Article

A Multi-Data Geospatial Approach for Understanding Flood

Risk in the Coastal Plains of Tamil Nadu, India
Sekar Leo George 1 , Komali Kantamaneni 2, *, Rasme Allat V 1 , Kumar Arun Prasad 1 , Sulochana Shekhar 1 ,
Sigamani Panneer 3 , Louis Rice 4 and Karuppusamy Balasubramani 1, *

1 Department of Geography, Central University of Tamil Nadu, Thiruvarur 610005, India;

[email protected] (S.L.G.); [email protected] (R.A.V.); [email protected] (K.A.P.);
[email protected] (S.S.)
2 Faculty of Science and Technology, University of Central Lancashire, Preston PR1 2HE, UK
3 Department of Social Work, School of Social Sciences and Humanities and Centre for Happiness,
Central University of Tamil Nadu, Thiruvarur 610005, India; [email protected]
4 Centre for Architecture and Built Environment Research, University of the West of England,
Bristol BS16 1QY, UK; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected] (K.K.); [email protected] (K.B.)

Abstract: The coastal plains of Tamil Nadu, India, are prone to floods, the most common disaster
experienced in this region almost every year. This research aims to identify flood risks in the coastal
plain region of Tamil Nadu, delineated through a watershed approach with 5020 micro-administrative
units covering an area of about 26,000 sq. km. A comprehensive flood risk assessment covering
hazard, vulnerability, and exposure parameters was carried out using multiple datasets derived from
field surveys, satellite data, and secondary data sources. The flood hazard layer was prepared on



a probability scale (0–1) with the help of Sentinel-1 Synthetic Aperture Radar data coupled with


GIS-based water rise modelling using Shuttle Radar Topography Mission Digital Elevation Model
Citation: George, S.L.;
(SRTM-DEM) and reports of the District Disaster Management Plans of 13 coastal districts. In addition,
Kantamaneni, K.; V, R.A.;
the National Resources Conservation Service-Curve Number (NRCS-CN) method was adopted to
Prasad, K.A.; Shekhar, S.; Panneer, S.;
estimate surface runoff potential for identifying low probability flood-prone regions. The vulnerability
Rice, L.; Balasubramani, K. A
and exposure of the population to flood hazards were determined using census and household data-
Multi-Data Geospatial Approach for
Understanding Flood Risk in the
based indicators. The different categories of built-up areas were delineated and intersected with the
Coastal Plains of Tamil Nadu, India. flood hazard layer to estimate elements at flood risk. An exhaustive field survey was conducted at
Earth 2022, 3, 383–400. https:// 514 locations of the study area, targeting deprived communities of all major settlements to validate
doi.org/10.3390/earth3010023 the flood hazard layer and understand the public perceptions. The amalgamation of results shows
that very high flood risk prevails in the northern parts of coastal Tamil Nadu, especially the stretch
Academic Editor: Quazi K. Hassan
between Chennai and Cuddalore. In addition, to provide baseline datasets for the first time at
Received: 24 January 2022 micro-administrative units for the entire coastal plains of Tamil Nadu, the study offers a pragmatic
Accepted: 24 February 2022 methodology for determining location-specific flood risks for policy interventions.
Published: 1 March 2022

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral Keywords: flood risk; vulnerability; surface runoff; risk assessment; Sentinel-1; GIS (Geographical
with regard to jurisdictional claims in Information Systems); humanitarian approach
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.

1. Introduction
Coastal areas are prone to extreme weather events and associated floods. Flooding is
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
one of the most common natural disasters, affecting lives and the environment considerably
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
in coastal areas [1]. Since different geomorphological systems interact in coastal areas, the
distributed under the terms and
management of floods is highly complex and challenging [2,3]. In addition, it has been
conditions of the Creative Commons
estimated that about 23 percent of the world’s population lives within both 100 km distance
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// and 100 m altitude of the coastline [4]. Thus, the number of exposed elements in coastal
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ regions is high, and they are highly susceptible to flood hazards [5]. According to the
4.0/). Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) database, flood is the most

Earth 2022, 3, 383–400. https://doi.org/10.3390/earth3010023 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/earth

Earth 2022, 3 384

common natural disaster. Its annual global number of events, deaths and economic losses
is very high. Statistically, India ranked top in the total number of flood events and placed
in the third position, after China and the United States of America, for losses due to flood
disaster during 1990–2020, suffering an estimated economic loss of about USD 84.8 billion
(https://public.emdat.be/data, accessed on 26 May 2021).
On average, four major flood events occur annually in India, with a human loss of
about 250 persons per event. Due to their topographic situation, India’s eastern coastal
regions are preferred for human habitation and economic activities, but these are also
highly prone to seasonal floods [6]. The coastal regions of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry
are flat, with many rivers and wetlands that receive copious rain during the northeast
monsoon’s short period, which leads to flooding of dense human habitations [7]. Many
studies have been undertaken for flood risk assessment in this region. However, most
studies have been based on the physical modelling of notable flood events, without fuller
consideration of exposure and vulnerability parameters. Furthermore, the choice of micro-
administrative units for flood risk assessment in the coastal parts of Tamil Nadu is scarce,
but should be considered, as they are essential for policy interventions. Although global
and regional flood risk assessments are based on hydrological models for floods [8], the
scope of downscaling the results at micro-administrative units is not yet achievable. Thus,
identifying flood hazard using multiple datasets and synthesising hazard layers with the
exposure elements at micro-administrative units is vital for the effective mitigation and
management of flood risks in coastal Tamil Nadu.
The availability of microwave earth observation data and Geographical Information
Systems (GIS)-based modelling approaches now offers a better environment for flood
hazard mapping and, eventually, mitigation and management of flood-prone areas [9]. The
public availability of Sentinel-1 microwave images for extracting flood inundation has made
it possible to harness satellite technology for detailed flood hazard mapping [10]. Unlike
optical satellite datasets, microwave signals can penetrate clouds and provide valuable
datasets to identify flood inundation at various levels/scales and applications [11–14].
Due to its cloud penetration capability during the rainy seasons, it can also be used to
understand the probability and magnitude of flooding (depth, velocity, and intensity) by
combining it with multi-temporal datasets, digital elevation models (DEM), and other
collateral datasets [15–17].
Rainfall and surface runoff are critical factors of hydrological modelling. Therefore,
understanding the runoff coefficient using empirical equations would greatly assist flood
hazard mapping and understanding the areas of flood risks [18]. The National Resources
Conservation Service–Curve Number (NRCS-CN) is widely used to evaluate floodwater re-
tarding projects due to its simplicity, predictability, stability, and applicability for ungauged
watersheds [19]. Comparing surface runoff potential and vulnerabilities of the population
would form a sound basis for characterising the flood-prone regions [20]. Vulnerability is
an essential component of flood risk analysis, and, as such, it has to be thoroughly inves-
tigated [21]. Although satellite and runoff-based assessments are necessary for accurate
delineation of flood-prone regions, the integration of vulnerability of the exposed popula-
tion and humanitarian approach is essential for flood management [22]. A vulnerability has
multiple dimensions (physical, psychological, social, economic, and environmental) and
increases the susceptibility of the exposed elements to the impact of flood hazards [23,24].
Due to its complex nature, an accurate vulnerability assessment is always a challenging
task and can be indirectly assessed through census-based or sample-based indicators. As
household survey reports offer reliable datasets, they can be used to generate vulnerability
indicators. In addition, field surveys and interactions with the exposed population are also
to be conducted for sensible results. Field surveys can better estimate the direct impacts
and economic loss caused by floods and can be compared with the vulnerability indica-
tors [25,26]. By synthesising all these facts, we undertook a comprehensive systematic
analysis of flood risks in the coastal plains of Tamil Nadu to generate first-hand baseline
Earth 2022, 3 385

