remote sensing
Article
A Comprehensive Evaluation of Flooding’s Effect on Crops
Using Satellite Time Series Data
Shuangxi Miao 1,2 , Yixuan Zhao 1,2 , Jianxi Huang 1,2, * , Xuecao Li 1,2 , Ruohan Wu 1,2 , Wei Su 1,2 ,
Yelu Zeng 1,2 , Haixiang Guan 1,2 , Mohamed A. M. Abd Elbasit 3 and Junxiao Zhang 4
Citation: Miao, S.; Zhao, Y.; Huang,
J.; Li, X.; Wu, R.; Su, W.; Zeng, Y.;
Guan, H.; Abd Elbasit, M.A.M.;
Zhang, J. A Comprehensive
Evaluation of Flooding’s Effect on
Crops Using Satellite Time Series
Data. Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 1305.
https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15051305
Academic Editor: Raffaele Albano
Received: 27 January 2023
Revised: 24 February 2023
Accepted: 24 February 2023
Published: 26 February 2023
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 1305. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15051305
1 College of Land Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100083, China
2 Key Laboratory of Remote Sensing for Agri-Hazards, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs,
Beijing 100083, China
3 School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Sol Plaatje University, Kimberley 8301, South Africa
4 Qilu Aerospace Information Research Institute, Jinan 250100, China
* Correspondence: jxhuang@cau.edu.cn
Abstract: In July 2021, a flooding event, which attracted the attention of the whole country and even
the world, broke out in Henan, resulting in dramatic losses across multiple fields (e.g., economic
and agricultural). The basin at the junction of Hebi, Xinxiang, and Anyang was the most affected
region, as the spread of water from the Wei river submerged surrounding agricultural land (e.g.,
corn-dominated). To comprehensively evaluate the flooding impacts, we proposed a framework to
detect the flooding area and evaluated the degree of loss using satellite time series data. First, we
proposed a double-Gaussian model to adaptively determine the threshold for flooding extraction
using Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) data. Then, we evaluated the disaster levels of flooding with
field survey samples and optical satellite images. Finally, given that crops vary in their resilience
to flooding, we measured the vegetation index change before and after the flooding event using
satellite time series data. We found the proposed double-Gaussian model could accurately extract
the flooding area, showing great potential to support in-time flooding evaluation. We also showed
that the multispectral satellite images could potentially support the classification of disaster levels
(i.e., normal, slight, moderate, and severe), with an overall accuracy of 88%. Although these crops
were temporarily affected by this flooding event, most recovered soon, especially for the slightly
and moderately affected regions. Overall, the distribution of resilience of these affected crops was
basically in line with the results of classified disaster levels. The proposed framework provides
a comprehensive aspect to the retrospective study of the flooding process on crops with diverse
disaster levels and resilience. It can provide rapid and timely flood damage assessment and support
emergency management and disaster verification work.
Keywords: double Gaussian; corn; crop distribution; disaster level; resilience
1. Introduction
A series of heavy precipitation events caused the Henan flood in July 2021. On
and after 17 July 2021, continuous heavy precipitation dominated Zhengzhou, Kaifeng,
Xinxiang, Hebi, Anyang, and other places in Henan Province, causing infrequent and
catastrophic floods with many casualties and injuries. The Zhengzhou weather station
reported that the maximum hourly rainfall reached 201.9 mm, and around 19 national-
level meteorological stations exceeded the highest daily rainfall since the establishment of
stations. The maximum daily precipitation at Zhengzhou National Meteorological Station
was 624.1 mm, which is close to the annual average precipitation (640.8 mm) of the station,
and the maximum hourly rain intensity was as high as 201.9 mm, which is close to 1/3 of
the annual average precipitation of Zhengzhou, breaking the historical record of China’s
inland meteorological observation [1,2]. The torrential rain caused severe floods in many
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/remotesensing
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 1305 2 of 15

