Open Access
E3S Web Conf.
Volume 7, 2016
3rd European Conference on Flood Risk Management (FLOODrisk 2016)
Article Number 04022
Number of page(s) 8
Section Hazard analysis and modelling
Published online 20 October 2016
  1. European Union (2007). Directive 2007/60/EC on the assessment and management of flood risks. URL: [Google Scholar]
  2. Saint-Geours, N. et al. (2015). Ranking sources of uncertainty in flood damage modelling: A case study on the cost-benefit analysis of a flood mitigation project in the Orb Delta, France. Journal of Flood Risk Management 8(2): 161–176. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  3. Environment Agency (GB): online flood maps, [Google Scholar]
  4. Falter, D. et al. (2015). Spatially coherent flood risk assessment based on long-term continuous simulation with a coupled model chain. Journal of Hydrology 524: 182–193. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  5. Leblois, E. and Creutin, J. D. (2013). Space-time simulation of intermittent rainfall with prescribed advection field: Adaptation of the turning band method. Water Resources Research 49(6): 3375–3387. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  6. Emmanuel, I., et al. (2015). Influence of rainfall spatial variability on rainfall-runoff modelling: Benefit of a simulation approach? Journal of Hydrology. [Google Scholar]
  7. Poulard, C., Leblois, E. and Faure, J.B. (2014). Rainfall fields simulation to improve flood hazard and flood risk assessment. EGU General Assembly 2014. EGU. Vienna. (Austria), Geophysical Research Abstracts. 16: EGU2014–16146. [Google Scholar]
  8. Poulard, C. and Leblois, E. (2009). Towards objective design of dry dams at watershed scale: how to take into account the spatial structure of the rainfall and its variability. Proceedings: hydrological extremes in small basins: 12th Biennal International Conference of the Euromediterranean Network of Experimental and Representative Basins (ERB), Krakow, Poland, 18–20 Sept.2008, IHP-VII, Technical Documents in Hydrology, No 84, UNESCO, Paris, pp 21–28. URL: [Google Scholar]
  9. Faure, J. B. (2013). An Integrated Simulation Platform - PamHyr. Modeling Software. 5: 245–252. [Google Scholar]
  10. Falter, D., et al. (2013). Hydraulic model evaluation for large-scale flood risk assessments. Hydrological Processes 27(9): 1331–1340. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  11. Proust, S., et al. (2009). Nonuniform flow in compound channel: A 1-D method for assessing water level and discharge distribution. Water Resources Research 45(12). [Google Scholar]
  12. Schröter, K., et al. (2014). How useful are complex flood damage models? Water Resources Research 50(4): 3378–3395. [Google Scholar]
  13. Schröter, K., et al. (2014). Is probability of peak discharge a suitable proxy of damage in flood risk analysis? International Conference - Analysis and Management of Changing Risks for Natural Hazards. Padua, Italy: 7 [Google Scholar]
  14. Moncoulon, D. et al. (2014). Analysis of the French insurance market exposure to floods: a stochastic model combining river overflow and surface runoff. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 14 (9): 2469–2485. URL: [Google Scholar]
  15. Blanc, J. et al. (2012). Enhanced efficiency of pluvial flood risk estimation in urban areas using spatialtemporal rainfall simulations. Journal of Flood Risk Management 5(2): 143–152. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.