Abstract. Floods cause extensive damage, especially if they affect large regions. Assessments of current, local, and regional flood hazards and their future changes often involve the use of hydrologic models. A reliable hydrologic model ideally reproduces both local flood characteristics and spatial aspects of flooding under current and future climate conditions. However, uncertainties in simulated floods can be considerable and yield unreliable hazard and climate change impact assessments. This study evaluates the extent to which models calibrated according to standard model calibration metrics such as the widely used Kling–Gupta efficiency are able to capture flood spatial coherence and triggering mechanisms. To highlight challenges related to flood simulations, we investigate how flood timing, magnitude, and spatial variability are represented by an ensemble of hydrological models when calibrated on streamflow using the Kling–Gupta efficiency metric, an increasingly common metric of hydrologic model performance also in flood-related studies. Specifically, we compare how four well-known models (the Sacramento Soil Moisture Accounting model, SAC; the Hydrologiska Byråns Vattenbalansavdelning model, HBV; the variable infiltration capacity model, VIC; and the mesoscale hydrologic model, mHM) represent (1) flood characteristics and their spatial patterns and (2) how they translate changes in meteorologic variables that trigger floods into changes in flood magnitudes. Our results show that both the modeling of local and spatial flood characteristics are challenging as models underestimate flood magnitude, and flood timing is not necessarily well captured. They further show that changes in precipitation and temperature are not always well translated to changes in flood flow, which makes local and regional flood hazard assessments even more difficult for future conditions. From a large sample of catchments and with multiple models, we conclude that calibration on the integrated Kling–Gupta metric alone is likely to yield models that have limited reliability in flood hazard assessments, undermining their utility for regional and future change assessments. We underscore that such assessments can be improved by developing flood-focused, multi-objective, and spatial calibration metrics, by improving flood generating process representation through model structure comparisons and by considering uncertainty in precipitation input.

Abstract. Floods cause extensive damage, especially if they affect large regions. Assessments of current, local, and regional flood hazards and their future changes often involve the use of hydrologic models. A reliable hydrologic model ideally reproduces both local flood characteristics and spatial aspects of flooding under current and future climate conditions. However, uncertainties in simulated floods can be considerable and yield unreliable hazard and climate change impact assessments. This study evaluates the extent to which models calibrated according to standard model calibration metrics such as the widely used Kling–Gupta efficiency are able to capture flood spatial coherence and triggering mechanisms. To highlight challenges related to flood simulations, we investigate how flood timing, magnitude, and spatial variability are represented by an ensemble of hydrological models when calibrated on streamflow using the Kling–Gupta efficiency metric, an increasingly common metric of hydrologic model performance also in flood-related studies. Specifically, we compare how four well-known models (the Sacramento Soil Moisture Accounting model, SAC; the Hydrologiska Byråns Vattenbalansavdelning model, HBV; the variable infiltration capacity model, VIC; and the mesoscale hydrologic model, mHM) represent (1) flood characteristics and their spatial patterns and (2) how they translate changes in meteorologic variables that trigger floods into changes in flood magnitudes. Our results show that both the modeling of local and spatial flood characteristics are challenging as models underestimate flood magnitude, and flood timing is not necessarily well captured. They further show that changes in precipitation and temperature are not always well translated to changes in flood flow, which makes local and regional flood hazard assessments even more difficult for future conditions. From a large sample of catchments and with multiple models, we conclude that calibration on the integrated Kling–Gupta metric alone is likely to yield models that have limited reliability in flood hazard assessments, undermining their utility for regional and future change assessments. We underscore that such assessments can be improved by developing flood-focused, multi-objective, and spatial calibration metrics, by improving flood generating process representation through model structure comparisons and by considering uncertainty in precipitation input.

Predictions of floods, droughts, and fast drought‐flood transitions are required at different time scales to develop management strategies targeted at minimizing negative societal and economic impacts. Forecasts at daily and seasonal scale are vital for early warning, estimation of event frequency for hydraulic design, and long‐term projections for developing adaptation strategies to future conditions. All three types of predictions—forecasts, frequency estimates, and projections—typically treat droughts and floods independently, even though both types of extremes can be studied using related approaches and have similar challenges. In this review, we (a) identify challenges common to drought and flood prediction and their joint assessment and (b) discuss tractable approaches to tackle these challenges. We group challenges related to flood and drought prediction into four interrelated categories: data, process understanding, modeling and prediction, and human–water interactions. Data‐related challenges include data availability and event definition. Process‐related challenges include the multivariate and spatial characteristics of extremes, non‐stationarities, and future changes in extremes. Modeling challenges arise in frequency analysis, stochastic, hydrological, earth system, and hydraulic modeling. Challenges with respect to human–water interactions lie in establishing links to impacts, representing human–water interactions, and science communication. We discuss potential ways of tackling these challenges including exploiting new data sources, studying droughts and floods in a joint framework, studying societal influences and compounding drivers, developing continuous stochastic models or non‐stationary models, and obtaining stakeholder feedback. Tackling one or several of these challenges will improve flood and drought predictions and help to minimize the negative impacts of extreme events.

