Open AccessUse of HAND terrain descriptor for estimating flood-prone areas in river basins
Author(s) -
Ana Alice Rodrigues Dantas,
Adriano Rolim da Paz
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
revista brasileira de ciências ambientais
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 2176-9478
pISSN - 1808-4524
DOI - 10.5327/z21769478892
Subject(s) - digital elevation model , drainage network , flood myth , drainage basin , terrain , drainage , flooding (psychology) , hydrology (agriculture) , elevation (ballistics) , drainage system (geomorphology) , geology , environmental science , cartography , remote sensing , geography , geotechnical engineering , mathematics , ecology , psychology , archaeology , geometry , psychotherapist , biology
The flood hazard mapping in a river basin is crucial for flooding risk management, mitigation strategies, and flood forecasting and warning systems, among other benefits. One approach for this mapping is based on the HAND (Height Above Nearest Drainage) terrain descriptor, directly derived from the Digital Elevation Model (DEM), in which each pixel represents the elevation difference of this point in relation to the river drainage network to which it is connected. Considering the Mamanguape river basin (3,522.7 km²; state of Paraíba, Brazil) as the study location, the present research applied this method and verified it as for five aspects: consideration of a spatially variable minimum drainage area for denoting the river drainage initiation; the impact of considering a depressionless DEM; evaluation of hydrostatic condition; effect of incorporating an existing river vector network; and comparative analysis of basin morphology regarding longitudinal river profiles. According to the results, adopting a uniform minimum drainage area for the river network initiation is a simplification that should be avoided, using a spatially variable approach, which influences the amount and spatial distribution of flooded areas. Additionally, considering the depressionless DEM leads to higher values of HAND and to a smaller flooded area (difference ranging between 3% and 99%), when compared with the use of DEM with depression, despite 3.1% of the pixels representing depressions. The use of the depressionless DEM is recommended, whereas the DEM pre-processing by incorporating a vector network (stream burning) generates dubious results regarding the relation between HAND and the morphological pattern presented in the DEM. Moreover, the estimation of flooded areas based on HAND does not guarantee the hydrostatic condition, but this disagreement comprises a negligible area for practical purposes.