMS rainfall-runoff simulation model. Int. J. Agric. Sci. Res. 2020 , 10 , 183–190. [ Google Scholar ]
• Martin, O.; Rugumayo, A.; Ovcharovichova, J. Application of HEC HMS/RAS and GIS tools in flood modeling: A case study for river Sironko–Uganda. Glob. J. Eng. Des Technol. 2012 , 1 , 19–31. [ Google Scholar ]
• Thakur, B.; Parajuli, R.; Kalra, A.; Ahmad, S.; Gupta, R. Coupling HEC-RAS and HEC-HMS in precipitation runoff modelling and evaluating flood plain inundation map. In Proceedings of the World Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2017, Sacramento, CA, USA, 21–25 May 2017; pp. 240–251. [ Google Scholar ]
• Abdessamed, D.; Abderrazak, B. Coupling HEC-RAS and HEC-HMS in rainfall–runoff modeling and evaluating floodplain inundation maps in arid environments: Case study of Ain Sefra city, Ksour Mountain. SW of Algeria. Environ. Earth Sci. 2019 , 78 , 586. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Meresa, H. Modelling of river flow in ungauged catchment using remote sensing data: Application of the empirical (SCS-CN), artificial neural network (ANN) and hydrological model (HEC-HMS). Model. Earth Syst. Environ. 2019 , 5 , 257–273. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gholami, V.; Khaleghi, M.R. A simulation of the rainfall-runoff process using artificial neural network and HEC-HMS model in forest lands. J. For. Sci. 2021 , 67 , 165–174. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Naresh, A.; Naik, M.G. Urban Rainfall-Runoff Modeling Using HEC-HMS and Artificial Neural Networks: A Case Study. Int. J. Math. Eng. Manag. Sci. 2023 , 8 , 403–423. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kumar, V.; Sharma, K.V.; Caloiero, T.; Mehta, D.J.; Singh, K. Comprehensive overview of flood modeling approaches: A review of recent advances. Hydrology 2023 , 10 , 141. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sadeghi, F.; Rubinato, M.; Goerke, M.; Hart, J. Assessing the performance of LISFLOOD-FP and SWMM for a small watershed with scarce data availability. Water 2022 , 14 , 748. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rajib, A.; Liu, Z.; Merwade, V.; Tavakoly, A.A.; Follum, M.L. Towards a large-scale locally relevant flood inundation modeling framework using SWAT and LISFLOOD-FP. J. Hydrol. 2020 , 581 , 124406. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Peng, T.; Qi, H.; Wang, J. Case Study on Extreme Flood Forecasting Based on Ensemble Precipitation Forecast in Qingjiang Basin of the Yangtze River. J. Coast. Res. 2020 , 104 , 178–187. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jiang, F.; Dong, Z.; Wang, Z.; Zhu, Y.; Liu, M.; Luo, Y.; Zhang, T. Flood forecasting using an improved narx network based on wavelet analysis coupled with uncertainty analysis by monte carlo simulations: A case study of taihu basin, china. J. Water Clim. Chang. 2021 , 12 , 2674–2696. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gong, J.; Yao, C.; Li, Z.; Chen, Y.; Huang, Y.; Tong, B. Improving the flood forecasting capability of the Xinanjiang model for small-and medium-sized ungauged catchments in South China. Nat. Hazards 2021 , 106 , 2077–2109. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jiang, X.; Zhang, L.; Liang, Z.; Fu, X.; Wang, J.; Xu, J.; Zhang, Y.; Zhong, Q. Study of early flood warning based on postprocessed predicted precipitation and Xinanjiang model. Weather Clim. Extrem. 2023 , 42 , 100611. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cui, Z.; Zhou, Y.; Guo, S.; Wang, J.; Ba, H.; He, S. A novel hybrid XAJ-LSTM model for multi-step-ahead flood forecasting. Hydrol. Res. 2021 , 52 , 1436–1454. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tang, Y.; Sun, Y.; Han, Z.; Soomro, S.E.E.; Wu, Q.; Tan, B.; Hu, C. flood forecasting based on machine learning pattern recognition and dynamic migration of parameters. J. Hydrol. Reg. Stud. 2023 , 47 , 101406. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Coccia, G.; Ceresa, P.; Bussi, G.; Denaro, S.; Bazzurro, P.; Martina, M.; Fagà, E.; Avelar, C.; Ordaz, M.; Huerta, B. Large-scale flood risk assessment in data scarce areas: An application to Central Asia. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss. 2023 , 2023 , 1–33. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rabba, Z.A. Flood frequency analysis with PyTOPKAPI model-simulated stream flows from Aweitu river in Jimma town, Ethiopia. Sustain. Water Resour. Manag. 2023 , 9 , 46. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Luchetta, A.; Manetti, S. A real time hydrological forecasting system using a fuzzy clustering approach. Comput. Geosci. 2003 , 29 , 1111–1117. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Guo, Z.; Leitão, J.P.; Simões, N.E.; Moosavi, V. Data-driven flood emulation: Speeding up urban flood predictions by deep convolutional neural networks. J. Flood Risk Manag. 2021 , 14 , e12684. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Box, G.E.; Jenkins, G.M.; Reinsel, G.C.; Ljung, G.M. Time Series Analysis: Forecasting and Control ; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kumar, S.; Kumar, R.; Chakravorty, B.; Chatterjee, C.; Pandey, N.G. An artificial neural network approach for flood forecasting. J. Inst. Eng. (India) Part CP Comput. Eng. Div. 2003 , 84 , 52–55. [ Google Scholar ]
• Govindaraju, R.S. Artificial neural networks in hydrology. I: Preliminary concepts. J. Hydrol. Eng. 2000 , 5 , 115–123. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang, Z.-Y.; Qiu, J.; Li, F.-F. Hybrid models combining EMD/EEMD and ARIMA for Long-term streamflow forecasting. Water 2018 , 10 , 853. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Celikyilmaz, A.; Turksen, I.B. Modeling uncertainty with fuzzy logic. Stud. Fuzziness Soft Comput. 2009 , 240 , 149–215. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen, C.S.; Jhong, Y.D.; Wu, W.Z.; Chen, S.T. Fuzzy time series for real-time flood forecasting. Stoch. Environ. Res. Risk Assess. 2019 , 33 , 645–656. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Janál, P.; Kozel, T. Fuzzy logic based flash flood forecast. In Electronic Book with Full Papers from XXVIII Conference of the Danubian Countries on Hydrological Forecasting and Hydrological Bases of Water Management: November 6–8, 2019, Kyiv, Ukraine ; Ukrainian Hydrometeorological Institute: Kyiv, Ukraine, 2019; p. 86. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hakim, S.; Razak, H.A. Adaptive neuro fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) and artificial neural networks (ANNs) for structural damage identification. Struct. Eng. Mech. 2013 , 45 , 779–802. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cunge, J.A. Of data and models. J. Hydroinformatics 2003 , 5 , 75–98. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, Y.; He, J.; Yang, C.; Xie, J.; Fitzmorris, R.; Wen, X.-H. A physics-based data-driven model for history matching, prediction, and characterization of unconventional reservoirs. SPE J. 2018 , 23 , 1105–1125. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yao, S.; Kan, G.; Liu, C.; Tang, J.; Cheng, D.; Guo, J.; Jiang, H. A Hybrid Theory-Driven and Data-Driven Modeling Method for Solving the Shallow Water Equations. Water 2023 , 15 , 3140. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Qin, W.; Wang, L.; Lin, A.; Zhang, M.; Xia, X.; Hu, B.; Niu, Z. Comparison of deterministic and data-driven models for solar radiation estimation in China. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018 , 81 , 579–594. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hiroi, K.; Kawaguchi, N. FloodEye: Real-time flash flood prediction system for urban complex water flow. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE SENSORS, Orlando, FL, USA, 30 October–3 November 2016; pp. 1–3. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tsakiri, K.; Marsellos, A.; Kapetanakis, S. Artificial neural network and multiple linear regression for flood prediction in Mohawk River, New York. Water 2018 , 10 , 1158. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ghorpade, P.; Gadge, A.; Lende, A.; Chordiya, H.; Gosavi, G.; Mishra, A.; Hooli, B.; Ingle, Y.S.; Shaikh, N. Flood forecasting using machine learning: A review. In Proceedings of the 2021 8th International Conference on Smart Computing and Communications (ICSCC), Kochi, Kerala, India, 1–3 July 2021; pp. 32–36. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tiwari, M.K.; Deo, R.C.; Adamowski, J.F. Short-term flood forecasting using artificial neural networks, extreme learning machines, and M5 model tree. In Advances in Streamflow Forecasting: From Traditional to Modern Approaches ; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021; pp. 263–279. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• El-Magd, S.A.A.; Pradhan, B.; Alamri, A. Machine learning algorithm for flash flood prediction mapping in Wadi El-Laqeita and surroundings, Central Eastern Desert, Egypt. Arab. J. Geosci. 2021 , 14 , 323. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Brath, A.; Montanari, A.; Toth, E. Neural networks and non-parametric methods for improving realtime flood forecasting through conceptual hydrological models. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2002 , 6 , 627–640. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, J.; Shi, P.; Jiang, P.; Hu, J.; Qu, S.; Chen, X.; Chen, Y.; Dai, Y.; Xiao, Z. Application of BP neural network algorithm in traditional hydrological model for flood forecasting. Water 2017 , 9 , 48. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ali, M.H.M.; Asmai, S.A.; Abidin, Z.Z.; Abas, Z.A.; Emran, N.A. Flood Prediction using Deep Learning Models. Int. J. Adv. Comput. Sci. Appl. 2022 , 13 . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kaur, M.; Kaur, P.D.; Sood, S.K. Energy efficient IoT-based cloud framework for early flood prediction. Nat. Hazards 2021 , 109 , 2053–2076. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sylvia, J.M.A.; Rani, M.P.; Aremu, B. Analysis of IoT big weather data for early flood forecasting system. In Proceedings of the 2021 Fourth International Conference on Electrical, Computer and Communication Technologies (ICECCT), Erode, India, 15–17 September 2021; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA; pp. 1–6. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bhaskar, G.; Vedashree, C.N.; Astha, R.; Bharath, T.R.; Sudha, G.T. Flood Prediction and Alert System using ML and Sensor Networks. Grenze Int. J. Eng. Technol. (GIJET) 2022 , 8 , 373. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brito, L.A.; Meneguette, R.I.; De Grande, R.E.; Ranieri, C.M.; Ueyama, J. FLORAS: Urban flash-flood prediction using a multivariate model. Appl. Intell. 2023 , 53 , 16107–16125. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Thankappan, J.; Mary, D.R.K.; Yoon, D.J.; Park, S.H. Adaptive Momentum-Backpropagation Algorithm for Flood Prediction and Management in the Internet of Things. Comput. Mater. Contin. 2023 , 77 , 1053–1079. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chang, F.-J.; Chen, Y.-C.; Liang, J.-M. Fuzzy clustering neural network as flood forecasting model. Hydrol. Res. 2002 , 33 , 275–290. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Corani, G.; Guariso, G. An application of pruning in the design of neural networks for real time flood forecasting. Neural Comput. Appl. 2005 , 14 , 66–77. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ren, M.; Wang, B.; Liang, Q.; Fu, G. Classified real-time flood forecasting by coupling fuzzy clustering and neural network. Int. J. Sediment Res. 2010 , 25 , 134–148. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Seo, Y.; Kim, S.; Singh, V.P. Multistep-ahead flood forecasting using wavelet and data-driven methods. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2015 , 19 , 401–417. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Indra, G.; Duraipandian, N. Modeling of Optimal Deep Learning Based Flood Forecasting Model Using Twitter Data. Intell. Autom. Soft Comput. 2023 , 35 , 1455–1470. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kang, M.G.; Park, S.W.; Cai, X. Integration of hydrologic gray model with global search method for real-time flood forecasting. J. Hydrol. Eng. 2009 , 14 , 1136–1145. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chang, F.J.; Liang, J.M.; Chen, Y.C. Flood forecasting using radial basis function neural networks. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part C Appl. Rev. 2001 , 31 , 530–535. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ruslan, F.A.; Zain, Z.M.; Adnan, R. Modelling flood prediction using Radial Basis Function Neural Network (RBFNN) and Inverse Model: A Comparative Study. In Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE International Conference on Control System, Computing and Engineering, Penang, Malaysia, 29 November–14 December 2013; pp. 577–581. [ Google Scholar ]
• Panigrahi, B.K.; Nath, T.K.; Senapati, M.R. An application of local linear radial basis function neural network for flood prediction. J. Manag. Anal. 2019 , 6 , 67–87. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wardah, T.; Abu Bakar, S.H.; Bardossy, A.; Maznorizan, M. Use of geostationary meteorological satellite images in convective rain estimation for flash-flood forecasting. J. Hydrol. 2008 , 356 , 283–298. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yang, C.C.; Chen, C.S. Application of integrated back-propagation network and self organizing map for flood forecasting. Hydrol. Process. Int. J. 2009 , 23 , 1313–1323. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hu, R.; Fang, F.; Pain, C.C.; Navon, I.M. Rapid spatio-temporal flood prediction and uncertainty quantification using a deep learning method. J. Hydrol. 2019 , 575 , 911–920. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lee, J.H.; Yuk, G.M.; Moon, H.T.; Moon, Y.I. Integrated flood forecasting and warning system against flash rainfall in the small-scaled urban stream. Atmosphere 2020 , 11 , 971. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sarker, C.; Mejias, L.; Maire, F.; Woodley, A. Flood mapping with convolutional neural networks using spatio-contextual pixel information. Remote Sens. 2019 , 11 , 2331. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Khosravi, K.; Panahi, M.; Golkarian, A.; Keesstra, S.D.; Saco, P.M.; Bui, D.T.; Lee, S. Convolutional neural network approach for spatial prediction of flood hazard at national scale of Iran. J. Hydrol. 2020 , 591 , 125552. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, C.; Jiang, J.; Liao, Z.; Zhou, Y.; Wang, H.; Pei, Q. A short-term flood prediction based on spatial deep learning network: A case study for Xi County, China. J. Hydrol. 2022 , 607 , 127535. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wu, J.; Liu, H.; Wei, G.; Song, T.; Zhang, C.; Zhou, H. Flash flood forecasting using support vector regression model in a small mountainous catchment. Water 2019 , 11 , 1327. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shada, B.; Chithra, N.; Thampi, S.G. Hourly flood forecasting using hybrid wavelet-SVM. J. Soft Comput. Civ. Eng. 2022 , 6 , 1–20. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yaseen, M.W.; Awais, M.; Riaz, K.; Rasheed, M.B.; Waqar, M.; Rasheed, S. Artificial Intelligence Based Flood Forecasting for River Hunza at Danyor Station in Pakistan. Arch. Hydroeng. Environ. Mech. 2022 , 69 , 59–77. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zalnezhad, A.; Rahman, A.; Nasiri, N.; Vafakhah, M.; Samali, B.; Ahamed, F. Comparing performance of ANN and SVM methods for regional flood frequency analysis in South-East Australia. Water 2022 , 14 , 3323. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kurniyaningrum, E.; Limantara, L.M.; Suhartanto, E.; Sisinggih, D. Development of flood early warning system based on the geoinformatics system in the Krukut River, Jakarta, Indonesia. Int. J. Civ. Eng. Technol. 2019 , 10 , 1325–1335. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tabbussum, R.; Dar, A.Q. Modelling hybrid and backpropagation adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference systems for flood forecasting. Nat. Hazards 2021 , 108 , 519–566. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Manocha, A.; Sood, S.K.; Bhatia, M. Digital Twin-assisted Fuzzy Logic-inspired Intelligent Approach for Flood Prediction. IEEE Sens. J. 2023 . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hellmann, M. Fuzzy Logic Introduction ; Université de Rennes: Rennes, France, 2001; p. 1. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tareghian, R.; Kashefipour, S.M. Application of fuzzy systems and artificial neural networks for flood forecasting. J. Appl. Sci. 2007 , 7 , 3451–3459. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hadi, M.; Yakub, F.; Fakhrurradzi, A.; Hui, C.; Najiha, A.; Fakharulrazi, N.; Harun, A.; Rahim, Z.; Azizan, A. Designing early warning flood detection and monitoring system via IoT. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science ; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2020; p. 012016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jamali, A.; Giman, J.P. Performance Analysis of IOT based Flood Monitoring Framework in Sub-urban. In Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE 7th International Conference on Smart Instrumentation, Measurement and Applications (ICSIMA), Bandung, Indonesia, 23–25 August 2021; pp. 99–104. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nahar, H.; Bahaman, N.; Shah, W.M.; Abdul-Aziz, A.; Khalid, A.M.; Hassan, A.; Ahmad, M.R. Real-time Monitoring IoT-based System for Early Flash Flood Notification in Melaka. Multidiscip. Appl. Res. Innov. 2022 , 3 , 29–36. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zakaria, M.I.; Jabbar, W.A.; Sulaiman, N. Development of a smart sensing unit for LoRaWAN-based IoT flood monitoring and warning system in catchment areas. Internet Things Cyber-Phys. Syst. 2023 , 3 , 249–261. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Al Qundus, J.; Dabbour, K.; Gupta, S.; Meissonier, R.; Paschke, A. Wireless sensor network for AI-based flood disaster detection. Ann. Oper. Res. 2022 , 319 , 697–719. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Huang, R.; Ma, L.; Zhai, G.; He, J.; Chu, X.; Yan, H. Resilient routing mechanism for wireless sensor networks with deep learning link reliability prediction. IEEE Access 2020 , 8 , 64857–64872. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Khalaf, M.; Alaskar, H.; Hussain, A.J.; Baker, T.; Maamar, Z.; Buyya, R.; Liatsis, P.; Khan, W.; Tawfik, H.; Al-Jumeily, D. IoT-enabled flood severity prediction via ensemble machine learning models. IEEE Access 2020 , 8 , 70375–70386. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Anbarasan, M.; Muthu, B.; Sivaparthipan, C.; Sundarasekar, R.; Kadry, S.; Krishnamoorthy, S.; Dasel, A.A. Detection of flood disaster system based on IoT, big data and convolutional deep neural network. Comput. Commun. 2020 , 150 , 150–157. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Weigel, A.P.; Liniger, M.; Appenzeller, C. Can multi-model combination really enhance the prediction skill of probabilistic ensemble forecasts? Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. A J. Atmos. Sci. Appl. Meteorol. Phys. Oceanogr. 2008 , 134 , 241–260. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Leutbecher, M.; Palmer, T.N. Ensemble forecasting. J. Comput. Phys. 2008 , 227 , 3515–3539. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ibrahim, K.S.M.H.; Huang, Y.F.; Ahmed, A.N.; Koo, C.H.; El-Shafie, A. A review of the hybrid artificial intelligence and optimization modelling of hydrological streamflow forecasting. Alex. Eng. J. 2022 , 61 , 279–303. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Khaki, M.; Ait-El-Fquih, B.; Hoteit, I. Calibrating land hydrological models and enhancing their forecasting skills using an ensemble Kalman filter with one-step-ahead smoothing. J. Hydrol. 2020 , 584 , 124708. