flooding case study bangladesh

Bangladesh floods: Experts say climate crisis worsening situation

The densely populated delta nation, one of the world’s most climate-vulnerable, is facing its worst floods in more than a century.

The worst floods in Bangladesh in more than a century have killed dozens of people so far and displaced nearly 4 million people, with authorities warning the water levels would remain dangerously high in the north this week.

Experts say the catastrophic rain-triggered floods , which submerged large part of the country’s northern and northeastern areas, are an outcome of climate change .

Keep reading

Bangladesh, india floods kill over 100; millions in need of aid, photos: food, drinking water concerns as floods batter bangladesh, ‘children are starving’: a cry for help from flood-hit bangladesh, women in rural bangladesh bear rising cost of climate crisis.

Bangladesh, a densely populated delta nation, is also one of the world’s most climate-vulnerable where the poor are disproportionately impacted as frequent floods threaten livelihoods, agriculture, infrastructure and clean water supply .

A 2015 study by the World Bank Institute said about 3.5 million of Bangladesh’s 160 million people are at risk of river flooding every year.

Saiful Islam, director of the Institute of Water and Flood Management (IWFM) at the Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology (BUET), analysed 35 years of flooding data and found that rains were getting more unpredictable and many rivers are rising above dangerous levels more frequently than before.

“The last seven years alone brought five major floods, eroding people’s capacity to adapt, especially in the country’s northern and northeastern regions,” Islam told Al Jazeera.

Citing one of his research papers, he said even if average global temperatures increase modestly – by 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) over the average for pre-industrial times – flooding along the Brahmaputra river basin in northeastern India and Bangladesh is projected to increase by 24 percent.

With an increase of 4 Celsius (7.2 F), flooding is projected to increase by more than 60 percent, Islam’s research indicated.

‘Clogged system’

Several rivers, including the Brahmaputra, one of Asia’s largest, flow downstream from India’s northeast through the low-lying wetlands of Bangladesh as they drain into the Bay of Bengal.

However, this year, the excess rainwater from India’s Assam and Meghalaya states that flows into Bangladesh’s Meghna and Jamuna Rivers could not drain because the wetlands were already saturated by an earlier pre-monsoon flood last month.

“The siltation of riverbeds caused by deforestation and solid waste dumping has already reduced the water carrying capacity of the rivers in Bangladesh,” Ashiq Iqbal, a researcher at IWFM, told Al Jazeera.

“Besides, excessive sand and stone mining in upstream India has loosened the soil, which ultimately ends up into river bottom and decreases the navigability. As a result, the whole systems get clogged. And this clogged system has lost its ability to drain out water from two quick successive floods in short time,” he said.

Unplanned construction along the northeastern wetland is another reason rivers have become clogged arteries, Mominul Haque Sarkar, senior adviser at the Centre for Environment and Geographic Information Services (CEGIS), told Al Jazeera.

“A lot of pocket roads as well as culverts are being constructed in different places across the wetland. As a result, water flow gets obstructed and it gets swelled when it rains excessively,” Sarkar said.

Most of the towns and villages in northern Bangladesh do not have protection dams. So when the water level in the wetlands or rivers starts rising, it quickly enters the residential areas and inundates them, he said.

To cope with the floods, conventional methods such as building embankments along major rivers were proposed as part of a Flood Action Plan implemented in 1990.

But some experts say structural measures to contain floods are ineffective.

Mohamad Khalequzzaman, geoscientist at Lock Haven University in the United States, told Al Jazeera it is “difficult and undesirable to contain flood with fortified walls”.

“It may be necessary to contain floods in selected places where a high concentration of population and resources are located, such as in big cities,” he said. “But in a geography dominated with wetlands, it is not needed.”

Khalequzzaman said walling off low-lying areas using permanent embankments, or polders, has been a popular intervention in countries such as Bangladesh. “Polders separate rivers from floodplain which in turn intensifies flow in the river and causes riverbank erosion,” he said.

He said water resources in Bangladesh’s major rivers should be managed involving all co-riparian countries in the Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna (GBM) basins – Bangladesh, India and Bhutan.

“The problem is only 8 percent of the GBM basins are located within the geographic territory of Bangladesh. So, in reality, without an integrated water resources pact among all countries in the GBM basins, floods cannot be managed properly in Bangladesh,” he said.

Article  

• Volume 23, issue 3
• HESS, 23, 1409–1429, 2019
• Peer review
• Related articles

Attributing the 2017 Bangladesh floods from meteorological and hydrological perspectives

Sjoukje philip, sarah sparrow, sarah f. kew, karin van der wiel, niko wanders, ahmadul hassan, khaled mohammed, hammad javid, karsten haustein, friederike e. l. otto, feyera hirpa, ruksana h. rimi, a. k. m. saiful islam, david c. h. wallom, geert jan van oldenborgh.

In August 2017 Bangladesh faced one of its worst river flooding events in recent history. This paper presents, for the first time, an attribution of this precipitation-induced flooding to anthropogenic climate change from a combined meteorological and hydrological perspective. Experiments were conducted with three observational datasets and two climate models to estimate changes in the extreme 10-day precipitation event frequency over the Brahmaputra basin up to the present and, additionally, an outlook to 2  ∘ C warming since pre-industrial times. The precipitation fields were then used as meteorological input for four different hydrological models to estimate the corresponding changes in river discharge, allowing for comparison between approaches and for the robustness of the attribution results to be assessed.

In all three observational precipitation datasets the climate change trends for extreme precipitation similar to that observed in August 2017 are not significant, however in two out of three series, the sign of this insignificant trend is positive. One climate model ensemble shows a significant positive influence of anthropogenic climate change, whereas the other large ensemble model simulates a cancellation between the increase due to greenhouse gases (GHGs) and a decrease due to sulfate aerosols. Considering discharge rather than precipitation, the hydrological models show that attribution of the change in discharge towards higher values is somewhat less uncertain than in precipitation, but the 95 % confidence intervals still encompass no change in risk. Extending the analysis to the future, all models project an increase in probability of extreme events at 2  ∘ C global heating since pre-industrial times, becoming more than 1.7 times more likely for high 10-day precipitation and being more likely by a factor of about 1.5 for discharge. Our best estimate on the trend in flooding events similar to the Brahmaputra event of August 2017 is derived by synthesizing the observational and model results: we find the change in risk to be greater than 1 and of a similar order of magnitude (between 1 and 2) for both the meteorological and hydrological approach. This study shows that, for precipitation-induced flooding events, investigating changes in precipitation is useful, either as an alternative when hydrological models are not available or as an additional measure to confirm qualitative conclusions. Besides this, it highlights the importance of using multiple models in attribution studies, particularly where the climate change signal is not strong relative to natural variability or is confounded by other factors such as aerosols.

• Article (PDF, 7755 KB)
• Supplement (1289 KB)
• Article (7755 KB)
• Full-text XML

Philip, S., Sparrow, S., Kew, S. F., van der Wiel, K., Wanders, N., Singh, R., Hassan, A., Mohammed, K., Javid, H., Haustein, K., Otto, F. E. L., Hirpa, F., Rimi, R. H., Islam, A. K. M. S., Wallom, D. C. H., and van Oldenborgh, G. J.: Attributing the 2017 Bangladesh floods from meteorological and hydrological perspectives, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 23, 1409–1429, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-1409-2019, 2019.

In August 2017 Bangladesh faced one of the worst river flooding events in recent history, with record high water levels, and the Ministry of Disaster Management and Relief reported that the floods were the worst in at least 40 years. Due to heavy local rainfall, as well as water flow from the upstream hills in India, the various rivers in northern Bangladesh burst their banks. This led to the inundation of river basin areas in the northern parts of Bangladesh, starting on 12 August and affecting over 30 districts. The National Disaster Response Coordination Centre (NDRCC) reported that around 6.9 million people were affected, with 114 people reported dead and at least 297 250 people displaced. Approximately 593 250 houses were destroyed, leaving families displaced in temporary shelters.

Bangladesh is a highly flood-prone country, with flat topography and many rivers that regularly flood and are used to irrigate crops and for fishing. The August 2017 floods were particularly impactful as they followed two earlier flooding episodes in late March and July that year, increasing the vulnerability of people. Nearly 85 % of the rural population in Bangladesh works directly or indirectly with agriculture, and rice is the main staple food, contributing to 95 % of total food production. As is typical after such flooding, farmers started to plant aman , the monsoon rice that is almost entirely rain dependent. However, the August flood was worse than that of July, and areas such as Dinajpur and Rangpur that normally do not flood were also flooded (see Fig.  1 ). These are areas that contain significant rice production. As a result, 650 000 ha of croplands were severely damaged during the August monsoon flooding in the year. Aman rice is historically the most variable, and yields tend to drop dramatically during major flood years ( Yu et al. ,  2010 ) . The flood-induced crop losses in 2017 resulted in the record price of rice, negatively affecting livelihood and food security. Beyond impacts to agriculture, the floods destroyed transport infrastructure such as railways lines, bridges and roads, leaving some areas inaccessible to disaster relief efforts. The rise in water and strong current breached roads and embankments and swept away livestock, houses and assets that may have otherwise been protected. At least 2292 schools were damaged, affecting education for weeks, and 13 035 cases of waterborne illnesses were reported in the aftermath of the floods.

Figure 1 Inundation forecast map of Bangladesh for 16 August 2017 (left panel). Overall flood impact of the August 2017 flooding as stated on 21 August (right panel). The green circle in the northwest of the map denotes the location of Bahadurabad. The Brahmaputra basin is outlined in Fig.  3 ; see the original documents (source: Flood Forecast and Warning Center – FFWC – of BWDB at https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/SitRep_2_Bangladesh Flood_16 August 2017.pdf , last access: 8 May 2018 and https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/72 hrs-Bangladesh_Flood_Version1_Final 08212017.pdf , last access: 8 May 2018) for more details on the maps and legends.

The 2017 flood was markedly different from previous major flood events in 1988 and 1998, when both the Ganges and Brahmaputra flooded simultaneously ( Webster et al. ,  2010 ) . Based on forecasts it was feared that a similar event would occur in 2017, but in this case, the swelling of the Brahmaputra; its tributary, the Atrai; and the Meghna caused flooding. The worst impacts were along the main reach of the Brahmaputra River (Fig.  1 b).

The first estimates of the return period provided by the Bangladesh Water Development Board (BWDB) for the 2017 flood event range from an event occurring once in 30 years to an event occurring once in 100 years, depending on the data source: water level and discharge data at Bahadurabad (the main station for discharge representing the Brahmaputra in Bangladesh) and the flooding forecast system GloFAS. These estimates, however, were implicitly based on the assumption of a stationary climate and did not account for the possibility that the frequency of such flooding events may be changing.

Extreme rainfall events that subsequently lead to widespread flooding, such as the 2017 event in Bangladesh, are one of the main types of extreme weather events that we are expecting to see more of in a warming climate. But with rainfall not only being driven by thermodynamic processes but also being affected by changing atmospheric processes, it is not clear a priori if such events at a particular location will increase in likelihood or if the dynamic changes will mean that the overall chance of extreme rainfall decreases there ( Otto et al. ,  2016 ) . Furthermore, in the current climate, drivers other than greenhouse gases (GHGs) often play a role that is currently difficult to quantify but likely to mask or exacerbate the effect of greenhouse-gas emissions so far on the occurrence likelihood of extreme rainfall events (e.g. aerosols,  van Oldenborgh et al. ,  2016 ) . Hence regional attribution studies are necessary for identifying whether and to what extent extreme rainfall events are changing and for providing insight into which drivers have been contributing to those changes and whether the trend is likely to continue into the future. Attribution studies require both observational data and models to fully estimate the impact of changes in the climate system. The reported advances in model development for the Brahmaputra region and their success in forecasting gives good confidence in the models' ability to accurately represent the region.

Hydrological models are increasingly used for studies on flooding in Bangladesh. As upstream flow data are absent for Bangladesh, a lot of effort has been made to develop flood forecasting systems based on satellite data and weather predictions. Webster et al. ( 2010 ) , for instance, developed a system that forecasts the Ganges and Brahmaputra discharge into Bangladesh in real time on 1-day to 10-day time horizons. In a recent study Priya et al. ( 2017 ) show that, by using a new long lead flood forecasting scheme for the Ganges–Brahmaputra–Meghna basin, skillful forecasts are provided that inherently not only express a prediction of future water levels but also supply information on the levels of confidence with each forecast. Hirpa et al. ( 2016 ) used reforecasts to improve the flood detection skill of forecasts.

Previous scientific studies generally show an increasing trend in climate projections of extreme rainfall and high discharge in the region. For example, Gain et al. ( 2011 ) use the PCR-GLOBWB model with input from 12 global circulation models (GCMs; 1961–2100) from the CMIP3 ensemble ( Meehl et al. ,  2007 ) in a weighted ensemble analysis. They show that in this ensemble, there is a positive trend in the peak flow at Bahadurabad; in this model configuration and under the SRES B2 scenario, a peak flow that currently occurs every 10 years will occur at least once every 2 years during the time period 2080–2099. Dastagir ( 2015 ) gives an overview of the change in flooding according to the IPCC 5th Assessment Report, using 16 GCMs from the CMIP5 ensemble ( Taylor et al. ,  2012 ) . They state that the warmer and wetter climate predicted for the Ganges–Brahmaputra–Meghna basin by most climate-related research in this region indicates that vulnerability to severe monsoon floods will increase with climate change in the flood-prone areas of Bangladesh. The same conclusion is reached by CEGIS and SEN authors ( 2013 ) , who use GCM projections and a hydrological model to show that in the wet season, an increase in precipitation and annual flow is projected. In line with this, Mohammed et al. ( 2017 ) find that in a 2.0  ∘ C warmer world, floods will be both more frequent and of a greater magnitude than in a 1.5  ∘ C warmer world in Bangladesh, using the hydrological model the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) with input from the CORDEX regional model ensemble. Zaman et al. ( 2017 ) use two sets of climate models with climate change runs under the RCP8.5 scenario as input in a basin model that simulates flows in major rivers of Bangladesh, including the Brahmaputra. Using the two climate model runs as input, they find agreement in the basin model runs for Brahmaputra flow in a 2.0  ∘ C warmer world; one run shows a slightly higher impact of climate change compared to the other run, with an overall increase in monsoon flow of approximately 15 % and 10 % in the dry season.

Attribution studies on flooding, using both observational data and models, have often been done with precipitation only. In such studies, (e.g.  Schaller et al. ,  2014 ; van der Wiel et al. ,  2017 ; Philip et al. ,  2018 ; van Oldenborgh et al. ,  2017 ; Risser and Wehner ,  2017 ) it is assumed that precipitation is the main cause of the flooding. For shorter timescales and the relatively small basins involved, this is a reasonable assumption. The major basins in Bangladesh, however, are substantially larger and have longer water travel times than the basins considered in the above studies. Therefore using precipitation alone as a proxy for flooding might not be appropriate. In this paper we explicitly test this assumption by performing an attribution of both precipitation and discharge as a flooding-related measure of climate change. Thus we explore the flood in two different ways – first from a meteorological perspective (using precipitation data) and then from a hydrological perspective (using discharge data). Schaller et al. ( 2016 ) already studied a flooding case in an attribution study using one hydrological model. Yuan et al. ( 2018 ) use observations, GCMs, and one land surface model with and without land cover change to split the changes in observed streamflow and its extremes into anthropogenic and natural climate change, land cover change and human-water withdrawal components. In this paper we do an attribution study for the first time using observational precipitation and discharge data and a combination of GCMs and several hydrological models. To compare the differences between the attribution results for the two variables we calculate the return periods and risk ratios for the August 2017 flooding event in Bangladesh for both precipitation and discharge in observations and models, for past (pre-industrial), present and future (2 ∘ warmer than pre-industrial) conditions.

Bangladesh is influenced by three large river basins: the Ganges basin in the northwest, the Brahmaputra basin in the northeast and the Meghna basin in the east. During the monsoon season the rainfall moves northwest across the country, starting in May–June–July in the Meghna basin. Usually 2–3 weeks after peak rainfall in July, the rivers in the Brahmaputra basin reach their peak discharge. Finally, in August and September the Ganges basin river discharge peaks. The largest impact of flooding in August 2017 was felt in the northern parts of Bangladesh (Fig.  1 ). As this was mainly caused by precipitation in the Brahmaputra basin, the focus in this paper will be on this basin. In the Brahmaputra basin little water originates from precipitation on the northern side of the Himalaya (China–Tibet), with most of the water coming from precipitation in the upstream Assam region in India. Precipitation in Bhutan also contributes to the river water in Bangladesh.

In this paper we use two event definitions: one based on precipitation and one based on discharge. Both observational data and model data can be used for these two event definitions. For precipitation we average over the whole Brahmaputra basin and take a 10-day average, as the largest precipitation volume in the Brahmaputra basin travels to Bangladesh within 10 days; see Fig. 5 in Webster et al. ( 2010 ) . Only precipitation in July–August–September (JAS) is analysed as it is only in these months that precipitation is considered the major cause of flooding. For discharge we simply use the daily maximum discharge at Bahadurabad, a station situated to the north of the confluence point of the Ganges with the Brahmaputra, in JAS.

The data and methods used are described in Sect.  2 . Sections  3 and 4 describe the analysis for observations and models respectively. The results are synthesized in Sect.  5 . A discussion follows in Sect.  6 , and the paper ends with some conclusions.