datasets and to demonstrate the integrative methods for flood risk assessment which would
help in all phases of flood disaster management and long-term planning strategies.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area
Tamil Nadu is the southernmost state of India, having a coastline 1076 km long that
stretches along the Bay of Bengal, the Arabian Sea and the Indian Ocean; it constitutes about
15% of the total coastal length of India. For the present study, we used the micro-watershed
boundaries for demarcating the coastal plain regions of Tamil Nadu. All the coastal
watersheds were considered to delineate coastal plains; the larger coastal watersheds were
trimmed with 40 m contours above mean sea level [27]. The delineated study area extends
between the latitude 8◦ 40 39.18300 N and 13◦ 320 56.87500 N, and longitude of 77◦ 60 8.83100 E
and 80◦ 200 54.3700 E, covering an area of about 26,000 sq. km. The study area includes
5020 villages/wards (micro-administrative units of India) from 75 taluks of 13 districts in
Tamil Nadu state and Union Territory of Puducherry (Figure 1). The coastline that extends
from Thiruvallur to Kanyakumari districts is highly vulnerable to frequent tropical cyclones,
floods, and storm surge events. The slope of the study area is very gentle to flat and covered
by dominant sediments of the Quaternary-Recent age. The riverine landforms of the major
rivers are prominent with fine clay to loam soils. The average annual temperature and
rainfall are 27 ◦ C and 990 mm, respectively. The coastal region is mainly dependent on
monsoon rains from October to December, and during this period, seasonal and cloudburst
floods are common. The study area contains one-third of the state population, with an
average population density of 2000 persons/sq. km. Most of the people living in this region
are economically deprived and socially marginalised. About 52 percent of the coastal plains
of Tamil Nadu are used for agriculture, particularly for paddy cultivation. The physical
and socio-economic setting of the study area makes it most vulnerable to seasonal flooding
of cloudburst, monsoonal, and cyclonic causes. In recent decades, the coastal plains of
Earth 2022, 3, FOR PEER REVIEW
Tamil Nadu have witnessed widespread inundation and floods; for example, the floods in
the years 2005 and 2015 were devastating.

Figure 1. Location of the

Figure study area
1. Location with
of the micro-watersheds
study and major disaster
area with micro-watersheds events.
and major The events.
disaster inset The ins
figures the
figures (A–C) represent A, Bnorthern,
and C represent the northern,
central, and central,plains
southern coastal and southern
of Tamilcoastal
Nadu, plains of Tamil Nadu,
respectively.
respectively

2.2. Flood Hazard Mapping

The methodology adopted for this study is illustrated in Figure 2. There are diffe
methods adopted worldwide to generate flood hazard maps, and most of them app
 Earth 2022, 3 386

2.2. Flood Hazard Mapping

The methodology adopted for this study is illustrated in Figure 2. There are different
methods adopted worldwide to generate flood hazard maps, and most of them approx-
imate rainfall–runoff transformation processes. Modelling rainfall–runoff processes is a
challenging task for a wider area. However, identifying flood inundation after a major
rainfall event is highly possible with the help of satellite images. In this study, the flood-
prone areas are extracted from Sentinel-1 Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) based on major
rainfall events in the coastal plains of Tamil Nadu. The Sentinel-1 constellation consists of
currently two satellites (Sentinel-1 A and Sentinel-1 B) with a Synthetic Aperture Radar
instrument operating on-board at C-band of 5.5 GHz frequency. It provides data at a
resolution of 10 m with a 12-day repeat cycle [28]. In this study, we used all available
VH (Vertical–Horizontal) polarised SAR data in the default Interferometric Wide-Swath
(IW) mode, and Ground Range Detected High Resolution (GRDH) format acquired for
pre-flood and post-flood periods as mentioned in Table 1. The daily rainfall data collected
from the State Water Resources Data Centre and Indian Meteorological Department (IMD)
reports for 2015–2021 were used to determine the flood periods. The daily rainfall data
is classified into heavy (64.5–115.5 mm), very heavy (115.6–204.4 mm), and extremely
heavy (above 204.4 mm) classes, and based on the lag period after these rainfall events,
the dates for post-flood satellite datasets were determined (Supplementary Table S1). The
pre-processing of the Sentinel-1 data and the calculation of temporal median image for
each of the seasons were done in the Google Earth Engine (GEE) platform. SRTM (Shuttle
Radar Topography Mission) DEM data were used for terrain filtering to eliminate areas
of radar shadow and areas of unlikely flooding using the slope information. The change
Earth 2022, 3, FOR PEER REVIEW detection and thresholding (CDAT) methodologies were adopted, where the difference5 in
sigma nought values between the pre-flood and post-flood datasets were calculated [29,30].
Following that, a threshold filter is determined based on the global threshold to extract
the potentially flooded zone in the study area. The script used for extraction of flood
flood inundation is provided in supplementary 2. The extracted flood inundation layers
inundation is provided in Supplementary File S1. The extracted flood inundation layers
for multiple rainfall events were overlaid, and the cumulative flood inundation layer was
for multiple rainfall events were overlaid, and the cumulative flood inundation layer was
prepared with the frequency of flood events.
prepared with the frequency of flood events.

Figure 2. Schematic representation of the methodology adopted in the study.

Figure 2. Schematic representation of the methodology adopted in the study.

Table 1. Window periods for Sentinel-1 median images extraction before and after the major floods.

Year Before Flood After Flood

10 November 2015 to 15 December
2015 10 October 2015 to 23 October 2015
2015
Earth 2022, 3 387

Table 1. Window periods for Sentinel-1 median images extraction before and after the major floods.

Year Before Flood After Flood

2015 10 October 2015 to 23 October 2015 10 November 2015 to 15 December 2015
2018 10 October 2018 to 23 October 2018 01 November 2018 to 18 December 2018
10 November 2020 to
2020 24 November 2020 to 10 December 2020
23 November 2020
10 November 2020 to
2020–2021 06 January 2021 to 17 January 2021
23 November 2020
2021 1 May 2021 to 20 May 2021 27 May 2021 to 02 June 2021
2021 1 October 2021 to 20 October 2021 16 November 2021 to 26 November 2021

All the river courses and tanks/lakes of the study area were extracted using LANDSAT
8 images. The extracted waterbody layer was overlaid with SRTM DEM, and flood rise
scenarios were modelled with varying depth levels (1 to 5 feet) in Global Mapper software.
The list of flood-prone villages in the study area was collected from the District Disaster
Management Plan (DDMP) reports of 13 coastal districts of Tamil Nadu and prepared as a
layer. All the layers derived from the satellite-based flood inundation mapping, DEM-based
modelling and the DDMP reporting villages were aggregated at a micro-administrative
unit (i.e., village and ward), and the flood probability layer was generated. The micro-
administrative units were determined with flood hazard probability on a 0–1 scale, where
0 denotes very low, and 1 is very high. The micro-administrative units identified with
(1) high coverage and frequency in cumulative flood inundation layer, (2) high coverage
of inundation resulting from a 1-foot rise of water level in DEM-based modelling, and
(3) high flood impacts in DDMP reports are considered to be units subject to very high flood
hazard, with a high probability (1.0), while units that fall only on either the cumulative
flood inundation layer or the flood rise model layer with significantly less geographical
coverage are considered to be units subject to very low flood hazard (0.0). The units that
are not identified on the basis of these layers correspond to villages/wards that have been
unaffected in the recent past.

2.3. Surface Runoff Potential

Rainfall and surface runoff are vital hydrological parameters for evaluating flood
risks [31,32]. The long-term monthly rainfall data (1980–2017) were extracted through the
NASA-POWER (Prediction of Worldwide renewable Energy Resources) (https://power.
larc.nasa.gov/, accessed on 31 May 2021) and averaged to identify the regions that receive
more seasonal rainfall in the study area. Numerous hydrologic methods are used to
estimate surface runoff, and these models vary from simple to complex and differ in
structures and data requirements [33]. The NRCS-CN method proved to be effective for
estimating surface runoff and associated flood risks where runoff/peak discharge flow
records are not available [34]. The NRCS-CN method is straightforward in computation,
as it requires minimal data inputs, such as hydrological soil group (HSG), land use/land
cover (LU/LC) and antecedent moisture conditions (AMC) [35]. In this study, an LU/LC
map was prepared using LANDSAT 8 images, and soil data of the National Bureau of
Soil Survey and Land Use Planning (NBSS-LUP) obtained through the European Digital
Archive of Soil Maps (EuDASM) were used to prepare HSG layer for NRCS-CN method.
The GIS overlay technique was used to intersect the soil map and LU/LC map and generate
the surface runoff potentials (Curve Numbers) for the different land-use-soil groups.