parts of Zhengzhou and surrounding areas. This flooding with heavy rain led to a total
of 14.8 million people affected, of which 389 people died. The direct economic loss was
estimated to be above 120 billion RMB. Flooding has profound physical and mental impacts
on people, especially those whose houses and farms are destroyed [3,4].
With the advent of remote sensing and geographical information science, in-time
monitoring and evaluation of flooding and its impacts have become possible [5–7]. Rapid
acquisition of flood information using satellite observations with scientific evaluation of
disaster loss can promote rapid emergent responses to flooding. Thus, extracting water
bodies from satellite images is essential in flooding disaster monitoring and evaluation.
Although optical satellite images are rich in terms of spectral information [8,9], it is expected
that minimal satellite images are available due to the contamination of clouds and rain,
failing the task of in-time monitoring of flooding. On the contrary, Synthetic Aperture
Radar (SAR) satellite observations can penetrate the cloud and rain with clear images.
Therefore, they are the primary data source for water detection during flooding [10].
Many studies have been carried out using backscatter from SAR data for flooding
mapping. Ref. [11] found that the brightness of submerged areas (e.g., roads, squares, and
other open areas) is diminished compared to the status before flooding due to the reduction
of the scattering coefficient. Ref. [12] also pointed out that when the dry, bare soil is flooded,
the SAR-derived backscatter coefficient drops suddenly, making it easier to be identified
from satellite images. Presently, the relationship between backscatter coefficients from
SAR data and the degree of flooding has not been comprehensively evaluated, especially
in terms of automatic optical threshold determination for in-time flooding monitoring.
Changes in backscatter coefficients of ground objects before and after the flooding can be
well characterized by the SAR images. This proposes new challenges in automatic flood
area extraction from multi-temporal SAR images.
Unlike other disasters (e.g., heat waves), flooding shows a typical intermediate effect
within a couple of hours. That is, the duration of heavy rain is not long, and the disaster
degree is heterogenous across spaces [13–17]. At the same time, bad weather during a
disaster event (e.g., clouds and rains) presents challenges for optical satellite images [18,19],
because satellite images acquired under these weather conditions are always associated
with relatively poor quality. This limitation can be complemented by SAR images [20–22].
Many SAR-based studies for flood monitoring have been carried out [23]. It is worth
noting that most of these studies only focus on the changes in the water area, with limited
efforts in exploring the impact of flooding on crops, especially considering the differences
in damage degree [24,25], although this is crucial for risk management and mitigation.
Existing studies of flooding-induced agricultural impacts mainly focus on one single epoch,
lacking a systematic perspective to study the resilience of agriculture to the flood disaster
itself [26,27]. It is essential to conduct a comprehensive and systematic evaluation of
flooding impacts on agricultural lands [28]. For instance, by analyzing the resilience of
crops to floods, it is possible to further evaluate the potential loss of yield by tracking the
vegetation growth instead of simply evaluating the crop status when the flooding event
occurs [29].
In this study, we took the 2021 Henan flooding event as an example and evaluated
the disaster degree and the resilience of impacted crops (i.e., corn). We chose the junction
area of Hebi, Xinxiang, and Anyang as our study area. First, we mapped the flooding
extent using multi-temporal SAR data. Then, we assessed the impact of flooding on crops
with outcomes of mapped damage degree. Finally, we evaluated the resilience of flooding-
impacted crops by combining long-term satellite remote sensing images. The remainder
of this paper is organized as follows: Section 2 introduces the study area and datasets;
Section 3 describes the details of the proposed method; Section 4 presents the results with
discussion; and the concluding remarks are provided in Section 5.
 Section 3 describes the details of the proposed method; Section 4 presents the results with
discussion; and the concluding remarks are provided in Section 5.
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 1305 3 of 15
2. Study Areas and Datasets
We chose the junction area of Hebi, Xinxiang, and Anyang as our study area, which
2. Studymost
was the Areasseverely affected area in Henan (Figure 1). It is composed of plains, basins,
and Datasets
and mountains. Since 17 July 2021, this area has experienced continuous heavy rains, re‐
We chose the junction area of Hebi, Xinxiang, and Anyang as our study area, which
sulting in dramatic flooding. Due to the impact of the mountains in the northwest corner,
was the most severely affected area in Henan (Figure 1). It is composed of plains, basins,
the rainwater flowed down and gathered in the basin area at a lower elevation. This region
and mountains. Since 17 July 2021, this area has experienced continuous heavy rains,
was determined by the watershed algorithm based on the digital elevation model (DEM).
resulting in dramatic flooding. Due to the impact of the mountains in the northwest corner,
Therefore, the selected study area is rational choice, as it experienced extensive flooding
the rainwater flowed down and gathered in the basin area at a lower elevation. This region
during this event, making it a good candidate to evaluate our proposed monitoring and
was determined by the watershed algorithm based on the digital elevation model (DEM).
evaluation framework.
Therefore, the selected study area is rational choice, as it experienced extensive flooding
during this event, making it a good candidate to evaluate our proposed monitoring and
evaluation framework.