Observational data are described in Sect.  2.1 , and the models and experiments are described in Sect.  2.2 . The explanation of how these data are used in the analysis is detailed in Sect.  2.3 .

2.1 Observational data

The first observational dataset we use is the 0.5 ∘ gauge-based CPC analysis from 1979 to now ( https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/Global_Monsoons/gl_obs.shtml , last access: 20 March 2018). This is the longest gauge-based daily gridded dataset available that is still being updated. The seasonal cycle of precipitation in the Brahmaputra basin is shown in Fig.  2 a. Monsoon rains start rising slowly, with a maximum in July and August, and become less from September onwards. As precipitation will not, in general, cause flooding before July, we will use the months JAS for the precipitation analysis.

Figure 2 Seasonal cycle of  (a)  precipitation in the Brahmaputra basin for CPC, (b)  discharge at Bahadurabad and (c)  water level at Bahadurabad. The red line shows the mean value, and green lines show the 2.5, 17, 83 and 97.5 percentiles.

The second gauge-based dataset we use for comparison is the combined Full Data and First Guess Daily 1.0 ∘ GPCC dataset (1988–now) ( Schamm et al. ,  2013 , 2015 ). As this is a much shorter dataset we expect the signal-to-noise ratio in the trend to be smaller. We only use this dataset to additionally check the observations. The seasonal cycle can be found in the Supplement Fig. S1.

The third dataset is the reanalysis dataset ERA-interim (ERA-int; 1979–now;  Dee et al. ,  2011 ) . Precipitation of this dataset is analysed directly. As well as precipitation, temperature and potential evapotranspiration (calculated with the Penman–Monteith method) are used to drive one of the hydrological models (see Sect.  2.2.4 ). The seasonal cycle of ERA-int can be found in Fig. S1.

We use discharge and water level data from Bahadurabad. Discharge data are available for the years 1984–2017, and water level data are available for the years 1985–2017 (source: BWDB). For both datasets the seasonal cycle is shown in Fig.  2 b, c. Additionally, we have a discharge dataset for the years 1956–2006 (source: BWDB). As the rating between water level, velocity and discharge is not exactly the same in the two discharge datasets, we consider simply merging the datasets not to be appropriate. The 1984–2017 dataset is used in the analyses, but results are compared to calculations with the 1956–2006 dataset and merged datasets.

2.2 Model descriptions

First the global circulation model and regional model that are used for the analysis of precipitation are listed, including a short description of the model runs. Next a list of hydrological models used in this study is given. Further details of the models, including validation and calibration of the hydrological models, are described in the Supplement.

2.2.1 Precipitation

Ec-earth 2.3.

We use three different ensembles of the coupled atmosphere–ocean general circulation model EC-Earth 2.3 ( Hazeleger et al. ,  2012 ) at T159 ( ∼150  km). The first one is a transient model experiment, consisting of 16 ensemble members covering 1861–2100 (here we use up to 2017), which are based on the historical CMIP5 protocol until 2005 and are based on the RCP8.5 scenario ( Taylor et al. ,  2012 ) from 2006 onwards. The other two EC-Earth 2.3 experiments are two time-slice experiments based on the 16-member transient model experiment above. Two experimental periods are selected in which the model global mean surface temperature (GMST) is as observed in 2011–2015 (“present-day” experiment) and the pre-industrial (1851–1899) +2   ∘ C warming experiment (“2  ∘ C warming” experiment).

weather@home

In addition to the EC-Earth 2.3 experiments, large ensembles of climate model simulations are created using the distributed computing weather@home modelling framework ( Guillod et al. ,  2017 ; Massey et al. ,  2014 ) based on Hadley Centre models. Table  1 describes the experiments used in this study, which are grouped into three sets: (i) ensembles for the historical period 1986–2015, (ii) ensembles for 2017 and (iii) ensembles for assessing possible changes in the future.

See the Supplement for a more detailed description of these runs.

Table 1 Experiments with the weather@home ensemble.

Download Print Version | Download XLSX

2.2.2 Discharge

Pcr-globwb 2.

The global hydrological model PCR-GLOBWB 2 ( Sutanudjaja et al. ,  2018 ) was selected because of its ability to simulate the hydrological cycle, including reservoir operations and human–water interactions at continental and global scales. It resolves the water balance at the surface by using precipitation, temperature and potential evaporation inputs from meteorological observations or climate models. We used PCR-GLOBWB to conduct several river discharge simulations, First we used observational data as input to check the performance of the model. Next we used the EC-Earth transient and two time-slice experiments as input to generate a large ensemble.

Second, we use the SWAT, which is a commonly used hydrological model for investigating climate change impacts on water resources at regional scales ( Gassman et al. ,  2014 ) . This model has already been used to simulate impacts of climate change on the flows of the Brahmaputra River ( Mohammed et al. ,  2017 , 2018 ) . The water balance equation used in SWAT consists of daily precipitation, runoff, evapotranspiration, percolation and return flow. The SWAT model was used in this study to simulate flows by taking inputs from both the transient and time-slice EC-Earth experiments and weather@home experiments, using daily maximum and minimum temperatures and precipitation.

The third hydrological model we use is LISFLOOD. This is a fully distributed and semi-physically based model initially developed by the Joint Research Centre (JRC) of the European Commission in 1997. It was subsequently updated to forecast floods and analyse impacts of climate and land-use change ( Burek et al. ,  2013 ) . It has been used for operational flood forecasts as part of the European Flood Awareness System (EFAS) since 2012 ( https://www.efas.eu/en/about , last access: 2 May 2018). The LISFLOOD model was used in this study to simulate the river flow of the Brahmaputra River at the Bahadurabad gauging station with input data from the weather@home model.

River flow model

The fourth and final hydrological model used in the analysis is a fully distributed river flow model (RFM) that estimates the streamflow by discrete approximation of the one-dimensional kinematic wave equation ( Dadson et al. ,  2011 ) . The RFM was used in this study to simulate the river flow of the Brahmaputra River at the Bahadurabad gauging station with input data from the weather@home model.

2.3 Statistical methods

We use a class-based event definition, i.e. we consider all events that are as extreme or more extreme than the observed event on a one-dimensional scale, in this case 10-day averaged precipitation averaged over the Brahmaputra basin or daily runoff at Bahadurabad.

The first step in an attribution analysis is trend detection: fitting the observations to a non-stationary statistical model to look for a trend outside the range of deviations expected by natural variability. In this case we study the trends of extreme high-precipitation and river discharge values. In extreme value analysis, the generalized extreme value (GEV) distribution ( Coles ,  2001 ) is often used to fit and model the tail of the empirical distribution for this type of event, the maximum daily or 10-daily value over the monsoon season. The shape parameter ξ determines the tail behaviour, and negative indicates light tail behaviour while positive indicates heavy tail behaviour. When ξ =0 , the distribution simplifies to the Gumbel distribution. Global warming is factored in by allowing the GEV fit to be a function of the (low-pass filtered) GMST. In the case of precipitation and discharge extremes, it is assumed that the scale in parameter σ (the standard deviation) scales with the position parameter μ (the mean) of the GEV fit. This assumption is also known as the index flood assumption ( Hanel et al. ,  2009 ) and is commonly applied in hydrology to restrain the number of fit parameters. It can be checked in the model experiments where there are enough data to fit both μ and σ independently. These parameters are scaled up or down with the GMST using an exponential dependency similar to Clausius–Clapeyron (CC) scaling: μ = μ 0 exp ( α T / μ 0 ) , σ = σ 0 exp ( α T / μ 0 ) , with T as the smoothed global mean temperature and α as the trend that is fitted together with μ 0 and σ 0 . The shape parameter ξ is assumed to be constant. 95 % confidence intervals are estimated using a 1000-member non-parametric bootstrap. This approach has been used in several previous attribution studies (e.g.  van Oldenborgh et al. ,  2016 ; van der Wiel et al. ,  2017 ; Otto et al. ,  2018 ) . This fit also gives the return periods of the observed event.

The scaling is taken to be an exponential function of the smoothed global mean temperature. This exponential dependence can clearly be seen in the scaling of daily precipitation extremes with local daily temperature in regions with enough moisture availability ( Allen and Ingram ,  2002 ; Lenderink and van Meijgaard ,  2008 ) . It is also expected on theoretical grounds through the first-order dependence of the maximum moisture content on temperature in the Clausius–Clapeyron relations of about 7 % K −1 , which gives rise to an exponential form. Note that we fit the strength of the connection, which is often different from CC scaling. As it is not clear what the relevant local temperature is, but local temperature usually scales linearly with the global mean temperature, we chose the GMST.

The second step in an attribution analysis is the attribution of the detected trend to global warming, natural variability or other factors, such as changes in aerosol concentration or the El Niño–Southern Oscillation; this requires comparing model simulations with and without anthropogenic forcing. There are two approaches. The first is to run two ensembles: one with current conditions and one with conditions as they would have been without anthropogenic emissions. The number of events above the threshold is compared between the two ensembles. In the second approach, we approximate the counterfactual climate by the climate of the late 19th century and fit the same non-stationary GEV that was described above to the model data. The distribution is evaluated for a GMST in the past and the current GMST. These two approaches have been used before for studies of extreme precipitation (e.g.  Schaller et al. ,  2014 ; van Oldenborgh et al. ,  2016 ; van der Wiel et al. ,  2017 ; van Oldenborgh et al. ,  2017 ) . We checked that year-on-year autocorrelations of RX10day (maximum 10-day precipitation amount) are negligible, so serial autocorrelations are not a problem in this analysis.

As a third step, we calculate the risk ratio (RR) or change in probability for different time intervals. These include for instance the difference between the present day and 1979, or between present-day and pre-industrial times. For observations we calculate risk ratios with respect to the beginning of the dataset. If possible, we additionally transform these into risk ratios with respect to pre-industrial conditions, in this case set to be the year 1900, such that we can compare this with model runs for pre-industrial settings. For this transformation we assume that the RR depends exponentially on the covariate, in this case the global mean temperature change. For instance if we find that the probability doubles for 0.5  ∘ C warming, we assume that first ordering it would cause it to double again for 1  ∘ C warming. With future model runs we can also calculate risk ratios between the +2   ∘ C climate and the climate now.

A last step in the analysis is the synthesis of the results into a single attribution statement. Though the method for evaluating risk ratios using a transient model or observations is different from that using ensemble time-slice experiments that are explicitly designed to simulate a +2.0   ∘ C world, we are able to give an average value for all observations and models combined, and we assume that this gives a good first-order estimate of the overall risk ratio.

The differences among the RRs of these ensembles and the observations are due to natural variability, different framings and model spread. The relative contribution of random natural variability can be estimated from a comparison of the uncertainty derived from each fit with the spread of the different estimates of the RR from observations and models. We do this by computing a χ 2 ∕dof , with the number of degrees of freedom (dof) being one less than the number of fits. If this is roughly equal to 1, the variability is compatible with only the natural variability that determines the uncertainty on each separate model estimate of the RR. If it is much larger than 1, the systematic differences between the framings and models contribute significantly.

We choose to use a weighted average, with the weights being the inverse uncertainty squared for each RR (models and observations). The uncertainties are approximated by symmetric errors on log (RR) and added in quadrature ( ϵ 2 = ϵ 1 2 + ϵ 2 2 + … + ϵ N 2 / N ). If there is a significant contribution of χ 2 due to model spread, this has to be propagated to the final result, and the final uncertainty is larger than the spread due to natural variability. In this case we choose to give all models equal weight. The method described here was also used in Eden et al. ( 2016 ) and Philip et al. ( 2018 ) .

3.1 Precipitation

Figure  3 a shows the time series of CPC precipitation averaged over the Brahmaputra basin for 90 days ending on 2 September 2017. The 10-day average at the beginning of July is slightly higher than the 10-day average beginning of August, 14.38 versus 14.20 mm. As we are interested in the August flooding event, we take the precipitation value from the August event, which has a maximum on 5–14 August (see Fig.  3 c). The 10-day average annual maximum precipitation is fitted to a GEV distribution. The return period plots show that the distribution can be described by a GEV by overlaying the data points and fit for the present and a past climate (Fig.  3 d). The return period calculated from this fit is 11 years (95 % CI – confidence interval, 4 to 200 years) for the current climate. There is a positive trend with a risk ratio with respect to 1979 of a factor of 6 ( >0.3 ), although the trend is not significant at p <0.05 when two-sided (the uncertainty range includes 1).

Figure 3 CPC data (a, c) and analysis of the highest observed 10-day mean rainfall in the Brahmaputra basin in July–September  (b, d) . (a)  Time series of precipitation averaged over the Brahmaputra basin; blue is more than average, and red is less than average. (b)  The location parameter μ  (thick line), μ + σ and μ +2 σ (thin lines) of the GEV fit of the 10-day averaged data. The vertical bars indicate the 95 % confidence interval on the location parameter μ at the two reference years, 2017 and 1950. The purple square denotes the value of 2017 (not included in the fit). (c)  The 10-day averaged precipitation over the Brahmaputra basin. Dark red means heavy precipitation. In red are the contours of the Brahmaputra basin. (d)  The GEV fit of the 10-day averaged data in 2017 (red lines) and 1950 (blue lines). The observations are drawn twice, scaled up with the trend (smoothed global mean temperature) to 2017 and scaled down to 1950. The purple line shows the observed value in 2017.

A similar approach to the one used for CPC data is applied to ERA-int data. In this dataset the July 2017 10-day average was also just slightly higher than the August 2017 10-day average. The return period for the August event with a value of 17.9 mm day −1 was 2 years (95 % CI, 1 to 6 years) in the current climate. This dataset also shows a non-significant positive trend with a risk ratio of 1.9 (0.6 to 7), i.e. doubling the probability of an event like this or higher.

Finally, the shorter GPCC dataset gives similar results as well. Risk ratios are given with respect to 1979 in order to compare this with the other datasets. The August 2017 10-day average is slightly higher than the July 10-day average. The return period is about 20 years (95 % CI, 4 to 800 years). The risk ratio is not significantly different from 1.

The results of return periods and risk ratios based on observations can be found in Table  2 . For analyses with models we use the return period from the CPC dataset of 11 years for this event, as based on local experience we think that this is the best estimate. Due to the shape parameter being close to zero the risk ratio will not have a strong dependence on this choice; for a Gumbel distribution it is independent of the return time.

Table 2 Return periods and risk ratios for observations of precipitation, discharge and water level. The column RR1 gives results wrt 1979 (precipitation), 1984 (discharge) and 1985 (water level). The column RR (wrt 1900) scales the results to the pre-industrial period.

3.2 Discharge

The highest discharge in 2017 was reached on 16 August, with a value of about 78 000 m 3  s −1 . This was clearly higher than any value in July in the same year, as opposed to the precipitation values discussed above. There have been several years in which the discharge was higher than in 2017, including the years 1998 and 1988, which are the two maximum values in the discharge record. The return period is calculated from the discharge dataset since this is our best observational estimate. However it is worth noting that there is a large uncertainty in the accuracy of the discharge measurements from 2012 onwards. We check if the results are robust by comparing the outcomes from the different datasets.

We fitted the discharge time series of Bahadurabad to a GEV distribution. In this distribution we see no trend (95 % CI with respect to – wrt – 1900 is 0.1 to 40; see Fig.  4 ). Therefore we calculate the return period assuming no trend. This results in a return period of the August 2017 event of 4 years (95 % CI, 3 to 6 years). A cross-check with the 1956–2006 dataset or merging the two discharge datasets gives similar results.

Figure 4 Analysis of the highest observed daily discharge at Bahadurabad in July–September. (a)  The location parameter μ (thick line), μ + σ and μ +2 σ (thin lines) of the GEV fit of the discharge data. The vertical bars indicate the 95 % confidence interval on the location parameter μ at the two reference years, 2017 and 1984. The purple square denotes the value of 2017 (not included in the fit). (b)  The GEV fit of the discharge data, assuming no trend. The purple line shows the observed value in 2017.

3.3 Water level

Although we only have the water level available in observations and not for models, we still analyse the observational water level time series from Bahadurabad. The highest value in 2017 was on 16 August, with a value of 20.83 m. This is 1.33 m higher than the dangerous level of 19.50 m. In contrast to the discharge this was a record level since the beginning of the dataset (1985). It should be noted that the water level is also influenced by factors other than climate change, for instance a raising of the river bed by sedimentation and obstruction of the river channel by man-made constructions. See Sect.  6 for a more detailed discussion on the disentangling of geomorphological changes and climate change.

Under the same assumption as that for precipitation and discharge in which water level scales with GMST, the return period in the current climate is estimated to be 12 years (95 % CI, 3 to 350 years; see Fig.  5 b). However, although the risk ratio between 2017 and 1985 is as large as 170, this is only non-significant with a lower bound of 0.6. This is probably due to the relatively short length of the dataset. In addition, we calculate a return period assuming no trend (see Fig.  5 c). This gives a return period of about 80 years ( >25  years, 95 % CI). This agrees with the estimates from BWDB.