2.4. Vulnerability Assessment

Vulnerability is a multi-dimensional subject, and attainment of composite vulnerability
that combines all major physio-socio-economic-environmental indicators at micro-level
units is a difficult task [36]. Therefore, the relative degrees of socio-economic characteristics
in 5020 villages/wards were examined using 2011 census data. The relevant direct and
indirect indicators that impact the socio-economic vulnerability of coastal regions were
Earth 2022, 3 388

retrieved after a comprehensive examination of the District Census Hand Book (DCHB)
and Primary Census Abstract (PCA) of Census of India. The indicators used in the study
are presented in Table 2. The values of exposure-related indicators and capacity-related
indicators were rescaled and ranked relatively on a scale of 1–5 based on the histogram
distribution of each indicator. The ranked values were summed up, and the composite
vulnerability layer was prepared. The micro-administrative units of the study area are
classified into five classes of vulnerability ranging from very low to very high. The method
for deriving the composite vulnerability is detailed in our previous study [27].

Table 2. Indicators extracted from Census of India datasets for vulnerability assessment at micro-
administrative units.

Categories Sub-Categories
Population Density Total Population
Household density Total Households
Female Population Ratio Total Female Population
Child Population Ratio Total Child Population (0–6 Years)
Literacy Rate Total Literacy Population
Socially Weaker Population Scheduled Castes Population Scheduled Tribes Population
Main Cultivators
Main Agricultural Labours
Primary Workers
Marginal Cultivators
Marginal Agricultural Labours
Tap Water Treated
Sanitation Facilities
Community Toilet Complex Community Waste Disposal System
Telephone
Mobile Phone Coverage
Public Bus Service
Community Health Center
Communication Facilities Primary Health Center
Access to Essential Health Sub-Centre
Healthcare Facilities Maternity and Child Welfare Center
Hospital Allopathic (including district/taluk headquarter
hospitals)
Hospital Alternative Medicine
Dispensary and Family Welfare Center

2.5. Field Survey

Community-based interviews are essential for identifying and contextualising the
disaster impacts and challenges [37]. The people in flood-prone areas, incredibly deprived
communities, are exposed to personal danger, depending upon the intensity of the flood
concerning time and area. Instead of conducting wealthier population surveys, group
surveys of deprived communities would afford better perceptions about flood risks and
impacts. Thus, field surveys in locations of deprived communities were carried out through-
out the entire coastal plains area of Tamil Nadu, covering villages at a radial distance of
every 5 to 10 km and all major towns. A total of 514 locations were visited during December
2020–January 2021 throughout coastal Tamil Nadu. The locations of gathering information
in each selected village/town were decided based on built-up structures (mainly the poorer,
informal structures), socio-economic conditions of the locality (mainly the dominant social
and occupational group), and susceptibility to floods (mainly the low-lying regions). We di-
vided our team into three groups, with three persons in each group. Each group conducted
the questionnaire survey using pre-determined, close-ended questions to record responses
from older-age individuals (>50) to maintain uniformity. The group discussion lasted for
10 to 20 min at each location. The group settings helped to ascertain the real-time struggles
faced by deprived communities due to local floods. The major questions considered for
group interactions were flood frequency, flood exposure, flood impacts, flood challenges,
the average time to recover, government assistance, and average economic loss. All collec-
 Earth 2022, 3 389

tive responses were scaled between 1 and 5 and categorised into five classes from very low
to very high for mapping and analysis.

2.6. Validation of Flood Hazard

The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve method was used to evaluate the ac-
curacy of the flood hazard layer. It is a graphical representation of the equilibrium between
the true positive rate (TPR) against the false positive rate (FPR) of two parameters [38].
It is now widely used in flood hazard analysis to validate the accuracy of flood hazard
maps [39]. If the ROC curve index value, which is the area under the ROC curve (AUC), is
equal to one, the model is fully fit, while if this number is equal to 0.5, it shows that the
Earth 2022, 3, FOR PEER REVIEW model is inadequate. Many studies have demonstrated that values greater than 0.7 can 8 be
considered appropriate and acceptable [40].
This study collected responses from the field survey on flood impacts (with a ~50-year
toolreturn period) were compared and correlated with the flood hazard layer using Spatial
for adding categorical maps to produce a predictive map of where something of in-
Data Modeller (SDM) tool extension in ArcGIS software. ArcSDM is a very efficient tool
terest is likely to occur (https://www.ige.unicamp.br/sdm/ArcSDM10/ Accessed on
for adding categorical maps to produce a predictive map of where something of interest is
18.02.2022). All the surveyed points were superimposed onto the flood hazard map with
likely to occur (https://www.ige.unicamp.br/sdm/ArcSDM10/, accessed on 18 February
values of 1 and 0, where 1 was assigned to the points located in the high–very high flood
2022). All the surveyed points were superimposed onto the flood hazard map with values
hazard units. After randomly placing the set of numbers, 1 and 0, together with the dis-
of 1 and 0, where 1 was assigned to the points located in the high–very high flood hazard
placement of the location of cut-points from 1 to 19, a Cartesian chart with a positive rate
units. After randomly placing the set of numbers, 1 and 0, together with the displacement
and the negative rate was plotted (Figure 3). The AUC value of the flood hazard layer was
of the location of cut-points from 1 to 19, a Cartesian chart with a positive rate and the
0.726, representing an acceptable level and confirming that the flood hazard layer pre-
negative rate was plotted (Figure 3). The AUC value of the flood hazard layer was 0.726,
pared in the study was not a random guess.
representing an acceptable level and confirming that the flood hazard layer prepared in the
study was not a random guess.

Figure
Figure 3. ROC
3. ROC curve
curve for validating
for validating flood
flood hazard
hazard layer.
layer.
2.7. Assessment of Built-Up Elements at Flood Risk
2.7. Assessment of Built-Up Elements at Flood Risk
Accurate quantification of elements at flood risk is essential for risk management [41].
Accuraterisk
Mapping quantification
elements forofvast
elements at floodareas,
geographical risk like
is essential for plains
the coastal risk management
of Tamil Nadu,
[41].isMapping risk elements for vast geographical areas, like the coastal
time-consuming and tedious [42]. At the same time, the maps of high-resolution plains of Tamilbuilt-
Nadu, is time-consuming and tedious [42]. At the same time, the maps of high-resolution
up density can be used as a proxy to quantify the exposure to flood risk [43]. In this
built-up
study,density can be distribution
the built-up used as a proxy to quantify
of the the exposure
coastal plains of TamiltoNadu
flood risk
was [43]. In this
mapped from
study, the built-up distribution of the coastal plains of Tamil Nadu was mapped
high-resolution ArcGIS and Google Earth images. The built-up distributions were classified from
high-resolution ArcGISbased
into 30 categories and Google
on the Earth
type of images. The built-up
built-ups, density, distributions were classi-
floor, and planning aspects
fied(Supplementary
into 30 categories based
File S2). on thedifferent
The type of built-ups,
classes of density,
built-upfloor, and planning
distributions were aspects
compared
(Supplementary 3). The different classes of built-up distributions were compared with the
flood hazard layer, and a matrix was formed, where very dense buildings in the high
flood-prone region were given the highest rank (5) and sparser buildings in the low flood-
prone region were given the lowest rank (1). The ranks were then normalised by built-up
area and rescaled into a 0–1 scale to understand the elements at flood risk.
Earth 2022, 3 390

with the flood hazard layer, and a matrix was formed, where very dense buildings in the
high flood-prone region were given the highest rank (5) and sparser buildings in the low
flood-prone region were given the lowest rank (1). The ranks were then normalised by
built-up area and rescaled into a 0–1 scale to understand the elements at flood risk.