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yang, Y.; Guo, H.; Jin, Y.; Song, A. An ensemble prediction system based on artificial neural networks and deep learning methods for deterministic and probabilistic carbon price forecasting. Front. Environ. Sci. 2021 , 9 , 740093. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Brown, J.D.; Wu, L.; He, M.; Regonda, S.; Lee, H.; Seo, D.-J. Verification of temperature, precipitation, and streamflow forecasts from the NOAA/NWS Hydrologic Ensemble Forecast Service (HEFS): 1. Experimental design and forcing verification. J. Hydrol. 2014 , 519 , 2869–2889. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Artigue, G.; Johannet, A.; Borrell, V.; Pistre, S. Flash flood forecasting in poorly gauged basins using neural networks: Case study of the Gardon de Mialet basin (southern France). Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2012 , 12 , 3307–3324. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ishitsuka, Y.; Gleason, C.J.; Hagemann, M.W.; Beighley, E.; Allen, G.H.; Feng, D.; Lin, P.; Pan, M.; Andreadis, K.; Pavelsky, T.M. Combining optical remote sensing, McFLI discharge estimation, global hydrologic modeling, and data assimilation to improve daily discharge estimates across an entire large watershed. Water Resour. Res. 2021 , 57 , e2020WR027794. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sutcliffe, J.; Knott, D. Historical variations in African water resources. Influ. Clim. Chang. Clim. Var. Hydrol. Regime Water Resour. 1987 , 168 , 463–476. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nicholson, S.E.; Klotter, D.; Dezfuli, A.K. Spatial reconstruction of semi-quantitative precipitation fields over Africa during the nineteenth century from documentary evidence and gauge data. Quat. Res. 2012 , 78 , 13–23. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sunilkumar, K.; Narayana Rao, T.; Satheeshkumar, S. Assessment of small-scale variability of rainfall and multi-satellite precipitation estimates using measurements from a dense rain gauge network in Southeast India. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2016 , 20 , 1719–1735. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, K.; Guan, Q.; Chen, N.; Tong, D.; Hu, C.; Peng, Y.; Dong, X.; Yang, C. Optimizing the configuration of precipitation stations in a space-ground integrated sensor network based on spatial-temporal coverage maximization. J. Hydrol. 2017 , 548 , 625–640. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hughes, D. Comparison of satellite rainfall data with observations from gauging station networks. J. Hydrol. 2006 , 327 , 399–410. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Loukas, A.; Quick, M.C. Comparison of six extreme flood estimation techniques for ungauged watersheds in coastal British Columbia. Can. Water Resour. J. 1995 , 20 , 17–30. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kjeldsen, T.R.; Smithers, J.; Schulze, R. Flood frequency analysis at ungauged sites in the KwaZulu-Natal Province, South Africa. Water SA 2001 , 27 , 315–324. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Grover, P.L.; Burn, D.H.; Cunderlik, J.M. A comparison of index flood estimation procedures for ungauged catchments. Can. J. Civ. Eng. 2002 , 29 , 734–741. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kjeldsen, T.R.; Smithers, J.; Schulze, R. Regional flood frequency analysis in the KwaZulu-Natal province, South Africa, using the index-flood method. J. Hydrol. 2002 , 255 , 194–211. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lawal, D.U.; Yusof, K.W.; Hashim, M.A.; Balogun, A.-L. Spatial analytic hierarchy process model for flood forecasting: An integrated approach. Proceedings of IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2014; p. 012029. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mohammadifar, A.; Gholami, H.; Golzari, S. Novel integrated modelling based on multiplicative long short-term memory (mLSTM) deep learning model and ensemble multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) models for mapping flood risk. J. Environ. Manag. 2023 , 345 , 118838. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Ayoubi Ayoublu, S.; Vafakhah, M.; Pourghasemi, H. Flood risk assessment using Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Models (MCDM) and data mining methods (case study: Shiraz District 4). JWSS-Isfahan Univ. Technol. 2022 , 26 , 247–265. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chakraborty, S.; Chatterjee, P.; Das, P.P. Evaluation Based on Distance from Average Solution (Edas) Method. In Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods in Manufacturing Environments ; Apple Academic Press: Point Pleasant, NJ, USA, 2024; pp. 183–189. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kasiviswanathan, K.S.; He, J.; Tay, J.-H. Flood frequency analysis using multi-objective optimization based interval estimation approach. J. Hydrol. 2017 , 545 , 251–262. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yuan, F.; Zhang, L.; Soe, K.M.W.; Ren, L.; Zhao, C.; Zhu, Y.; Jiang, S.; Liu, Y. Applications of TRMM-and GPM-era multiple-satellite precipitation products for flood simulations at sub-daily scales in a sparsely gauged watershed in Myanmar. Remote Sens. 2019 , 11 , 140. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Harris, A.; Rahman, S.; Hossain, F.; Yarborough, L.; Bagtzoglou, A.C.; Easson, G. Satellite-based flood modeling using TRMM-based rainfall products. Sensors 2007 , 7 , 3416–3427. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Kachi, M. Overview of Global Satellite Mapping of Precipitation (GSMaP). In Proceedings of the 6th World Water Forum, March, Marseille, France, 12–17 March 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chao, L.; Zhang, K.; Yang, Z.-L.; Wang, J.; Lin, P.; Liang, J.; Li, Z.; Gu, Z. Improving flood simulation capability of the WRF-Hydro-RAPID model using a multi-source precipitation merging method. J. Hydrol. 2021 , 592 , 125814. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wahyuni, S.; Sisinggih, D.; Dewi, I. Validation of climate hazard group infrared precipitation with station (CHIRPS) data in wonorejo reservoir, Indonesia. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science ; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2021; p. 012042. [ Google Scholar ]
• Alijanian, M.; Rakhshandehroo, G.R.; Mishra, A.; Dehghani, M. Evaluation of remotely sensed precipitation estimates using PERSIANN-CDR and MSWEP for spatio-temporal drought assessment over Iran. J. Hydrol. 2019 , 579 , 124189. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Collischonn, B.; Collischonn, W.; Tucci, C.E.M. Daily hydrological modeling in the Amazon basin using TRMM rainfall estimates. J. Hydrol. 2008 , 360 , 207–216. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Maggioni, V.; Massari, C. On the performance of satellite precipitation products in riverine flood modeling: A review. J. Hydrol. 2018 , 558 , 214–224. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Masood, M.; Naveed, M.; Iqbal, M.; Nabi, G.; Kashif, H.M.; Jawad, M.; Mujtaba, A. Evaluation of Satellite Precipitation Products for Estimation of Floods in Data-Scarce Environment. Adv. Meteorol. 2023 , 2023 . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yeditha, P.K.; Kasi, V.; Rathinasamy, M.; Agarwal, A. Forecasting of extreme flood events using different satellite precipitation products and wavelet-based machine learning methods. Chaos Interdiscip. J. Nonlinear Sci. 2020 , 30 , 063115. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Kumar, A.; Singh, V. Real-time flood forecasting using satellite precipitation product and machine learning approach in Bagmati river basin, India. Acta Geophys. 2024 , 1–21. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Piotrowski, A.P.; Napiorkowski, J.J. A comparison of methods to avoid overfitting in neural networks training in the case of catchment runoff modelling. J. Hydrol. 2013 , 476 , 97–111. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Oruche, R.; Egede, L.; Baker, T.; O’Donncha, F. Transfer learning to improve streamflow forecasts in data sparse regions. arXiv 2021 , arXiv:2112.03088. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chancay, J.E.; Espitia-Sarmiento, E.F. Improving hourly precipitation estimates for flash flood modeling in data-scarce andean-amazon basins: An integrative framework based on machine learning and multiple remotely sensed data. Remote Sens. 2021 , 13 , 4446. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sampurno, J.; Vallaeys, V.; Ardianto, R.; Hanert, E. Integrated hydrodynamic and machine learning models for compound flooding prediction in a data-scarce estuarine delta. Nonlinear Process. Geophys. 2022 , 29 , 301–315. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lee, H.; Li, W. Improving interpretability of deep active learning for flood inundation mapping through class ambiguity indices using multi-spectral satellite imagery. Remote Sens. Environ. 2024 , 309 , 114213. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kazadi, A.N.; Doss-Gollin, J.; Sebastian, A.; Silva, A. Flood prediction with graph neural networks. Climate Change AI. Climate Change AI 2022 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Mahesh, R.B.; Leandro, J.; Lin, Q. Physics informed neural network for spatial-temporal flood forecasting. In Climate Change and Water Security: Select Proceedings of VCDRR 2021 ; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2022; pp. 77–91. [ Google Scholar ]
• Goodarzi, L.; Banihabib, M.E.; Roozbahani, A.; Dietrich, J. Bayesian network model for flood forecasting based on atmospheric ensemble forecasts. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2019 , 19 , 2513–2524. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Byaruhanga, N.; Kibirige, D.; Gokool, S.; Mkhonta, G. Evolution of Flood Prediction and Forecasting Models for Flood Early Warning Systems: A Scoping Review. Water 2024 , 16 , 1763. https://doi.org/10.3390/w16131763