Figure 5 Analysis of the highest observed daily water level at Bahadurabad in July–September. (a)  The location parameter μ (thick line), μ + σ and μ +2 σ (thin lines) of the GEV fit of the discharge data. The vertical bars indicate the 95 % confidence interval on the location parameter μ at the two reference years, 2017 and 1985. The purple square denotes the value of 2017 (not included in the fit). (b)  The GEV fit of the water level data in 2017 (red lines) and 1985 (blue lines), assuming a trend. The observations are drawn twice, scaled up with the trend (smoothed global mean temperature) to 2017 and scaled down to 1985. (c)  The GEV fit of the same discharge data assuming no trend. The purple line in (b)  and (c)  shows the observed value in 2017.

4.1 Precipitation

In this section we present model validation and analysis results for the precipitation experiments, first for EC-Earth and then for weather@home.

For validation of the EC-Earth 2.3 model we use the years in the transient runs that correspond to the observational years 1979–2017. In the model, as expected, most precipitation falls in the months JJA, with a peak in July, like in observations, though the increase in precipitation is slightly stronger in June than it is in observations (Fig. S1). As it is assumed that the scale parameter σ scales with the position parameter μ of the GEV fit, we check whether the dispersion parameter σ ∕ μ and the shape parameter in this model are similar to those calculated from observations. The parameters of the GEV distribution that is fitted from the precipitation of these model years correspond well to the same parameters for CPC data.

The risk ratio of precipitation is calculated in the same way as that for observations, using the data period 1880–2017 such that we can use the same years for the EC-Earth runs and the PCR-GLOBWB and SWAT runs with EC-Earth input (see Fig.  6 ). The threshold is chosen such that the return period in the current climate is similar to the observed return period when using the same years. The risk ratio between 2017 and pre-industrial conditions is 3.3 (95 % CI, 2.7 to 4.2) in these transient runs. This corresponds to an increase in intensity for the same return period of 10 % (95 % CI, 9 % to 11 %). For the future (figures not shown) we calculate return periods from the present and future distributions separately, again following the same statistical method as that for observations but with two separate GEV fits that do not depend on the GMST. The risk ratio between a 2  ∘ C climate and the present climate follows from this, with a value of 1.8 (95 % CI, 1.7 to 2.1). We thus conclude that in the EC-Earth 2.3 model there is a significant positive trend in the magnitude of precipitation events such as the one in August 2017, both in the past (pre-industrial times up until now) and in the future.

Figure 6 Analysis of the highest 10-day average precipitation in July–September in the EC-Earth model in the years 1880–2017. (a)  The location parameter μ (thick line), μ + σ and μ +2 σ (thin lines) of the GEV fit of the discharge data. The vertical bars indicate the 95 % confidence interval on the location parameter μ at the two reference years 2017 and 1934. (b)  the GEV fit of the precipitation data in 2017 (red lines) and 1934 (blue lines), assuming a trend. The data are drawn twice, scaled up with the trend (smoothed global mean model temperature) to 2017 and scaled down to 1934. (c)  GEV fits for the present day (PD, red) and +2   ∘ C world (2C, yellow) simulations. The purple lines in (b) and (c)  show the threshold value for which the risk ratio is calculated.

For weather@home, we compare the annual cycle of 10-day running mean precipitation (see Fig. S2) and its spatial pattern in the Brahmaputra basin from historical simulations with CPC and GPCC observational records. As has also been seen in other regions of Bangladesh ( Rimi et al. ,  2019 a ) , weather@home rainfall is too intense in the pre-monsoon season but lies within observational uncertainty during the monsoon season itself. Also the variability of 10-day model precipitation is under-represented by the model for the monsoon season. During the monsoon season the spatial pattern and magnitude of weather@home output agrees well with GPCC and CPC observations (not shown).

Figure  7 shows the return periods of the maximum 10-day precipitation during JAS from the weather@home simulations, see also Table 3. The threshold used in this analysis is defined by taking the magnitude from the historical simulation corresponding to the return period derived from the CPC observational dataset.

Figure 7 Return times of the maximum 10-day precipitation from weather@home simulations. (a)  shows results from the historical, natural, GHG-only and actual 2017, natural 2017, and GHG-only 2017 simulations, and (b)  shows the historical, current, 1.5 and 2 ∘ simulations. Black horizontal lines represent the threshold values derived from the CPC observations. Shaded coloured vertical boxes with solid horizontal lines represent the uncertainty in the return period for the CPC threshold.

Figure  7 a shows the results for the historical and 2017-specific experiments, which we use to analyse how probabilities may have changed in the period from pre-industrial times up until now. There is no statistically significant difference between the historical and natural simulations, with a risk ratio of 0.92 ( 0.84 t o 1.02 ).

The difference in return periods between the historical and actual 2017 experiments gives an indication of the influence of the natural variability of the sea surface temperature (SST) pattern in the precipitation in this region. The historical ensemble is driven by 30 years of differing SST patterns containing different patterns of natural variability such as the El Niño–Southern Oscillation, whereas actual 2017 uses only the observed 2017 Operational Sea Surface Temperature and Sea Ice Analysis (OSTIA) SSTs. The SST pattern in 2017 (actual 2017) made extreme precipitation events less likely than the climatological mean (historical) with a risk ratio of 0.25 (95 % CI, 0.2 to 0.31). Within the set of simulations conditioned on 2017 SSTs, the negligible anthropogenic influence found in the full range SST set is confirmed; the actual 2017 and natural 2017 ensembles also do not show a statistically significant difference and have a risk ratio of 0.97 (95 % CI, 0.76 to 1.23), indicating that, if anything, high-precipitation events similar to the amplitude observed are more prevalent in our model in the natural ensemble, whether or not conditioned on 2017 SST conditions.

To understand this result more fully it is useful to look at the “GHG-only” simulations in Fig.  7 a (compare GHG-only with historical simulations and GHG-only 2017 with actual 2017 simulations). The GHG-only simulations show that increased GHG emissions have increased the likelihood of this kind of event (relative to the natural simulations) but that when the sulfate aerosol emissions are taken into account (in the historical and actual 2017 simulations), we find a counterbalancing effect that acts to reduce rainfall, hence reducing the risk for severe flooding. This effect has also been noted by van Oldenborgh et al. ( 2016 ); Rimi et al. ( 2018 b ) . Within the weather@home model sulfate emissions are included, although emissions due to other important aerosols such as black carbon, which can counteract sulfate effects, are not represented. The aerosol effect in HadRM3P is therefore potentially overestimated. The results highlight the non-linear change in risk over time as a function of anthropogenic aerosol emissions. EC-Earth follows the historical+RCP8.5 protocol for aerosols and includes both sulfate emissions and black and organic carbon. It does not include any indirect aerosol effects. The differences in aerosol representation and model handling of aerosols, as well as the influence of the experimental configuration on aerosol concentration, between EC-Earth and weather@home may account for the difference in risk ratios for the past climate period (pre-industrial times up until now) between the two models, whereas the change in risk of future climate scenarios show good agreement.

Figure  7 b shows return periods from the historical, current, natural, 1.5 and 2.0 ∘ simulations, which we use to analyse how probabilities may change in the future with respect to now. The current and historical ensembles are very similar as expected as both are forcing simulations of differing (but overlapping) lengths. Under 1.5 and 2  ∘ C of additional warming, high precipitation within the region is set to increase with risk ratios (compared to current simulation) derived using the CPC observational threshold of 1.46 (95 % CI, 1.27 to 1.69) and 1.74 (95 % CI, 1.52 to 1.99) respectively. In both cases the ERA-int (GPCC) threshold risk ratio is smaller (larger) than the CPC threshold risk ratio (not shown), but with overlapping uncertainty bounds with CPC. For 2  ∘ C of warming these risk ratios show good agreement with the EC-Earth values.

Table 3 Risk ratios for precipitation and discharge for models and observations for both present to pre-industrial times or 1900 and a 2  ∘ C climate to present. 95 % confidence intervals are given as well.

4.2 Discharge

In this section we present model validation and results of the discharge simulations, first for the model PCR-GLOBWB and then for SWAT, LISFLOOD and the RFM.

The runs with the PCR-GLOBWB model are treated in the same way as the EC-Earth runs. The experiment in which the PCR-GLOBWB model is driven by CPC precipitation and ERA temperature and evapotranspiration shows a strong trend in discharge, which was not seen in the discharge observations. The GEV-fit parameters encompass the best estimate from observations when fitted with a trend. However the large discharge events of 1988 and 1998 are not captured in this run (not shown).

The experiment with ERA input, in contrast, shows no trend but clearly shows the strong discharge events of 1988 and 1998 (not shown). The best estimate of the GEV-fit parameter is outside the error margins of the GEV-fit parameters of observations; however, the error margins overlap.

These two model runs show that the PCR-GLOBWB model is able to capture historical flood events, but the magnitude of these events is dependent on the meteorological input data. Furthermore, we find that the statistical properties are a fair representation of the statistical properties of observed discharge.

We perform an additional validation of the transient PCR-GLOBWB run with EC-Earth 2.3 input over the years corresponding to years with observed discharge. With this input the modelled discharge peaks in August but is also high in July and September. We thus use the same months JAS as in observations for further analysis. Different from the observed distribution, the shape parameter ξ is positive, showing higher discharge values in the tail. This is not a problem for this analysis, as the return period of about 4 years that we are interested in is not in the tail of the distribution. When comparing the error margins of the ratio σ ∕ μ with observed statistics we note that the model variability is too large compared to the model mean. This is not the ideal situation, and we note in the discussion how this model bias affects the analysis.

Using the transient model runs, the risk ratio of discharge is calculated in the same way as that for observations, using all data between 1880–2017. The risk ratio between 2017 and pre-industrial times is 2.3 (95 % CI, 1.7 to 2.4; see Fig.  8 ). For the future we calculate return periods from the present and future distributions separately, following the same statistical method as that for precipitation in the EC-Earth 2.3 present and future experiments. The risk ratio between a 2  ∘ C climate and the present follows from this, with a value of 1.3 (95 % CI, 1.2 to 1.4). We thus conclude that in the PCR-GLOBWB model driven by EC-Earth output there is a positive trend in discharge events like the one in August 2017 in both the historical period (pre-industrial times to 2017) and the future period (from current conditions to a +2   ∘ C world).

Figure 8 Analysis of the highest discharge at Bahadurabad in July–September in the PCR-GLOBWB model in the years 1920–2017. (a)  The location parameter μ (thick line), μ + σ and μ +2 σ (thin lines) of the GEV fit of the discharge data. The vertical bars indicate the 95 % confidence interval on the location parameter μ at the two reference years 2017 and 1934. (b)  The GEV fit of the discharge data in 2017 (red lines) and 1934 (blue lines), assuming a trend. The observations are drawn twice, scaled up with the trend (smoothed global mean model temperature) to 2017 and scaled down to 1934. (c)  GEV fits for the present day (PD, red) and +2   ∘ C world (2C, yellow) simulations. The purple horizontal lines in (b) and (c)  show the threshold value for which the risk ratio is calculated.

The SWAT model calibrated with EC-Earth meteorological data tends to underestimate flows in almost all months of the year (see Fig. S3 in the Supplement). The SWAT model calibrated with weather@home meteorological data, in contrast, tends to underestimate flows in the monsoon months while overestimating flows in the remaining months. Therefore in both cases, flows in our months of interest (JAS) are always slightly underestimated, but the magnitudes of error appear limited enough for the models to be useful in conducting attribution studies. When comparing the error margins of the ratio σ ∕ μ with observed statistics we note that the model variability is too small compared to the model mean, opposite to what was found for the PCR-GLOBWB model. The shape parameter ξ is of the same order as the one in the observed discharge dataset.

The risk ratios are calculated from return period plots for both the EC-Earth runs (see Fig.  9 ) and the weather@home runs (see Fig.  10 ). Using the SWAT model runs with EC-Earth transient data, we see that the discharge shows some decadal variability. The trend in the data therefore depends more strongly on the years used. For consistency we use the same years as in the analyses of EC-Earth and PCR-GLOBWB data (1880–2017), and we note that the error margins do not capture this variability and are underestimated. The risk ratio of discharge between 2017 and pre-industrial times is found to be 1.5 (95 % CI, 1.3 to 1.6). The risk ratio between a 2  ∘ C climate and the current climate is 1.56 (95 % CI, 1.45 to 1.70). Using the SWAT model runs with weather@home actual 2017 and natural 2017 data, the risk ratio between the actual 2017 and natural 2017 scenario is 0.88 (95 % CI, 0.72 to 1.09).

Figure 9 Analysis of the highest discharge at Bahadurabad in July–September in the SWAT flows for EC-Earth. (a)  the location parameter μ (thick line), μ + σ and μ +2 σ (thin lines) of the GEV fit of the discharge data. The vertical bars indicate the 95 % confidence interval on the location parameter μ at the two reference years, 2017 and 1934. (b)  the GEV fit of the discharge data in 2017 (red lines) and 1934 (blue lines), assuming a trend. The observations are drawn twice, scaled up with the trend (smoothed global mean model temperature) to 2017 and scaled down to 1934. (c)  current and future simulations. The purple horizontal line in (b) and dotted line in (c)  show the threshold value for which the risk ratio is calculated.

Figure 10 Return period plots for SWAT flows with weather@home data for the actual 2017 and natural 2017 ensembles.

Calibration and validation graphs for LISFLOOD and the RFM are shown in the Supplement. They show that both LISFLOOD and RFM are able to simulate the seasonality of rise in spring and summer flows correctly. Both models underestimate the river discharge in summer, with an underestimation in the simulated discharge by LISFLOOD.

The return period and risk ratio for the LISFLOOD model and RFM estimated from the weather@home actual 2017 and natural 2017 datasets, as well as the results for the GHG-only 2017 runs, are shown in Fig.  11 .

Figure 11 River flow return periods simulated by (a)  LISFLOOD and (b)  RFM using the actual 2017, natural 2017 and GHG-only 2017 scenarios.

The LISFLOOD model shows that a discharge value with a return period of 4 years in the actual scenario would increase to 5.4 years in the natural climate scenario (risk ratio of 1.35 – 95 % CI, 1.20 to 1.51), while it would reduce to 3.1 years in the GHG-only scenario.

The trend is similar in the results simulated by the RFM, however, the discharge value with a return period of 4 years is slightly greater than the value simulated by LISFLOOD. The return period would increase to 4.5 years under natural climate conditions (risk ratio of 1.13 – 95 % CI, 1.11 to 1.14), while it would reduce to 2.6 years in the GHG-only scenario. Note however that from Fig.  11 b we see that the risk ratio between the different scenarios for RFM becomes larger for larger return periods (e.g. 10 years) than those studied in this analysis.

The shorter return period in the GHG-only 2017 scenario shows that if sulfate aerosols are removed from the atmosphere (which results in increased precipitation), flooding becomes more frequent. This implies that floods can become more frequent in the region if the air pollution levels are reduced in the future.

The risk ratios for the observed threshold from both LISFLOOD and the RFM of 1.35 (95 % CI, 1.20 to 1.51) and 1.13 (95 % CI, 1.11 to 1.14) respectively are in good agreement even though the simulated river flows by the models are different. The mitigation effect due to the aerosols is also comparable between these two different hydrological models.

In observations the uncertainties in return periods and risk ratios are quite large. This is mainly due to the shorter lengths of the time series, and natural variability dominates. In the models, the signal-to-noise ratio is much larger, resulting in smaller uncertainties in the risk ratios. Here, the model spread dominates the signal. As both natural variability and model spread play a role, we use a weighted average with inflated uncertainty range. We do not synthesize the risk ratios for the future, as we only have two model estimates per variable.

In the synthesis we use all available observational datasets that are analysed in this paper and one experiment per model. For weather@home and all hydrological models that use input from weather@home experiments we use the risk ratios calculated from the actual 2017 and natural 2017 experiments. This gives us a fair opportunity to compare the synthesis of precipitation with the synthesis of discharge.

Figure 12 Synthesis of the precipitation  (a) and discharge  (b) results. Dark blue is observations, red is climate model ensembles and the weighted average is shown in purple. The ranges of the models are not compatible with each other, pointing to model uncertainty playing a role over the natural variability. The weighted average has been inflated by factors of 3.89 and 3.45 for precipitation and discharge respectively to account for the model spread.

The synthesis results are shown in Fig.  12 . The synthesis of the precipitation analysis results in a risk ratio between 2017 and pre-industrial times of 1.8 (95 % CI, 0.5 to 9.3). Although the best estimate is above 1, the trend is not significant due to the relatively large error margins. The synthesis of the discharge analysis results in a risk ratio between 2017 and pre-industrial times of 1.1 (95 % CI, 1.0 to 1.3). So for discharge the best estimate is only slightly higher than 1, and due to the smaller error margins in the average, this trend is only significant under the assumptions made in this analysis.

In any event-attribution study, tasks to be carried out include the following:

determining what happened using available observations and defining the event to be studied,

determining how rare the event is in current and pre-industrial conditions,

using models to attribute any changes in likelihood of similar classes of events.

Here we discuss some of the issues encountered in these steps and the interpretation of our results in the light of uncertainties.

First of all, determining the amount of precipitation falling into the Brahmaputra basin from observations (and thus the appropriate precipitation threshold to define this event) is not trivial. As is common in regions with strong topographic gradients, estimating area-averaged rainfall based on observed rainfall is challenging, as rainfall differences between neighbouring locations can be very large in reality, and the orography, which is only partly resolved by a sparse observational network (or model grid), drives these differences. A large part of the Brahmaputra basin has an elevation of over 2000 m; hence unsurprisingly different precipitation datasets show very different spatial and temporal characteristics. They are all likely to underestimate the precipitation at higher elevations, where few weather stations record data ( Immerzeel et al. ,  2015 ) .