3. Results
3.1. Hazard Analysis
The general purpose of flood hazard mapping is to determine the area and the probabil-
ity of inundation during abnormal rainfall and weather events. In the study, the probability
Earth 2022, 3, FOR PEER REVIEW 9
of flood is determined on a scale of 0–1, and the distribution is represented in Figure 4. Of
5020 villages/wards, 1464 reported the varying probability of flood hazard. We divided the
entire coast of Tamil Nadu into three distinct zones: southern, central and northern coastal
northern
plains. The coastal plains.
southern zoneThe southern Kanniyakumari,
comprising zone comprisingThoothukudi,
Kanniyakumari, andThoothukudi,
Thirunelveli
and Thirunelveli
districts come under districts
low tocome
veryunder low to
low flood very low flood
probability, except probability, except
for some parts of for
thesome
Kan-
parts of the district
niyakumari Kanniyakumari district and the
and the surrounding surrounding
regions regions city,
of Thoothukudi of Thoothukudi city,
where the flood
where the flood
probability probability
is moderate. Theiscentral
moderate.
zoneThe central zone
is marked by lowis marked by low flood
flood hazards, mainly hazards,
due to
mainly
low due to
seasonal low seasonal
rainfall rainfall and
and the presence the presence
of numerous flood of numerous tanks.
management flood management
The northern
tanks.has
zone The northern
a very high zone has a very
probability highhazard,
of flood probability of flood
especially hazard,
in most especially
of the in most
villages/wards
of Chennai, Kancheepuram, Thiruvallur and Cuddalore districts. The
the villages/wards of Chennai, Kancheepuram, Thiruvallur and Cuddalore districts. coastal villages in
Nagapattinam district
The coastal villages in also exhibit a moderate
Nagapattinam to high
district also probability
exhibit a moderate of flood hazard.
to high Thus,
probability
the entirehazard.
of flood stretchThus,
between Thiruvallur
the entire stretchand Nagapattinam
between Thiruvallur districts is at a higherdistricts
and Nagapattinam risk of
flood
is at ahazard.
higher risk of flood hazard.

Figure 4.
Figure 4. Flood
Flood hazard
hazard in
in the
thecoastal
coastalplains
plainsof
ofTamil
TamilNadu.
Nadu.The
Thelevel
levelofofflood
floodhazard
hazardininthe
the north-
northern,
ern, central, and southern parts of the study area are represented in inset figures A,B and C, re-
central, and southern parts of the study area are represented in inset figures (A–C), respectively.
spectively.
3.2. Surface Runoff Potential
3.2. Surface Runoff Potential
The surface runoff potential was assessed based on their Curve Number, where a
higherThe surface
value (>90)runoff
denotespotential
potentialwas
risksassessed based
of flooding on their
during heavyCurve
rainfallNumber, where5).
events (Figure a
higher value (>90) denotes potential risks of flooding during heavy rainfall
The surface runoff potential was derived from the NRCS-CN method which complements events (Figure
5). The
the surface runoff
interpretation potential
of flood wasin
hazards derived from plains
the coastal the NRCS-CN
of Tamil method
Nadu. It which comple-
also helps to
ments the interpretation of flood hazards in the coastal plains of Tamil Nadu. It also helps
to identify the villages that have low probability for flood hazard but highly susceptible
for major flood events [44].
Earth 2022, 3 391

Earth 2022, 3, FOR PEER REVIEW 10

identify the villages that have low probability for flood hazard but highly susceptible for
major flood events [44].

Figure 5. Surface runoff potential in the coastal plains of Tamil Nadu. The higher values of curve
Figure 5. Surface runoff potential in the coastal plains of Tamil Nadu. The higher values of curve num-
number denote more surface runoff potential. The spatial distributions of curve number in the
ber denote more surface runoff potential. The spatial distributions of curve number in the northern,
northern, central, and southern parts of the study area are represented in inset figures A, B and C,
central, and southern parts of the study area are represented in inset figures (A–C), respectively.
respectively.
A very low runoff potential is noted wherever beaches and sand bars are present.
Such a low potential is predominately noticed in the southern coastal regions, especially in
the Teri sands of Thoothukudi and Thirunelveli districts. In contrast, the Cauvery deltaic
A very low runoff potential is noted wherever beaches and sand bars are present.
system and northern areas of Thoothukudi observe high runoff potentials due to fine clayey
Such a low potential is predominately noticed in the southern coastal regions, especially
soils. Rainfall is the primary input for estimating the amount of surface runoff. From
in the Teri sands of Thoothukudi and Thirunelveli districts. In contrast, the Cauvery del-
the long-term seasonal distribution of rainfall, presented in Figure 6, it can be observed
taic system and northern areas of Thoothukudi observe high runoff potentials due to fine
that during the northeast monsoon season (October–December), the seasonal rainfall is
clayey soils. Rainfall is the primary input for estimating the amount of surface runoff.
comparatively high (more than 600 mm) in Chennai and its adjoining regions. As the
From the long-term seasonal distribution of rainfall, presented in Figure 6, it can be ob-
proportion of impervious surfaces in Chennai and its suburban region is high, any heavy
served that during the northeast monsoon season (October–December), the seasonal rain-
rain in this region will lead to peak discharge of surface runoff and cause flooding. The
fall is comparatively high (more than 600 mm) in Chennai and its adjoining regions. As
Cauvery deltaic region also receives more than 500 mm of seasonal rainfall, and with higher
the proportion of impervious surfaces in Chennai and its suburban region is high, any
surface runoff potential, this region also falls at high risk of floods.
heavy rain in this region will lead to peak discharge of surface runoff and cause flooding.
The Vulnerability
3.3. Cauvery deltaic region also receives more than 500 mm of seasonal rainfall, and with
Assessment
higherThe vulnerabilitypotential,
surface runoff this
is assessed region
using also falls
indirect at high risk
census-based of floods.and categorised
indicators
into very low to very high, presented in Figure 7. Exposure-related indicators, such as
population and household density, female-child population ratio, poor population, and
primary workers, and capacity-related indicators, such as literacy rate, sanitation facilities,
communication facilities and health care facilities, are very relevant to vulnerability assess-
ments and are widely considered. The composite index of these indicators shows the level
of vulnerability at a relative scale and can be used to understand socio-economic aspects
of flood vulnerability. In general, vulnerability is very high in the northern parts and is
most commonly noticed in Thiruvallur, Villupuram, Cuddalore and Cauvery delta regions.
Indicators such as household density, the density of vulnerable populations (women and
children) and socially weaker sections significantly contribute to very high vulnerability in
a stretch between Pondicherry and Nagapattinam. The southern coastline of Tamil Nadu
Earth 2022, 3 392

Earth 2022, 3, FOR PEER REVIEW 11

is relatively less vulnerable, and the low level of vulnerability is noticed in most of the
villages of Ramanathapuram, Thoothukudi, Thirunelveli, and Kanniyakumari districts.

Earth 2022, 3, FOR PEER REVIEW 12

Figure6.
Figure 6. Average
Average seasonal
seasonal rainfall
rainfall (1980–2017)
(1980-2017) in
in the
thecoastal
coastalplains
plainsof
ofTamil
TamilNadu.
Nadu.

3.3. Vulnerability Assessment

The vulnerability is assessed using indirect census-based indicators and categorised
into very low to very high, presented in Figure 7. Exposure-related indicators, such as
population and household density, female-child population ratio, poor population, and
primary workers, and capacity-related indicators, such as literacy rate, sanitation facili-
ties, communication facilities and health care facilities, are very relevant to vulnerability
assessments and are widely considered. The composite index of these indicators shows
the level of vulnerability at a relative scale and can be used to understand socio-economic
aspects of flood vulnerability. In general, vulnerability is very high in the northern parts
and is most commonly noticed in Thiruvallur, Villupuram, Cuddalore and Cauvery delta
regions. Indicators such as household density, the density of vulnerable populations
(women and children) and socially weaker sections significantly contribute to very high
vulnerability in a stretch between Pondicherry and Nagapattinam. The southern coastline
of Tamil Nadu is relatively less vulnerable, and the low level of vulnerability is noticed in
most of the villages of Ramanathapuram, Thoothukudi, Thirunelveli, and Kanniyakumari
districts.

