Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Progress in Physical Geography
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kidson, R.
Right arrow Articles by Richards, K. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Flood frequency analysis: assumptions and alternatives

R. Kidson

Trinity College, Cambridge CB2 1TQ, UK

K. S. Richards

Department of Geography, University of Cambridge, Downing Place, Cambridge CB2 3EN, UK

Flood frequency analysis (FFA) is a form of risk analysis, yet a risk analysis of the activity of FFA itself is rarely undertaken. The recent literature of FFA has been characterized by: (1) a proliferation of mathematical models, lacking theoretical hydrologic justification, but used to extrapolate the return periods of floods beyond the gauged record; (2) official mandating of particular models, which has resulted in (3) research focused on increasingly reductionist and statistically sophisticated procedures for parameter fitting to these models from the limited gauged data. These trends have evolved to such a refined state that FFA may be approaching the ‘limits of splitting’; at the very least, the emphasis was shifted early in the history of FFA from predicting and explaining extreme flood events to the more soluble issue of fitting distributions to the bulk of the data. However, recent evidence indicates that the very modelling basis itself may be ripe for revision. Self-similar (power law) models are not only analytically simpler than conventional models, but they also offer a plausible theoretical basis in complexity theory. Of most significance, however, is the empirical evidence for self-similarity in flood behaviour. Self-similarity is difficult to detect in gauged records of limited length; however, one positive aspect of the application of statistics to FFA has been the refinement of techniques for the incorporation of historical and palaeoflood data. It is these data types, even over modest timescales such as 100 years, which offer the best promise for testing alternative models of extreme flood behaviour across a wider range of basins. At stake is the accurate estimation of flood magnitude, used widely for design purposes: the power law model produces far more conservative estimates of return period of large floods compared to conventional models, and deserves closer study.

Key Words: extreme floods • flood frequency analysis • power law • self-similar

Progress in Physical Geography, Vol. 29, No. 3, 392-410 (2005)
DOI: 10.1191/0309133305pp454ra


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?