For this analysis we used the CPC dataset to provide a single estimate of the event magnitude (i.e. determine what happened) and to define the return period (i.e. determine the rarity of the event) for use in the other datasets and models. Applying this return period, we used three observational datasets to convey the uncertainty related to observations in the resulting risk ratios. However, for the GPCC dataset, the very limited temporal length of the record leads to an uncertainty estimate that is too high for meaningful inference on the change in risk to be made. The longer records do show an increase in the chance of extreme rainfall, but again uncertainties affect a clear signal detection. The intended future availability of high-resolution reanalyses such as ERA5 that will cover the years 1950 onwards at 30 km resolution will potentially improve trend analyses in high-mountain regions in Asia.

From the hydrological perspective, we defined the event as the maximum daily discharge at Bahadurabad in July–September. In contrast to precipitation data, there is only one official discharge observation series, which does not allow for intercomparison. The determination of flood risk, however, appears to be sensitive to the hydrological variable studied. To obtain an impression of this sensitivity, we checked how discharge compares to the water level as a second measure for the likelihood of flooding. The return period of the measured 2017 discharge peak is indeed lower than the return period of the measured 2017 water level peak. Several factors could have influenced this. First of all, the Brahmaputra is a highly braided river, and during severe flood events water enters the floodplain, making it more difficult to accurately relate water level measurements to discharge estimates. Therefore though the water level records are very accurate, the discharge records are unlikely to be of the same accuracy. Based on the observation of the massive spatial extent of the 2017 floods both in Bangladesh and India, we opine that the observed discharges are likely higher than those recorded.

This opinion is supported by the change in correlation between discharge and water level. The correlation between water level and discharge is 0.88 over the whole time series. However, after 2011 this correlation changes to almost 1, with a tendency toward discharges values that are lower for similar water levels than before this change. This change could be due to recalibration of the relationship between discharge and the water level. We therefore expect that the true return period is between the return period calculated from discharge given above and the return period calculated from the water level. As we do not know the exact influence of the change in measurement method of discharge on the discharge values, we cannot give more precise values.

However it should be noted that ongoing morphological changes can introduce additional variability along the river. For instance, higher water levels with lower discharges may be caused by silting and narrowing of the river. McLean and O'Connor ( 2013 ) already showed that, for the years 2006–2011, the relation between discharge and water level changes over time; in 2011 similar discharge values led to higher water levels. This leads to a non-climatic trend in the water level observations.

The disentangling of the influence of climate change and geomorphological changes was beyond the scope of this analysis. On top of qualitatively good observations of the water level, it would require observational data on geomorphological changes, more detailed local hydrological models that can incorporate these and calculate water levels with substantial accuracy, and an additional set of model experiments. In the current analysis we mainly used discharge data and climate model experiments, and from these results it is not possible to conclude whether neglecting geomorphological changes in the models leads to any disagreement with observations given the large uncertainties in the observational analysis.

Climate models, while far from perfect in their representation of reality, are essential for interpreting the results from observations and thereby attributing any observed changes in event frequency to anthropogenic climate change or other factors. Taken at face value, the two climate model simulations of 10-day precipitation maxima in the Brahmaputra basin provide somewhat contradictory results. However, for the weather@home simulations when comparing the natural simulations with GHG-only runs instead of historical simulations, the change in extreme precipitation is significantly positive as well and is therefore more comparable in magnitude to the increase in the two longer observational datasets and EC-Earth simulations. Comparing the GHG-only runs to the historical simulations gives an indication of the impact of aerosol within the weather@home model, which might be slightly overestimated given that black carbon is not included in the models aerosol treatment. Nonetheless, HadRM3P clearly indicates that the increased risk in extreme rainfall due to GHG induced warming has been effectively counterbalanced by aerosol emissions. The EC-Earth model is interpreted as having fewer aerosol effects and hence showing more of the greenhouse-gas-driven increase. Both results are in agreement with the observations due to the large uncertainties in the limited-length observational records.

The counterbalance between the greenhouse-gas and aerosol effects may also be important for clean air policy decisions; as the air is cleaned the already-committed increase in extreme precipitation due to greenhouse gases will be revealed. These results also suggest that the overall signal from long-term climate change, i.e. mainly greenhouse-gas forcing, in the datasets where we cannot separate out the impact of aerosol forcing might be underestimated. The best estimate of the change in risk in extreme rainfall as observed in the Brahmaputra basin in 2017 is therefore likely a rather conservative estimate and hence is of limited use to inform decision-making. In fact, simulations of the near future in both models show a clear increase in the risk of high-precipitation events that lead to flooding in the Brahmaputra.

In extending our multi-method attribution approach to include hydrological modelling, we consequently introduced more degrees of freedom in possible combinations of inputs and models to construct the hydrological response. Time and computational restraints put a limit on the number of combinations that could be explored. We conducted experiments using (i) the same hydrological model (PCR-GLOBWB) run at different resolutions with different input observational and/or modelled meteorological input data, (ii) the same input climate model (weather@home) with different hydrological models, and (iii) the same hydrological model (SWAT) with two different input climate models. Changing the resolution of the PCR-GLOBWB runs with CPC and ERA-int input compared to runs with EC-Earth 2.3 input impacts the dynamics in the hydrological model. In general coarser-resolution simulations respond faster due to the decrease in storage and the shorter connectivity between grid cells. High-resolution models are better able to capture the subsurface and riverine water storage due to their increased heterogeneity ( Sutanudjaja et al. ,  2018 ) . It is therefore more difficult to simulate extreme hydrological events in coarser models ( Samaniego et al. ,  2018 ) . It was beyond the scope of this paper to analyse the differences in detail; however, we use the differences to show the range of possible output within one hydrological model. None of the models or observational datasets are perfect. For instance, in the PCR-GLOBWB model the variability is too high compared to the mean, while RFM and LISFLOOD underestimate the magnitude considerably. This is not the ideal situation however, there is no reason to believe that the order of magnitude of the risk ratios between the current and past climate or between the future and current climate will depend on this very strongly. This is corroborated by the fact that the risk ratios are comparable despite the very different biases.

Despite these strong differences in variables, resolution, simulated processes and input data, the simulated changes in the likelihood of the observed event occurring because of anthropogenic climate change are very comparable. Even when the hydrological models are driven by precipitation from the weather@home simulations the simulated discharge shows a significant increase in likelihood, apart from SWAT, where the change is not significant.

In August 2017, following heavy rains, Bangladesh faced one of their worst river flooding events in recent history, with record high water levels leading to inundation of river basin areas in the northern parts of the country, impacting millions of people who are highly exposed and vulnerable to unusual flooding.

This paper presents an attribution of this precipitation-induced flooding event and, for the first time, extends the multi-method approach of extreme event attribution from a purely meteorological perspective to the more impact-relevant hydrological perspective by employing an ensemble of hydrological models. Firstly, experiments were conducted with three observational datasets and two climate models to estimate changes in extreme precipitation event frequency, in the 10-day Brahmaputra basin average, that have occurred since pre-industrial times. In addition, climate projection experiments were used to indicate if the trends found up until now are likely to continue or become more extreme in the future. The precipitation series were then used in turn as meteorological input for four different hydrological models to estimate the corresponding changes in river discharge. In doing so, a range of possible answers to the attribution question were produced, allowing for comparison between approaches and for the robustness of the attribution results to be assessed.

Specifically, our aims were to (i) determine if precipitation can be used as a measure of the extremity of flooding in the large Brahmaputra basin, or if it is necessary to instead use a hydrological measure such as discharge for the purpose of attributing the flood of August 2017 in Bangladesh, and to (ii) draw conclusions on the attribution of this event, expressed as the change in likelihood of similar or more extreme events, that has occurred since pre-industrial times and which is projected to occur in the future.

From the precipitation perspective, we find that two out of three of the observed series show an increased probability for extreme precipitation like observed in August 2017, but in all three observational datasets the trends are not significant due to the short records. One climate model shows a significant positive influence of anthropogenic climate change, whereas the other simulates a cancellation between the increase due to greenhouse gases and a decrease due to sulfate aerosols. The change in risk of high precipitation that has occurred since pre-industrial times is therefore uncertain. However, both climate models agree that the risk will increase significantly in the future, by more than 1.7, with 2  ∘ C of global heating since pre-industrial times.

Considering discharge rather than precipitation, which corresponds more closely with the hydrological impacts, shows only a slightly different result in that only the increase in risk since pre-industrial times to present-day conditions of high discharge synthesized from both observations and models is just significant, whilst the risk of high precipitation is not. The attribution of the change in discharge is therefore somewhat less uncertain than for precipitation, but the 95 % CI still encompasses no change in risk. For the future, these models project a slightly smaller increase in probability of high discharge than of high 10-day precipitation, being more likely by about a factor of 1.5 in a 2  ∘ C warmer world.

For large basins in orographically diverse regions with complex hydrology, such as the Brahmaputra, we hypothesized that rainfall, river flow and inundation would not be linearly connected and that precipitation would not be an adequate measure of flood intensity. The initial hydrological conditions play an important role in combination with the occurrence of high intensity precipitation events. We therefore anticipated that small changes in the risk of precipitation would lead to disproportionate changes in flood risk, evidenced in differences in the risk ratios of the event calculated from the two perspectives.

Our synthesis, however, produces the best estimate for the past climate that is greater than 1 and of a similar order of magnitude (between 1 and 2) for both methods and a lower bound on the uncertainty range that is less than or about equal to 1, leading to the conclusion that we cannot confidently confirm a significant anthropogenic influence in changes up until now. Projected changes between current conditions and for a world 2  ∘ C warmer than the pre-industrial one were also a similar order of magnitude (between 1 and 2) for 10-day precipitation and discharge, with significant changes found. Thus, in this particular case, studying precipitation alone would have led to the same qualitative conclusion.

Inspecting the individual model outcomes shows that in the study of this particular event, there is an impact of the choice of circulation model used as input for the hydrological model on the amplitude of discharge RRs. Where the EC-Earth model was used, we find a larger positive change in precipitation compared to discharge, but where the weather@home model was used, we find a similar or smaller positive change in precipitation compared to discharge. This highlights the importance of using multiple models in attribution studies, particularly where the climate change signal is not strong.

The use of multiple methods in the attribution of extreme events is the only way to estimate confidence, and hence reliability, in attribution results. As hydrological models are used to simulate impact-relevant variables (such as flood depth) and are in fact used much more for decision-making, it is essential to extend the attribution approach in general to include hydrological models, when possible, for analysis of precipitation-induced flood events. Hydrological models offer further insight into the partitioning of precipitation reaching the ground and thus come closer to the drivers of the impacts observed on people and livelihoods. Climate models, in contrast, allow us to disentangle the potential effects of different atmospheric drivers.

This highlights that only a combination of doing a multi-method attribution analysis of the meteorological drivers with a multi-model approach in hydrological modelling allows for a robust estimate of changing flood hazards under climate change. Therefore we recommend the use of a hydrological variable, such as discharge, for estimating changing flood risk in large basins such as the Brahmaputra, although based on this study, investigating changes in precipitation is also useful, either as an alternative when hydrological models are not available or as an additional measure to confirm qualitative conclusions.

Almost all data are available for download and analysis under https://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_att.cgi (last access: 20 July 2018) under section “Bangladesh flooding 2017”, including the GPCC data ( Schamm et al. ,  2013 , 2015 ) used in this study.

The supplement related to this article is available online at:  https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-1409-2019-supplement .

SP, SS and SFK designed the research. SP, SS and SFK wrote the paper with contributions from all other authors. SP and SFK analysed the observational data, EC-Earth 2.3 data and PCR-GLOBWB data. SS and FELO analysed the weather@home data. HJ and FH provided and analysed the LISFLOOD and RFM data. KM and AKMSI provided and analysed the SWAT data. NW and KvdW provided the PCR-GLOBWB data. KH prepared the weather@home simulations. RHR validated the weather@home data. DCHW managed the weather@home system. AH and KM provided observational water level and discharge data. GJvO supervised the project and contributed analysis tools, and RS and AH contributed with local information.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Sarah Sparrow, Hammad Javid, Karsten Haustein, David C. H. Wallom, Friederike E. L. Otto and A. K. M. Saiful Islam were funded as part of the EPSRC GCRF Institutional Sponsorship REBuILD project. Karin van der Wiel was funded as part of the HiWAVES3 project. Niko Wanders acknowledges the funding from NWO 016.Veni.181.049. This work was partially supported by the EUPHEME project, which is part of ERA4CS, an ERA-NET initiated by JPI Climate and co-funded by the European Union (grant 690462). We would like to thank the Met Office Hadley Centre PRECIS team for their technical and scientific support for the development and application of weather@Home. We are grateful to Simon Dadson and Homero Paltan Lopez for sharing the RFM code and for their help in setting it up for the study area. Finally, we would like to thank all of the volunteers who have donated their computing time to climateprediction.net and weather@home. Edited by: Bob Su Reviewed by: Vahid Rahimpour Golroudbary and two anonymous referees

Allen, M. R. and Ingram, W. J.: Constraints on future changes in climate and the hydrologic cycle, Nature, 419, 224–232, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01092 , 2002.  a

Burek, P., Knijff van der, J., and Roo de, A.: LISFLOOD, distributed water balance and flood simulation model revised user manual 2013, Publications Office of the European Union, Directorate-General Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability, https://doi.org/10.2788/24719 , 2013.  a

CEGIS and SEN authors: Assessing the economic impact of climate change on agriculture, water resources and food security and adaptation measures using seasonal and medium range of forecasts, coordinated by ICIMOD, Nepal, 2013.  a

Coles, S.: An Introduction to Statistical Modeling of Extreme Values, Springer Series in Statistics, London, UK, 2001.  a

Dadson, S., Bell, V., and Jones, R.: Evaluation of a grid-based river flow model configured for use in a regional climate model, J. Hydrol., 411, 238–250, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.10.002 , 2011.  a

Dastagir, M. R.: Modeling recent climate change induced extreme events in Bangladesh: A review, Weather and Climate Extremes, 7, 49–60, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wace.2014.10.003 , 2015.  a

Dee, D. P., Uppala, S. M., Simmons, A. J., Berrisford, P., Poli, P., Kobayashi, S., Andrae, U., Balmaseda, M. A., Balsamo, G., Bauer, P., Bechtold, P., Beljaars, A. C. M., van de Berg, L., Bidlot, J., Bormann, N., Delsol, C., Dragani, R., Fuentes, M., Geer, A. J., Haimberger, L., Healy, S. B., Hersbach, H., Hólm, E. V., Isaksen, L., Kållberg, P., Köhler, M., Matricardi, M., McNally, A. P., Monge-Sanz, B. M., Morcrette, J.-J., Park, B.-K., Peubey, C., de Rosnay, P., Tavolato, C., Thépaut, J.-N., and Vitart, F.: The ERA-Interim reanalysis: Configuration and performance of the data assimilation system, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 137, 553–597, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.828 , 2011.  a

Eden, J. M., Wolter, K., Otto, F. E. L., and van Oldenborgh, G. J.: Multi-method attribution analysis of extreme precipitation in Boulder, Colorado, Environ. Res. Lett., 11, 124009, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/12/124009 , 2016.  a

Gain, A. K., Immerzeel, W. W., Sperna Weiland, F. C., and Bierkens, M. F. P.: Impact of climate change on the stream flow of the lower Brahmaputra: trends in high and low flows based on discharge-weighted ensemble modelling, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 15, 1537–1545, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-15-1537-2011 , 2011.  a

Gassman, P. W., Sadeghi, A. M., and Srinivasan, R.: Applications of the SWAT Model Special Section: Overview and Insights, J. Environ. Qual., 43, 1–8, https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2013.11.0466 , 2014.  a

Guillod, B. P., Jones, R. G., Bowery, A., Haustein, K., Massey, N. R., Mitchell, D. M., Otto, F. E. L., Sparrow, S. N., Uhe, P., Wallom, D. C. H., Wilson, S., and Allen, M. R.: weather@home 2: validation of an improved global-regional climate modelling system, Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 1849–1872, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-1849-2017 , 2017.  a

Hanel, M., Buishand, T. A., and Ferro, C. A. T.: A nonstationary index flood model for precipitation extremes in transient regional climate model simulations, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 114, D15107, https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JD011712 , 2009.  a

Hazeleger, W., Wang, X., Severijns, C., Ştefănescu, S., Bintanja, R., Sterl, A., Wyser, K., Semmler, T., Yang, S., Van den Hurk, B., et al.: EC-Earth V2. 2: description and validation of a new seamless earth system prediction model, Clim. Dynam., 39, 2611–2629, 2012.  a

Hirpa, F. A., Salamon, P., Alfieri, L., del Pozo, J. T., Zsoter, E., and Pappenberger, F.: The Effect of Reference Climatology on Global Flood Forecasting, J. Hydrometeorol., 17, 1131–1145, https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-15-0044.1 , 2016.  a

Immerzeel, W. W., Wanders, N., Lutz, A. F., Shea, J. M., and Bierkens, M. F. P.: Reconciling high-altitude precipitation in the upper Indus basin with glacier mass balances and runoff, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 19, 4673–4687, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-4673-2015 , 2015.  a