Predictions of floods, droughts, and fast drought‐flood transitions are required at different time scales to develop management strategies targeted at minimizing negative societal and economic impacts. Forecasts at daily and seasonal scale are vital for early warning, estimation of event frequency for hydraulic design, and long‐term projections for developing adaptation strategies to future conditions. All three types of predictions—forecasts, frequency estimates, and projections—typically treat droughts and floods independently, even though both types of extremes can be studied using related approaches and have similar challenges. In this review, we (a) identify challenges common to drought and flood prediction and their joint assessment and (b) discuss tractable approaches to tackle these challenges. We group challenges related to flood and drought prediction into four interrelated categories: data, process understanding, modeling and prediction, and human–water interactions. Data‐related challenges include data availability and event definition. Process‐related challenges include the multivariate and spatial characteristics of extremes, non‐stationarities, and future changes in extremes. Modeling challenges arise in frequency analysis, stochastic, hydrological, earth system, and hydraulic modeling. Challenges with respect to human–water interactions lie in establishing links to impacts, representing human–water interactions, and science communication. We discuss potential ways of tackling these challenges including exploiting new data sources, studying droughts and floods in a joint framework, studying societal influences and compounding drivers, developing continuous stochastic models or non‐stationary models, and obtaining stakeholder feedback. Tackling one or several of these challenges will improve flood and drought predictions and help to minimize the negative impacts of extreme events.

Abstract. Floods cause large damages, especially if they affect large regions. Assessments of current, local and regional flood hazards and their future changes often involve the use of hydrologic models. However, uncertainties in simulated floods can be considerable and yield unreliable hazard and climate change impact assessments. A reliable hydrologic model ideally reproduces both local flood characteristics and spatial aspects of flooding, which is, however, not guaranteed especially when using standard model calibration metrics. In this paper we investigate how flood timing, magnitude and spatial variability are represented by an ensemble of hydrological models when calibrated on streamflow using the Kling–Gupta efficiency metric, an increasingly common metric of hydrologic model performance. We compare how four well-known models (SAC, HBV, VIC, and mHM) represent (1) flood characteristics and their spatial patterns; and (2) how they translate changes in meteorologic variables that trigger floods into changes in flood magnitudes. Our results show that both the modeling of local and spatial flood characteristics is challenging. They further show that changes in precipitation and temperature are not necessarily well translated to changes in flood flow, which makes local and regional flood hazard assessments even more difficult for future conditions. We conclude that models calibrated on integrated metrics such as the Kling–Gupta efficiency alone have limited reliability in flood hazard assessments, in particular in regional and future assessments, and suggest the development of alternative process-based and spatial evaluation metrics.

Floods often affect large regions and cause adverse societal impacts. Regional flood hazard and risk assessments therefore require a realistic representation of spatial flood dependencies to avoid the overestimation or underestimation of risk. However, it is not yet well understood how spatial flood dependence, that is, the degree of co-occurrence of floods at different locations, varies in space and time and which processes influence the strength of this dependence. We identify regions in the United States with seasonally similar flood behavior and analyze processes governing spatial dependence. We find that spatial flood dependence varies regionally and seasonally and is generally strongest in winter and spring and weakest in summer and fall. Moreover, we find that land-surface processes are crucial in shaping the spatiotemporal characteristics of flood events. We conclude that the regional and seasonal variations in spatial flood dependencies must be considered when conducting current and future flood risk assessments.

Widespread flooding can cause major damages and substantial recovery costs. Still, estimates of how susceptible a region is to widespread flooding are largely missing mainly because of the sparseness of widespread flood events in records. The aim of this study is to assess the seasonal susceptibility of regions in the United States to widespread flooding using a stochastic streamflow generator, which enables simulating a large number of spatially consistent flood events. Furthermore, we ask which factors influence the strength of regional flood susceptibilities. We show that susceptibilities to widespread flooding vary regionally and seasonally. They are highest in regions where catchments show regimes with a strong seasonality, that is, the Pacific Northwest, the Rocky Mountains, and the Northeast. In contrast, they are low in regions where catchments are characterized by a weak seasonality and intermittent regimes such as the Great Plains. Furthermore, susceptibility is found to be the highest in winter and spring when spatial flood dependencies are strongest because of snowmelt contributions and high soil moisture availability. We conclude that regional flood susceptibilities emerge in river basins with catchments sharing similar streamflow and climatic regimes.