SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Coğrafya Dergisi / 2026 / Sayı: 46

The Effects of Spatial Resolution Variability of Digital Elevation Models on Flood Hazard Analysis

Sayısal Yükseklik Modellerindeki Mekânsal Çözünürlük Değişkenliğinin Taşkın Tehlike Analizine Etkileri

Hasan Özdemir(Bursa Uludağ Üniversitesi)0000-0001-8885-9298
Abdullah Akbaş(Bursa Uludağ Üniversitesi)0000-0003-2024-0565
Pages
137–156
Publication Date
2023-05-25
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In addition, the DEM5 data also can be used in basin-scaled studies after clearing the heights of the buildings and vegetation groups.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Raster-based Digital Elevation Models (DEMs) represent the surface topography as the primary input in flood hazard and risk studies.
📊
Key Findings & Data:For this purpose, DEMs data, such as MERIT 90m, FABDEM 30m, TopoDEM 10m, DEM5m, LiDAR 1m, and UAV 0.1m, for the Ulus River basin and settlement and the 500-year flood produced for the river tributaries using the SWAT rainfall-runoff model were used.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In addition, the DEM5 data also can be used in basin-scaled studies after clearing the heights of the buildings and vegetation groups.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Taşkın tehlike · Sayısal Yükseklik Modeli · LISFLOOD-FP

Abstract

Raster-based Digital Elevation Models (DEMs) represent the surface topography as the primary input in flood hazard and risk studies. The study aims to reveal the variability of the hazard at the base of the Ulus settlement by performing flood hazard analyses with different source and resolution DEMs, which are used on a global and local scale and form a primary input for many studies. For this purpose, DEMs data, such as MERIT 90m, FABDEM 30m, TopoDEM 10m, DEM5m, LiDAR 1m, and UAV 0.1m, for the Ulus River basin and settlement and the 500-year flood produced for the river tributaries using the SWAT rainfall-runoff model were used. To examine spatial resolution variability, flood hazard analyses were performed based on the two-dimensional LISFLOODFP hydrodynamic model, using a fixed Manning n value (n=0.035). As a result, although there is an increase in cost, time, and model instabilities from low resolution to high resolution, it is essential to choose the most appropriate DEM according to the required detail and scale of the hazard analysis to be able to obtain more accurate results. While the model time and average computational errors from low resolution to high resolution increased, the water extent and the spatial distribution of the hazard classes produced for people and buildings decreased. The FABDEM data is more advantageous in regional studies than others, whereas the LiDAR data can be used in basin-scaled studies. In addition, the DEM5 data also can be used in basin-scaled studies after clearing the heights of the buildings and vegetation groups.

Özet

Taşkın tehlike ve risk çalışmalarında temel altlık veri olarak yüzey topografyasını temsil etmesi bakımından raster tabanlı Sayısal Yükseklik Modelleri (SYM) sıklıkla kullanılmaktadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı; küresel ve lokal ölçekte kullanılan ve birçok çalışmalara altlık oluşturan farklı kaynaklı ve farklı çözünürlükteki SYM’lerle taşkın tehlike analizleri gerçekleştirerek, Ulus yerleşmesi (Bartın) temelindeki tehlikenin değişkenliğini ortaya koymaktır. Bu amaç doğrultusunda atlık verileri, Ulus Çayı havzası ve Ulus yerleşmesi için elde edilen MERIT 90m, FABDEM 30m, TopoSYM 10m, SYM5m, LiDAR 1m ve İHA 0,1m çözünürlüklü SYM verileri, Ulus yerleşmesine akış gösteren Ulus üst kolu, Süleyman, Alpı ve Eldeş akarsularının SWAT yağış-akış modeliyle üretilmiş 500 yıllık akımları oluşturmaktadır. Bu veriler ile mekânsal çözünürlük değişkenliğini iyi ortaya koyabilmek için sabit Manning n değeri kullanılarak (n=0.035), 2 boyutlu LISFLOOD-FP hidrodinamik model