Lenderink, G. and van Meijgaard, E.: Increase in hourly precipitation extremes beyond expectations from temperature changes, Nat. Geosci., 1, 511–514, https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo262 , 2008.  a

Massey, N., Jones, R., Otto, F. E. L., Aina, T., Wilson, S., Murphy, J. M., Hassell, D., Yamazaki, Y. H., and Allen, M. R.: weather@home–development and validation of a very large ensemble modelling system for probabilistic event attribution, Q. J. Royal Meteor. Soc., 141, 1528–1545, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2455 , 2014.  a

McLean, D. and O'Connor, V.: Main River Flood and Bank Erosion Risk Management Program Final Report, Annex D Hydrology and Flood Modelling, available at: https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/project-document/81556/44167-012-tacr-05.pdf (last access: 23 April 2018), 2013.  a

Meehl, G. A., Covey, C., Delworth, T. L., Latif, M., McAvaney, B., Mitchell, J. F. B., Stouffer, R. J., and Taylor, K. E.: The WCRP CMIP3 Multimodel Dataset: A New Era in Climate Change Research, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 88, 1383–1394, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-88-9-1383 , 2007.  a

Mitchell, D., AchutaRao, K., Allen, M., Bethke, I., Beyerle, U., Ciavarella, A., Forster, P. M., Fuglestvedt, J., Gillett, N., Haustein, K., Ingram, W., Iversen, T., Kharin, V., Klingaman, N., Massey, N., Fischer, E., Schleussner, C.-F., Scinocca, J., Seland, Ø., Shiogama, H., Shuckburgh, E., Sparrow, S., Stone, D., Uhe, P., Wallom, D., Wehner, M., and Zaaboul, R.: Half a degree additional warming, prognosis and projected impacts (HAPPI): background and experimental design, Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 571–583, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-571-2017 , 2017.  a

Mohammed, K., Islam, A. S., Islam, G. T., Alfieri, L., Bala, S. K., and Khan, M. J. U.: Extreme flows and water availability of the Brahmaputra River under 1.5 and 2  ∘ C global warming scenarios, Climatic Change, 145, 159–175, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-017-2073-2 , 2017.  a , b

Mohammed, K., Islam, A. K. M. S., Islam, G. M. T., Alfieri, G. M. L., Khan, M. J. U., Bala, S. K., and Das, M. K.: Future floods in Bangladesh under 1.5  ∘ C, 2  ∘ C and 4  ∘ C global warming scenarios, J. Hydrol. Eng., 23, 04018050, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0001705 , 2018.  a

Otto, F. E. L., van Oldenborgh, G. J., Eden, J. M., Stott, P. A., Karoly, D. J., and Allen, M. R.: The attribution question, Nat. Clim. Change, 6, 813–816, 2016.  a

Otto, F. E. L., van der Wiel, K., van Oldenborgh, G. J., Philip, S. Y., Kew, S. F., Uhe, P., and Cullen, H.: Climate change increases the probability of heavy rains in Nort hern England/Southern Scotland like those of storm Desmond – a real-time e vent attribution revisited, Environ. Res. Lett., 13, 024006, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa9663 , 2018.  a

Philip, S., van Oldenborgh, G. J., Kew, S., Aalbers, E., Vautard, R., Otto, F., Haustein, K., Habets, F., Singh, R., and Cullen, H.: Validation of a rapid attribution of the May/June 2016 flood-inducing precipitation in France to climate change, J. Hydrometeorol., 19, 1881–1898, https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-18-0074.1 , 2018.  a , b

Priya, S., Young, W., Hopson, T., and Avasthi, A.: Flood Risk Assessment and Forecasting for the Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna River Basins, available at: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/28574 (last access: 22 January 2018), 2017.  a

Rimi, R. H., Haustein, K., Barbour, E. J., Allen, M. R., Jones, R. G., and Sparrow, S. N.: Evaluation of a large ensemble regional climate modelling system for extreme weather events analysis over Bangladesh, Int. J. Climatol., https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.5931 , 2019a.  a

Rimi, R. H., Haustein, K., Barbour, E. J., Sparrow, S. N., Li, S., Wallom, D. C. H., and Allen, M. R.: Risks of seasonal extreme rainfall events in Bangladesh under 1.5 and 2.0 degrees' warmer worlds – How anthropogenic aerosols change the story, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2018-400 , in review, 2018b.  a

Risser, M. D. and Wehner, M. F.: Attributable Human-Induced Changes in the Likelihood and Magnitude of the Observed Extreme Precipitation during Hurricane Harvey, Geophys. Res. Lett., 44, 12457–12464, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL075888 , 2017.  a

Samaniego, L., Thober, S., Kumar, R., Wanders, N., Rakovec, O., Pan, M., Zink, M., Sheffield, J., Wood, E. F., and Marx, A.: Anthropogenic warming exacerbates European soil moisture droughts, Nat. Clim. Change, 8, 421–426, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0138-5 , 2018.  a

Schaller, N., Otto, F. E. L., van Oldenborgh, G. J., Massey, N. R., Sparrow, S., and Allen, M. R.: The heavy precipitation event of May–June 2013 in the upper Danube and Elbe basins, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 95, S69–S72, 2014.  a , b

Schaller, N., Kay, A. L., Lamb, R., Massey, N. R., van Oldenborgh, G. J., Otto, F. E. L., Sparrow, S. N., Vautard, R., Yiou, P., Bowery, A., Crooks, S. M., Huntingford, C., Ingram, W. J., Jones, R. G., Legg, T., Miller, J., Skeggs, J., Wallom, D., Weisheimer, A., Wilson, S., and Allen, M. R.: The human influence on climate in the winter 2013/2014 floods in southern England, Nat. Clim. Change, 6, 627–634, https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2927 , 2016.  a

Schamm, K., Ziese, M., Becker, A., Finger, P., Meyer-Christoffer, A., Rudolf, B., and Schneider, U.: GPCC First Guess Daily Product at 1.0 ∘ : Near Real-Time First Guess daily Land-Surface Precipitation from Rain-Gauges based on SYNOP Data, https://doi.org/10.5676/DWD_GPCC/FG_D_100 , 2013.  a , b

Schamm, K., Ziese, M., Raykova, K., Becker, A., Finger, P., Meyer-Christoffer, A., and Schneider, U.: GPCC Full Data Daily Version 1.0 at 1.0 ∘ : Daily Land-Surface Precipitation from Rain-Gauges built on GTS-based and Historic Data, https://doi.org/10.5676/DWD_GPCC/FD_D_V1_100 , 2015.  a , b

Sutanudjaja, E. H., van Beek, R., Wanders, N., Wada, Y., Bosmans, J. H. C., Drost, N., van der Ent, R. J., de Graaf, I. E. M., Hoch, J. M., de Jong, K., Karssenberg, D., López López, P., Peßenteiner, S., Schmitz, O., Straatsma, M. W., Vannametee, E., Wisser, D., and Bierkens, M. F. P.: PCR-GLOBWB 2: a 5 arcmin global hydrological and water resources model, Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 2429-2453, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-2429-2018 , 2018.  a , b

Taylor, K. E., Stouffer, R. J., and Meehl, G. A.: An Overview of CMIP5 and the Experiment Design, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 93, 485–498, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00094.1 , 2012.  a , b

van der Wiel, K., Kapnick, S. B., van Oldenborgh, G. J., Whan, K., Philip, S., Vecchi, G. A., Singh, R. K., Arrighi, J., and Cullen, H.: Rapid attribution of the August 2016 flood-inducing extreme precipitation in south Louisiana to climate change, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 897–921, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-897-2017 , 2017.  a , b , c

van Oldenborgh, G. J., Otto, F. E. L., Haustein, K., and Achuta Rao, K.: The heavy precipitation event of December 2015 in Chennai, India, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 97, S87–S91, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-16-0129.1 , 2016.  a , b , c , d

van Oldenborgh, G. J., van der Wiel, K., Sebastian, A., Singh, R., Arrighi, J., Otto, F. E. L., Haustein, K., Li, S., Vecchi, G. A., and Cullen, H.: Attribution of extreme rainfall from Hurricane Harvey, August 2017, Environ. Res. Lett., 12, 124009, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa9ef2 , 2017.   a , b

Webster, P. J., Jian, J., Hopson, T. M., Hoyos, C. D., Agudelo, P. A., Chang, H.-R., Curry, J. A., Grossman, R. L., Palmer, T. N., and Subbiah, A. R.: Extended-Range Probabilistic Forecasts of Ganges and Brahmaputra Floods in Bangladesh, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 91, 1493–1514, https://doi.org/10.1175/2010BAMS2911.1 , 2010.  a , b , c

Yu, W., Alam, M., Hassan, A., Saleh Khan, A., Ruane, A., Rosenzweig, C., Major, D. C., and Thurlow, J.: Climate Change Risks and Food Security in Bangladesh, available at: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/4195314679982 54867/% Bangladesh-Climate-change-risks-and-food-security-in- Bangladesh (last access: 8 May 2018), 2010.  a

Yuan, X., Y., J., D., Y., and H., L.: Reconciling the Attribution of Changes in Streamflow Extremes From a Hydroclimate Perspective, Water Resour. Res., 54, 3886–3895, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018WR022714 , 2018.  a

Zaman, A., Molla, M., Pervin, I., Rahman, S. M., Haider, A., Ludwig, F., and Franssen, W.: Impacts on river systems under 2  ∘ C warming: Bangladesh Case Study, Climate Services, 7, 96–114, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cliser.2016.10.002 , 2017.  a

• Introduction
• Data and methods
• Observational analysis
• Model analysis
• Conclusions
• Data availability
• Author contributions
• Competing interests
• Acknowledgements

Assessment of flood vulnerability in Jamuna floodplain: a case study in Jamalpur district, Bangladesh

• Original Paper
• Published: 20 October 2022
• Volume 116 , pages 341–363, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

• Md. Munjurul Haque   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9802-8842 1 ,
• Sabina Islam 2 ,
• Md. Bahuddin Sikder 1 ,
• Md. Saiful Islam 3 &
• Annyca Tabassum 1  

519 Accesses

Explore all metrics

Floods are a frequent natural calamity in Bangladesh, where many areas get affected almost every year. An indicator-based vulnerability assessment can help efficiently manage the disaster. Therefore, this study intends to assess the community vulnerability in the Jamuna floodplain, one of the most flood-affected areas, using an indexing method. The index involves many indicators of flood exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity along with their weights, determined based on an extensive literature review. A pretested questionnaire was employed to collect primary data from the study area through 400 household-level interviews. Using multistage sampling techniques, five upazilas from Jamalpur district, i.e., Dewanganj, Islampur, Madarganj, Melandaha, and Sharishabari, were purposefully chosen based on past flood damage reports. The percentage values were derived using SPSS for every variable from the field-level data. The variable vulnerability index (VVI) was computed by dividing the indicator’s weight by its percentage value. Then, exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity indices were calculated using the VVI values. Finally, the composite vulnerability index (CVI) of the five Upazilas has been computed using an established and recognized index formula. The CVI scores for Dewanganj, Islampur, Madarganj, Melandaha, and Sharishabari are 0.86, 0.84, 0.71, 0.70, and 0.65, respectively, which suggest a high overall vulnerability. The scores of the exposure and adaptive capacity indices reveal that Dewanganj and Islampur Upazilas have higher vulnerability than the other three upazilas, especially due to poor socioeconomic conditions, low adaptive capacity, and high exposure. This study recommends some infrastructural development, such as sustainable flood-resistant dams, as the study sites are in a flood-prone zone. Houses should be built using flood-resistant materials like bricks and concrete, which are more resilient than mud. Improvements in education and multiple income sources will help the affected people increase their coping capacity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

(Source: BWDB)

Similar content being viewed by others

Measuring Vulnerability for City Dwellers Exposed to Flood Hazard: A Case Study of Dhaka City, Bangladesh

Flood vulnerability assessment using MOVE framework: a case study of the northern part of district Peshawar, Pakistan

Abdur Rahim Hamidi, Jiangwei Wang, … Zhongping Zeng

Application of flood vulnerability index in flood vulnerability assessment: a case study in Mai Hoa Commune, Tuyen Hoa District, Quang Binh Province

Chung Thi Nguyen & Bao Van Nguyen

Data availability

Data will be available on reasonable request.

Code availability

Not applicable.

Adger WN (2006) Vulnerability. Glob Environ Change 16(3):268–281

Article   Google Scholar  

Adger WN, Agnew M (2004) New indicators of vulnerability and adaptive capacity. Norwich: tyndall centre for climate change research. 122

Balica S, Wright NG (2010) Reducing the complexity of the flood vulnerability index. Environ Hazards 9(4):321–339

Balica SF, Douben N, Wright NG (2009) Flood vulnerability indices at varying spatial scales. Water Sci Technol 60(10):2571–2580

Balica SF, Wright NG, Van der Meulen F (2012) A flood vulnerability index for coastal cities and its use in assessing climate change impacts. Nat Hazards 64(1):73–105

Balica SF (2012) Applying the flood vulnerability index as a knowledge base for flood risk assessment; Dissertation, UNESCO-IHE institute for water education, delft

Batica J, Gourbesville P, Hu FY (2013) Methodology for flood resilience index. In: International conference on flood resilience experiences in Asia and Europe–ICFR, Exeter

BBS (2011) Bangladesh population and housing census 2011. Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics, Statistics and Informatics Division, Ministry of Planning, Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh.

BBS (2017) Preliminary report on household income and expenditure survey 2016. Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics, Statistics and Informatics Division, Ministry of Planning, Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh

Birkmann J (2007) Risk and vulnerability indicators at different scales: Applicability, usefulness and policy implications. Environ Hazards 7(1):20–31

Birkmann J, Cardona OD, Carreño ML, Barbat AH, Pelling M, Schneiderbauer S, Kienberger S, Keiler M, Alexander D, Zeil P, Welle T (2013) Framing vulnerability, risk and societal responses: the MOVE framework. Nat. Hazard 67(2):193–211

Borden KA, Schmidtlein MC, Emrich CT, Piegorsch WW, Cutter SL (2007) Vulnerability of US cities to environmental hazards. J Homel Secur Emerg Manag. https://doi.org/10.2202/1547-7355.1279

Bosher L, Dainty A, Carrillo P, Glass J, Price A (2009) Attaining improved resilience to floods a proactive multi-stakeholder approach. Disaster Prev Manage Int J. https://doi.org/10.1108/09653560910938501

Brammer H (1990) Floods in Bangladesh: geographical background to the 1987 and 1988 floods. Geogr j 156(1):12–22

Braun B, Aßheuer T (2011) Floods in megacity environments: vulnerability and coping strategies of slum dwellers in Dhaka/Bangladesh. Nat Hazards 58(2):771–787

Brouwer R, Akter S, Brander L, Haque E (2007) Socio-economic vulnerability and adaptation to environmental risk: a case study of climate change and flooding in Bangladesh. Risk Anal: Int J 27(2):313–326

Cutter SL, Barnes L, Berry M, Burton C, Evans E, Tate E, Webb J (2008) A place-based model for understanding community resilience to natural disasters. Glob Environ Chang 18(4):598–606

Cutter SL, Burton CG, Emrich CT (2010) Disaster resilience indicators for benchmarking baseline conditions. J homel secur emerg manage. https://doi.org/10.2202/1547-7355.1732

Cutter SL, Emrich CT, Morath DP, Dunning CM (2013) Integrating social vulnerability into federal flood risk management planning. J Flood Risk Manage 6(4):332–344

De León V, Carlos J (2006) Vulnerability: a conceptional and methodological review. UNU-EHS

Dufty N (2008) A new approach to community flood education. Aust J Emerg Manage 23(2):4–8

Google Scholar  

Fekete A, Brach K (2010) Assessment of social vulnerability river floods in Germany: united nations university. Institute for environment and human security (UNU-EHS)

Ferdous MR, Wesselink A, Brandimarte L, Slager K, Zwarteveen M, Di Baldassarre G (2019) The costs of living with floods in the Jamuna floodplain in Bangladesh. Water 11(6):1238

Field CB, Barros V, Stocker TF, Dahe Q (eds) (2012) Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation: special report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press

Fuchs S (2009) Susceptibility versus resilience to mountain hazards in Austria-paradigms of vulnerability revisited. Nat Hazard 9(2):337–352

Fuchs S, Thaler T (eds) (2018) Vulnerability and resilience to natural hazards. Cambridge University Press

Gallopín, G. (2003). A sistemic synthesis of the relations between vulnerability, hazard, exposure and impact at policy identification. Economic commission for latin American and the Caribbean (ECLAC). Handbook for estimating the socio-economic and environmental effects of disasters. ECLAC. Mexico, DF, pp 2–5

Gwimbi P (2007) The effectiveness of early warning systems for the reduction of flood disasters: some experiences from cyclone induced floods in Zimbabwe. J Sustain Dev Afr 9(4):152–169

Haque MM, Islam S, Sikder MB, Islam MS (2022) Community flood resilience assessment in Jamuna floodplain: a case study in Jamalpur district Bangladesh. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 72:102861