Figure 1. The geographical map of our study area.

We collected multiple-source satellite observations to evaluate the flooding-induced

Figure
crop 1. The
loss andgeographical map ofThe
crop resilience. ouradopted
study area. satellite observations can be divided into two
categories. The first comprises SAR images. We collected all Sentinle-1 SAR images during
We collected
the flooding weekmultiple‐source
(i.e., 20–27 Julysatellite
2021) on observations
the GoogletoEarth
evaluate the flooding‐induced
Engine (GEE) platform to
crop loss and crop resilience. The adopted satellite
obtain approximate intermediate flooding extents. Due to the cloudy observations can be divided
weatherinto two
during
categories. The first comprises SAR images. We collected all Sentinle‐1
flooding periods, optical satellite images are commonly unavailable. The SAR images are SAR images during
the primary
the flooding data
weeksources
(i.e., 20–27 July in
we used 2021)
this on the Google
study. The otherEarth Engine
group (GEE) observations
of satellite platform to
obtain approximate intermediate flooding extents. Due to the cloudy
is the optical images derived from the Sentinel-2 and Landsat data. For these datasets, weather during
flooding periods, optical satellite images are commonly unavailable.
the radiance, atmosphere, and terrain collections were performed in advance, with clouds The SAR images are
the primary data sources we used in this study. The other group
and shadows removed. In addition, we harmonized the Sentile-2 and Landsat images to of satellite observations
is the optical
composite theimages
harmonizedderived from
time the data.
series Sentinel‐2 and Landsat
The optical imagesdata.
wereFor these
used for datasets, the
two purposes:
radiance,
for atmosphere,
collecting samples to and terrain collections
represent were performed
different damage in advance,
severity, and withthe
to measure clouds and
resilience
shadows removed. In addition, we harmonized the Sentile‐2 and Landsat
of crops after a certain period. We also collected the crop data layer in 2021 in Henan and images to com‐
posite the harmonized
field-collected samples timeduringseries
the data.
flooding Theevent.
optical images were used for two purposes:
for collecting samples to represent different
In addition, we also collected field-surveyed damage severity,
samples and to
during measure
the flooding the resili‐as
event,
ence of crops after a certain period. We also collected the crop
promoted by the Department of Emergency Management of China, for loss evaluation.data layer in 2021 in Henan
and field‐collected
Through samples during
visually inspecting the inthesituflooding
damage event.
situation and conducting field surveys
of local farms, we evaluated the damage degree of crops and collected the sample set
for disaster-level classification. The fieldwork involves on-the-spot surveys, visits, and
photographic evidence, to collect adequate and helpful information, such as the submerged
range, submerged depth, and submerged duration (Figure 2). After that, we built the
sample database, which includes the geographical location, damage degree, and photos as
supports. This dataset can be used as training samples for damage degree classification.

Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 1305
Through visually inspecting the in situ damage situation and conducting field surveys of
local farms, we evaluated the damage degree of crops and collected the sample set for
disaster‐level classification. The fieldwork involves on‐the‐spot surveys, visits, and pho‐
tographic evidence, to collect adequate and helpful information, such as the submerged
range, submerged depth, and submerged duration (Figure 2). After that, we built the sam‐
ple database, which includes the geographical location, damage degree, and photos 4 of as
15

supports. This dataset can be used as training samples for damage degree classification.

Illustrationofofthe
2. Illustration
Figure 2. the severity
severity of of flooding-induced
flooding‐induced crop
crop lossloss
fromfrom satellite
satellite observations
observations and
samples.
and samples.