temelinde taşkın tehlike analizleri gerçekleştirilmiştir. Sonuç olarak düşük çözünürlükten yüksek çözünürlüğe model zamanı ve ortalama hesaplama hataları artarken, suyun yayılışı, insan ve bina için üretilen tehlike sınıflarının alansal dağılışı azalış göstermiştir. Bölgesel yapılacak çalışmalarda FABDEM verisi daha avantajlı iken havza bazlı yapılacak çalışmalarda LiDAR verisi veya üzerindeki bina ve bitki örtüsü topluluklarına ait yüksekliklerin temizlenmesi koşuluyla SYM5 verisi kullanılabilir verilerdir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Özdemir, H., Akbaş, A. (2023). The Effects of Spatial Resolution Variability of Digital Elevation Models on Flood Hazard Analysis. Coğrafya Dergisi, Sayı: 46, 137–156. https://doi.org/10.26650/JGEOG2023-1177718

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (92)

  1. Abbaspour, K. C., Rouholahnejad, E., Vaghefi,, Srinivasan, R., Yang, H., & Kl0ve, B. (2015). A continental-scale hydrology and water quality model for Europe: Calibration and uncertainty of a highresolution large-scale SWAT model. Journal of Hydrology, 524, 733-752. google scholar
  2. Akbas, A., Freer, J., Ozdemir, H., Bates, P. D., & Turp, M. T. (2020). What about reservoirs? Questioning anthropogenic and climatic interferences on water availability. Hydrological Processes, 34(26), 5441-5455. google scholar
  3. Akbaş, A., & Özdemir, H. (2021). Yağış-Akış Modellerinde ArcSwat Uygulaması: Bartın Çayı Havzası Örneği. In E. Akköprü, & M. F. Döker, Coğrafya Araştırmalarında Coğrafi Bilgi Sistemleri Uygulamaları (pp. 107-128). Ankara: Pegem Akademi. google scholar
  4. Akbaş, A., & Özdemir, H. (2022). Tüm modeller yanlıştır, ancak bazıları faydalıdır: Akım Gözlem İstasyonu bulunmayan havzalarda düşük (kurak) ve yüksek (taşkın) akım davranışlarının belirlenmesi. Journal of Geography-Coğrafya Dergisi, (45), 33-46. google scholar
  5. Akyürek, S. Z., Yildiz, S., & Aydın, A. (2018). 1/25 000 Ölçekli Standart Topoğrafik Haritalardan Elde Edilen Sayısal Yükseklik Modellerinin Doğruluk Analizi. google scholar
  6. Allen, R. G., Pereira, L. S., Raes, D., and Smith, M. (1998). Crop evapotranspiration-Guidelines for computing crop water requirements-FAO Irrigation and drainage paper 56. FAO, Rome, 300(9), D05109. google scholar
  7. Aliferi, L., Salamon, P., Bianchi, A., Neal, J., Bates, P. and Feyen, L. 2014. Advances in pan-European flood hazard mapping. Hydrol. Process. 28, 4067-4077. google scholar
  8. Annis, A., Nardi, F., Petroselli, A., Apollonio, C., Arcangeletti, E., Tauro, F.,. & Grimaldi, S. (2020). UAV-DEMs for small-scale flood hazard mapping. Water, 12(6), 1717. google scholar
  9. Apel, H., Aronica, G.T., Kreibich, H., Thieken, A.H., 2009. Flood risk analysesdhow detailed do we need to be? Nat. Hazards 49 (1), 79-98. google scholar
  10. Apel, H., Thieken, A., Merz, B., Blöschl, G., 2006. A probabilistic modelling system for assessing flood risks. Nat. Hazards 38 (1-2), 79-100. google scholar
  11. Arnold, J. G., Moriasi, D. N., Gassman, P. W., Abbaspour, K. C., White, M. J., Srinivasan, R.,. & Kannan, N. (2012). SWAT: Model use, calibration, and validation. Transactions of the ASABE, 55(4), 14911508. google scholar
  12. Arnold J.G., Srinivasan R, Muttiah, R.S., Williams, J.R. (1998). Large area hydrologic modelling and assessment- Part I: model development. Journal of American Water Resources Association 34 (1): 73-89. google scholar
  13. ASPRS (2013). LAS Specification Version 1.4 - R13. USA. google scholar
  14. Bates, P.D., and De Roo, A.P. J. (2000). A simple raster-based model for flood inundation simulation. Journal of Hydrology 236(1): 54-77. google scholar
  15. Bates, P. D., Horritt, M. S., & Fewtrell, T. J. (2010). A simple inertial formulation of the shallow water equations for efficient twodimensional flood inundation modelling. Journal of Hydrology, 387, 33-45. google scholar Bayliss, A. C., & Jones, R. C. (1993). Peaks-over-threshold flood database. Institute of Hydrology. google scholar