Hossain B, Sohel MS, Ryakitimbo CM (2020) Climate change induced extreme flood disaster in Bangladesh: implications on people’s livelihoods in the Char village and their coping mechanisms. Prog in Disaster Sci 6:100079

https://www.nirapad.org.bd/home/stroage/file/public/assets/resource/monthlyHazard/1515913055_Monthly%20Hazard%20Incident%20Report_July%202017.pdf

Karmaoui A, Balica SF, Messouli M (2016) Analysis of applicability of flood vulnerability index in Pre-Saharan region, a pilot study to assess flood in Southern Morocco. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci Discuss. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2016-96

Khalil GM (1990) Floods in Bangladesh: a question of disciplining the rivers. Nat Hazards 3(4):379–401

Kienberger S, Lang S, Zeil P (2009) Spatial vulnerability units–expert-based spatial modelling of socio-economic vulnerability in the Salzach catchment, Austria. Nat Hazard 9(3):767–778

Kundzewicz ZW, Kanae S, Seneviratne SI, Handmer J, Nicholls N, Peduzzi P, Mechler R, Bouwer LM, Arnell N, Mach K, Robert Muir-Wood G, Brakenridge R, Kron W, Benito G, Honda Y, Takahashi K, Sherstyukov B (2014) Flood risk and climate change: global and regional perspectives. Hydrol Sci J 59(1):1–28

Ludy J, Kondolf GM (2012) Flood risk perception in lands “protected” by 100-year levees. Nat Hazards 61(2):829–842

Mayunga JS (2007) Understanding and applying the concept of community disaster resilience: a capital-based approach. Summer Acad Soc Vulnerability Resil Build 1(1):1–16

Mirza MMQ (2002) Global warming and changes in the probability of occurrence of floods in Bangladesh and implications. Glob Environ Chang 12(2):127–138

Mirza MMQ (2003) Climate change and extreme weather events: can developing countries adapt? Clim Policy 3(3):233–248

Mirza M, Warrick RA, Ericksen NJ (2003) The implications of climate change on floods of the Ganges, Brahmaputra and Meghna rivers in Bangladesh. Clim Change 57(3):287–318

Mondal MSH, Murayama T, Nishikizawa S (2021) Examining the determinants of flood risk mitigation measures at the household level in Bangladesh. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 64:102492

Papathoma-Köhle M, Kappes M, Keiler M, Glade T (2011) Physical vulnerability assessment for alpine hazards: state of the art and future needs. Nat Hazards 58(2):645–680

Paul BK (1995) Farmers’ responses to the flood action plan (FAP) of Bangladesh: an empirical study. World Dev 23(2):299–309

Pelling M (2010) Adaptation to climate change: from resilience to transformation. Routledge

Book   Google Scholar  

Piya, L., Maharjan, K. L., & Joshi, N. P. (2012). Vulnerability of rural households to climate change and extremes: analysis of Chepang households in the Mid-Hills of Nepal (No. 1007–2016–79495)

Qasim S, Khan AN, Shrestha RP, Qasim M (2015) Risk perception of the people in the flood prone Khyber Pukhthunkhwa province of Pakistan. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 14:373–378

Qasim S, Qasim M, Shrestha RP, Khan AN (2017) An assessment of flood vulnerability in Khyber Pukhtunkhwa province of Pakistan. AIMS Environ Sci 4(2):206–216

Reynard NS, Prudhomme C, Crooks SM (2001) The flood characteristics of large UK rivers: potential effects of changing climate and land use. Clim Change 48(2):343–359

Scheuer S, Haase D, Meyer V (2011) Exploring multicriteria flood vulnerability by integrating economic, social and ecological dimensions of flood risk and coping capacity: from a starting point view towards an end point view of vulnerability. Nat Hazards 58(2):731–751

Shah AA, Ye J, Abid M, Khan J, Amir SM (2018) Flood hazards: household vulnerability and resilience in disaster-prone districts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province. Pak Nat Hazards 93(1):147–165

Shah AA, Shaw R, Ye J, Abid M, Amir SM, Pervez AK, Naz S (2019) Current capacities, preparedness and needs of local institutions in dealing with disaster risk reduction in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 34:165–172

Shah AA, Gong Z, Ali M, Jamshed A, Naqvi SAA, Naz S (2020a) Measuring education sector resilience in the face of flood disasters in Pakistan: an index-based approach. Environ Sci Pollut Res 27(35):44106–44122

Shah AA, Ye J, Shaw R, Ullah R, Ali M (2020b) Factors affecting flood-induced household vulnerability and health risks in Pakistan: the case of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) Province. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 42:101341

Singha M, Dong J, Sarmah S, You N, Zhou Y, Zhang G, Doughty R, Xiao X (2020) Identifying floods and flood-affected paddy rice fields in Bangladesh based on Sentinel-1 imagery and Google Earth Engine. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens 166:278–293

Solín Ľ, Madajová MS, Michaleje L (2018) Vulnerability assessment of households and its possible reflection in flood risk management: the case of the upper Myjava basin, Slovakia. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 28:640–652

Sullivan C, Meigh J (2005) Targeting attention on local vulnerabilities using an integrated index approach: the example of the climate vulnerability index. Water Sci Technol 51(5):69–78

Tate E (2012) Social vulnerability indices: a comparative assessment using uncertainty and sensitivity analysis. Nat Hazards 63(2):325–347

Webster PJ, Jian J, Hopson TM, Hoyos CD, Agudelo PA, Chang HR, Curry JA, Grossman RL, Palmer TN, Subbiah AR (2010) Extended-range probabilistic forecasts of Ganges and Brahmaputra floods in Bangladesh. Bull Am Meteor Soc 91(11):1493–1514

Wisner B, Blaikie P, Cannon T, Davis I (2014) At risk: natural hazards, people’s vulnerability and disasters. Routledge

Younus MAF (2014) Flood vulnerability and adaptation to climate change in Bangladesh: a review. JEAPM 16(03):1450024

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors express sincere thanks to Abdulla-Al Kafy and Digonresearch.org for their cordial help in proofreading of the manuscript. The first author received funding from the Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, under the NST fellowship program.

The first author received funding from Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh under the NST fellowship program. Grant No. 39.00.0000.012.002.03.18.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Geography and Environment, Shahjalal University of Science and Technology, Sylhet, 3114, Bangladesh

Md. Munjurul Haque, Md. Bahuddin Sikder & Annyca Tabassum

Department of Statistics, Shahjalal University of Science and Technology, Sylhet, 3114, Bangladesh

Sabina Islam

EQMS Consulting Limited, House #53, Road #4, Block #C, Banani, Dhaka, 1213, Bangladesh

Md. Saiful Islam

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Md. Munjurul Haque .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Haque, M.M., Islam, S., Sikder, M.B. et al. Assessment of flood vulnerability in Jamuna floodplain: a case study in Jamalpur district, Bangladesh. Nat Hazards 116 , 341–363 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-022-05677-1

Download citation

Received : 19 June 2021

Accepted : 23 September 2022

Published : 20 October 2022

Issue Date : March 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-022-05677-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Vulnerability
• Vulnerability Index
• Jamuna floodplain
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Content Search

Measuring the value of using social protection for emergency response: case study of floods in bangladesh (march 2024), attachments.

This research programme explores the investments being made to make social protection a viable vehicle for disaster response in three countries that face regular large-scale climate shocks, and aims to identify the value derived, and the benefits and challenges arising.

The principle that social protection systems have an important role to play in disaster response has become well established over the last decade, and even more so since the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet relatively few studies have sought to quantify the potential gains or challenges in terms of quality of service delivery from delivering humanitarian aid (government- or internationally led) through social protection systems.

Three light-touch case studies examine the use of social protection systems and programmes in recent disaster responses. They elicit new insights into the nature and scale of investments being made, and the returns to governments and their partners, as well as the benefits and challenges for programme implementers.

WFP's research programme, made possible through the financial support of BMZ and ECHO, looks at responses to floods in Bangladesh, typhoons in the Philippines and drought in Kenya. The series will be published during 2024.

Related Content

Bangladesh + 1 more

UNICEF Bangladesh Humanitarian Situation Report No. 6 (Floods and Landslides): 13 December 2023

Wfp bangladesh country brief, october 2023, unhcr bangladesh operational update, august 2023, unicef bangladesh humanitarian situation report no. 5 (floods and landslides in chittagong and cox's bazar): 15 november 2023.

GloFAS Case Study: Bangladesh 2020

Predicting 2020 monsoon floods timing and duration using glofas extended-range flood forecast for bangladesh. glofas helps bangladesh flood forecasters to predict 2020 monsoon floods timing and duration..

The impacts of the 2020 monsoon floods in Bangladesh were devastating with more than 5 million people affected by the floods, 41 casualties and tens of thousands of people living in low lying areas were evacuated to flood shelters along with their cattle (MoDMR, 2020) (Figure 1). Agriculture is one of the most severely affected sectors due to floods in Bangladesh and according to the Ministry of Agriculture of Bangladesh, 0.15 million hectares crop lands were damaged by the two successive floods waves during the 2020 monsoon (MoA, 2020).

During the South Asian summer monsoon, floods are a frequent natural hazard in the Brahmaputra river basin (Figure 2) in Bangladesh, but the type of flood that happens can vary significantly depending on the monsoon rainfall and basin hydrological characteristics. Flood forecasters consider three very important questions: when will flooding commence during the monsoon period, how long it will last and will there only be one flood or many flood waves? Predicting flood timing and duration with a sufficient lead-time is an additional challenge. The Global Flood Awareness System (GloFAS) is produced by ECMWF as part of the Copernicus Emergency Management Service (CEMS) and provides operational extended range ensemble flood forecasts with a 30 day lead-time for major world river basins including the Brahmaputra in Bangladesh (Alfieri et al., 2013). The GloFAS team from the University of Reading and ECMWF are working together with the Bangladesh Flood Forecasting and Warning Centre (FFWC) and humanitarian partners to improve flood early warning in Bangladesh under the UKRI/FCDO Science for Humanitarian Emergencies and Resilience (SHEAR) research program, so that forecasts issued to government and stakeholders are as skilful and useful as possible. GloFAS is freely available through a dedicated web interface ( https://www.globalfloods.eu ) or via the Copernicus Climate Data Store ( https://cds.climate.copernicus.eu/cdsapp#!/dataset/cems-glofas-forecast?tab=overview ). GloFAS aims to provide early warning information of upcoming floods with a long lead time to support disaster managers or national institutes for flood preparedness and response actions (Emerton et al., 2016). Here, we consider how GloFAS was used in anticipating floods timing and duration for taking early action to save lives and livelihoods in Bangladesh in the 2020 floods in the Brahmaputra basin.

Chronology of 2020 floods and GloFAS extended range forecast

Following cyclone Amphan in May 2020, the Brahmaputra river basin experienced heavy rainfall between 20 to 30 May, before the ‘climatological’ start of the monsoon season in June. This rainfall event was captured by the ECMWF ensemble rainfall forecast with almost 100% probability of exceeding 300 mm of accumulated rainfall over 10 days period (Fig. 3a), which is one of the products available through the GloFAS-CEMS website. This unusual May rainfall event increased river flow before the start of the monsoon, with further increasing as the monsoon progressed monsoon progressed over the basin from middle of June over the basin (Fig. 3b).

• a) Probability of exceeding 300 mm of rainfall in 10 days in ECMWF ensemble forecasts (forecast issued on 20 May 2020, Source: GloFAS);
• b) Observed river flow at Bahadurabad stream gauging station of the Brahmaputra river (location in Fig.1), source: FFWC/BWDB, Bangladesh, with shaded areas show two floods June to August in 2020, and also the danger level (river starts to spill onto the floodplain and causes damages to nearby crops and homesteads) and severe flood threshold (similar to GloFAS 2 year return period floods) (definition from FFWC, Bangladesh).

The 16 June 2020 the GloFAS extended range forecasts showed a flood event of ~10 days duration starting at the end of June (Fig. 4b), combined with a strong signal of heavy precipitation further upstream (Fig. 4a). On 19 June, GloFAS signal was even stronger, predicting a flood event exceeding the severe level of 20-year return period floods to start on 26 June and peaking on 30 June (Fig. 4d), associated with a heavy rain predicted for the next 10 days by ECMWF rainfall forecast ensemble (Fig. 4c). Raingauges records also show heavy rainfall between 19 to 26 June (288 mm at Tetulia and 295 mm at Dimla, data source: Bangladesh Meteorological Department, location in Figure 1), which was correctly predicted by the ECMWF forecast. As forecasted by GloFAS 14 days ahead, the first flood wave on the Brahmaputra was observed between the 26 June and 7 July, with flood levels peaking on 30 June.

The 29 June 2020 GloFAS forecasted a second flood wave (severity of 2 to 5 year return period level) beginning on 11 July and reaching flood peak on 16 July (Figure 5a and b). This flood also occurred as predicted with the river crossing its danger level on 11 July and floods continuing until the 7 August 2020, with observed peak recorded the 16 July (Figure 5 c and d). Overall, the two flood waves of the 2020 monsoon in the Brahmaputra basin in Bangladesh lasted 35 days, the duration and timing of which GloFAS extended range forecasts were able to predict both the start and duration of these flood events with relatively high confidence and at least a 10 day lead-time. GloFAS predicted flood severity levels were also consistent with the operational flood response activities in Bangladesh. In particular, GloFAS 10-day lead-time forecasts predicted a flood magnitude exceeding the ‘severe flood’ (i.e. similar to GloFAS thresholds 2 year and above return period, through personal communication with Dr Ahmadul Hassan, FbF, Bangladesh) category used for Forecast Based Financing (FbF) by humanitarian agencies in Bangladesh (Fig.6).

Whilst the river flow, estimated (using rating curve) based on observed river levels (Fig. 3b), was clearly lower than the flow values predicted by the GloFAS forecasts (Fig. 6, Fig. 4 and 5), it is important to note that there is always large uncertainty in flow measurements for large rivers during the monsoon, and also the fact that GloFAS provides flood predictions only in the context of its own climatological thresholds. This means that even though the absolute river levels in GloFAS can potentially be far from the observed levels, the probability for exceeding the GloFAS flood thresholds is expected to account for this and show a realistic flood signal (Alfieri et al, 2013).

• a) Probability of exceeding 300 mm of accumulated rainfall over 10-day rainfall and GloFAS reporting points;
• b) GloFAS river flow forecast at Bahadurabad station of the Brahmaputra provided upstream area in GloFAS is 520,800 km2 (a, b: forecast date: 16 June, 2020);
• c) Accumulated rainfall over 10 days for the median of the ECMWF ensemble forecast and GloFAS reporting points;
• d) GloFAS river flow forecast at Bahadurabad station of the Brahmaputra (c, d: forecast date 19 June, 2020). Reporting points (triangle and circle symbols) show river points with a predicted flood signal. Source: Source: GloFAS, www.globalfloods.eu. Vertical lines show start and end of the flood event in GloFAS forecast (See Figure 3b).

Forecast communication

To anticipate upcoming flooding events, the Flood Forecasting and Warning Centre (FFWC) in Bangladesh now routinely analyses information available from GloFAS on potential flood timing and duration following a successful pilot in 2017 floods. For the 2020 monsoon floods, GloFAS forecast was communicated to different stakeholders from national to sub-national levels, with national news media broadcasting the risk of potential flooding in advance to warn people by the FFWC Bangladesh. National and international NGOs, humanitarian agencies and development partners working in disaster response such as relief distribution have developed Forecast-based Financing (FbF) methods to help their decision making ahead of flood events, including three UN agencies: Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) and the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), who are implementing FbF in the northern flood vulnerable region of Bangladesh, supported by the Bangladesh Red Crescent Society (BDRCS) and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent (IFRC).

Based on GloFAS forecasts, the FbF program was set to a pre-activation mode on 4 July, 10 days ahead of the predicted flood of mid-July with a high probability. This triggered a cash distribution to vulnerable communities in the Bogura, Gaibandha, Kurigram, Jamalpur and Sirajganj districts on the 11 July ( https://reliefweb.int and through personal communication with Dr Ahmadul Hassan, FbF Bangladesh). The second flood wave continued up to 7 August 2020 and afterwards flows receded to normal in the basin in Bangladesh. This period is usually a challenge for flood forecasters of the region, as with August being commonly the peak of the monsoon season, a new flood wave can be possible. With GloFAS extended range forecasts on the 8 August 2020 showing no remarkable flood signal for August, the FFWC issued an outlook mentioning that no further major floods likely in August in the current monsoon (published in the daily Jugnator on 9 August 2020). Such extended range forecast is critical for agriculture planning. Following the announcement of no further remarkable floods being forecasted for the remainder of the season, farmers in Kurigram and Jamalpur districts started to broadcast “Aman” rice or prepare their seed beds from second week of August to grow seedlings i.e. young plants for transplantation (Figure. 7) (through personal communication with the local flood volunteers), in preparation for the next growing season. Therefore, this anticipatory action can empower communities to protect their lives and livelihoods by taking appropriate flood preparedness decisions for upcoming floods.

• (a) Broadcasted rice (09 August)
• (b) Seed bed (11 August)

https://reliefweb.int/report/bangladesh/un-helps-monsoon-affected-river-communities-bangladesh-peak-flooding

GloFAS flood forecast available from https://www.globalfloods.eu/glofas-forecasting/

Alfieri, L., Burek, P., Dutra, E., Krzeminski, B., Muraro, D., Thielen, J., and Pappenberger, F.: GloFAS – global ensemble streamflow forecasting and flood early warning Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 17, 1161-1175, 10.5194/hess-17-1161-2013, 2013.