3. Methodology
3. Methodology
We evaluated the damage degree and the resilience of crops using the proposed
We evaluated the damage degree and the resilience of crops using the proposed
framework below (Figure 3). First, we identified the approximate immediate water extent
framework below (Figure 3). First, we identified the approximate immediate water extent
before and after the flooding using multi-temporal SAR images (Figure 3a). A self-adaptive
before and after the flooding using multi‐temporal SAR images (Figure 3a). A self‐adap‐
approach with the double Gaussian model was proposed during this step to identify
tive approach with the double Gaussian model was proposed during this step to identify
the optical threshold for water extent mapping. Then, by jointly using field-collected
the optical threshold for water extent mapping. Then, by jointly using field‐collected sur‐
survey data and the optical images from the Sentinel-2 observations, we mapped the
vey data and the optical images from the Sentinel‐2 observations, we mapped the damage
damage degree of crops (i.e., slight, medium, and severe) caused by the extreme flooding
degree of crops (i.e., slight, medium, and severe) caused by the extreme flooding event
event (Figure 3b). Finally, we evaluated the resilience of crops (i.e., corn) to the flooding
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW
(Figure 3b). Finally, we evaluated thegrowth
resilience of cropswith
(i.e.,different
corn) todamage
the flooding by 5 of 16
by quantifying the recovery of crop in regions degrees
quantifying the recovery of crop growth in regions with different damage degrees
(Figure 3c). In addition, influencing factors that were relevant to the crop resilience were (Figure
3c). In addition,
discussed. Detailsinfluencing factors that
of each component can were relevant
be found in thetofollowing
the cropsections.
resilience were dis‐
cussed. Details of each component can be found in the following sections.

Figure 3. The
Figure proposed
3. The proposedframework
framework for forcrop
crop resilience
resilience mapping
mapping of theofflooding.
the flooding. (a) Approximate
(a) Approximate
real-time
real‐time flooding
flooding extentmapping;
extent mapping; (b)
(b) Mapping
Mapping the thedamage
damage degree
degreeof crops fromfrom
of crops the flooding;
the flooding; (c
(c) Evaluating
Evaluating the resilience
the resilience of crops
of crops usingsatellite
using satellite time
time series
seriesdata.
data.
3.1. Mapping Immediate Flooding Extent Using Multi-Source SAR Images
3.1. Mapping Immediate
We used FloodingSAR
multi-temporal Extent
dataUsing Multi‐Source
to composite SAR Images
the images before and after the
We used
flooding multi‐temporal
event. We derived theSAR data
level-1 to composite
Sentinel-1 the[30]
GRD data images before
product andtheafter the
through
flooding event. We derived the level‐1 Sentinel‐1 GRD data [30] product through the
Google Earth Engine (GEE) platform. The adopted data were preprocessed sequentially
with thermal noise removal, radiometric calibration, and terrain correction. We collected
Sentinel‐1 SAR images during the flooding event time. First, we collected the Sentinel‐1

Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 1305
3.1. Mapping Immediate Flooding Extent Using Multi‐Source SAR Images
We used multi‐temporal SAR data to composite the images before and after th
flooding event. We derived the level‐1 Sentinel‐1 GRD data [30] product through th
Google Earth Engine (GEE) platform. The adopted data were preprocessed5 of sequential
15
with thermal noise removal, radiometric calibration, and terrain correction. We collecte
Sentinel‐1 SAR images during the flooding event time. First, we collected the Sentinel
Google Earth Engine (GEE) platform. The adopted data were preprocessed sequentially
data to composite the image before the flooding. Thus, the extent of the flooding ar
with thermal noise removal, radiometric calibration, and terrain correction. We collected
couldSentinel-1
be extracted from the
SAR images composited
during the flooding SAR
eventimages from
time. First, wethese twothe
collected epochs (i.e., 27 Ju
Sentinel-1
and 8dataAugust). Then,thewe
to composite proposed
image before thea flooding.
double‐Gaussian approach
Thus, the extent to identify
of the flooding the optim
area could
be extracted from the composited SAR images from these two
threshold for water extraction from SAR images [31]. We extended the river with epochs (i.e., 27 July and 8 buffe
August). Then, we proposed a double-Gaussian approach to identify
(i.e., 5 km) to locate potential influencing areas. After that, we implemented a doubl the optimal threshold
for water extraction from SAR images [31]. We extended the river with buffers (i.e., 5 km)
Gaussian model to characterize the flooding and non‐flooding areas (see Figure 4). In ge
to locate potential influencing areas. After that, we implemented a double-Gaussian model
eral, backscatters
to characterizefrom the SAR
the flooding andimages in flooding
non-flooding areas (seeareas
Figureare notably
4). In general,lower than the no
backscatters
floodingfromregions, and their
the SAR images valuesareas
in flooding in these two areas
are notably lower can
than be
the quantitatively
non-flooding regions,expressed
and their values in these two areas can be quantitatively expressed
two Gaussian models. Thus, the interaction between these two curves was commonly r as two Gaussian models.
Thus, the interaction between these two curves was commonly regarded as the optimal
garded as the optimal threshold to separate the flooding and non‐flooding regions.
threshold to separate the flooding and non-flooding regions.
Figure 4. Illustration of the double-Gaussian model to identify the optimal threshold for
Figure 4. Illustration of the double‐Gaussian model to identify the optimal threshold for floodin
flooding identification.
identification.
3.2. Evaluating the Severity of Flooding-Induced Loss
To evaluate the damage degree of impacted crops, we first collected samples that
indicated different damage levels for classification. According to the Department of Emer-
gency Disaster Management requirements, we divided the disaster degree into four types:
normal, slight, moderate, and severe. Their distribution with the field survey can be found
in Figure 5. Normal indicates that the crops were not affected by flooding, while slight,
moderate, and severe damage correspond to different levels of damage (see Figure 6).
The standard for these three degrees of crop damage is mainly guided by the National
Emergency Management Department, with supports form field surveys according to the
damage degree. For instance, for the category of severe damage, more than 80% of areas
are visually submerged in water, while for categories of moderate and slight damage, the
water coverage is more than 30% and 10%, respectively [32]. For crops that are slightly or
moderately impacted, there is a relatively high chance to be recovered after the flooding
due to the inherent resilience. In contrast, it is difficult to recover for those severely dam-
aged, and the yield would be dramatically decreased compared with the normal condition.
According to the in situ investigation, these four categories with different disaster levels
can be measured.

Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 1305
ter coverage is more than 30% and 10%, respectively [32]. For crops that are slightly or
moderately impacted, there is a relatively high chance to be recovered after the flooding
due to the inherent resilience. In contrast, it is difficult to recover for those severely dam‐
aged, and the yield would be dramatically decreased compared with the normal condi‐
tion. According to the in situ investigation, these four categories with different disaster6 of 15
levels can be measured.

Remote Sens. 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW

Figure 5.
Figure The distribution
5. The distribution of
of field
field survey
survey samples
samples with
with different
different damage
damage levels
levels during
during the
the flooding.
flooding.

Figure 6. The typical ground

Figure 6. Thephotos
typicaland satellite
ground observations
photos forobservations
and satellite the three categories.
for the three categories.

We mapped theWe damage

mapped degree using collected
the damage field collected
degree using survey samples and the
field survey random
samples and the ran
forest classifier.forest
This work was This
classifier. implemented
work wason the GEE platform
implemented usingplatform
on the GEE Sentinel-2 images
using Sentinel‐2 im
close to the flooding time.
close to the Random forestRandom
flooding time. (RF) classification
forest (RF)isclassification
a commonlyisused machineused mac
a commonly
learning approach based on the ensemble decision of massive decision
learning approach based on the ensemble decision of massive decision trees. The RF The RF
trees.
algorithm was trained using the bagging approach, and the final result was derived
rithm was trained using the bagging approach, and the final result was derived usin using
the voting of decision
voting oftrees. In general,
decision trees. Inaround
general,70% of the
around 70%samples
of the we collected
samples were
we collected were
randomly selected to build
domly theto
selected RFbuild
classification model, andmodel,
the RF classification the remaining 30% were used
and the remaining 30% were use
for accuracy assessment, using commonly
accuracy assessment, usingused indicators
commonly usedsuch as overall
indicators accuracy,
such kappa
as overall accuracy, k
coefficient, andcoefficient,
confusion andmatrix. Multiple
confusion bands
matrix. from Sentinel-1
Multiple bands from andSentinel‐1
Sentinel-2andimages
Sentinel‐2 im
were used for classification
were used forusing the RF classifier.
classification using the RF classifier.

3.3. Measuring the

3.3.Resilience
Measuring of the
Crops to the Flooding
Resilience of Crops to the Flooding
We measured the resilience of crops
We measured the resilience to flooding using
of crops the harmonized
to flooding using theLandsat and Landsat
harmonized
Sentinel time series data.
Sentinel timeAlthough
series data.we mappedwe
Although themapped
damage thelevel withlevel
damage fieldwith
survived
field survived
ples, the level only reflects the status during that time. This is not the actual damage
uation, since some can be recovered from the time series data. To reflect the resilien
crops during the flooding, we analyzed the change of normalized vegetation differ
index (NDVI) from the harmonized Landsat‐8 OLI and Sentinel‐2 data at the pixel
 Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 1305 7 of 15