  16. Bhuiyan, M., Dutta, D., 2012. Analysis of flood vulnerability and assessment of the impacts in coastal zones of Bangladesh due to potential sea-level rise. Nat. Hazards 61 (2), 729-743. google scholar
  17. Chone, G., Biron, P. M., Belanger, T. B., Mazgaranu, L., Neal, J. C., & Sampson, C. C. (2021). An assessment of large-scale flood modelling based on LiDAR data. Hydrological Processes, 35, 1-13. google scholar
  18. Cobby, D.M., D.C. Mason, and I.J. Davenport. 2001. Image processing of airborne scanning laser altimetry data for improved river flood modelling. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 56(2): 121-138. google scholar
  19. Coles, S. (2001). An Introduction to Statistical Modeling of Extreme Values. UK: Springer google scholar
  20. CRED. 2022. 2021 Disasters in numbers. Brussels: CRED. https://cred.be/sites/default/files/2021_EMDAT_report.pdf google scholar
  21. CRED-UNDRR. 2020. Human cost of disasters, an overview of the last 20 years (2019-2020). CRED Disaster Report, Belgium. google scholar
  22. Çam, A., Fırat, O., & Yılmaz, A. (2013). Harita Genel Komutanlığında ortofoto ve sayısal yüzey modeli üretimi faaliyetleri. TMMOB Coğrafi Bilgi Sistemleri Kongresi, 11, 6. google scholar
  23. de Almeida, G. A., Bates, P., Freer, J. E., & Souvignet, M. (2012). Improving the stability of a simple formulation of the shallow water equations for 2-D flood modeling. Water Resources Research 48, 1-14. google scholar
  24. de Almeida, G. A., & Bates, P. (2013). Applicability of the local inertial approximation of the shallow water equations to flood modeling. Water Resour Res., 49, 4833-4844. google scholar
  25. de Almeida, G. A., Bates, P., & Ozdemir, H. (2018). Modelling urban floods at submetre resolution: challenges or opportunities for flood risk management? Journal of Flood Risk Management, 11, S855-S865. google scholar
  26. Dottori, F., Salamon, P., Bianchi, A., Alfieri, L., Hirpa, F.A. and Feyen, L. 2016. Development and evaluation of a framework for global flood hazard mapping. Advances in Water Resources 94, 87-102. google scholar DSİ. (2021). Devlet Su İşleri Veri Envanteri. www.dsi.gov.tr google scholar
  27. DEFRA/Environmental Agency. (2003). Flood Risks to People Phase 1. R&D Tecnical Report FD2317. google scholar
  28. DEFRA/Environmental Agency Flood and Coastal Defence R&D Programme. UK. DEFRA/Environmental Agency. (2006). Flood Risks to People Phase 2. google scholar
  29. Defra/Environment Agency Flood and Coastal Defence R&D Programme. UK. google scholar
  30. Dutta, D., Herath, S., Musiake, K., 2006. An application of a flood risk analysis system for impact analysis of a flood control plan in a river basin. Hydrol. Process. 20 (6), 1365e1384. google scholar
  31. Dutta, D., Teng, J., Vaze, J., Lerat, J., Hughes, J., Marvanek, S., 2013. Storage-based approaches to build floodplain inundation modelling capability in river system models for water resources planning and accounting. J. Hydrol. 504 (0), 12-28. google scholar
  32. Ercanoğlu, M. (2005). Landslide susceptibility assessment of SE Bartin (West Black Sea region, Turkey) by artificial neural networks. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 5, 979-992. google scholar
  33. Elbaşı, E. (2022). Bölgesel Taşkın Analizleri ile Taşkın Tehlike Haritalarının Hazırlanması. İstanbul Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Coğrafya Anabilim Dalı (Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi), İstanbul. google scholar
  34. Elbaşı, E. & Özdemir, H. (2019). Farklı Çözünürlükteki Sayısal Yükselti Modellerinin 2 Boyutlu Hidrodinamik Modeller Üzerindeki Etkisi. 1. İstanbul Uluslararası Coğrafya Kongresi. İstanbul. google scholar
  35. Fuka, D.R., C.A. MacAllister, A.T. Degaetano, and Z.M. Easton. (2013). Using the Climate Forecast System Reanalysis dataset to improve weather input data for watershed models. Hydrol. Proc. DOI: 10.1002/hyp.10073. google scholar
