Consequences of flooding - Comparing different quantitative methods for estimating Loss of Life (LOL)

Abstract

Loss of Life (LOL) is one parameter that is used to quantify the consequences of flooding. Different methods are used for quantifying LOL. Empirical-mechanistic and purely mechanistic methods are better suited for evaluating LOL in urban centers with high population densities, whereas empirical and semi-empirical methods are more suited for rural areas with low population densities. Using the Madawaska watershed as a case study, a comparative analysis was undertaken for the different LOL quantitative methods to determine their limitations and identify their uncertainties. The following LOL estimation methods and models were used to represent the different quantitative methods: Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) 2 x 2 Rule (empirical), US Bureau of Reclamation Method (USBR RCEM, empirical), HEC-FIA model (semi-empirical), HEC-LifeSim model (hybrid empirical-mechanistic) and Life Safety Model (LSM, purely mechanistic). Since, all five methods require hydraulic information and population-at-risk data, both of these parameters are sources of uncertainty. Other sources of uncertainty include fatality rates for the US Bureau of Reclamation Method and HEC-FIA model and evacuation parameters for the HEC-LifeSim model and the Life Safety Model. The results indicate that the MNRF 2 x 2 Rule, is more representative of the population-at-risk then actual loss of life.