samples, the level only reflects the status during that time. This is not the actual damage
evaluation, since some can be recovered from the time series data. To reflect the resilience
of crops during the flooding, we analyzed the change of normalized vegetation difference
index (NDVI) from the harmonized Landsat-8 OLI and Sentinel-2 data at the pixel scale
(Figure 7). Before we used the data, the cloud impact was removed through atmospheric
correction. Considering the phenology difference of different crops, which may impact the
derived conclusions, here we only included corn. We measured the mean NDVI before
(i.e., one month earlier) and after (i.e., one month later) the flooding event. We derived
the ratio of NDVI between these two epochs and measured the NDVI increase relative to
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 16
the mean status before the flooding. Finally, through jointly analyzing the NDVI change
and the severity map, we measured the resilience of crops to flooding and analyzed their
differences across different disaster degree levels.

Figure 7. 7.
Figure The
TheNDVI
NDVIratio
ratio of four
fourcategories
categories with
with different
different disaster
disaster levels,levels,
beforebefore and
and after theafter the flood‐
flooding
ingtime,
time,separated
separated
by by
the the
datedate
of 26ofJuly.
26 July.

Overall,the
Overall, thetrend
trendof ofNDVI
NDVI change
change coincides
coincideswith withthethedamage
damage caused
caused bybythethe
flood-
flooding
ing (Figure 7). The NDVI significantly decreased after 26 July, suggesting the flooding
(Figure 7). The NDVI significantly decreased after 26 July, suggesting the flooding dis‐
disturbed the crop growth within a short period; after that, it increased again due to the
turbed the crop growth within a short period; after that, it increased again due to the
physical rhythm of recovery. The NDVI ratio between these two epochs across these four
physical
damagerhythm of recovery.
levels indicates crop The NDVIIfratio
resilience. this between these two
value is greater thanepochs across
1, it means thatthese
the four
damage levels indicates crop resilience. If this value is greater than 1, it
crops are gradually recovering after the disaster. The recovery status is better if the ratio means that the
crops are gradually
becomes recovering
large. Because maize isafter the
in the disaster.
growing Thethe
state, recovery statusthan
value greater is better if the ratio
1 indicates
becomes large. Because
the synthesized impacts maize is inand
of disaster thephenology
growing patterns.
state, theTherefore,
value greater thanto1com-
it is better indicates
pare growing status in different regions to see the damage degree, because
the synthesized impacts of disaster and phenology patterns. Therefore, it is better to com‐ the phenology
patterns
pare growingare highly
status similar in thisregions
in different region. to
Obviously, for normal
see the damage and slight
degree, becausedamage, their
the phenology
NDVI becomes larger compared to the pre-disaster status. On the contrary, for regions with
patterns are highly similar in this region. Obviously, for normal and slight damage, their
an NDVI ratio less than 1, the crop does not recover to the normal condition. Those regions
NDVI becomes larger compared to the pre‐disaster status. On the contrary, for regions
categorized as severe damage have the lowest NDVI ratio compared to the moderately
with an NDVI
damaged ratio
ones. lesswe
Finally, than 1, thethe
counted crop doesratio
NDVI notchange
recover to the
across normal
different condition.
disaster levelsThose
regions categorized as severe damage have the lowest
and analyzed the resilience of damaged crops in our study area [33–36].NDVI ratio compared to the mod‐
erately damaged ones. Finally, we counted the NDVI ratio change across different disaster
4. Results
levels and analyzed the resilience of damaged crops in our study area [33–36].
4.1. Detected Flooding Areas from Multi-Source Satellites
The double-Gaussian model performs well regarding the extracted water body from
4. Results
the Sentinel-1 SAR image. However, the terrain may slightly affect the model performance
4.1. Detected Flooding Areas from Multi‐Source Satellites
(Figure 8). Clearly, the water surface shows distinctly low backscatter values (i.e., black
The double‐Gaussian model performs well regarding the extracted water body from
the Sentinel‐1 SAR image. However, the terrain may slightly affect the model performance
(Figure 8). Clearly, the water surface shows distinctly low backscatter values (i.e., black
areas) in the SAR image. The optical threshold can be obtained directly from the double‐
Gaussian model (see Figure 4). For instance, the extracted water body clearly agrees with
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 1305 8 of 15

areas) in the SAR image. The optical threshold can be obtained directly from the double-
Gaussian model (see Figure 4). For instance, the extracted water body clearly agrees with
the distribution of backscatters from the Sentinel-1 SAR image. They are distributed around
the river within a flattened terrain. There was almost no water before 20 July, and most
areas were submerged due to the flooding around 27 July. Later, on 8 August, most of the
water retreated, except for those regions in the northeast part of our study area. Despite the
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 16
good performance of the double-Gaussian model, it is worth noting that in some mountain
areas, shadows may be misclassified as water due to the impact of terrain. These regions
can be eliminated using DEM in our study.