  36. Gallegos, H.A., Schubert, J.E., Sanders, B.F. 2009. Two-dimensional, high-resolution modeling of urban dam-break flooding: a case study of Baldwin Hills, California. Adv. Water Resour. 32 (8), 1323-1335. google scholar
  37. Garrote, J. 2022. Free Global DEMs and Flood Modelling—A Comparison Analysis for the January 2015 Flooding Event in Mocuba City (Mozambique). Water 14, 176. https://doi.org/10.3390/ w14020176 google scholar
  38. Guerriero, L., Ruzza, G., Guadagno, F. M., & Revellino, P. (2020). Flood hazard mapping incorporating multiple probability models. Journal of Hydrology, 587, 125020. google scholar
  39. Hawker, L., P. Bates, J. Neal, and J. Rougier. 2018. Perspectives on Digital Elevation Model (DEM) simulation for flood modeling in the absence of a high-accuracy open access global DEM. Frontiers in Earth Science 6: Article 233. google scholar
  40. Hawker, L., Neal, J., & Bates, P. (2019). Accuracy assessment of the TanDEM-X 90 Digital Elevation Model for selected floodplain sites. Remote Sensing of Environment, 232, 111319. google scholar
  41. Hawker, L., Uhe, P., Paulo, L., Sosa, J., Savage, J., Sampson, C., & Neal, J. (2022). A 30 m global map of elevation with forests and buildings removed. Environmental Research Letters, 17(2), 024016. google scholar
  42. Horton, P., Schaefli, B., & Kauzlaric, M. (2021). Why do we have so many different hydrological models? A review based on the case of Switzerland. google scholar
  43. Hutchinson, M. F. 1988. Calculation of hydrologically sound digital elevation models. Paper presented at Third International Symposium on Spatial Data Handling at Sydney, Australia. google scholar
  44. Hutchinson, M.F., Xu, T. and Stein, J.A. 2011. Recent Progress in the ANUDEM Elevation Gridding Procedure. In: Geomorphometry 2011, edited by T. Hengel, I.S. Evans, J.P. Wilson and M. Gould, pp. 19-22. Redlands, California, USA. See: http://geomorphometry. org/HutchinsonXu2011. google scholar
  45. Karamuz, E., Romanowicz, R. J., & Doroszkiewicz, J. (2020). The use of unmanned aerial vehicles in flood hazard assessment. Journal of Flood Risk Management, 13(4), e12622. google scholar
  46. Kenward, T., D.P. Lettenmaier, E.F. Wood, and E. Fielding. 2000. Effects of Digital Elevation Model accuracy on hydrologic predictions. Remote Sensing of Environment 74(3): 432-444. google scholar
  47. Krause, P., Boyle, D. P., Base, F. (2005). Comparison of different efficiency criteria for hydrological model assessment. Advances in geosciences, 5, 89-97. google scholar
  48. Lim, N., and S. Brandt. 2019. Flood map boundary sensitivity due to combined effects of DEM resolution and roughness in relation to model performance. Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk 10(1): 1613-1647. google scholar
  49. Matej Vojtek & Jana Vojtekovâ (2016) Flood hazard and flood risk assessment at the local spatial scale: a case study, Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk, 7:6, 1973-1992, D0I:10.1080/19475705.2016.1166874. google scholar
  50. Merz, B., Kreibich, H., Schwarze, R., Thieken, A., 2010. Review article ‘Assessment of economic flood damage’. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 10 (8), 1697-1724. google scholar
  51. Muench, R., Cherrington, E., Griffin, R and Mamane, B. (2022). Assessment of Open Access Global Elevation Model Errors Impact on Flood Extents in Southern Niger. Front. Environ. Sci. 10:880840. doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2022.880840. google scholar
  52. Muhadi, N. A., Abdullah, A. F., Bejo, S. K., Mahadi, M. R., & Mijic, A. (2020). The use of LiDAR-derived DEM in flood applications: A review. Remote Sensing, 12(14), 2308. google scholar
  53. Monteith, J. L. (1965). Evaporation and environment. In Symposia of the society for experimental biology (Vol. 19, pp. 205-234). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (CUP). google scholar