Emerton, R. E., Stephens, E. M., Pappenberger, F., Pagano, T. C., Weerts, A. H., Wood, A. W., Salamon, P., Brown, J. D., Hjerdt, N., Donnelly, C., Baugh, C. A., and Cloke, H. L.: Continental and global scale flood forecasting systems, WIREs Water, 3, 391-418, 10.1002/wat2.1137, 2016.

MoA: Crop lands damage reports due to floods on 9 July and 18 August 2020, Ministry of Agriculture. Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2020.

MoDMR: Spatial flood situation report on 9 August, Ministry of Disaster Management and Relief. Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2020.

• Annual reports
• Annual Report 2022
• Results and Impact
• Project case study Bangladesh

Bangladesh: Dealing with climate change and strengthening resilience

The insurance sector in Bangladesh offers no protection to the rural population from natural disasters. Without access to insurance, farmers must limit their investments in farm implements and are unable to diversify their agricultural activities. A lack of investment and simultaneously low crop yields result in smallholder farmers being unable to free themselves from poverty.

Strengthening resilience

The Bangladesh Microinsurance Market Development Project (BMMDP) was launched in 2017 by the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC). Its objective is to increase the resilience of farmers to withstand climate-related crop failures and improve food security by way of microinsurance products.

Solutions for climate protection

According to the World Bank’s Country Climate and Development Report, Bangladesh may lose up to one-third of its gross domestic product by 2050 due to climate fluctuations and natural disasters. As approximately 38 per cent of the working-age population earns a living in agriculture, income stability and crop security, particularly for smallholder farmers, are a top priority for the country. In order to improve farmer resilience and productivity, the project is working closely with the insurance market in Bangladesh and developing insurance products for crops and farm animals, as well as services to minimize risks.

As part of the programme for sustainable agriculture implemented jointly with the Syngenta Foundation, Swisscontact has introduced a completely new type of insurance to Bangladesh: weather index-based crop insurance. Data is compiled at various weather stations and evaluated over a specific time period. The insurance makes an indexed payout whenever the values of a previously set threshold are exceeded or undercut.

The advantage of this method is that the insurance payout is neither based on the type of crop nor on its effective yield, instead, the payments are independent of the individual farmer’s losses. This means there is no individual damage assessment, and the administrative costs can be decreased significantly.

Weather report via voice calls

The insurance also offers various advisory services, such as voice calls informing farmers of the weather forecast and offering them agricultural advisory services (outbound dialling service, or OBD). Direct voice calls are greatly advantageous over brief news clips because they also reach illiterate people. Given Bangladesh’s literacy rate of 75 per cent in 2020, the use of voice calls has been shown to be significantly more effective than news clips in informing farmers.

Production cost savings

In addition, the farmers receive seasonal advisory services. By getting informed on good agricultural practices such as the use of organic fertilisers or field irrigation for crops such as rice, potatoes, maize, etc., they can undertake the necessary measures to minimise the risk of crop failures from unfavourable weather changes.

One example from the field illustrates this service vividly: a farmer planning to fertilise his crop in the next few days will receive a phone call informing him of upcoming rains. Thus, he decides to delay fertilising until after the rain has ended so that the fertiliser is not washed away. This saves him money and resources.

A lighthouse project for partnership

The programme works together with a dozen partners from the private sector and insurance field on innovative solutions. It is thus a lighthouse project for successful collaboration between international development cooperation and the private sector.

As part of this programme, Swisscontact also helped in the development of the first disease and death insurance policy for cattle, for which farmers file an application and the costs of treatment for insured cattle are reimbursed. This medical insurance product uses the latest technology of machine learning to identify insured cattle by nose prints. Just as every human being has their own fingerprint, each head of cattle has its own unique nose print. Given that in Bangladesh cattle are worshipped and considered sacred, it is forbidden to clip a chip onto them.

From 2017 through 2022, more than 800,000 farmers have taken out crop and cattle insurance as part of the project. Nearly 480,000 of these farmers were women. The volume of financing forwarded to farmers amounted to 166 million Swiss francs. 463,000 farmers benefited from the use of climate-resistant land cultivation methods.

“For many years, we have relied on income from the sale of fish and vegetables. It was difficult to feed a family of four. We earned additional income from planting rice and potatoes. But this was also risky, because downpours, thick fog, drought, and storms destroyed the harvest. In 2021, I found out about crop insurance and soon took one out. I received weekly weather forecasts and agricultural advisory services free-of-charge. This helped me to better manage my crop. In April 2022, I suffered great losses when my potato fields were damaged by a storm. Because I was insured, I was reimbursed for most of my losses. This gave me a feeling of security. By and by, I have started to invest in planting other crops.”

Ms Tohura Khatun, a Bangladeshi farmer

“There is enormous insurance potential in Bangladesh, particularly in agriculture. Without a doubt, we must work toward improving access to insurance and emphasise insurance products tailored to real needs. Now that the first illness and death insurance policies for cattle have been introduced, I can state with confidence that our efforts, along with the support and guidance provided by this project and our partners, have yielded fruit.”

Papia Rahman, Deputy CEO, Chartered Insurer

“We offer crop insurance to smallholder farmers in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. This year, Swisscontact has helped us to enter a new country and develop a customised insurance product called the Area Yield Index Insurance (AYII) for potatoes in Bangladesh. AYII has never been offered on a large scale in Bangladesh; thanks to this project, we were able to develop this new product and launch it on the market.”

Elise Lee, Business Director, Pula Advisors AG

• Share this page on LinkedIn
• Share this page on facebook
• Share on twitter
• Share by e-mail

Flooding Case Study: Bangladesh

Rivers of bangladesh.

Three main rivers flow through Bangladesh. They are the Ganges, the Brahmaputra and the Surma (Barak).

• The Ganges.
• The Brahmaputra.
• The Surma (Barak).

• The Ganges is 2,510 km long.
• It is a vital river for the country both financially and sacredly.
• Its source is located in the Himalaya Mountains.
• It then flows downstream through Calcutta (India) and finally out into the Bay of Bengal.
• The citizens of both Bangladesh and India rely on the river to grow crops.

The Brahmaputra River

• The Brahmaputra River is 2,900 km long.
• It has its source in the upland area of Kailash in Tibet.
• It frequently deposits rich soils which benefit farmers.
• However it also can produce devastating flood waters that endanger the local people.

Flooding: Consequences & Actions

Bangladesh suffers from frequent flooding events and some have caused great loss of life.

• This is due to monsoon rains and tropical cyclones.
• This makes Bangladesh more susceptible to flooding after these weather events.

Flood of 2017

• In 2017, heavy rainfall caused an estimated 6 million people to be displaced and killed 93.
• 450,000 hectares of farmland was also flooded and 500,000 homes were destroyed.

Flood of 2004

• One of the most devastating floods in the country occurred in 2004.
• Over 800 people were killed due to the spread of disease.
• An estimated 36 million people displaced.

• In response to the frequent flooding events the government have invested in short and potentially long-term responses to reduce the impact of flooding events in the future.

Short-term responses

• Repairing flood embankments.
• Providing food and drinking water.
• Giving farmers new seeds.

Long-term responses

• Reducing the rate of deforestation.
• Developing technology to implement flood warning systems.
• Construction of dams to store water.