Figure7.7.Spatial
Figure Spatial distribution
distribution of composite
of composite socio-economic
socio-economic vulnerability
vulnerability incoastal
in the the coastal
plainsplains of
of Tamil
Tamil Nadu (modified from Balasubramani et al., 2021). The distributions of socio-economic
Nadu (modified from Balasubramani et al., 2021). The distributions of socio-economic vulnerability vul-
innerability in thecentral,
the northern, northern,
andcentral, andparts
southern southern parts
of the of the
coastal coastal
plains of plains
Tamil of Tamil
Nadu areNadu are repre-
represented in
sented in inset figures A,B and C, respectively. 3.4. Perceptions of Deprived Communities.
inset figures (A–C), respectively.

The extensive field survey of the area revealed that the flood risks in the coastal plains
are highly localised, owing to variations in the topography, LU/LC, and socio-economic
conditions. The field survey revealed that residents in low-lying areas of large cities expe-
rience an extremely high level of flood threats. Flood challenges like shortage of food and
 Earth 2022, 3 393

3.4. Perceptions of Deprived Communities

The extensive field survey of the area revealed that the flood risks in the coastal plains
are highly localised, owing to variations in the topography, LU/LC, and socio-economic
conditions. The field survey revealed that residents in low-lying areas of large cities experi-
ence an extremely high level of flood threats. Flood challenges like shortage of food and
water, transportation cutoff, dysfunction of economy, crop loss, disease outbreak, and sani-
tation issues are very high in parts of the Chennai and Cauvery delta regions (Figure 8A).
The damage caused to people, their buildings, properties, and livestock due to seasonal
floods is very high in the surroundings of Chennai and Cuddalore. Kanniyakumari and
Thirunelveli districts experience relatively lower levels of flood damage when compared
to other coastal districts in Tamil Nadu (Figure 8B). Except for the dryer regions of Ra-
manathapuram, Thoothukudi and Tirunelveli districts, most of the deprived communities
in coastal Tamil Nadu perceived high risk of flood exposure. The Chennai metropolitan
area and its sub-urban regions are densely populated, and hence the exposure to flood
damage is very high in this region (Figure 8C). People along the northern stretch of the
Tamil Nadu coast have reported the loss of lives, livestock, and infrastructure due to floods.
The reporting of major loss due to lives lost/disabled, complete/partial building damage,
crop/livestock/poultry, property/vehicles, and vegetation/wetland loss is frequently no-
ticed in the Cauvery delta–Cuddalore region (Figure 8D). About 40 percent of deprived
communities, located mainly in the rural villages, reported that they had lost assets worth
fewer than INR 10,000 through a major flood event. In contrast, the communities located in
the major coastal cities reported their losses above INR 10,000. Strikingly, about 20 percent
of communities reported no economic loss instead reported only disturbances (Figure 9A).
22, 3, FOR PEER REVIEW Except for a few localities, most of the community perceived that the flood 13 frequency is

moderate to low (Figure 8E).

Figure 8. SpatialFigure
distribution of perceptions
8. Spatial distributiononof(A) flood challenges,
perceptions (B) flood
on (A) flood damage,
challenges, (B)(C) flood
flood damage, (C) flood
exposure, (D) flood loss, and (E) flood frequency.
exposure, (D) flood loss, and (E) flood frequency.
Earth 2022, 3 394
Figure 8. Spatial distribution of perceptions on (A) flood challenges, (B) flood damage, (C) flood
exposure, (D) flood loss, and (E) flood frequency.

Figure 9. Public perceptions about (A) average economic loss, (B)

(B) source
source of
of assistance
assistance for
for recovery,
recovery,
and (C) average period taken for early recovery from the flood impacts.
and (C) average period taken for early recovery from the flood impacts.

The government,
government, NGOs,
NGOs,and andindependent
independentvolunteers play
volunteers playanan
active role
active in flood
role re-
in flood
recovery and compensating flood induced losses (Figure 9B). About 2/3 of
covery and compensating flood induced losses (Figure 9B). About 2/3 of deprived com- deprived
communities reported
munities reported receiving
receiving assistance
assistance mainly
mainly fromgovernment
from governmentsources
sources(~40
(~40 percent).
percent).
The survey identified
identified that only 10 percent of communities reported more than six months
of flood recovery time, especially those who lost assets more than INR 100,000
100,000 in value.
value.
More than half of the respondents
respondents reported that they had recovered from flood flood impacts
impacts
within a week (Figure 9C). This shows that even deprived communities have adapted to
overcome typical seasonal flooding in the study area.

3.5. Assessment of Built-Up Elements at Flood Risk

The total built-up area in the coastal plains of Tamil Nadu is 2510.6 sq. km, and
quantification of elements at risk for this wider built-up region is a challenging task. In
this study, we have developed a matrix for built-up classifications and intersected with
the flood hazard layer for indirect assessment of built-up elements at flood risk on a scale
of 0 (very low) to 1 (very high). Table 3 summarises the built-up risk index with relative
risk levels and their share of the total built-up area in the coastal plains of Tamil Nadu.
About 10 percent of the total built-up area is exposed to high to very high flood risk. The
spatial distribution of built-up elements at flood risk is presented in Figure 10. The larger
zones of built-up elements at flood risk are presented as inset maps for better visualisations
and comparisons (Figure 10A–G). Zone A, representing Chennai, and Zone B, representing
the Puducherry and Cuddalore regions, are observed to have very high elements exposed
to flood risk. Zone C, representing the Cauvery delta region, is observed to be subject to
moderate to low risk. The other notable regions exposed to flood risk are Thoothukudi
and Kayalpattinam.
Earth 2022, 3 395

Table 3. Built-up risk index with relative risk levels and their share to the total built-up area in coastal
plains of Tamil Nadu.

% Share to Total
Risk Index Relative Risk Level Built-Up Area (sq. km)
Built-Up Area
>0.61 Very high 107.17 4.26
0.51–0.6 High 106.73 4.25
0.31–0.5 Moderate 245.5 9.77
0.21–0.3 Low 222.63 8.86
Earth 2022, 3, FOR PEER REVIEW 15
<0.2 Very Low 167.26 6.66

Figure10.
Figure 10.Spatial
Spatialdistribution
distribution of
of built-up
built-up area
area flood
flood risk
risk assessment.
assessment.The
Theinset
insetfigures
figuresdepict
depictA)(A)
Chennai region, B) Cuddalore region C) Nagapattinam region D) Manamelkudi region E) Rama-
Chennai region, (B) Cuddalore region (C) Nagapattinam region (D) Manamelkudi region (E) Ra-
nathapuram region F) Thoothukudi region G) Kanyakumari region
manathapuram region (F) Thoothukudi region (G) Kanyakumari region.