  54. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Coastal Services Center. 2012. “Lidar 101: An Introduction to Lidar Technology, Data, and Applications.” Revised. Charleston, SC: NOAA Coastal Services Center. google scholar
  55. Nash, J.E. Sutcliffe, J.V. (1970). River flow forecasting through conceptual models. Part I. A discussion of principles. Journal of Hydrology, 10, 282-290. doi:10.1016/0022-1694(70)90255-6 google scholar
  56. Neal, J., Schumann, G., Fewtrell, T., Budimir, M., Bates, P., & Mason, D. (2011). Evaluating a new LISFLOOD-FP formulation with data from the summer 2007 foods in Tewkesbury, UK. Journal of Flood Risk Management 4, 88-95. google scholar
  57. Neal, J., Villanueva, I., Wright, N., Willis, T., Fewtrell, T., & Bates, P. (2012). How much physical complexity is needed to model flood inundation? Hydrol. Process., 26, 264-2282. google scholar
  58. Neitsch, S. L., Arnold, J. G., Kiniry, J. R., & Williams, J. R. (2011). Soil and water assessment tool theoretical documentation version 2009. Texas Water Resources Institute. google scholar
  59. OGM. (2011). Bartın, Ulus ve Safranbolu Orman İşletme Müdürlüklerine ait Orman Amenajman Harita ve Planları. Ankara. google scholar
  60. Ozdemir, H. (2007). Determination of Flood Extent Using MultiTemporal & Multi-Resolution Satellite Images: A Case Study of Mahanadi River’s Floods in 2003 (Orissa-India). Journal of Geography-CoğrajyaDergisi, (15), 13-23. google scholar
  61. Özdemir, H., Akbulak, C., & Özcan, H. (2011). Çokal Barajı (Çanakkale) çökme modeli ve taşkın risk analizi. Uluslararası İnsan Bilimleri Dergisi, 8(2), 659-698. google scholar
  62. Ozdemir, H., & Elbaşı, E. (2015). Benchmarking land use change impacts on direct runoff in ungauged urban watersheds. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C, 79, 100-107. google scholar
  63. Ozdemir, H., Sampson, C. C., de Almeida, G. A., & Bates, P. D. (2013). Evaluating scale and roughness effects in urban flood modelling using terrestrial LIDAR data. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 17(10), 4015-4030. google scholar
  64. Öztürk, M. Z., Çetinkaya, G., & Aydın, S. (2017). Köppen-Geiger İklim Sınıflandırmasına Göre Türkiye’nin İklim Tipleri. Coğrafya Dergisi - Journal of Geography, 35, 17-27. google scholar
  65. Peker, İ. B., & Cüceloğlu, G. (2022). SWAT (Soil and Water Assessment Tool) Modeline Genel Bir Bakış ve Modelin Türkiye’deki Uygulamaları. Çevre İklim ve Sürdürülebilirlik, 1(1), 9-26. google scholar
  66. Pistrika, A. K., & Jonkman, S. N. (2010). Damage to residential buildings due to flooding of New Orleans after hurricane Katrina. Natural Hazards, 54(2), 413-434. google scholar
  67. Saha, S.,Moorthi, S., Pan, H. L., Wu, X., Wang, J., Nadiga, S.,. & Goldberg, M. (2010). The NCEP climate forecast system reanalysis. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 91(8), 1015-1058 google scholar
  68. Shaw, J., Kessewani, G., Neal, J., Bates, P. & Sharifian MK. 2021. LISFLOOD-FP 8.0: the new discontinuous Galerkin shallow-water solver for multi-core CPUs and GPUs. Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 3577-3602 google scholar
  69. Saksena, S. and Merwade, V. 2015. Incorporating the effect of DEM resolution and accuracy for improved flood inundation mapping. Journal of Hydrology 530: 180-194. google scholar
  70. Salas, J. D., Anderson, M. L., Papalexiou, S. M., & Frances, F. (2020). PMP and climate variability and change: a review. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 25(12), 1-16. google scholar
  71. Sampson, C. C., Fewtrell, T. J., Duncan, A., Shaad, K., Horritt, M. S., & Bates, P. D. (2012). Use of terrestrial laser scanning data to drive decimetric resolution urban inundation models. Advances in water resources, 41, 1-17. google scholar
  72. Sampson, C. C., Smith, A. M., Bates, P. D., Neal, J. C., Alfieri, L., & Freer, J. E. (2015). A high-resolution global flood hazard model. Water resources research, 51(9), 7358-7381. google scholar
