A Deep Learning Approach to Flood Prediction and Early Warning Using Multi-Source Environmental Data: Evidence from Zimbabwe

Zimbabwe ranks among the most flood-prone countries in Southern Africa; however, its existing flood warning systems lack adequate coverage and depend on insufficiently advanced technologies. In this study, we propose an applicable deep learning-based framework combining several sources of satellite, topographic, and in-situ data that would facilitate flood predictions and early warning systems implementation in three Zimbabwean catchments, the Save, Manyame, and Mazowe. Seven models were created and evaluated in this study; one of them, hybrid CNN-LSTM model, demonstrated better performance results with 95.9% accuracy, F1-score of 95.0%, and AUC-ROC of 0.981 for the independent test set. In addition, spatial cross-validation was applied to prove the generalization capacity of the proposed model. According to SHAP analysis, the following predictors were determined as the most influential: antecedent rainfall within 72 hours, distance to the closest river channel, and Terrain Wetness Index, all of which coincide with real-life features of Zimbabwe's hydrology. As for the end user, the suggested model could be incorporated into a four-level flood early warning system (advisory level, watch level, warning level, and emergency level).

CNN-LSTM, Flood prediction

1. Nhamo, G., & Chikodzi, D. (Eds.). (2021). Cyclones in Southern Africa: Volume 1, Resilience, sustainability and future risk. Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72235-6 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. CRED / UNDRR. (2022). Human cost of disasters: An overview of the last 20 years 2000–2019. Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters, Brussels. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Msowoya, K., Mathiszik, M., Phiri, C., & Mofor, N. (2020). Flooding in the Chimanimani district of Zimbabwe following Tropical Cyclone Idai. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences Discussions. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2020-100 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Mugabe, F. T., Hodnett, M. G., & Senzanje, A. (2007). Opportunities for hydrological research in the Runde and Save Catchments, Zimbabwe. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 32(15–18), 1107–1114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2007.07.004 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. ZINWA. (2020). Annual report on water resources monitoring in Zimbabwe 2020. Zimbabwe National Water Authority, Harare. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Beven, K. J. (2012). Rainfall-runoff modelling: The primer (2nd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Cloke, H. L., & Pappenberger, F. (2009). Ensemble flood forecasting: A review. Journal of Hydrology, 375(3–4), 613–626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.06.005 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Reichstein, M., Camps-Valls, G., Stevens, B., Jung, M., Denzler, J., Carvalhais, N., & Prabhat. (2019). Deep learning and process understanding for data-driven Earth system science. Nature, 566(7743), 195–204. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-0912-1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Nearing, G. S., Kratzert, F., Sampson, A. K., Pelissier, C. S., Klotz, D., Frame, J. M., Prieto, C., & Gupta, H. V. (2021). What role does hydrological science play in the age of machine learning? Water Resources Research, 57(3), e2020WR028091. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020WR028091 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Hou, A. Y., Kakar, R. K., Neeck, S., Azarbarzin, A. A., Kummerow, C. D., Kojima, M., Oki, R., Nakamura, K., & Iguchi, T. (2014). The Global Precipitation Measurement Mission. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 95(5), 701–722. https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00164.1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Twele, A., Cao, W., Plank, S., & Martinis, S. (2016). Sentinel-1-based flood mapping: A fully automated processing chain. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 37(13), 2990–3004. https://doi.org/10.1080/01431161.2016.1192304 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Hochreiter, S., & Schmid Huber, J. (1997). Long short-term memory. Neural Computation, 9(8), 1735–1780. https://doi.org/10.1162/neco.1997.9.8.1735 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Shen, C. (2018). A transdisciplinary review of deep learning research and its relevance for water resources scientists. Water Resources Research, 54(11), 8558–8593. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018WR022643 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Mosavi, A., Ozturk, P., & Chau, K.-W. (2018). Flood prediction using machine learning models: Literature review. Water, 10(11), 1536. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10111536 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Khosravi, K., Pham, B. T., Chapi, K., Shirzadi, A., Shahabi, H., Revhaug, I., Prakash, I., & Bui, D. T. (2018). A comparative assessment of decision trees algorithms for flash flood susceptibility modelling at Haraz watershed, northern Iran. Science of the Total Environment, 627, 744–755. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.01.266 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Goetz, J. N., Brenning, A., Petschko, H., & Leopold, P. (2015). Evaluating machine learning and statistical prediction techniques for landslide susceptibility modelling. Computers & Geosciences, 81, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2015.04.007 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Breiman, L. (2001). Random forests. Machine Learning, 45(1), 5–32. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010933404324 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Tehrany, M. S., Pradhan, B., & Jebur, M. N. (2014). Flood susceptibility mapping using a novel ensemble weights-of-evidence and support vector machine models in GIS. Journal of Hydrology, 512, 332–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.03.008 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Rahmati, O., Pourghasemi, H. R., & Zeinivand, H. (2016). Flood susceptibility mapping using frequency ratio and weights-of-evidence models in the Golastan Province, Iran. Geocarto International, 31(1), 42–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/10106049.2015.1041559 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Tyralis, H., Papacharalampous, G., & Langousis, A. (2019). A brief review of random forests for water scientists and practitioners and their recent history in water resources. Water, 11(5), 910. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11050910 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Chen, T., & Guestrin, C. (2016). XGBoost: A scalable tree boosting system. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (pp. 785–794). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2939672.2939785 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Pham, B. T., Avand, M., Janizadeh, S., Phong, T. V., Al-Ansari, N., Ho, L. S., Das, S., Le, H. V., Amini, A., & Nguyen, H. Q. (2021). GIS-based ensemble soft computing models for flood susceptibility assessment. Applied Sciences, 11(4), 1805. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11041805 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Choubin, B., Moradi, E., Golshan, M., Adamowski, J., Sajedi-Hosseini, F., & Mosavi, A. (2019). An ensemble prediction of flood susceptibility using multivariate discriminant analysis, classification and regression trees, and support vector machines. Science of the Total Environment, 651, 2087–2096. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.064 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Choubin, B., Moradi, E., Golshan, M., Adamowski, J., Sajedi-Hosseini, F., & Mosavi, A. (2019). An ensemble prediction of flood susceptibility using multivariate discriminant analysis, classification and regression trees, and support vector machines. Science of the Total Environment, 651, 2087–2096. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.064 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Tehrany, M. S., Pradhan, B., & Jebur, M. N. (2015). Flood susceptibility analysis and its verification using a novel ensemble support vector machine and frequency ratio method. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, 29(4), 1149–1165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-015-1021-9 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Sit, M., Demiray, B. Z., Xiang, Z., Ewing, G. J., Sermet, Y., & Demir, I. (2020). A comprehensive review of deep learning applications in hydrology and water resources. Water Science and Technology, 82(12), 2635–2670. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2020.369 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Hochreiter, S., & Schmid Huber, J. (1997). Long short-term memory. Neural Computation, 9(8), 1735–1780. https://doi.org/10.1162/neco.1997.9.8.1735 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Kratzert, F., Klotz, D., Brenner, C., Schulz, K., & Herrnegger, M. (2018). Rainfall–runoff modelling using Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) based deep learning. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 22(11), 6005–6022. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-6005-2018 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Le, X.-H., Ho, H. V., Lee, G., & Jung, S. (2019). Application of long short-term memory (LSTM) neural network for flood forecasting. Water, 11(7), 1387. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11071387 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Hu, C., Wu, Q., Li, H., Jian, S., Li, N., & Lou, Z. (2018). Deep learning with a long short-term memory networks approach for rainfall-runoff simulation. Water, 10(11), 1543. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10111543 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Kratzert, F., Klotz, D., Shalev, G., Klambauer, G., Hochreiter, S., & Nearing, G. (2019). Towards learning universal, regional, and local hydrological behaviours via machine learning applied to large-sample datasets. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 23(12), 5089–5110. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-5089-2019 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. LeCun, Y., Bengio, Y., & Hinton, G. (2015). Deep learning. Nature, 521(7553), 436–444. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14539 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Wang, Y., Fang, Z., Hong, H., & Peng, L. (2020). Flood susceptibility mapping using convolutional deep learning approach with remote sensing evidential factors. Journal of Hydrology, 590, 125365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.125365 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Nearing, G. S., Kratzert, F., Sampson, A. K., Pelissier, C. S., Klotz, D., Frame, J. M., Prieto, C., & Gupta, H. V. (2021). What role does hydrological science play in the age of machine learning? Water Resources Research, 57(3), e2020WR028091. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020WR028091 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Sat, M., Demiray, B. Z., Xiang, Z., Ewing, G. J., Sermet, Y., & Demir, I. (2020). A comprehensive review of deep learning applications in hydrology and water resources. Water Science and Technology, 82(12), 2635–2670. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2020.369 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Mugume, I., Basalirwa, C., Waiswa, D., Reuder, J., Mesquita, M. D. S., Tao, S., & Ngailo, T. J. (2016). Comparison of parametric and nonparametric methods for analysing the bias of a numerical model. Atmosphere, 7(11), 135. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos7110135 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Maposa, D., Cochran, J. J., & Lesaoana, M. (2016). Investigating the occurrence and return periods of extreme floods in the Limpopo Province, South Africa. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 16(1), 137–148. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-16-137-2016 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Chikodzi, D., Mutowo, G., & Murwendo, T. (2013). Assessing flood risk in Zimbabwe using GIS and remote sensing. Journal of Flood Risk Management, 6(2), 145–154. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1753-318X.2012.01164.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Mugabe, F. T., Hodnett, M. G., & Senzanje, A. (2007). Opportunities for hydrological research in the Runde and Save Catchments, Zimbabwe. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 32(15–18), 1107–1114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2007.07.004 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Maidment, R. I., Grimes, D., Black, E., Tarnavsky, E., Young, M., Greatrex, H., Allan, R. P., Stein, T., Nkonde, E., & Senkunda, S. (2017). A new, long-term daily satellite-based rainfall dataset for operational monitoring in Africa. Scientific Data, 4, 170063. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2017.63 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Reichstein, M., Camps-Valls, G., Stevens, B., Jung, M., Denzler, J., Carvalhais, N., & Prabhat. (2019). Deep learning and process understanding for data-driven Earth system science. Nature, 566(7743), 195–204. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-0912-1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Lundberg, S. M., & Lee, S.-I. (2017). A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (Vol. 30, pp. 4765–4774). NeurIPS. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Li, Z., Liu, H., Luo, C., & Fu, G. (2021). Assessing surface water flood risks in urban areas using machine learning. Water, 13(24), 3520. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13243520 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Goetz, J. N., Brenning, A., Petschko, H., & Leopold, P. (2015). Evaluating machine learning and statistical prediction techniques for landslide susceptibility modelling. Computers & Geosciences, 81, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2015.04.007 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Cannon, A. J., Sobie, S. R., & Murdock, T. Q. (2015). Bias correction of GCM precipitation by quantile mapping: How well do methods preserve changes in quantiles and extremes? Journal of Climate, 28(17), 6938–6959. https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00754.1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Wang, L., & Liu, H. (2006). An efficient method for identifying and filling surface depressions in digital elevation models for hydrologic analysis and modelling. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 20(2), 193–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/13658810500433453 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Conrad, O., Bechtel, B., Bock, M., Dietrich, H., Fischer, E., Gerlitz, L., Wehberg, J., Wichmann, V., & Böhner, J. (2015). System for Automated Geoscientific Analyses (SAGA) v. 2.1.4. Geoscientific Model Development, 8(7), 1991–2007. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-1991-2015 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. Beven, K. J., & Kirkby, M. J. (1979). A physically based, variable contributing area model of basin hydrology. Hydrological Sciences Bulletin, 24(1), 43–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667909491834 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. Kingma, D. P., & Ba, J. (2015). Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR 2015). https://arxiv.org/abs/1412.6980 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

50. Cortes, C., & Vapnik, V. (1995). Support-vector networks. Machine Learning, 20(3), 273–297. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00994018 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

51. Beven, K. J. (2012). Rainfall-runoff modelling: The primer (2nd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

52. Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., Michel, V., Thirion, B., Grisel, O., Blondel, M., Prettenhofer, P., Weiss, R., Dubourg, V., & Vanderplas, J. (2011). Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825–2830. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

53. Alfieri, L., Burek, P., Dutra, E., Krzeminski, B., Muraro, D., Thielen, J., & Pappenberger, F. (2013). GloFAS, Global ensemble streamflow forecasting and flood early warning. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 17(3), 1161–1175. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-1161-2013 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• What the Desert Fathers Teach Data Scientists: Ancient Ascetic Principles for Ethical Machine-Learning Practice
• Comparative Analysis of Some Machine Learning Algorithms for the Classification of Ransomware
• Comparative Performance Analysis of Some Priority Queue Variants in Dijkstra’s Algorithm
• Transfer Learning in Detecting E-Assessment Malpractice from a Proctored Video Recordings.
• Dual-Modal Detection of Parkinson’s Disease: A Clinical Framework and Deep Learning Approach Using NeuroParkNet