Byaruhanga N, Kibirige D, Gokool S, Mkhonta G. Evolution of Flood Prediction and Forecasting Models for Flood Early Warning Systems: A Scoping Review. Water . 2024; 16(13):1763. https://doi.org/10.3390/w16131763

Byaruhanga, Nicholas, Daniel Kibirige, Shaeden Gokool, and Glen Mkhonta. 2024. "Evolution of Flood Prediction and Forecasting Models for Flood Early Warning Systems: A Scoping Review" Water 16, no. 13: 1763. https://doi.org/10.3390/w16131763

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

LITERATURE REVIEW: DISASTER RISK REDUCTION PROGRAMS TO INCREASE PUBLIC AWARENESS OF NATURAL DISASTERS

• Find this author on Google Scholar
• Find this author on PubMed
• Search for this author on this site
• ORCID record for Susi Wahyuning Asih
• For correspondence: [email protected]
• ORCID record for Moses Glorino Rumambo Pandin
• ORCID record for Ahmad Yusuf
• ORCID record for Supriyadi
• Info/History
• Preview PDF

Background The key components of disaster risk reduction typically include risk assessment, early warning systems, public awareness and education, infrastructure and land-use planning, preparedness and response planning, and sustainable development. The third component is the public awareness and education. Educating communities about potential risks and how to prepare for and respond to disasters is crucial for building resilience and ensuring the effective implementation of DRR measures. The fourth component is infrastructure and land-use planning. Regarding the preparedness and response planning, developing comprehensive disaster preparedness and response plans is helpful in ensuring a swift and coordinated response during emergencies, thereby minimizing the impact on life and property. Lastly, regarding sustainable development, integrating DRR into development planning can help create sustainable and resilient communities that are better equipped to withstand and recover from disasters.

Purpose This study aims to review articles that examine the disaster risk reduction program to increase public awareness of natural disasters

Design This study was categorized as a literature review

Method Data were collected by searching articles published on SAGE, Springer link, Proquest, Scopus, and Science Direc in 2020-2023.

Results 263 articles were used in the review. These articles discuss the disaster risk reduction program to increase public awareness of natural disasters. Fifteen articles reviewed were original research.

Conclusion Local communities play a central role in hazard identification, development of preparedness plans, detection and response to emergencies, and implementation of recovery efforts. Community leaders and local health workers (e.g. family doctors, nurses, midwives, pharmacists, community health workers).

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement

This study did not receive any funding

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Email: susi.wahyuning.asih-2023{at}fkp.unair.ac.id atau susiwahyuningasih{at}unmuhjember.ac.id

Data Availability

All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors

View the discussion thread.

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Citation Manager Formats

• EndNote (tagged)
• EndNote 8 (xml)
• RefWorks Tagged
• Ref Manager
• Tweet Widget
• Facebook Like
• Google Plus One

Subject Area

• Addiction Medicine (329)
• Allergy and Immunology (646)
• Anesthesia (173)
• Cardiovascular Medicine (2471)
• Dentistry and Oral Medicine (303)
• Dermatology (208)
• Emergency Medicine (384)
• Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (877)
• Epidemiology (11936)
• Forensic Medicine (10)
• Gastroenterology (710)
• Genetic and Genomic Medicine (3868)
• Geriatric Medicine (358)
• Health Economics (647)
• Health Informatics (2496)
• Health Policy (960)
• Health Systems and Quality Improvement (926)
• Hematology (349)
• HIV/AIDS (812)
• Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (13452)
• Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (776)
• Medical Education (384)
• Medical Ethics (106)
• Nephrology (411)
• Neurology (3629)
• Nursing (203)
• Nutrition (542)
• Obstetrics and Gynecology (700)
• Occupational and Environmental Health (676)
• Oncology (1880)
• Ophthalmology (547)
• Orthopedics (229)
• Otolaryngology (298)
• Pain Medicine (240)
• Palliative Medicine (70)
• Pathology (459)
• Pediatrics (1064)
• Pharmacology and Therapeutics (440)
• Primary Care Research (434)
• Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (3274)
• Public and Global Health (6298)
• Radiology and Imaging (1332)
• Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (775)
• Respiratory Medicine (844)
• Rheumatology (388)
• Sexual and Reproductive Health (382)
• Sports Medicine (333)
• Surgery (423)
• Toxicology (51)
• Transplantation (178)
• Urology (151)

A Dilemma of Language: “Natural Disasters” in Academic Literature

• Open access
• Published: 12 September 2019
• Volume 10 , pages 283–292, ( 2019 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Ksenia Chmutina 1 &
• Jason von Meding 2  

32k Accesses

132 Citations

87 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

For decades sections of the academic community have been emphasizing that disasters are not natural. Nevertheless, politicians, the media, various international organizations—and, more surprisingly, many established researchers working in disaster studies—are still widely using the expression “natural disaster.” We systematically analyzed the usage of the expression “natural disaster” by disaster studies researchers in 589 articles in six key academic journals representative of disaster studies research, and found that authors are using the expression in three principal ways: (1) delineating natural and human-induced hazards; (2) using the expression to leverage popularity; and (3) critiquing the expression “natural disaster.” We also identified vulnerability themes that illustrate the context of “natural disaster” usage. The implications of continuing to use this expression, while explicitly researching human vulnerability, are wide-ranging, and we explore what this means for us and our peers. This study particularly aims to stimulate debate within the disaster studies research community and related fields as to whether the term “natural disaster” is really fit for purpose moving forward.

Similar content being viewed by others

The Social Construction of Natural Disasters: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Defining Disaster: An Evolving Concept

Introduction to the International Handbook of Disaster Research

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

The 2015 Gorkha Earthquake struck Nepal, resulting in over 9000 deaths and over USD 10 billion in damages (not to mention months of disruption and psychological impacts). But one can argue that despite the huge financial, structural, and human toll, the earthquake was not unusual or unexpected. Moreover, stronger earthquakes often occur around the world causing less damage. Why, given the extent of current knowledge, are the livelihoods and assets of the most marginalized people still disproportionately impacted?

It is commonly accepted that a disaster is defined as “a serious disruption of the functioning of a community or a society at any scale due to hazardous events interacting with conditions of exposure, vulnerability and capacity , leading to one or more of the following: human, material, economic and environmental losses and impacts” (UNISDR 2018 , authors’ emphasis). This definition highlights that hazards can turn into a disaster because of human acts of omission and commission rather than an act of nature, and that disasters are caused more by socioeconomic than natural factors. Nevertheless, many scientific disciplines refer to disasters as “natural.” For many researchers, focused mostly on the “natural hazard” component of the disaster, the construct seems valid. However, in many social science disciplines (in which research epistemology is more aligned with a social construction lens) the expression sits uncomfortably at best, particularly given the contemporary understanding of the role of vulnerability in driving disaster impacts on society.

This article argues that by continuously blaming “nature” and putting the responsibility for failures of development on “freak” natural phenomena or “acts of God,” we enable those who create disaster risks by accepting poor urban planning, increasing socioeconomic inequalities, nonexistent or poorly regulated policies, and lack of proactive adaptation and mitigation to avoid detection. We support this argument with an analysis of 589 academic articles. This body of work in disaster studies Footnote 1 often focuses on the impacts of hazards and discusses the vulnerabilities of those affected; the message is clear that while hazards are natural, disasters are not. However, despite the clear understanding of the social and political root causes of disaster, the expression “natural disaster” persists in these same articles. If disaster studies are really to support justice, equity, and well-being, the language of those most attuned to the complex social construction of disaster risk must be used to accurately apportion blame to the real causes of disaster.

