Advertisement

Journal of Earth Science

, Volume 27, Issue 1, pp 2–8 | Cite as

Statistics of evolving populations and their relevance to flood risk

  • Robert E. CrissEmail author
Article

Abstract

Statistical methods are commonly used to evaluate natural populations and environmental variables, yet these must recognize temporal trends in population character to be appropriate in an evolving world. New equations presented here define the statistical measures of aggregate historical populations affected by linear changes in population means and standard deviations. These can be used to extract the statistical character of present-day populations, needed to define modern variability and risk, from tables of historical data that are dominated by measurements made when conditions were different. As an example, many factors such as climate change and in-channel structures are causing flood levels to rise, so realistic estimation of future flood levels must take such secular changes into account. The new equations provide estimates of water levels for “100-year” floods in the USA Midwest that are 0.5 to 2 m higher than official calculations that routinely assume population stationarity. These equations also show that flood levels will continue to rise by several centimeters per year. This rate is nearly ten times faster than the rise of sea level, and thus represents one of the fastest and most damaging rates of change that is documented by robust data.

Key Words

flood risk statistical theory Mississippi River 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Belt, C. B., 1975. The 1973 Flood and Man’s Constriction of the Mississippi River. Science, 189: 681–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chow, V. T., 1964. Handbook of Applied Hydrology. McGraw-Hill, New York. 8: 23Google Scholar
  3. Criss, R. E., Shock, E. L., 2001. Flood Enhancement through Flood Control. Geology, 29: 875–878CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Criss, R. E., Winston, W. E., 2008. Public Safety and Faulty Flood Statistics. Environmental Health Perspectives, 116(12): A516. doi:10.1289/ehp.12042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Criss, R. E., Kusky, T. M., 2008. Finding the Balance between Floods, Flood Protection, and River Navigation. [2013-10-12]. http://ces.slu.edu/annualreport/FloodForum_Book_final.pdf(2008)Google Scholar
  6. FEMA, 2011. Flood Insurance Rate Map, City of St. Louis, Missouri. Map Number 2903850068C, May 24, 2011Google Scholar
  7. FEMA, 2006. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Jefferson County, Missouri. Map Number 29099C0025E, April 5, 2006Google Scholar
  8. FEMA, 2009. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Alexander County, Illinois. Map Number 17003C0220E, May 4, 2009Google Scholar
  9. FEMA, 2013. Flood Insurance Rate Maps, Various Sites and Years. [2013-10-12]. https://msc.fema.gov/webapp/wcs/stores/CategoryDisplay?catalogId=10001&storeId=servlet/10001&categoryId=12001&langId=-&userType=G&type=1Google Scholar
  10. Funk, J. L., Robinson, J. W., 1974. Changes in the Channel of the Lower Missouri River and Effects on Fish and Wildlife. Missouri Department of Conservation, Aquatic Series, 11: 52Google Scholar
  11. GAO, 1995. Midwest Flood, Information of the Performance, Effects, and Control of Levees, GAO/RCED-95-125, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  12. Jarvis, C. S., 1936. Floods in the United States: Magnitude and Frequency. U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper, 771: 1–497Google Scholar
  13. Jha, M., Pan, Z., Takle, E. S., et al., 2004. Impacts of Climate Change on Streamflow in the Upper Mississippi River Basin: A Regional Climate Model Perspective. Journal of Geophysical Research, 109: D09105. doi:10.1029/2003JD003686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Karl, T. R., Melillo, J. M., Peterson, T. C., 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States. Cambridge University Press, New York. 188Google Scholar
  15. Klemes, V., 2000. Tall Tales about Tails of Hydrological Distributions. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 5(3): 227–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. NWS, 2013. Flood Loss Data. [2013-10-12]. http://www.nws.noaa.gov/hic/Google Scholar
  17. Pinter, N., 2005. One Step Forward, Two Steps Back on U.S. Floodplains. Science, 308: 207–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Pinter, N., 2010. Historical Discharge Measurements on the Middle Mississippi River, USA: No Basis for “Changing History”. Hydrological Processes, 24: 1088–1093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. USACE, 2004. Upper Mississippi River System Flow Frequency Study: Final Report. [2013-10-12]. http://www.mvr.usace.army.mil/pdw/pdf/FlowFrequency/flowfreq.htmlGoogle Scholar
  20. USACE, 2013a. Mississippi River Basin-Historic Data. [2013-10-12]. http://mvs-wc.mvs.usace.army.mil/archive/mi.htmlGoogle Scholar
  21. USACE, 2013b. Water Levels of Rivers and Lakes. [2013-10-12]. http://rivergages.mvr.usace.army.mil/WaterControl/new/lay out.cfmGoogle Scholar
  22. USACE, 2013c. Flow Frequency Query: Upper Mississippi River. [2013-10-12]. http://rivergages.mvr.usace.army.mil/flow_freq/flow_freq.cfmGoogle Scholar
  23. USGS, 1981. Guidelines for Determining Flood Flow Frequency. Interagency Advisory Committee on Water Data, Bulletin #17B of the Hydrology Subcommittee. U.S. Department of Geological Survey, Office of Water Data Coordination Reston, VirginiaGoogle Scholar
  24. USGS, 2013}. Peak Streamflow for the Nation. [2013-10-12]. http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/usa/nwis/peaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© China University of Geosciences and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Earth and Planetary SciencesWashington University in St. LouisSt. LouisUSA

Personalised recommendations