4.4.Discussion
Discussion
Duetotoits
Due itsphysiographic
physiographicstructure,
structure,drainage
drainagesystem,
system,andandseasonal
seasonalrainfall
rainfallcharacter,
character,
floodsare
floods arefrequent
frequentininIndia’s
India’seastern
easterncoastal
coastalplains
plains[45].
[45].The
Thecoastal
coastalplains
plainsofofIndia
Indiaareare
pronetotoflood
prone floodevents,
events,and
andthousands
thousandsofofpeople
peopleare areaffected
affectedeach
eachyear,
year,aafew
fewhundred
hundredliveslives
arelost,
are lost,thousands
thousandsare aredisplaced,
displaced,andandmany
manyhectares
hectaresofofcrops
cropsare aredevastated
devastated[46].
[46].Being
Being
the
themost
mostpopulous
populouspart partofofTamil
TamilNadu,
Nadu,the thecoastal
coastalplains
plainsofofTamil
TamilNadu
Naduare areconsidered
considered
totobe
beone
oneofofthethemost
mostvulnerable
vulnerableregions
regionsininsouthern
southernIndia
India[47].
[47].Flood
Floodhazard
hazardmapping
mapping
based
basedononimage
image processing, GISGIS
processing, modelling
modelling andandDDMPDDMP reports, potential
reports, runoff
potential assessment
runoff assess-
based
ment on the on
based NRCS-CN method,
the NRCS-CN seasonal
method, rainfallrainfall
seasonal analysis, indicator-based
analysis, vulnerability
indicator-based vulner-
assessment, and wider
ability assessment, andarea field
wider survey
area field reflects that thethat
survey reflects northern coastal coastal
the northern plains of Tamilof
plains
Nadu
Tamil Nadu stretching from Nagapattinam to Chennai are prone to flood hazard. Inyears,
stretching from Nagapattinam to Chennai are prone to flood hazard. In recent recent
with changing
years, climate climate
with changing conditions, floods have
conditions, floodsincreased in manyinvillages
have increased in this region.
many villages in this
Cyclonic origin rainfall
region. Cyclonic originevents areevents
rainfall common are in this region,
common resulting
in this region, in frequentinflooding.
resulting frequent
flooding. This region’s topography, land use, and vulnerability levels are highly favoura-
ble for severe flood risk. For example, about two weeks of continuous rainfall in 2005
caused major flood disasters in the low-lying areas of the Chennai–Cuddalore delta region
[48]. In the first week of December 2015, unprecedented rains, the worst in the last 100
Earth 2022, 3 396

This region’s topography, land use, and vulnerability levels are highly favourable for severe
flood risk. For example, about two weeks of continuous rainfall in 2005 caused major flood
disasters in the low-lying areas of the Chennai–Cuddalore delta region [48]. In the first
week of December 2015, unprecedented rains, the worst in the last 100 years, wreaked
havoc in the Chennai–Cuddalore region. The flood disaster in the Chennai region in 2015
is considered the worst disaster of the century, impacting around 2 million people and
costing around 400 lives [49]. Improper urban planning, inappropriate change in land
use, encroachment on wetlands, improper drainage design, and structures are considered
to be the causes. After Chennai, Cuddalore was the most flood-affected region in 2015,
with around 60,000 hectares of agricultural land inundation. Recently, the cyclones Nivar
and Burevi and continuous low depressions of 2021 brought heavy rainfall to Chennai–
Cuddalore and the delta region, causing misery to low-lying communities. In contrast
to the Chennai metropolitan region, the Villupuram–Cuddalore–Cauvery delta region is
modestly covered by agricultural land use and even inundation of water less than one
foot for a few days led to floods and associated crop loss. This is evidenced by the surface
runoff potential layer and flood loss reported by the deprived communities.
Many studies have been attempted on floods and associated hazards of coastal regions
of Tamil Nadu. Most of these studies have focused on the physical flood modelling of a
selected portion, considering only a few controlling factors. In this study, we attempted
to comprehensively assess the flood risk for the entire stretch of the coastal plain of Tamil
Nadu [48,50–58]. Unlike other previous attempts, this study considered all the major di-
mensions of flood risks on a relative scale and presented the results at micro-administrative
units. The study used datasets from multiple sources to generate flood hazard layers.
Though a few attempts have been made to map the flood hazard using dense time-series
multispectral data [59,60], the literature shows that C-band VH polarisation SAR data can
effectively identify and quantify the partially submerged land use classes during a flood
event [61]. Additionally, the Change Detection and Thresholding (CDAT) method has been
proven to be successful for quantifying flood extent using pre- and post-flood SAR VH
polarisation data [29,30].
In general, poor communities (mainly SC/ST communities) in the coastal areas are
frequently affected by floods [62]; their socio-economic conditions affect their livelihoods
severely [63]. Considering this, indirect vulnerability parameters were generated to study
the socio-economic conditions of the exposed population. The results show that most of
the villages in the northern coastal region are subject to high to very high socio-economic
vulnerability. This region has a high population density with a high proportion of primary
workers, women and children, and SC/ST communities [27]. Despite the widespread
flood occurrences in northern coastal plains and high socio-economic vulnerability, the
local communities have learned to adapt relatively well to the impact of floods [64]. This
tendency is noticed in group interactions where most of the people in this region perceived
low to moderate flood exposure and challenges. However, where suitable precautionary
measures are not in place, localised extreme rainfall events continue to create havoc in this
region. The assessment of surface runoff potential demonstrates the favourable nature of
the soil and LU/LC for flooding.
Since built-up areas are an indicator for economic/human activities and associated
losses, the detailed built-up mapping with different categories was compared with the
flood hazard layer. The results clearly show that the northern coastal plains extending
from Thiruvallur to Nagapattinam districts are subject to very high exposure of economic
elements to flood hazards. The heavily urbanised settlements in Chennai and Puducherry
regions fall under the very high flood risk category. The settlements in ten villages of
Cuddalore district, namely Pinnattur, Tillaividangan, Kundiyamallur, Sirupalaiyur, Tirt-
tanagari, Tanur, Adinarayanapuram, Alappakkam, Puvanikuppam, Kambalimedu that
are located near Kadilam river and Thenpennai river are also categorised under very high
flood risk. Thus, this study’s baseline database and outcomes will substantially assist local
Earth 2022, 3 397

to state-level administrators in framing suitable planning measures to mitigate the effects of

flood hazards and attain more sustainable development in the coastal plains of Tamil Nadu.
While several challenges were encountered during the data collection and analysis,
the study’s significant limitations are the non-availability of recent census data, absence of
a uniform flood database at village/ward level, and limited field survey locations.

5. Conclusions and Scope for Future Research

The physiography of the coastal plains of Tamil Nadu are susceptible to coastal floods,
but the level of susceptibility varies significantly due to the interplay of risk factors. In
this context, this study comprehensively assessed the flood risks in the coastal plains of
Tamil Nadu at the levels of the micro-administrative unit. Unlike previous studies, we
used data from multiple sources, such as field surveys, satellite data, and secondary data
sources, to assess the study area’s flood risks. The study revealed that flooding is a spatially
continuous phenomenon in the northern coastal plains of Tamil Nadu, but it is more
localised in the southern coastal plains. The hazard analysis shows that the most flood-
prone villages/wards are in the Chennai–Cuddalore region. The surface runoff potential
and vulnerability parameters indicate that the Cauvery delta region is also susceptible to
flood risks. The high proportion of denser settlements and the predominance of primary
activities further exacerbate the hazard situation in the delta region. Thus, the entire
northern coastal plains of Tamil Nadu form a severe flood risk region. The field survey in
these regions revealed that flooding causes severe damage to their crops and frequently
lead to economic loss.
The results of this micro-level study help to synthesise different dimensions of flood
disaster risks and implement location-based risk reduction measures. The information gen-
erated through this study can be used as baseline data to identify the micro-administrative
units in which suitable structural and non-structural measures can be taken up. The vil-
lages for which high to very high flood hazards were reported in the Chennai–Cuddalore–
Cauvery delta regions should be prioritised with respect to undertaking flood mitigation
measures and effective disaster preparedness strategies. The systematic assessment of haz-
ard and vulnerability aspects of flood risk and delineation of built-up regions at flood risk
could help planners and emergency managers devise better disaster management strategies.
Any policies for flood risk management should be considered aspects to effectively
improve the livelihoods of deprived communities. The field data collected through this
study help to understand the perceptions of deprived communities in coastal Tamil Nadu.
Therefore, the study’s outcomes can be used to conduct further research to formulate
policies accordingly. The study results can also be used to devise early warning systems and
establish evacuation/aid assistance zones in most flood hazard villages. The methodology
proposed in this study can be extended to all flood-prone regions of the country for effective
flood risk management.