2 Non-natural Disasters

The argument that disasters are not natural is not new; in the eighteenth century, Rousseau questioned the “naturalness” of the destruction caused in Lisbon by the 1755 earthquake and tsunami, and suggested that Lisbon’s high population density contributed to the toll (Rousseau, letter to Voltaire, 1756 in Masters and Kelly 1990 , p. 110). Academics have also been questioning for over 40 years how “natural” so-called “natural disasters” are (Ball 1975 ; O’Keefe et al. 1976 ; Hewitt 1983 ; Oliver-Smith 1986 ; Cannon 1994 ; Smith 2005 ; Kelman et al. 2016 ; Chmutina et al. 2019 ). Kelman ( 2010 ) provides a valuable overview of why disasters are not “natural.” Despite pushback from those who prefer to retain the expression, a segment of the academic community has always maintained that the expression “natural disaster” is a misnomer, highlighting how a hazard turns into a disaster and the role that vulnerability plays in this process—for example, a drought in Northeast Nigeria (Kolawole 1987 ), a typhoon in the Philippines (Gaillard et al. 2007 ), or a hurricane in New Orleans (Youngman 2015 )—emphasizing the role of regulations and building codes (Chmutina and Bosher 2015 ; Rahman 2018 ), urban planning (Bull-Kamanga et al. 2003 ), risk management and awareness raising (Mora 2009 ), politics, governance, and media (Gould et al. 2016 ), and development, growth, and culture (Bankoff 2001 ; Ward and Shively 2017 ) in reducing vulnerability and disaster risk.

As highlighted in the UNISDR definition, disasters result from the combination of natural hazards and social and human vulnerability, including development activities that are ignorant of local hazardous conditions. Vulnerability originates in a human experience and “represents the physical, economic, political and social susceptibility or predisposition of a community to damage in a case [of] a destabilising phenomenon” (Cardona 2003 , p. 37), meaning that a series of extreme (yet often permanent) conditions make some social groups—or individuals—fragile. Thus, disasters do not impact all communities and societies equally; the increase in the occurrence of disasters disproportionately impacts the poor (Wisner et al. 2004 ; O’Brien et al. 2006 ).

We should also note the importance of the “disruption of the functioning of a community or a society” (UNISDR 2018 ) in this definition—an earthquake that happens in an uninhabited area is not considered a disaster. While earthquakes, droughts, floods, and storms are natural hazards, they lead to deaths and damages—that is, disasters—that result from human acts of omission and commission rather than from acts of nature (UNISDR 2010 ). A hazard becomes a disaster because its impact threatens the lives and livelihoods of people who are often vulnerable due to discrimination and marginalization, inequitable access to resources, knowledge, and support, as well as rapid urbanization, environmental degradation, and climate change. A hazard cannot be prevented; disasters, however, can be.

With the increased use of social media as an intellectual playground, many academics have become particularly proactive in explaining this misnomer and discouraging its use (see #NoNaturalDisasters on Twitter). Recent articles of a more journalistic tone have also explored the issue within the public discourse (Chmutina et al. 2017 ; von Meding et al. 2017 ; Sutter 2018 ). Yet, despite the widespread awareness of the problem in the academic community, the use of the term “natural disaster” actually appears to be growing. As we increasingly see disasters framed in “narratives of destruction” that are hazard-centric and depoliticized, we must find ways to push back against the trend. A great concern is the use of the misnomer among scholars that are researching human vulnerability.

Despite significant evidence that demonstrates why disasters are not natural, some scholars defend the expression. A common retort is that by abandoning “natural disaster,” we might ignore the natural element of a disaster. Brookfield ( 1999 , p. 10) argued that “it is wrong to neglect geophysical change and attribute all blame to human forces.” However, this is not an argument that we make or have seen made. The point is certainly not to pretend that natural hazards do not exist or contribute to disasters. Some apologists for the expression “natural disaster” further raise the idea that humans are part of nature. Gill ( 2015 ) suggested that the widespread use of the misnomer may be due to multiple reasons, including a lack of awareness; wanting to differentiate a natural process from a human-induced one (that is, an earthquake has a natural origin, whereas a nuclear incident is anthropogenic); using the expression as a convenient term and a boundary object that allows communication and understanding among a broad range of stakeholders (that is, everyone understands what it means); and a theistic view. Some researchers that advocate for the continued usage of the expression argue that we have no proof of the negative impact of its usage.

The overarching aim of this article is to better understand how the expression “natural disaster” is used in disaster-related academic research and whether its usage manufactures any tension with sentiments expressed by the authors that use it. We are specifically interested in authors that demonstrate an understanding that disasters are socially constructed. Why do such authors continue to use the expression “natural disaster”? If they use it, how do they use it? We also reflect on alternatives to “natural disaster” that are already commonly utilized, as well as those suggested but not widely used in practice.

We initially searched academic literature from 1976 Footnote 2 to October 2018 for the expression “natural disaster.” We adopted an electronic search strategy and targeted literature in the English language on ScienceDirect and Scopus. On Scopus, there were 27,256 documents that matched the search, while on ScienceDirect there were 29,216 documents that matched the search (as of 9 October 2018). This was much too broad, and we needed to focus on a community of researchers that should understand disasters better than any other, particularly with a vulnerability lens, that is, those publishing in journals specifically linked to the study of disasters. We identified six well-regarded key journals in disaster studies/science that deal with societal aspects of disasters and are illustrative and representative of the research that is happening in this field. The selected journals were: Natural Hazards ; International Journal of Disaster Risk Science ; International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction ; Disaster Prevention and Management ; Disasters ; and International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment . These journals are multidisciplinary and open to original research that places human vulnerability within the frame. The sample was narrowed to 589 articles across the six journals based on the criteria listed below. Based on these inclusion and exclusion criteria, the titles, abstracts, full texts, and keywords were examined in October 2018. Unsuitable articles were discarded moving forward.

Inclusion criteria included:

Listed in one of the six selected journals;

Mention “natural disaster” in full text search (not including references);

Research article;

Explicitly or implicitly focus on human vulnerability based on abstract and keywords.

Exclusion criteria excluded:

Reports of meetings, briefing documents, editorials, book reviews;

Usage of “natural disaster” related to “International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction” or other events/publications that used the expression in their titles;

Articles focused only on a hazard and not on vulnerability.

We examined the remaining 589 articles for ways in which the expression “natural disaster” was utilized. A careful reading and re-reading of the articles, as part of a thematic analysis, allowed us to explore how “natural disaster” was used and begin to understand the context within which the relationship to vulnerability appeared; the results of this approach are summarized in Table  1 .

Our analysis determined that authors were using the expression in three principal ways: (1) delineating natural and human-induced hazards; (2) using the expression to leverage popularity/as a buzzword; and (3) critiquing the expression “natural disaster.”

4 Results and Discussion

The following subsections will discuss the context within which the “natural disasters” misnomer is used in the analyzed articles and the implications of its use in academic literature.

4.1 How is “Natural Disaster” Used in the Sampled Articles?

As demonstrated by the numbers from the search on ScienceDirect and Scopus, the expression “natural disaster” appears to be widely employed in the academic literature in disaster studies. This may be the case because it is a regularly used expression that was previously used by the United Nations during the 1990s “International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction” (authors’ emphasis), and has been popularized and constantly used by the media. There may often be no agenda behind this—only a measure of ignorance—but it would appear that the use sometimes operates as a way to trigger particular associations and behaviors among the public. At its most harmful, it serves to convince people that there is little that we, or those in power, can do.

“Natural disasters” even has an entry in the Oxford English Language Dictionary ( 2019 ): “A natural event such as a flood, earthquake, or hurricane that causes great damage or loss of life.” Many of the concepts within the field of disaster studies are malleable—consider resilience, vulnerability, capacity—and precision in language is somewhat rare (Sun and Faas 2018 ; Bankoff 2019 ). This might lead some to conclude that the value of the word is in “how one uses it.” However, we argue that the opposite is true; the inherent openness of many disaster-related concepts renders it all the more imperative that we insist on rigor in our writing and thinking to avoid misunderstandings. Based on our analysis, three broad categories (Fig.  1 ) in which the expression is used were identified.

Ratio of categories within which the “natural disaster” expression is used in the 589 selected research articles in the six selected academic journals (some articles feature in more than one category)

4.1.1 Delineating Natural and Human-Induced Hazards

Among the articles sampled, some authors ( n  = 59) demonstrate a clear understanding that disasters are socially constructed but appear to use the expression “natural disaster” as a way to indicate that the disaster has a “natural trigger.” This debate has become particularly prominent in recent years—many authors argue that the use of the expression “natural disaster” works (and the language should thus not be changed) because it separates “natural” and “technological” disasters (for example, nuclear meltdown, building collapse), conflicts, and wars.

Many publications in this category discussed various aspects of risk management, including preparedness, protection, response, and recovery. The role of governance in emergency situations was also prominent. Some publications discussed the impact of disasters in conflict-ridden contexts. Yet, both disasters and conflicts—while having different characteristics—are often a result of the same root causes. The research shows that the interaction between a disaster and a conflict is complex, but contexts in which conflicts and disasters overlap are daily realities for the people affected. Effective risk reduction programs should reflect conflict–disaster complexities and respond to them in a context-specific and holistic manner (UNDP 2011 ; Harris et al. 2013 ; Harrowell and Ozerdem 2019 ).

