Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Greenfield run off and flood estimation on smal...
View graph of relations

Greenfield run off and flood estimation on small catchments: small catchments' greenfield run off and flood estimation

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

Greenfield run off and flood estimation on small catchments: small catchments' greenfield run off and flood estimation. / Faulkner, Duncan; Francis, O.; Lamb, R.
In: Journal of Flood Risk Management, Vol. 5, No. 1, 01.03.2012, p. 81-90.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Faulkner D, Francis O, Lamb R. Greenfield run off and flood estimation on small catchments: small catchments' greenfield run off and flood estimation. Journal of Flood Risk Management. 2012 Mar 1;5(1):81-90. doi: 10.1111/j.1753-318X.2011.01128.x

Author

Faulkner, Duncan ; Francis, O. ; Lamb, R. / Greenfield run off and flood estimation on small catchments : small catchments' greenfield run off and flood estimation. In: Journal of Flood Risk Management. 2012 ; Vol. 5, No. 1. pp. 81-90.

Bibtex

@article{1636b66433d04a6f8fcca358f373d025,
title = "Greenfield run off and flood estimation on small catchments: small catchments' greenfield run off and flood estimation",
abstract = "Using evidence from 46 gauged small catchments in the United Kingdom, this paper demonstrates that the methods most commonly used for estimating design flows and greenfield run off rates on small catchments do not perform as well as alternative methods. Their results show larger error and a bias towards underestimation of the median annual flood. In contrast, newer methods from the Flood Estimation Handbook (FEH), when applied to small catchments, tend to have lower error and less bias. The paper investigates the theoretical and empirical support for four methods: Institute of Hydrology Report 124, Agricultural Development and Advisory Service (ADAS) Report 345, the FEH Statistical method and the Revitalised Flood Hydrograph method. It compares the results from all four methods with those from direct analysis of flood peak data and discusses the implications of scaling down flows to the development plot scale.",
keywords = "Flood estimation, greenfield run off, small catchments",
author = "Duncan Faulkner and O. Francis and R. Lamb",
year = "2012",
month = mar,
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/j.1753-318X.2011.01128.x",
language = "English",
volume = "5",
pages = "81--90",
journal = "Journal of Flood Risk Management",
issn = "1753-318X",
publisher = "Wiley/Blackwell (10.1111)",
number = "1",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Greenfield run off and flood estimation on small catchments

T2 - small catchments' greenfield run off and flood estimation

AU - Faulkner, Duncan

AU - Francis, O.

AU - Lamb, R.

PY - 2012/3/1

Y1 - 2012/3/1

N2 - Using evidence from 46 gauged small catchments in the United Kingdom, this paper demonstrates that the methods most commonly used for estimating design flows and greenfield run off rates on small catchments do not perform as well as alternative methods. Their results show larger error and a bias towards underestimation of the median annual flood. In contrast, newer methods from the Flood Estimation Handbook (FEH), when applied to small catchments, tend to have lower error and less bias. The paper investigates the theoretical and empirical support for four methods: Institute of Hydrology Report 124, Agricultural Development and Advisory Service (ADAS) Report 345, the FEH Statistical method and the Revitalised Flood Hydrograph method. It compares the results from all four methods with those from direct analysis of flood peak data and discusses the implications of scaling down flows to the development plot scale.

AB - Using evidence from 46 gauged small catchments in the United Kingdom, this paper demonstrates that the methods most commonly used for estimating design flows and greenfield run off rates on small catchments do not perform as well as alternative methods. Their results show larger error and a bias towards underestimation of the median annual flood. In contrast, newer methods from the Flood Estimation Handbook (FEH), when applied to small catchments, tend to have lower error and less bias. The paper investigates the theoretical and empirical support for four methods: Institute of Hydrology Report 124, Agricultural Development and Advisory Service (ADAS) Report 345, the FEH Statistical method and the Revitalised Flood Hydrograph method. It compares the results from all four methods with those from direct analysis of flood peak data and discusses the implications of scaling down flows to the development plot scale.

KW - Flood estimation

KW - greenfield run off

KW - small catchments

U2 - 10.1111/j.1753-318X.2011.01128.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1753-318X.2011.01128.x

M3 - Journal article

VL - 5

SP - 81

EP - 90

JO - Journal of Flood Risk Management

JF - Journal of Flood Risk Management

SN - 1753-318X

IS - 1

ER -