Supplementary Materials: The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https:
//www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/earth3010023/s1, Table S1: Major rainfall events in the different
regions of coastal pains of Tamil Nadu; File S1: Goggle Earth Engine Script for extracting flood from
Sentinel-1 images; File S2: Classifications code of built-ups.
Author Contributions: Conceptualisation: K.B., K.A.P., S.P., K.K. and R.A.V.; Methodology: S.L.G.,
K.B., K.K., S.P. and S.S.; Software: S.L.G., K.B. and K.A.P.; Validation: K.B., S.P., K.K. and S.S.; Formal
analysis: K.B., S.L.G. and R.A.V.; Investigation: K.B., S.L.G. and R.A.V.; Resources: K.B.; Data curation:
S.L.G. and K.B.; Writing—original draft preparation: K.B., K.A.P., R.A.V. and S.L.G.; Writing—review
and editing: K.B., K.A.P., S.L.G., L.R., S.P., S.S. and K.K.; Visualisation: K.B., S.L.G., L.R. and R.A.V.;
Supervision: K.B.; Project administration: S.L.G. and K.B.; Funding acquisition: K.B. All authors have
read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received external funding. The study was supported by the Indian Council
of Social Science Research (Grant No. 02/163/2019–2020/MN/RP) for the field surveys.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not Applicable.
Earth 2022, 3 398

Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement: Due to the authors’ organisation’s policy and procedures, the data/
database will not currently be available to the public. Once the project restriction period has ended
(2 years), it will be available as open source.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank Balasundareshwaran, A., Annaidasan, K.,
Kannan, R., Nethaji, S., Arumugam, S., Abarna, R. and Shebo for their assistance in the primary
survey and preparation of the built-up database. The authors acknowledge ESA for Sentinel data
and Google Earth Engine for free computational resources.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Tsakiris, G. Flood risk assessment: Concepts, modelling, applications. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2014, 14, 1361–1369. [CrossRef]
2. Balica, S.F.; Wright, N.G.; van der Meulen, F. A flood vulnerability index for coastal cities and its use in assessing climate change
impacts. Nat. Hazards 2012, 64, 73–105. [CrossRef]
3. Khan, A.; Chatterjee, S. Coastal Risk Assessment: A Comprehensive Framework for the Bay of Bengal; Springer: Cham, Switzerland,
2018; ISBN 9783319699929.
4. Small, C.; Nicholls, R.J. A global analysis of human settlement in coastal zones. J. Coast. Res. 2003, 19, 584–599.
5. Suriya, S.; Mudgal, B.V.; Nelliyat, P. Flood damage assessment of an urban area in Chennai, India, part I: Methodology. Nat.
Hazards 2012, 62, 149–167. [CrossRef]
6. Dhar, O.N.; Nandargi, S. Hydrometeorological aspects of floods in India. Nat. Hazards 2003, 28, 1–33. [CrossRef]
7. Singh, Y.T.; Das, R.R.; Kumar, D.S.V.; Krishnan, P.; Ramachandran, P.; Ramachandran, R. Rapid assessment of coastal biodiversity
post-2015 chennai flood, India. EnvironmentAsia 2019, 12, 91–103. [CrossRef]
8. Winsemius, H.C.; Van Beek, L.P.H.; Jongman, B.; Ward, P.J.; Bouwman, A. A framework for global river flood risk assessments.
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2013, 17, 1871–1892. [CrossRef]
9. Ahmed, C.F.; Kranthi, N. Flood vulnerability assessment using geospatial techniques: Chennai, India. Indian J. Sci. Technol. 2018,
11, 1–13. [CrossRef]
10. Uddin, K.; Matin, M.A.; Meyer, F.J. Operational flood mapping using multi-temporal Sentinel-1 SAR images: A case study from
Bangladesh. Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 1581. [CrossRef]
11. Joshi, P.M. Urban flood mapping by geospatial technique a case study of surat city. IOSR J. Eng. 2012, 2, 43–51. [CrossRef]
12. Singh, A.K.; Sharma, A.K. GIS and a remote sensing based approach for urban flood-plain mapping for the Tapi catchment, India.
IAHS-AISH Publ. 2009, 331, 389–394.
13. Patel, D.; Dholakia, M. Identifying probable submergence area of surat city using digital elevation model and geographical
information system. World Appl. Sci. J. 2010, 9, 461–466.
14. Zope, P.E.; Eldho, T.I.; Jothiprakash, V. Impacts of urbanisation on flooding of a coastal urban catchment: A case study of Mumbai
City, India. Nat. Hazards 2015, 75, 887–908. [CrossRef]
15. Demirkesen, A.C.; Evrendilek, F.; Berberoglu, S.; Kilic, S. Coastal flood risk analysis using landsat-7 ETM+ imagery and SRTM
DEM: A case study of Izmir, Turkey. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2007, 131, 293–300. [CrossRef]
16. Van de Sande, B.; Lansen, J.; Hoyng, C. Sensitivity of coastal flood risk assessments to digital elevation models. Water 2012, 4,
568–579. [CrossRef]
17. Ehrlich, D.; Melchiorri, M.; Florczyk, A.J.; Pesaresi, M.; Kemper, T.; Corbane, C.; Freire, S.; Schiavina, M.; Siragusa, A. Remote
sensing derived built-up area and population density to quantify global exposure to five natural hazards over time. Remote Sens.
2018, 10, 1378. [CrossRef]
18. Jariwala, R.C.; Samtani, B.K. The estimation of flood and its control by section modification in Mithi and Kankara tributaries at
Surat. Int. J. Eng. Res. Appl. 2012, 2, 862–867.
19. Padhee, S.K.; Nikam, B.R.; Dutta, S.; Aggarwal, S.P. Using satellite-based soil moisture to detect and monitor spatiotemporal
traces of agricultural drought over Bundelkhand region of India. GISci. Remote Sens. 2017, 54, 144–166. [CrossRef]
20. Kvočka, D.; Falconer, R.A.; Bray, M. Flood hazard assessment for extreme flood events. Nat. Hazards 2016, 84, 1569–1599.
[CrossRef]
21. Papathoma-Köhle, M.; Schlögl, M.; Fuchs, S. Vulnerability indicators for natural hazards: An innovative selection and weighting
approach. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 15026. [CrossRef]
22. Singh, S.R.; Eghdami, M.R.; Singh, S. The concept of social vulnerability: A review from disasters perspectives. Int. J. Interdiscip.
Multidiscip. Stud. 2014, 1, 71–82.
23. UNISDR. 2009 UNISDR Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction; UNISDR: Geneva, Switzerland, 2009.
24. De Brito, M.M.; Evers, M.; Delos Santos Almoradie, A. Participatory flood vulnerability assessment: A multi-criteria approach.
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2018, 22, 373–390. [CrossRef]
25. Bahinipati, C.S.; Rajasekar, U.; Acharya, A.; Patel, M. Flood-induced loss and damage to textile industry in Surat City, India.
Environ. Urban ASIA 2017, 8, 170–187. [CrossRef]
Earth 2022, 3 399