Some authors are so focused on the hazard they are studying that they fall into this language without thinking, despite some of the research actually emphasizing the “non-naturalness” of a disaster. A significant amount of disaster research comes from the geological sciences that focus on earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and landslides, and not so often on issues of underlying vulnerability. This kind of focus does not encourage the consideration of broader social, economic, and political aspects of disaster risk reduction. This is where a combination of education and awareness raising among and by scholars should play an important role.

4.1.2 Using the Expression “Natural Disaster” to Leverage Popularity/as a Buzzword

This theme was the most prominent to emerge from the analysis. The majority of articles sampled ( n  = 522) were found to be using the expression without seeming to consider the implications. Often the expression is used alongside “social vulnerability,” producing an odd mixture of language. Many authors argue that with the use of an appropriate combination of technical, social, economic, and political interventions, disaster risk can be reduced—however, they qualify this by apportioning blame to Mother Nature.

This is particularly problematic, as the expression is being used for convenience rather than for intellectual clarity. It is often argued (for example, debates on social media) that the phrase is used because it is understood by a general audience. With scientists having an increasing responsibility to communicate their research to a lay audience, this argument is the most commonly advanced.

In most cases that fall into this category, the use of the expression “natural disaster” could easily be replaced with “disaster.” Frequently the two are used interchangeably in these articles. At times, authors appear to be using the expression because they are referencing an article that used it. They then proceed to adopt the language later on in their article. Quite frequently, the use of “natural disaster” appears to be accidental—“disaster” is used throughout, bar a single use of “natural disaster.”

4.1.3 Critiquing the Expression “Natural Disaster”

Many authors use the expression in the course of critiquing the way that others have used it. In 13 analyzed articles, the most frequently used words included “risk,” “vulnerable/vulnerability,” “hazard,” “development,” “social,” “income,” “politics,” and “people.” The authors (for example Cannon 1994 ; Ward and Shively 2017 ) point out that considering social vulnerability, economic development, culture, risk perception, politics, and practice clarify the connections between natural hazards and disastrous outcomes. Cannon ( 1994 , p. 17) explained the relationship between vulnerability and a disaster, and emphasized that “[focusing on the behavior of nature] encourages technical solutions to the supposed excesses of the yet untamed side of nature” instead of distinguishing “the naturalness of hazards from the human causation of disasters.”

Some of the authors in this category discuss interdependencies between demographics and disaster impacts (Fothergill et al. 1999 ); others argue for reconsideration of the way we understand and therefore implement disaster risk management (DRM)—and the theory and terminology around it (Chipangura et al. 2016 ). But the overall message is the same—the root causes of social vulnerability (that is, power-driven processes) turn hazards into disasters. Authors, critical of the expression, highlight the danger of putting an emphasis on the dramatic, descriptive, climatological, or geological qualities of hazards. This kind of emphasis positions these events as something “natural.”

4.1.4 Most Common Themes of Vulnerability to Disasters

Given that so many authors continue to use the expression “natural disaster,” while clearly aware of the social construction of a disaster, we further analyzed the sample articles to ascertain the context in which vulnerability is discussed. The most prominent themes were:

Phases of disaster risk management: these articles ( n  = 71) focused on prevention, preparedness, mitigation, rescue, response, and recovery activities. They explored how vulnerabilities are created or reduced depending on the approach to disaster risk management. Preparedness is seen by many authors as the most critical phase for reducing vulnerability—thus authors argue that although we cannot prevent natural processes from happening, their impacts can be reduced if appropriate measures are taken. This fact underpins the reality that disasters are socially constructed; but in many cases the “natural disasters” expression is used nevertheless.

The vulnerability of particular groups: some articles ( n  = 69) emphasized that disasters impact certain groups of the population more than others. Here, gender (with exclusive focus on the female sex), age (mainly children and the elderly), ethnicity, low income, disability, or lack of access to resources (for example, in the case of refugees) are discussed. These articles demonstrate that vulnerability is often increased due to factors such as construction patterns, language, social isolation, or cultural insensitivities. Such arguments clearly articulate the progression of vulnerability, yet the “natural disasters” expression still appears as a buzzword.

Community: these articles ( n  = 55) largely presented research on the role of a community in reducing vulnerabilities. Here, coping strategies (including traditional and local knowledge), livelihood choices, community activities in awareness raising, and DRM phases are discussed. Some articles focus on the community, demonstrating examples of “living” with natural hazards (and in some cases showing that their livelihoods depend on natural hazards), thus emphasizing that not all hazards turn into disasters.

Built environment: the articles ( n  = 47) in this category focused on housing, shelter, and infrastructure operations (including water supply, hospitals, schools, and so on). Rather than discussing the technical performance of the built environment, these authors largely focus on the impacts that failure of the built environment has on people and how this can be improved (for example, “build back better” ideas). They also focus on the challenges that arise when the built environment is not suitable for the most vulnerable or design fails to take into account local context.

Health and well-being: these articles ( n  = 28) primarily focused on the cascading effects of disasters on public health and the mental well-being of those affected. Authors in particular argue that vulnerability is likely to increase if action is not taken to address health and well-being deficits. Articles focusing on public health emphasize the role of infrastructure in preventing disease in a post-disaster context, pointing out that disease spreads when infrastructure—rather than nature—does not perform.

Governance: a wide range of articles ( n  = 61) discussed the role of local and national governments and institutions in DRM, with an emphasis on capacity and capability, as well as the importance of collaboration, participation, and partnerships. Authors highlight the role that effective governance can play in reducing the impact of a disaster if implemented appropriately, taking into account the context and engaging with a wide range of stakeholders.

Location: these articles ( n  = 312) focused on the impacts of disasters in both urban and rural settings, as well as looked at the particulars of living on islands. Authors focus on certain groups that are particular to these three contexts and take into account location-specific characteristics. This again demonstrates that disasters affect different locations—and people living within them—differently, as exposure changes, and that a similar hazard can either create or destroy livelihoods.

Vulnerability assessments: these articles ( n  = 67) discussed various approaches to assessing and measuring vulnerability of different population groups, locations, organizations, and so on. They highlight that socioeconomic and demographic data are crucial in order to understand the impact of disasters, and how such information can support decision making about housing, infrastructure, or DRM measures, in order to prepare for and prevent disasters. Some articles also highlight the importance of understanding economic and social conditions prior to a disaster in order to be able to assess vulnerability holistically.

Risk perception: the articles ( n  = 39) in this category explored the links between vulnerability and risk perception. They highlight that the way people perceive risk affects their behavior before, during, and after a disaster. Cultural and religious values, as well as social norms are discussed as they often shape our risk perception. At the same time, the role of economic development and self-determination are critical to consider. Authors emphasize the role of education and raising awareness in adjusting risk perceptions. The fact that many people have a very hazard-centric understanding of disasters can lead to a skewed perception of risk.

Looking at the vulnerability themes that emerge from the sample of articles, we can determine that authors overwhelmingly appreciate that non-natural factors turn a hazard into a disaster—we did not come across any articles that argue the dominant role of nature in creating disaster risk. Authors mostly display nuance in argument and a depth of knowledge when talking about human vulnerability and its role in creating disasters. But most use “natural disaster” as a buzzword, and the terminology remains problematic.

4.2 Authors are Confused

The analysis revealed that many disaster studies’ researchers—while they explicitly explain why disasters are not an act of nature—use the expression “natural disasters” nevertheless. These authors emphasize that disasters cannot be separated from broader issues such as development (as economic change can create vulnerability), historical roots and cultural values, socioeconomic change that takes place prior to a disaster, the role of various stakeholders in creating and reducing disaster risk through their decision making and the use (or lack) of DRM activities, inequality (ranging from gendered social rules to access to resources), and preparedness measures.

Some authors have completed fascinating overviews of disaster impacts on human lives in the last 100 or more years and the changes in disaster studies; their findings show how vulnerability has started to play an important role in DRM and that the science has moved on from focusing on hazards only—and the way to change nature (that is, purely technical solutions) —and how multi- and trans-disciplinarity has been playing a critical role in the way that we understand disasters. Most of the authors comprising our sample make some form of argument that disasters are socially constructed and that multidisciplinary solutions are required to reduce disaster risks. Yet, it seems that the use of the expression “natural disaster” is so ingrained that the authors either do not appreciate the irony of the use, or they feel that the readers would not understand their message otherwise.

The continuous use of the expression may be due to the fact that many see it as a “convenience term” or a boundary object allowing for communication without a need to explore a deeper meaning. This could also be explained by the use of the phrase by “influencers” in the field of disaster studies. Some well-known and widely cited authors have liberally utilized the expression, and it has been picked up on in the literature that cites them.