  73. SCS, 1956, 1964, 1971, 1985, 1993. Hydrology, National Engineering Handbook, Supplement A, Section 4, Chapter 10. Soil Conservation Service, USDA, Washington, DC. google scholar
  74. Shreve, R. (1966). Statistical Law of Stream Numbers, J. Geol., 74, 17-37 google scholar
  75. Shustikova, I., Domeneghetti, A., Neal, J. C., Bates, P., & Castellarin, A. (2019). Comparing 2D capabilities of HEC-RAS and LISFLOOD-FP on complex topography. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 64:14, 1769-1782. google scholar
  76. Şimşek, İ. 2020. Sel-Taşkın Modellerinde Hava Lidar Verilerinin Kullanımı: Ulus Çayı Örneği. İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Coğrafya Anabilim Dalı. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi. İstanbul. google scholar
  77. Su Yönetimi Genel Müdürlüğü. (2019). Batı Karadeniz Havzası Taşkın Yönetim Planı. Tarım ve Orman Bakanlığı Su Yönetimi Genel Müdürlüğü, Ankara. google scholar
  78. Xu, K., Fang, J., Fang, Y., Sun, Q., Wu, C., & Liu, M. (2021). The Importance of Digital Elevation Model Selection in Flood Simulation and a Proposed Method to Reduce DEM Errors: A Case Study in Shanghai. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 12(6), 890-902. google scholar
  79. Villarini, G., Smith, J. A., Baeck, M. L., Vitolo, R., Stephenson, D. B., & Krajewski, W. F. (2011). On the frequency of heavy rainfall for the Midwest of the United States. Journal of Hydrology, 400(1-2), 103-120. google scholar
  80. Vojtek, M., & Vojtekovâ, J. (2016). Flood hazard and flood risk assessment at the local spatial scale: a case study. Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk, 7(6), 1973-1992. google scholar
  81. Timur, E., Aksay, A. ve Çelik, B. 1997. Zonguldak F-28 paftası1/100 000 ölçekli jeoloji haritası, MTA Gn. Md., Jeoloji Etütleri Dairesi, Ankara. google scholar
  82. Turoğlu, H., & Özdemir, H. (2005). Bartın’da Sel ve Taşkınlar. Çantay Kitapevi, İstanbul. google scholar
  83. TÜİK. 2022. Adrese Dayalı Nüfus Kayıt Sistemi Sonuçları 2021. www. tuik.gov.tr google scholar
  84. Utlu, M., & Özdemir, H. (2020). How much spatial resolution do we need to model a local flood event? Benchmark testing based on UAV data from Biga River (Turkey). Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 13(24), 1-14. google scholar
  85. Yalcin, E. (2019). Two-dimensional hydrodynamic modelling for urban flood risk assessment using unmanned aerial vehicle imagery: A case study of Kirsehir, Turkey. Journal of flood risk management, 12, e12499. google scholar
  86. Yamazaki, D., Ikeshima, D., Tawatari, R., Yamaguchi, T., O’Loughlin, F., Neal, J. C.,. & Bates, P. D. (2017). A high-accuracy map of global terrain elevations. Geophysical Research Letters, 44(11), 5844-5853. google scholar
  87. Zhang W, Qi J, Wan P, Wang H, Xie D, Wang X, Yan G. An Easy-to-Use Airborne LiDAR Data Filtering Method Based on Cloth Simulation. Remote Sensing. 2016; 8(6):501. google scholar
  88. Annis, A., Nardi, F., Petroselli, A., Apollonio, C., Arcangeletti, E., Tauro, F.,. & Grimaldi, S. (2020). UAV-DEMs for small-scale flood hazard mapping. Water, 12(6), 1717. google scholar
  89. Arnold, J. G., Moriasi, D. N., Gassman, P. W., Abbaspour, K. C., White, M. J., Srinivasan, R.,. & Kannan, N. (2012). SWAT: Model use, calibration, and validation. Transactions of the ASABE, 55(4), 14911508. google scholar
  90. Matej Vojtek & Jana Vojtekovâ (2016) Flood hazard and flood risk assessment at the local spatial scale: a case study, Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk, 7:6, 1973-1992, D0I:10.1080/19475705.2016.1166874. google scholar
  91. Saha, S.,Moorthi, S., Pan, H. L., Wu, X., Wang, J., Nadiga, S.,. & Goldberg, M. (2010). The NCEP climate forecast system reanalysis. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 91(8), 1015-1058 google scholar
  92. Yamazaki, D., Ikeshima, D., Tawatari, R., Yamaguchi, T., O’Loughlin, F., Neal, J. C.,. & Bates, P. D. (2017). A high-accuracy map of global terrain elevations. Geophysical Research Letters, 44(11), 5844-5853. google scholar