Integrated Hydro-Hazard Index (HHI) for Drought-Flood Risk Assessment: A Multi-Temporal Machine Learning Approach

Information from the abstract

Climate change is intensifying hydrological extremes, yet most frameworks assess drought and flood hazards independently, limiting integrated risk management. This study proposes a two-dimensional analytical framework to characterize the drought-flood continuum, moving beyond single-index approaches. We introduce the Hydro-Hazard Index (HHI) as a directionality metric (HHI = Flood Severity − Drought Severity) to classify the dominant hazard type, and the Total Severity Index (TSI = Flood Severity + Drought Severity) as a complementary metric to quantify overall hazard magnitude. Analyzing multi-temporal data from 115 hexagonal units (2018–2024), we employed dynamic features (trends, changes, volatility) and four machine learning models to classify areas as “flood-prone” based on validated flood records. Our results show HHI values ranging from −2.44 to 8.81, with 20.9% of areas classified as Flood-Dominated (mean HHI = 4.58) and 79.1% as Normal (mean HHI = 0.76). Crucially, the two-dimensional analysis revealed that areas with identical HHI values can have vastly different TSI values, under scoring the importance of our dual-index approach. Random Forest achieved the highest performance in predicting flood-prone status (Accuracy = 0.913, AUC = 0.967, Recall = 1.00), with flood_volatility as the most important predictor (24.2%). Spatial autocorrelation confirmed strong clustering of high-risk areas (Moran’s I = 0.716, p < 0.001). By analyzing flood and drought as distinct but interacting dimensions, this framework provides a more robust and nuanced tool for integrated risk assessment. While acknowledging limitations related to data availability and the need for further independent validation, the proposed framework supports sustainable water resource management and climate adaptation planning under increasing hydrological uncertainty.

Why this record is monitored

This record has an Impact Signal of 76/100 based on recency, source, collaboration, and bibliographic signals. It prioritizes monitoring and is not a judgment of research quality.

Related topics: Hydrology and Drought Analysis · Flood Risk Assessment and Management · Hydrology and Watershed Management Studies