4.3 Why does the Expression “Natural Disaster” Create a Dilemma?

A common refrain is that there are no better options than “natural disaster” to convey what authors wish to convey. A big part of the problem is that authors intend to convey a diversity of meanings. “Natural disaster” as an expression does not mean one thing to all people. It is a malleable expression that can be used almost accidentally while focusing with genuine intent on people’s vulnerability. In some cases, authors say “flood disaster” or “earthquake disaster,” which is just as problematic. If we focus on disasters as “destructive events,” there will always be a tendency to prioritize the hazard in our discourse. But disasters are long-term processes of maldevelopment. Arguably, there is not even any such thing as a “rapid-onset” disaster.

The downside of using the expression is multifaceted. It removes responsibility from those often at fault and lessens the likelihood of meaningful discourse around power, class, inequality, and marginalization that should accompany any attempt to understand disasters (Chmutina et al. 2019 ). It can also serve up a narrative that prioritizes the story of hazard and destruction over any consideration of processes of development (or maldevelopment) (Miskimmon et al. 2013 ). The expression also regularly serves the interests of the powerful as a symbolic tool. It signifies that, while we might like to prevent disaster losses and impacts, we are at the mercy of nature. It externalizes the threat beyond the human dimension (Wallace-Wells 2019 ). This allows the celebration of “man’s” dominion over nature and maintains the power structure that might otherwise be threatened by any examination of the way that the dominant socioeconomic system creates risk.

The expression “natural disaster” is often employed by those advocating technocratic and market-based solutions—it is unfortunately reinforced by nongovernment and intergovernmental organizations and policymakers (Chmutina et al. 2019 ), as well as the popular media. This fits well with a “free market” driven disaster industry (Pelling 2001 ; AragÓn-Durand 2009 ). Seeing disasters as natural means that nature is dangerous but can nevertheless be managed (Gould et al. 2016 )—or when it cannot be managed, the blame can be put on nature. Such a position reinforces the status quo, avoiding responsibility for failures of development by “blaming nature.”

If a disaster is conceived of as a “natural” phenomenon, the exposure of vulnerable people to disaster risk is concealed, inhibiting the emergence of socially sensitive responses at the policy level. Ignorance, carelessness, greed, and even malice of decision makers can be masked by a focus on “unexpected” and “unforeseen” “natural” forces, allowing for praise in terms of reactive actions, preparedness, and mitigation to minimize damages (that is, human capabilities are subordinated to the “natural” forces, yet we are trying to fight them for you—but after all “nature always wins”).

As Bankoff ( 2010 ) explained, “it suits some people to explain them [natural disasters] that way. As natural events, disasters are nobody’s fault. The people affected are victims at the mercy of a capricious climate and/or an unpredictable seismicity. Not so long ago, disasters were simply considered ‘Acts of God,’ even justified as chastisement by a wrathful deity for the misdemeanours of sinners.” If the origin of disasters is natural, then our ability to address them through policy is limited. That would represent an ideal situation for those who are opposed to seriously addressing systemic economic, political, social, and environmental injustice.

4.4 Are There Other Options?

Some suggest using “socio-natural disaster,” maintaining that this would convey that disasters are socially constructed but have natural triggers. There are also those who suggest only talking about “risks” and avoid using the term completely.

The debate about the use of the phrase and its alternatives has recently been taking place on social media among academics and in other fora. Disaster-related terminology is complex: there is a huge range of definitions, but little consensus among scholars on which definition to use. Thus, finding a phrase that is understood by all may be seen as beneficial—but the implications of such usage must be more critically considered. Moreover, the problematic use of language is an issue in many disciplines. Much of the terminology used today has been historically introduced in Western discourse, often overlooking the culturally and socially acceptable terms of the people who are “researched” in disaster studies (Hsu 2017 ; Kelman 2018 ; Bankoff 2019 ; Gaillard 2019 ; Staupe-Delgado 2019 ); it often “serves as justification for Western interference and intervention in the affairs of those regions for our and their sakes” (Bankoff 2001 , p. 27). Language is always political (Gee 1999 )—and more care should be taken to understand the implications of its use.

Understanding disasters—and the root causes of disasters—is of critical importance to our everyday life; and the potential benefits of scientific research in disaster studies to every individual are clear. Thus, it is crucial how we—as academics—communicate our research. Instead of reciting the established “truths,” we should encourage our peers (and the public) to question their assumptions and the status quo, and to start thinking more critically. Writing is “an act of identity in which people align themselves with socio-culturally shaped subject positions, and thereby play their part in reproducing or challenging dominant practices and discourses, and the values, beliefs and interests which they embody” (Ivanič 1998 , p. 373). If we are to tackle disaster risk creation (Lewis 1987 ), our choice of words is a good starting point. As academics, we are more and more often required to show the impact of the research to policymakers. We have an excellent opportunity to inspire a shift in thinking and discourse. One simple thing that we can do is to communicate more clearly and accurately. We need to be more deliberate and measured in the words that we use. What is often simply a lack of careful and consistent language actually fuels a cycle of misinformation.

So what expression should be used? We suggest to simply use “disaster,” and take the opportunity to explain the nuances and root causes in each specific case, that is, to explain that disasters are not simply “natural” events. This would provide us with a great opportunity to also educate as to the true “nature” of disasters as maldevelopment processes.

5 Conclusion

This article demonstrates how ingrained the use of the expression “natural disaster” is through the analysis of academic papers that discuss the role of vulnerability in disaster risk creation, while habitually referring to “natural disasters.” One of the most recognized slogans in disaster risk reduction is “From words to action,” a noble and much needed effort as words alone are not enough to reduce disaster risks.

However, some words and expressions may actually have a negative impact. We have discussed how one such widely used, but highly contested, expression is “natural disasters.” This expression disconnects the reality of the most vulnerable by continuously blaming “nature” and putting the responsibility for failures of development on “freak” natural phenomena or “acts of God.”

The understanding that disasters are not natural is arguably on the increase. In 2018, UNISDR stated that the misnomer is no longer to be used in their communications. This commitment has become even more prominent with the publication of the Global Assessment Report (GAR) 2019 (UNDRR 2019 ). Similarly, some disaster-related journals (including some of those analyzed in this article) are encouraging authors not to use the expression. Yet, the expression is still widely used in academia (as well as in journalism, policy, and international diplomacy).

It is critical that the academic community grapple with this issue at a time when the importance of a consistent message about the root causes of disasters has never been more pressing. We as an academic community should emphasize the difference between a hazard and a disaster, as well as explain disasters as processes of maldevelopment. It is unlikely that the use of “natural disaster” will subside in the wider public discourse without science taking a leading role. It is critical that we embrace, promote, and encourage the use of terminology that actually helps the DRM community to reduce risk. The way disasters are presented and reported plays an important role in constructing the public perception of the risks associated with natural hazards. It also defines and limits the discourse associated with these events, making it critical that the correct terminology is used.

Here we use a broad definition of disaster studies—it comprises any research that is focused on disasters and their components, and ranges from human geography to history to structural engineering.

The decision to take 1976 as the starting point was a symbolic choice—this was the year when O’Keeffe et al. published the article that argued that disasters are not natural. We appreciate that this is not the first paper that made that argument, but it has become a somewhat seminal piece in academic circles.

AragÓn-Durand, F.D.J. 2009. Unpacking the social construction of “natural” disaster through policy discourses and institutional responses in Mexico: The case of Chalco Valley’s floods, State of Mexico. Ph.D. thesis, University College London, Lodon. http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/18983/1/18983.pdf . Accessed 3 Sept 2019.

Ball, N. 1975. The myth of the natural disaster. Ecology 5(10): 368–369.

Google Scholar  

Bankoff, G. 2001. Rendering the world unsafe: “Vulnerability” as western discourse. Disasters 25(1): 19–35.

Article   Google Scholar  

Bankoff, G. 2010. No such thing as natural disasters. Harvard International Review. 23 August 2010. http://hir.harvard.edu/article/?a=2694 . Accessed 3 Sept 2019.

Bankoff, G. 2019. Remaking the world in our own image: Vulnerability resilience and adaptation as historical discourses. Disasters 43(2): 221–239.

Brookfield, H. 1999. Environmental damage: Distinguishing human from geophysical causes. Global Environmental Change Part B: Environmental Hazards 1(1): 3–11.

Bull-Kamanga, L., K. Diagne, A. Lavell, E. Leon, F. Lerise, H. MacGregor, A. Maskrey, M. Meshack, et al. 2003. From everyday hazards to disasters: The accumulation of risk in urban areas. Disasters 15(1): 193–203.

Cannon, T. 1994. Vulnerability analysis and explanation of “natural” disasters. In Disasters, development and environment , ed. A. Varley, 13–30. London: John Wiley and Sons.

Cardona, O.D. 2003. The need for rethinking the concepts of vulnerability and risk from a holistic perspective: A necessary review and criticism for effective risk management. In Mapping vulnerability: Disasters, development and people , ed. G. Bankoff, G. Frerks, and D. Hilhost, 37–51. London: Earthscan.

Chipangura, P., D. van Niekerk, and G. van Der Waldt. 2016. An exploration of objectivism and social constructivism within the context of disaster risk. Disaster Prevention and Management 15(2): 261–274.