26. Xia, J.; Falconer, R.A.; Lin, B.; Tan, G. Numerical assessment of flood hazard risk to people and vehicles in flash floods. Environ.
Model. Softw. 2011, 26, 987–998. [CrossRef]
27. Karuppusamy, B.; Leo George, S.; Anusuya, K.; Venkatesh, R.; Thilagaraj, P.; Gnanappazham, L.; Kumaraswamy, K.;
Balasundareshwaran, A.H.; Balabaskaran Nina, P. Revealing the socio-economic vulnerability and multi-hazard risks at
micro-administrative units in the coastal plains of Tamil Nadu, India. Geomat. Nat. Hazards Risk 2021, 12, 605–630. [CrossRef]
28. Prasad, K.A.; Ottinger, M.; Wei, C.; Leinenkugel, P. Assessment of coastal aquaculture for India from Sentinel-1 SAR time series.
Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 357. [CrossRef]
29. Long, S.; Fatoyinbo, T.E.; Policelli, F. Flood extent mapping for Namibia using change detection and thresholding with SAR.
Environ. Res. Lett. 2014, 9, 035002. [CrossRef]
30. Clement, M.A.; Kilsby, C.G.; Moore, P. Multi-temporal synthetic aperture radar flood mapping using change detection. J. Flood
Risk Manag. 2018, 11, 152–168. [CrossRef]
31. Brocca, L.; Liersch, S.; Melone, F.; Moramarco, T.; Volk, M. Application of a model-based rainfall-runoff database as efficient tool
for flood risk management. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2013, 17, 3159–3169. [CrossRef]
32. Elfeki, A.; Masoud, M.; Niyazi, B. Integrated rainfall–runoff and flood inundation modeling for flash flood risk assessment under
data scarcity in arid regions: Wadi Fatimah basin case study, Saudi Arabia. Nat. Hazards 2017, 85, 87–109. [CrossRef]
33. Verma, S.; Verma, R.K.; Mishra, S.K.; Singh, A.; Jayaraj, G.K. A revisit of NRCS-CN inspired models coupled with RS and GIS for
runoff estimation. Hydrol. Sci. J. 2017, 62, 1891–1930. [CrossRef]
34. Balasubramani, K. Physical resources assessment in a semi-arid watershed: An integrated methodology for sustainable land use
planning. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2018, 142, 358–379. [CrossRef]
35. Balasubramani, K.; Gomathi, M.; Bhaskaran, G.; Kumaraswamy, K. GIS-based spatial multi-criteria approach for characterization
and prioritization of micro-watersheds: A case study of semi-arid watershed, South India. Appl. Geomat. 2019, 11, 289–307.
[CrossRef]
36. Cutter, S.L.; Mitchell, J.T.; Scott, M.S. Revealing the vulnerability of people and places: A case study of Georgetown County, South
Carolina. Hazards Vulnerabil. Environ. Justice 2012, 90, 83–114. [CrossRef]
37. Mohapatra, R. Community Based Planning in Post-Disaster Reconstruction: A Case Study of Tsunami Affected Fishing Commu-
nities in Tamil Nadu Coast of India. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada, 2009.
38. Unal, I. Defining an optimal cut-point value in ROC analysis: An alternative approach. Comput. Math. Methods Med. 2017, 2017,
3762651. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
39. Avand, M.; Moradi, H.R.; Lasboyee, M.R. Spatial prediction of future flood risk: An approach to the effects of climate change.
Geoscience 2021, 11, 25. [CrossRef]
40. Sepehri, M.; Malekinezhad, H.; Hosseini, S.Z.; Ildoromi, A.R. Assessment of flood hazard mapping in urban areas using entropy
weighting method: A case study in Hamadan city, Iran. Acta Geophys. 2019, 67, 1435–1449. [CrossRef]
41. Ehrlich, D.; Kemper, T.; Pesaresi, M.; Corbane, C. Built-up area and population density: Two Essential Societal Variables to
address climate hazard impact. Environ. Sci. Policy 2018, 90, 73–82. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
42. Dobson, J.E.; Bright, E.A.; Coleman, P.R.; Durfee, R.C.; Worley, B.A. Landscan: A global piopulation database for estimating
populations at risk. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 2000, 66, 849–857.
43. Hallegatte, S.; Green, C.; Nicholls, R.J.; Corfee-Morlot, J. Future flood losses in major coastal cities. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2013, 3,
802–806. [CrossRef]
44. Merz, B.; Elmer, F.; Thieken, A.H. Significance of “high probability/low damage” versus “low probability/high damage” flood
events. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2009, 9, 1033–1046. [CrossRef]
45. Merz, B.; Kreibich, H.; Schwarze, R.; Thieken, A. Review article “assessment of economic flood damage”. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst.
Sci. 2010, 10, 1697–1724. [CrossRef]
46. De, U.S.; Dube, R.K.; Prakasa Rao, G.S. Extreme weather events over india in the last 100 years. J. Indian Geophys. Union 2005, 9,
173–187.
47. Sudha Rani, N.N.V.; Satyanarayana, A.N.V.; Bhaskaran, P.K. Coastal vulnerability assessment studies over India: A review. Nat.
Hazards 2015, 77, 405–428. [CrossRef]
48. Mahendra, R.S.; Mohanty, P.C.; Bisoyi, H.; Kumar, T.S.; Nayak, S. Assessment and management of coastal multi-hazard
vulnerability along the Cuddalore-Villupuram, east coast of India using geospatial techniques. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2011, 54,
302–311. [CrossRef]
49. Ramasamy, S.M.; Vijay, A.; Dhinesh, S. Geo-anthropogenic aberrations and Chennai floods: 2015, India. Nat. Hazards 2018, 92,
443–477. [CrossRef]
50. Anandan, C.; Sasidhar, P. Changes in coastal morphology at Kalpakkam, East Coast, India due to 26 december 2004 Sumatra
tsunami. Geomat. Nat. Hazards Risk 2011, 2, 183–192. [CrossRef]
51. Sheik Mujabar, P.; Chandrasekar, N. Coastal erosion hazard and vulnerability assessment for southern coastal Tamil Nadu of
India by using remote sensing and GIS. Nat. Hazards 2013, 69, 1295–1314. [CrossRef]
52. Mani Murali, R.; Ankita, M.; Amrita, S.; Vethamony, P. Coastal vulnerability assessment of Puducherry coast, India, using the
analytical hierarchical process. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2013, 13, 3291–3311. [CrossRef]
53. Muthusankar, G.; Lakshumanan, C.; Pradeep-Kishore, V.; Eswaramoorthi, S.; Jonathan, M.P. Classifying inundation limits in SE
coast of India: Application of GIS. Nat. Hazards 2013, 65, 2401–2409. [CrossRef]
Earth 2022, 3 400

54. Gopinath, G.; Løvholt, F.; Kaiser, G.; Harbitz, C.B.; Srinivasa Raju, K.; Ramalingam, M. Bhoop singh impact of the 2004 Indian
Ocean tsunami along the Tamil Nadu coastline: Field survey review and numerical simulations. Nat. Hazards 2014, 72, 743–769.
[CrossRef]
55. Kaliraj, S.; Chandrasekar, N.; Magesh, N.S. Evaluation of coastal erosion and accretion processes along the southwest coast of
Kanyakumari, Tamil Nadu using geospatial techniques. Arab. J. Geosci. 2015, 8, 239–253. [CrossRef]
56. Parthasarathy, A.; Natesan, U. Coastal vulnerability assessment: A case study on erosion and coastal change along Tuticorin, Gulf
of Mannar. Nat. Hazards 2015, 75, 1713–1729. [CrossRef]
57. Priya Rajan, S.M.; Nellayaputhenpeedika, M.; Tiwari, S.P.; Vengadasalam, R. Mapping and analysis of the physical vulnerability
of coastal Tamil Nadu. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. 2020, 26, 1879–1895. [CrossRef]
58. Thirumurugan, P.; Krishnaveni, M. Flood hazard mapping using geospatial techniques and satellite images—A case study of
coastal district of Tamil Nadu. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2019, 191, 193. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
59. Huang, C.; Chen, Y.; Wu, J. Mapping spatio-temporal flood inundation dynamics at large riverbasin scale using time-series flow
data and MODIS imagery. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 2014, 26, 350–362. [CrossRef]
60. Mohammadi, A.; Costelloe, J.F.; Ryu, D. Application of time series of remotely sensed normalised difference water, vegetation
and moisture indices in characterising flood dynamics of large-scale arid zone floodplains. Remote Sens. Environ. 2017, 190, 70–82.
[CrossRef]
61. Manavalan, R.; Rao, Y.S.; Mohan, B.K. Comparative flood area analysis of C-band VH, VV, and L-band HH polarisations SAR
data. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2017, 38, 4645–4654. [CrossRef]
62. Adelekan, I.O. Vulnerability of poor urban coastal communities to flooding in Lagos, Nigeria. Environ. Urban. 2010, 22, 433–450.
[CrossRef]
63. Brouwer, R.; Akter, S.; Brander, L.; Haque, E. Socioeconomic vulnerability and adaptation to environmental risk: A case study of
climate change and flooding in Bangladesh. Risk Anal. 2007, 27, 313–326. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
64. Svetlana, D.; Radovan, D.; Ján, D. The Economic impact of floods and their importance in different regions of the world with
emphasis on Europe. Procedia Econ. Financ. 2015, 34, 649–655. [CrossRef]