1 Geography Skills

1.1 Mapping

1.1.1 Map Making

1.1.2 OS Maps

1.1.3 Grid References

1.1.4 Contour Lines

1.1.5 Symbols, Scale and Distance

1.1.6 Directions on Maps

1.1.7 Describing Routes

1.1.8 Map Projections

1.1.9 Aerial & Satellite Images

1.1.10 Using Maps to Make Decisions

1.2 Geographical Information Systems

1.2.1 Geographical Information Systems

1.2.2 How do Geographical Information Systems Work?

1.2.3 Using Geographical Information Systems

1.2.4 End of Topic Test - Geography Skills

2 Geology of the UK

2.1 The UK's Rocks

2.1.1 The UK's Main Rock Types

2.1.2 The UK's Landscape

2.1.3 Using Rocks

2.1.4 Weathering

2.2 Case Study: The Peak District

2.2.1 The Peak District

2.2.2 Limestone Landforms

2.2.3 Quarrying

3 Geography of the World

3.1 Geography of America & Europe

3.1.1 North America

3.1.2 South America

3.1.3 Europe

3.1.4 The European Union

3.1.5 The Continents

3.1.6 The Oceans

3.1.7 Longitude

3.1.8 Latitude

3.1.9 End of Topic Test - Geography of the World

4 Development

4.1 Development

4.1.1 Classifying Development

4.1.3 Evaluation of GDP

4.1.4 The Human Development Index

4.1.5 Population Structure

4.1.6 Developing Countries

4.1.7 Emerging Countries

4.1.8 Developed Countries

4.1.9 Comparing Development

4.2 Uneven Development

4.2.1 Consequences of Uneven Development

4.2.2 Physical Factors Affecting Development

4.2.3 Historic Factors Affecting Development

4.2.4 Human & Social Factors Affecting Development

4.2.5 Breaking Out of the Poverty Cycle

4.3 Case Study: Democratic Republic of Congo

4.3.1 The DRC: An Overview

4.3.2 Political & Social Factors Affecting Development

4.3.3 Environmental Factors Affecting the DRC

4.3.4 The DRC: Aid

4.3.5 The Pros & Cons of Aid in DRC

4.3.6 Top-Down vs Bottom-Up in DRC

4.3.7 The DRC: Comparison with the UK

4.3.8 The DRC: Against Malaria Foundation

4.4 Case Study: Nigeria

4.4.1 The Importance & Development of Nigeria

4.4.2 Nigeria's Relationships with the Rest of the World

4.4.3 Urban Growth in Lagos

4.4.4 Population Growth in Lagos

4.4.5 Factors influencing Nigeria's Growth

4.4.6 Nigeria: Comparison with the UK

5 Weather & Climate

5.1 Weather

5.1.1 Weather & Climate

5.1.2 Components of Weather

5.1.3 Temperature

5.1.4 Sunshine, Humidity & Air Pressure

5.1.5 Cloud Cover

5.1.6 Precipitation

5.1.7 Convectional Precipitation

5.1.8 Frontal Precipitation

5.1.9 Relief or Orographic Precipitation

5.1.10 Wind

5.1.11 Extreme Wind

5.1.12 Recording the Weather

5.1.13 Extreme Weather

5.2 Climate

5.2.1 Climate of the British Isles

5.2.2 Comparing Weather & Climate London

5.2.3 Climate of the Tropical Rainforest

5.2.4 End of Topic Test - Weather & Climate

5.3 Tropical Storms

5.3.1 Formation of Tropical Storms

5.3.2 Features of Tropical Storms

5.3.3 The Structure of Tropical Storms

5.3.4 Tropical Storms Case Study: Katrina Effects

5.3.5 Tropical Storms Case Study: Katrina Responses

6 The World of Work

6.1 Tourism

6.1.1 Landscapes

6.1.2 The Growth of Tourism

6.1.3 Benefits of Tourism

6.1.4 Economic Costs of Tourism

6.1.5 Social, Cultural & Environmental Costs of Tourism

6.1.6 Tourism Case Study: Blackpool

6.1.7 Ecotourism

6.1.8 Tourism Case Study: Kenya

7 Natural Resources

7.1.1 What are Rocks?

7.1.2 Types of Rock

7.1.4 The Rock Cycle - Weathering

7.1.5 The Rock Cycle - Erosion

7.1.6 What is Soil?

7.1.7 Soil Profiles

7.1.8 Water

7.1.9 Global Water Demand

7.2 Fossil Fuels

7.2.1 Introduction to Fossil Fuels

7.2.2 Fossil Fuels

7.2.3 The Global Energy Supply

7.2.5 What is Peak Oil?

7.2.6 End of Topic Test - Natural Resources

8.1 River Processes & Landforms

8.1.1 Overview of Rivers

8.1.2 The Bradshaw Model

8.1.3 Erosion

8.1.4 Sediment Transport

8.1.5 River Deposition

8.1.6 River Profiles: Long Profiles

8.1.7 River Profiles: Cross Profiles

8.1.8 Waterfalls & Gorges

8.1.9 Interlocking Spurs

8.1.10 Meanders

8.1.11 Floodplains

8.1.12 Levees

8.1.13 Case Study: River Tees

8.2 Rivers & Flooding

8.2.1 Flood Risk Factors

8.2.2 Flood Management: Hard Engineering

8.2.3 Flood Management: Soft Engineering

8.2.4 Flooding Case Study: Boscastle

8.2.5 Flooding Case Study: Consequences of Boscastle

8.2.6 Flooding Case Study: Responses to Boscastle

8.2.7 Flooding Case Study: Bangladesh

8.2.8 End of Topic Test - Rivers

8.2.9 Rivers Case Study: The Nile

8.2.10 Rivers Case Study: The Mississippi

9.1 Formation of Coastal Landforms

9.1.1 Weathering

9.1.2 Erosion

9.1.3 Headlands & Bays

9.1.4 Caves, Arches & Stacks

9.1.5 Wave-Cut Platforms & Cliffs

9.1.6 Waves

9.1.7 Longshore Drift

9.1.8 Coastal Deposition

9.1.9 Spits, Bars & Sand Dunes

9.2 Coast Management

9.2.1 Management Strategies for Coastal Erosion

9.2.2 Case Study: The Holderness Coast

9.2.3 Case Study: Lyme Regis

9.2.4 End of Topic Test - Coasts

10 Glaciers

10.1 Overview of Glaciers & How They Work

10.1.1 Distribution of Glaciers

10.1.2 Types of Glaciers

10.1.3 The Last Ice Age

10.1.4 Formation & Movement of Glaciers

10.1.5 Shaping of Landscapes by Glaciers

10.1.6 Glacial Landforms Created by Erosion

10.1.7 Glacial Till & Outwash Plain

10.1.8 Moraines

10.1.9 Drumlins & Erratics

10.1.10 End of Topic Tests - Glaciers

10.1.11 Tourism in Glacial Landscapes

10.1.12 Strategies for Coping with Tourists

10.1.13 Case Study - Lake District: Tourism

10.1.14 Case Study - Lake District: Management

11 Tectonics

11.1 Continental Drift & Plate Tectonics

11.1.1 The Theory of Plate Tectonics

11.1.2 The Structure of the Earth

11.1.3 Tectonic Plates

11.1.4 Plate Margins

11.2 Volcanoes

11.2.1 Volcanoes & Their Products

11.2.2 The Development of Volcanoes

11.2.3 Living Near Volcanoes

11.3 Earthquakes

11.3.1 Overview of Earthquakes

11.3.2 Consequences of Earthquakes

11.3.3 Case Study: Christchurch, New Zealand Earthquake

11.4 Tsunamis

11.4.1 Formation of Tsunamis

11.4.2 Case Study: Japan 2010 Tsunami

11.5 Managing the Risk of Volcanoes & Earthquakes

11.5.1 Coping With Earthquakes & Volcanoes

11.5.2 End of Topic Test - Tectonics

12 Climate Change

12.1 The Causes & Consequences of Climate Change

12.1.1 Evidence for Climate Change

12.1.2 Natural Causes of Climate Change

12.1.3 Human Causes of Climate Change

12.1.4 The Greenhouse Effect

12.1.5 Effects of Climate Change on the Environment

12.1.6 Effects of Climate Change on People

12.1.7 Climate Change Predictions

12.1.8 Uncertainty About Future Climate Change

12.1.9 Mitigating Against Climate Change

12.1.10 Adapting to Climate Change

12.1.11 Case Study: Bangladesh

13 Global Population & Inequality

13.1 Global Populations

13.1.1 World Population

13.1.2 Population Structure

13.1.3 Ageing Populations

13.1.4 Youthful Populations

13.1.5 Population Control

13.1.6 Mexico to USA Migration

13.1.7 End of Topic Test - Development & Population

14 Urbanisation

14.1 Urbanisation

14.1.1 Rural Characterisitcs

14.1.2 Urban Characteristics

14.1.3 Urbanisation Growth

14.1.4 The Land Use Model

14.1.5 Rural-Urban Pull Factors

14.1.6 Rural-Urban Push Factors

14.1.7 The Impacts of Migration

14.1.8 Challenges of Urban Areas in Developed Countries

14.1.9 Challenges of Urban Areas in Developing Countries

14.1.10 Urban Sustainability

14.1.11 Case Study: China's Urbanisation

14.1.12 Major UK Cities

14.1.13 Urbanisation in the UK

14.1.14 End of Topic Test- Urbanisation

14.1.15 End of Topic Test - Urban Issues

15 Ecosystems

15.1 The Major Biomes

15.1.1 Distribution of Major Biomes

15.1.2 What Affects the Distribution of Biomes?

15.1.3 Biome Features: Tropical Forests

15.1.4 Biome Features: Temperate Forests

15.1.5 Biome Features: Tundra

15.1.6 Biome Features: Deserts

15.1.7 Biome Features: Tropical Grasslands

15.1.8 Biome Features: Temperate Grasslands

15.2 Case Study: The Amazon Rainforest

15.2.1 Interdependence of Rainforest Ecosystems

15.2.2 Nutrient Cycling in Tropical Rainforests

15.2.3 Deforestation in the Amazon

15.2.4 Impacts of Deforestation in the Amazon

15.2.5 Protecting the Amazon

15.2.6 Adaptations of Plants to Rainforests

15.2.7 Adaptations of Animals to Rainforests

16 Life in an Emerging Country

16.1 Case Studies

16.1.1 Mumbai: Opportunities

16.1.2 Mumbai: Challenges

17 Analysis of Africa

17.1 Africa

17.1.1 Desert Biomes in Africa

17.1.2 The Semi-Desert Biome

17.1.3 The Savanna Biome

17.1.4 Overview of Tropical Rainforests

17.1.5 Colonisation History

17.1.6 Population Distribution in Africa

17.1.7 Economic Resources in Africa

17.1.8 Urbanisation in Africa

17.1.9 Africa's Location

17.1.10 Physical Geography of Africa

17.1.11 Desertification in Africa

17.1.12 Reducing the Risk of Desertification

17.1.13 Case Study: The Sahara Desert - Opportunities

17.1.14 Case Study: The Sahara Desert - Development

18 Analysis of India

18.1 India - Physical Geography

18.1.1 Geographical Location of India

18.1.2 Physical Geography of India

18.1.3 India's Climate

18.1.4 Natural Disasters in India

18.1.5 Case Study: The Thar Desert

18.1.6 Case Study: The Thar Desert - Challenges

18.2 India - Human Geography

18.2.1 Population Distribution in India

18.2.2 Urabinsation in India

18.2.3 The History of India

18.2.4 Economic Resources in India

19 Analysis of the Middle East

19.1 The Middle East

19.1.1 Physical Geography of the Middle East

19.1.2 Human Geography of the Middle East

19.1.3 Climate Zones in the Middle East

19.1.4 Climate Comparison with the UK

19.1.5 Oil & Natural Gas in the Middle East

19.1.6 Water in the Middle East

19.1.7 Population of the Middle East

19.1.8 Development Case Studies: The UAE

19.1.9 Development Case Studies: Yemen

19.1.10 Supporting Development in Yemen

19.1.11 Connection to the UK

19.1.12 Importance of Oil

19.1.13 Oil & Tourism in the UAE

20 Analysis of Bangladesh

20.1 Bangladesh Physical Geography

20.1.1 Location of Bangladesh

20.1.2 Climate of Bangladesh

20.1.3 Rivers in Bangladesh

20.1.4 Flooding in Bangladesh

20.2 Bangladesh Human Geography

20.2.1 Population Structure in Bangladesh

20.2.2 Urbanisation in Bangladesh

20.2.3 Bangladesh's Economy

20.2.4 Energy & Sustainability in Bangladesh

21 Analysis of Russia

21.1 Russia's Physical Geography

21.1.1 Russia's Climate

21.1.2 Russia's Landscape

21.2 Russia's Human Geography

21.2.1 Population of Russia

21.2.2 Russia's Economy

21.2.3 Energy & Sustainability in Russia

Jump to other topics

Unlock your full potential with GoStudent tutoring

Affordable 1:1 tutoring from the comfort of your home

Tutors are matched to your specific learning needs

30+ school subjects covered

Flooding Case Study: Responses to Boscastle

End of Topic Test - Rivers

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Towards sustainable flood mitigation strategies: A case study of Bangladesh

2011, Disaster, Risk and Vulnerability Conference 2011 (Volume 1 Number 1)

This paper outlines a part of a research and design project based on work undertaken for the B.Arch. at the Department of Architecture, Bangladesh University of Engineering & Technology in 2008. This study intended to ease the lifestyle & livelihood of rural dwellers beside the river bank areas in respond to natural hazards like floods. Floods in the deltaic valley of Bangladesh is not merely an environmental issue, they play with the very fate of the nation, not to speak havoc they wreak on the economy of these inhabitants besides the bank side areas. Again this climatologic phenomenon not only poses enormous threats to the locality but also moderate floods contribute to the fertility of the land. Flood hazards of bank side areas of rivers are difficult to control through structural measures; Flood proofing through assistance to self help measures to reduce the damage to property and stress are largely accepted preventive efforts that these people have practiced. This paper focuses on formulating future action plans and some immediate incentives to improve the physical environment that are better suited to the people of river bank areas with frequently changing context. To develop a self-sustain community and sustainable mitigation strategies in response to observed or expected changes in climatic stimuli beside the riverbank areas, study goes through the geo-morphological & hydrological analysis and vulnerability assessments in this area. Finally goal is to provide zoning guidelines & few planning solutions along with modified house building techniques through flood level predictions, which would help the peasants at the time of emergency & could be intergrated into official flood management measure.

Related Papers

PWK ITN 2017

Course GEOG6023 ’Physical Geography in Environmental Management’, MSc, University of Southampton, UK

Polina Lemenkova

The presentation describes problem of flooding in Bangladesh: Bangladesh belongs the countries that are affected by flooding the most. The work presents natural hazards happening in Bangladesh, frequent natural disasters causing loss of life, damage to infrastructure and economic assets, impacts on lives and livelihoods. Floods, tropical cyclones, storm surges and droughts are likely to become more frequent and severe in the coming years. Bangladesh lies in the delta of three of the largest rivers in the world – the Brahmaputra, the Ganges and the Meghna and is notable for frequent floods. Social factors are compared. Hence, during the flood hazard the following population groups are at risk: 1) the poor, 2) poor-healthy, 3) women. These groups will suffer much more disproportionately than the group of well-being and healthy men, more so in the coastal and rural areas than elsewhere. The presentation is supported by illustrations, maps and graphs. Presented at the University of Southampton, 2009.

Climate Stricken;Challenges of Flood mitigation in Bangladesh.

Badrul Munir

Abstract: Bangladesh is a riverine country and one of the most flood-prone countries in the world with the greatest risk of being affected by climate change and natural disasters like Flood, Cyclone, Landslide and Lightening. Some 30 to 35% of the total land surface of the country is flooded every year and people use multiple strategies to live with flooding events and associated riverbank erosion. They relocate, evacuate their homes temporarily, change cropping patterns, and supplement their income from migrating household members. The frequency and intensity of natural hazard are increasing day by day parallel to the climate change. The image of Bangladesh as a country that is adapting well stems from its long history of living with floods. Every year the country has been losing a large part of GDP as an economic loss. Regular floods are part of people’s lives, recurring with varying magnitudes and frequencies to which people have adapted. Bangladesh experiences four different types of floods: flash floods, riverine floods, rain floods and storm-surge floods. Floods and cyclone are some of the most destructive hydro meteorological phenomena in terms of their impacts on humans, infrastructure, and economic sectors and also ecosystems in Bangladesh. The Flood Forecasting and Early Warning system is also equipped with experienced and trained personnel. FFWC is capable of issuing forecasts 30 to 72 hours in advance using real time data. In Bangladesh, flood forecasting and warning is conducted with the aid of a hydrological and hydrodynamic mathematical model (MIKE11-GIS) and the NOAA–AVHRR satellite imagery and processing system. The geo-technical work involved in upgrading the embankments to mitigate the flood situation. Soil are used to increase the height and width of the embankments, locally produced concrete blocks or geo-tubes are offer slope reinforcement. In addition to the geo-technical work, sluice gates associated with the existing embankments and their respective drainage channels are being updated. This is now agricultural requirements for the use of the sluice gate," The new sluice gates incorporated into the embankments and sliding gates that is enabling the sluices to function in both ways so that they can be used as part of local water management operations. The flood problem in Bangladesh is extremely complex. The country is an active delta; it has numerous networks of rivers, canals and coast creeks with extensive flood plains through which surface water of about 1.7 million sq-km drains annually. Although the livelihood of the people in Bangladesh is well adapted to normal monsoon flood, the damages due to inundation, riverbank erosion or breach of embankment, etc. still occur in almost every monsoon. The devastating floods often have disastrous consequences: major damage to infrastructure, great loss of property, crops, cattle, poultry etc. With every major flood in Bangladesh, food security and poverty situation adversely affected. Keywords: Water Resource Management, Geo-Technology, Adaptation, Drainage, Monsoon, Mitigation strategy. Early warning.

Dr. Amartya Kumar Bhattacharya

Bristi Basak

Dhaka, the largest and capital city of Bangladesh, is a rapidly growing Mega city. Major environmental concern of Dhaka city is recurring natural disasters. Flood is actually the main natural catastrophic event now days for Dhaka city. To mitigate the flood hazard there is a Flood Action Plan for Dhaka, which was made after 1988 flood. Moreover, there are pre and post mitigation measures taken by Govt. Despite of these measures, Dhaka faces flood hazard in every year and the hazard is becoming more vulnerable day by day. So, there is a need for planning measures to mitigate flood hazard. In this thesis an attempt has been made to arrive at strategies for mitigating floods in the Dhaka city. The goal of the thesis has been achieved under five objectives. The phenomenon and characteristics of flooding in the city of Dhaka has been studied under first objective. The critical flood prone areas, causative factors, existing infrastructure problem that makes worst situation during flood and rainy season have been studied under second and third objective. Under forth objective review of Flood Action Plan of Dhaka has been studied. Suggestion for planning measures to mitigate floods has been studied under objective five. The analysis of the secondary survey data indicates that Dhaka faces two types of flood -monsoon flood and urban flood. This type of floods causes because of local heavy rainfall and blockage of natural drainage of water due to unplanned population settlement. Dhaka has both open and closed drainage system. Most of them are blocked due to solid waste dumping. As population is increasing day by day, slums have been taken place in the retention areas and along the canals & lakes. So, slum population is dumping solid waste as well as sewerage in the canals. It causes environmental hazard and blockage of natural drainage system. Moreover, natural drainage system is getting blocked by the nature (water hyacinth) also. So, storm water cannot be drained out properly during rainy season and it causes urban flood. These are major issues arrived from the analysis. At the end of the thesis some planning measures to mitigate the flood has been recommended. This recommendation has been divided into three categories. In the first category, the proposals of FAP should come true. Zoning of the area has been done also. In second stage the alternative allocation of urbanization has been worked out. The third step covers the preservation of wetlands, rejuvenation of canals, increasing the drainage capacity, increasing the public awareness and improving the situation by leg al instrument. An action plan has been prepared for a flood prone area called Kamrangirchar. Zoning has been done for the area. The zoning covers in three steps. Some other recommendations also have taken for the study area like- conservation of water body, protection of natural drainage system etc.

Anika N. Haque

Imam Abd Sajid

SN Applied Sciences

RABIN CHAKRABORTTY

Sk Nafiz Rahaman

RELATED PAPERS

Evidencia, actualizacion en la práctica ambulatoria

Maximiliano Smietniansky

Gaceta medica de Mexico

Rosalinda Guevara-Guzmán

Van Mensen en Dingen: tijdschrift voor volkscultuur in Vlaanderen

Barbara Vos

Dress Code by Rumah Jahit Azka

Isabelle Wolf

Journal of Oral Pathology &amp; Medicine

Kanchan Mukhopadhyay

Romana Martin

IASET Publications

Niko Väänänen

The Plant Cell

Maria Angeles Lopez Matas

Journal of Animal Ecology

Ellen Decaestecker

Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms

Hrvoje Zorc

Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation

ghazal shariatpanahi

JURNAL KESEHATAN PERINTIS (Perintis's Health Journal)

RIA DESNITA

Biodiversity data journal

Nicolas Bailly

Ade anggara

William Butler

Japanese Journal of Applied Physics

Mitsuo Koike

Mizeck Chagunda

FEBS Letters

Katherine Borden

Journal of Fetal Medicine

Pankaj Saini

Analytical Chemistry

Andrzej Lewenstam

Helena Solari

Agricultural History

David Schoenbrun

European Journal of Biochemistry

Max Herzberg

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

• Free Case Studies
• Business Essays

Write My Case Study

Buy Case Study

Case Study Help

• Case Study For Sale
• Case Study Service
• Hire Writer

Flood Case Study: Bangladesh

The main cause of the floods was unusually severe monsoon rains and an unusually high volume of runoff from melting snow from the snow caps of the Himalayas. These all increased the amount of surface water and the volume of water in Bangladesh two main rivers, which are very large and connect.

The Ganges and the Apparatus both had more than the normal amount of water that they could carry and so were overflowing and flooding. A number of human factors also contributed to the devastating flooding of Bangladesh, including large amounts of deforestation and overbearing.

We Will Write a Custom Case Study Specifically For You For Only $13.90/page!

Deforestation for logging or farming removes trees that would otherwise absorb and delay the flow of rainwater. Overbearing ruins the soil and so water Just goes straight through it and doesn’t soak into the ground for groundwater. This means that the maximum amount of surface water can travel down the hills and tributaries. Bangladesh Itself Is a very poor and highly populated country and cannot afford necessary defense against flooding such as flood banks/walls or rescue services to help survivors and refugees.

Consequences Following the 1998 floods a number of short term flood relief measures were put in lace to try and minimize loss of life – these included: international food aid programmers the distribution of free seed to farmers by the Bangladesh government to try and reduce the impact of food shortages – the government also gave 350,000 tons of cereal to feed people; volunteers / aid workers worked to try and repair flood damage.

In the long term a number of flood prevention measure are possible: the creation of embankments (artificial levees) along the river to increase channel capacity and restrict flood waters – however since 1957, 7,km of flood embankments have been constructed and yet many were breached In the 1998 floods; constructing flood protection shelters (large bulldogs raised above the ground) to shelter both people and animals emergency flood warning systems and plans made for organizing rescue and relief services: providing emergency medical stores in villages building flood proof storage sheds for grain and other food supplies dam construction upstream and major embankments around Dacha have been suggested however lack of money has meant that these suggestions have not been taken further. The floodwater’s swallowed 300,000 houses, 9,700 kilometers (6,027 m’) of road and 2,700 kilometers (1 ,678 m’) of embankment.

Around 1,000 people drowned in the flooding or died from diseases like typhoid and cholera from contaminated water. The flooding dealt a devastating blow to agriculture; 135,000 cattle and 700,000 hectares of crops were lost land. The material destruction was overwhelming: 30 million people lost their homes, 50 square kilometers (19.

3 sq. Ran) of land was destroyed and 1 1,000 kilometers (6,835 ml) of roads damaged or destroyed. Most of the destruction occurred In the Ganges delta. Hood case study Obsolesce M On the 16th, warm air picking up moisture – due to residual heat from the Atlantic sea – traveled towards the South West Cornish coast as prevailing winds.

Upon contact with the topographically vertical coast, these winds experienced a strong up- drafting force thus causing internal moisture to reach the atmosphere, and consequently cool as a string of storm clouds. With convergence and coalescence, enhanced moisture levels resulted in heavy rainfall on the afternoon of 16 August 2004.

185 mm (7 inches) of rain fell over the high ground Just inland of Obsolesce. At he peak of the downpour, at about 1 5:40 GMT, 24. 1 mm of rain (almost one inch) was recorded as falling in Just 15 minutes at Lessened, 2. 5 miles (4 km) up the valley from Obsolesce. In Obsolesce, 89 mm (3. 5 inches) of rain was recorded in 60 minutes.

The rain was much localized: four of the nearest 10 rain gauges, all within a few miles of Obsolesce, showed less than 3 mm of rain that day.

The cause of the very heavy localized rain is thought to be an extreme example of what has become known as the Brown Wily effect. The torrential rain led too 2 m (7 Ft. ) rise in river levels in one our. A 3 m (10 Ft. ) wave, believed to have been triggered by water pooling behind debris caught under a bridge and then being suddenly released as the bridge collapsed, surged down the main road.

Water speed was over 4 m/s (10 MPH), more than enough to cause structural damage. It is estimated that 20,000,000 cubic meters (5. Xx US gal) of water flowed through Obsolesce that day alone. The steep valley sides and the saturated surface ensured a high amount of surface run-off.

Changes in farming practice in the area also possibly contributed, sewage could have been a cause as well, with a reduction of trees and hedges higher up the valley causing water to flow through more quickly than would have been the case in the past. Fortunately, no one died in the flood.

Impact of the flood 75 cars, 5 caravans, 6 buildings and several boats were washed into the sea; approximately 100 homes and businesses were destroyed; trees were uprooted and debris were scattered over a large area. In an operation lasting from mid-afternoon until 2:30 AM, a fleet of 7 helicopters rescued about 150 people clinging to trees and the roofs of buildings and cars. No major injuries or loss of life were reported.

Related posts:

• Studies in Bangladesh
• Bangladesh Studies
• A Case Study on Branding Bangladesh
• Case Study of ‘Leaving Bangladesh’ by Sinthi
• Internship Report on British American Tobacco Bangladesh
• Flood of Thoughts
• The Bible and Mesopotamian Flood Stories

Quick Links

Privacy Policy

Terms and Conditions

Testimonials

Our Services

Case Study Writing Service

Case Studies For Sale

Our Company

Welcome to the world of case studies that can bring you high grades! Here, at ACaseStudy.com, we deliver professionally written papers, and the best grades for you from your professors are guaranteed!

[email protected] 804-506-0782 350 5th Ave, New York, NY 10118, USA

Acasestudy.com © 2007-2019 All rights reserved.

Hi! I'm Anna

Would you like to get a custom case study? How about receiving a customized one?

Haven't Found The Case Study You Want?

For Only $13.90/page