Chmutina, K., and L. Bosher. 2015. Risk reduction or risk production: The social influences upon the implementation of DRR into construction project in Barbados. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 13: 10–19.

Chmutina, K., J. von Meding, and L. Bosher. 2019. Language matters: Dangers of the “natural disaster” misnomer. Contributing paper to Global Assessment Report (GAR) 2019. https://www.preventionweb.net/publications/view/65974 . Accessed 3 Sept 2019.

Chmutina, K., J. von Meding, J.C. Gaillard, and L. Bosher. 2017. Why natural disasters aren’t all that natural. OpenDemocracy. https://www.opendemocracy.net/ksenia-chmutina-jason-von-meding-jc-gaillard-lee-bosher/why-natural-disasters-arent-all-that-natural . Accessed 3 Sept 2019.

Fothergill, A., E.G.M. Maestas, and J. DeRouen Darlington. 1999. Race, ethnicity and disasters in the United States: A review of the literature. Disasters 23(2): 156–173.

Gaillard, J.C. 2019. Disaster studies inside out. Disasters 43(1): 7–17.

Gaillard, J.C., C.C. Liamzon, and J.D. Villanueva. 2007. “Natural” disaster? A retrospect into the causes of the late-2004 typhoon disaster in Eastern Luzon, Philippines. Environmental Hazards 7(4): 257–270.

Gee, J. 1999. An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method . London and New York: Routledge.

Gill, J.C. 2015. How “natural” is “natural disaster”? EGU blogs. https://blogs.egu.eu/network/gfgd/2015/01/16/how-natural-is-a-natural-disaster/ . Accessed 3 Sept 2019.

Gould, K.A., M.M. Garcia, and J.A.C. Remes. 2016. Beyond “natural-disasters-are-not-natural”: The work of state and nature after the 2010 earthquake in Chile. Journal of Political Ecology 23(1): 93–114.

Harris, K., D. Keen, and T. Mitchell. 2013. When disasters and conflicts collide: Improving links between disaster resilience and conflict prevention. https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/8228.pdf . Accessed 3 Sept 2019.

Harrowell, E., and A. Ozerdem. 2019. Understanding the dilemmas of integrating post-disaster and post-conflict reconstruction initiatives: Evidence from Nepal, Sri Lanka and Indonesia. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction : 36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101092 .

Hewitt, K. (ed.). 1983. Interpretations of calamity from the viewpoint of human ecology . Boston: Allen and Unwin.

Hsu, E.L. 2017. Must disasters be rapidly occurring? The case for an expanded temporal typology of disasters. Time & Society 28(3): 904–921.

Ivanič, R. 1998. Writing and identity: The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins e-platform.

Book   Google Scholar  

Kelman, I. 2010. Natural disasters do not exist (natural hazards do not exist either) Version 3, 9 July 2010 (Version 1 was 26 July 2007). http://www.ilankelman.org/miscellany/NaturalDisasters.rtf . Accessed 3 Sept 2019.

Kelman, I. 2018. Lost for words amongst disaster risk science vocabulary? International Journal of Disaster Risk Science 9(3): 281–291.

Kelman, I., J.C. Gaillard, J. Lewis, and J. Mercer. 2016. Learning from the history of disaster vulnerability and resilience research and practice for climate change. Natural Hazards 82(1): 129–143.

Kolawole, A. 1987. Responses to natural and man-made hazards in Borno, Northeast Nigeria. Disasters 11(1): 59–66.

Lewis, J. 1987. Risk, vulnerability and survival: Some post-Chernobyl implications for people, planning and civil defence. Local Government Studies 13(4): 75–93.

Masters, R.D., and C. Kelly (eds.). 1990. The collected writings of Rousseau. Vol. 3. Hanover, Lebanon, NH: University Press of New England.

Miskimmon, A., B. O’Loughlin, and L. Roselle. 2013. Strategic narratives: Communication power and the new world order . New York: Routledge.

Mora, S. 2009. Disasters are not natural: Risk management, a tool for development. Geological Society London Engineering Geology Special Publications 22(1): 101–112.

O’Brien, G., P. O’Keefe, J. Rose, and B. Wisner. 2006. Climate change and disaster management. Disasters 30(1): 64–80.

O’Keefe, P., K. Westgate, and B. Wisner. 1976. Taking the naturalness out of natural disasters. Nature 260(5552): 566–567.

Oliver-Smith, T. 1986. The Martyred City: Death and rebirth in the Andes . Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Oxford English Language Dictionary. 2019. Online edition. https://www.oed.com/ . Accessed 5 Sept 2019.

Pelling, M. 2001. Natural disaster? In Social nature. Theory, practice and politics , ed. N. Castree, and B. Braun, 170–188. London: Blackwell.

Rahman, M.H. 2018. Earthquakes don’t kill, built environment does: Evidence from cross-country data. Economic Modelling 70(C): 458–468.

Smith, N. 2005. “There’s No Such Thing as a Natural Disaster”. Understanding Katrina: Perspectives from the social sciences. http://understandingkatrina.ssrc.org/Smith . Accessed 3 Sept 2019.

Staupe-Delgado, R. 2019. Analysing changes in disaster terminology over the last decade. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101161 .

Sun, L., and A.J. Faas. 2018. Social production of disasters and disaster social constructs: An exercise in disambiguation and reframing. Disaster Prevention and Management 27(5): 623–635.

Sutter, J. 2018. How to talk about hurricanes now. CNN News, 11 October 2018. https://edition.cnn.com/2018/10/10/health/sutter-natural-disaster-hurricane-michael/index.html . Accessed 3 Sept 2019.

UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). 2011. Disaster-conflict interface: Comparative experiences. http://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/crisis%20prevention/DisasterConflict72p.pdf . Accessed 3 Sept 2019.

UNDRR (United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction). 2019. Global Assessment Report 2019. https://gar.unisdr.org/ . Accessed 3 Sept 2019.

UNISDR (United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction). 2010. Natural hazards, unnatural disasters: the economics of effective prevention. http://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/publications/15136 . Accessed 3 Sept 2019.

UNISDR (United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction). 2018. Terminology. https://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/terminology#letter-d . Accessed 3 Sept 2019.

von Meding, J., G. Forino, J.C. Gaillard, and K. Chmutina. 2017. Grenfell tower fire exposes the injustice of disasters. The conversation. https://theconversation.com/grenfell-tower-fire-exposes-the-injustice-of-disasters-79666 . Accessed 3 Sept 2019.

Wallace-Wells, D. 2019. The uninhabitable earth: Life after warming . London: Allen Lane.

Ward, P.S., and G.E. Shively. 2017. Disaster risk, social vulnerability, and economic development. Disasters 41(2): 324–351.

Wisner, B., P. Blaikie, T. Cannon, and I. Davis. 2004. At risk: Natural hazards, people’s vulnerability and disasters , 2nd edn. London and New York: Routledge.

Youngman, N. 2015. The development of manufactured flood risk: New Orleans’ mid-century growth machine and the hurricane of 1947. Disasters 39(S2): 166 − 187.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are indebted to JC Gaillard and Lee Bosher for numerous discussions on this topic. Thank you also to the #NoNaturalDisasters crowd on Twitter.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Architecture, Building and Civil Engineering, Loughborough University, Loughborough, LE11 3TU, UK

Ksenia Chmutina

Florida Institute for Built Environment Resilience, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, 32611, USA

Jason von Meding

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ksenia Chmutina .

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Chmutina, K., von Meding, J. A Dilemma of Language: “Natural Disasters” in Academic Literature. Int J Disaster Risk Sci 10 , 283–292 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-019-00232-2

Download citation

Published : 12 September 2019

Issue Date : September 2019

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-019-00232-2

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Academic communication
• Natural hazards
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Organisational vulnerability: exploring the pathways

• Chipangura, Paul
• van Niekerk, Dewald
• Mangara, Fortune
• Zembe, Annegrace

PurposeThis study aimed to address the underexplored domain of organisational vulnerability, with a specific focus on understanding how vulnerability is understood in organisations and the underlying pathways leading to vulnerability.Design/methodology/approachThis study utilised a narrative literature review methodology, using Google Scholar as the primary source, to analyse the concepts of organisational vulnerability in the context of disaster risk studies. The review focused on relevant documents published between the years 2000 and 2022.FindingsThe analysis highlights the multifaceted nature of organisational vulnerability, which arises from both inherent weaknesses within the organisation and external risks that expose it to potential hazards. The inherent weaknesses are rooted in internal vulnerability pathways such as organisational culture, managerial ignorance, human resources, and communication weaknesses that compromise the organisation's resilience. The external dimension of vulnerability is found in cascading vulnerability pathways, e.g. critical infrastructure, supply chains, and customer relationships.Originality/valueAs the frequency and severity of disasters continue to increase, organisations of all sizes face heightened vulnerability to unforeseen disruptions and potential destruction. Acknowledging and comprehending organisational vulnerability is a crucial initial step towards enhancing risk management effectiveness, fostering resilience, and promoting sustainable success in an interconnected global environment and an evolving disaster landscape.