Figure 8.8. The

Figure The extracted
extracted water body
body (with
(with blue
blue color)
color)from
fromthe
theSentinel‐1
Sentinel-1image
imageusing
usingthe
thedouble‐
double-
Gaussian model.
Gaussian model. Three different periods before, during, and after the flooding events are illustrated.
before, during, and after the flooding events are illustrated.
The top
The top row
row includes
includes the
the original
original Sentinel-1
Sentinel‐1 SAR
SAR images,
images, and
andthe
theoverlaid
overlaidresults
resultswith
withwater
waterare
are
presented in the bottom
presented in the bottom row.row.

We validated
We validated the
the derived
derived flooding areasareas from
from the
the double‐Gaussian
double-Gaussianapproach
approach(see
(see
Table 1). Through random sampling of flooded and non‐flooded areas,
Table 1). Through random sampling of flooded and non-flooded areas, we visually in-we visually inter‐
preted their
terpreted labels
their using
labels high‐resolution
using high-resolutionsatellite images
satellite and SAR
images and data.
SAR Overall, the accu‐
data. Overall, the
racy of the
accuracy of proposed approach
the proposed is high,
approach withwith
is high, an overall accuracy
an overall of 94.77%,
accuracy suggesting
of 94.77%, the
suggesting
double‐Gaussian
the double-Gaussian approach is suitable
approach for flooding
is suitable detection.
for flooding detection.

Table1.1.Confusion
Table Confusionmatrix
matrix of
of mapped
mapped flooding
flooding area.
area.

Flooding
Flooding Non‐Flooding
Non-Flooding User’s
User’sAccuracy
Accuracy
Flooding 67 3 95.71%
Flooding 67 3 95.71%
Non-Flooding 6 96 94.12%
Non‐Flooding 6 96 94.12%
Producer’s Accuracy 91.78% 96.97% 172
Producer’s
Overall Accuracy
Accuracy 91.78%
94.77% 96.97%
Kappa: 172
0.89

Overall Accuracy 94.77% Kappa: 0.89

The flooding areas are mainly distributed in Xinxiang and Hebi, with the latter more
severe, since the water did not retreat within a short period. Figure 9 shows the dynamics of
The flooding areas are mainly distributed in Xinxiang and Hebi, with the latter more
the surface water body before, during, and after the flooding, with statistics of the flooding
severe, since the water did not retreat within a short period. Figure 9 shows the dynamics
of the surface water body before, during, and after the flooding, with statistics of the flood‐
ing areas. Before the flood, there was almost no water in the study area. The total flooded
area peaked during the flooding, as illustrated in regions along the Gong Chan Zhu Yi
channel and the Weihe river. Due to the relatively low and flattened terrain, the flooding
 Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 1305 9 of 15

areas. Before the flood, there was almost no water in the study area. The total flooded area
x FOR PEER REVIEW peaked during the flooding, as illustrated in regions along the Gong Chan Zhu 10 of
Yi16
channel
and the Weihe river. Due to the relatively low and flattened terrain, the flooding initially
occurred on the north side of our study. Later, the flooding submerged the south side
of these two rivers/channels, encroaching on the surrounding agricultural areas. Finally,
most flooded watersthewere effectively
flooding slightly controlled
decreased and and receded
mainly in Xinxiang.
centered In contrast,
around the north wa‐ most
side. Overall,
flooded
ters converged in the waters
junction wereofeffectively
area Heibi and controlled
Anyang,and and
receded in Xinxiang.
both In contrast,
experienced severewaters
converged in the junction area of Heibi and Anyang, and both experienced severe flooding
flooding damage. This is also supported by the area statistics of the water during these
damage. This is also supported by the area statistics of the water during these three epochs
three epochs and theand
mapped water
the mapped surface
water ininFigure
surface 9.
Figure 9.

Figure 9. Change of water bodies

Figure in the
9. Change threebodies
of water epochs before,
in the during,
three epochs and during,
before, after the
andflood.
after the flood.

4.2. Severity of the Crops from Satellite Observations

4.2. Severity of the Crops from Satellite Observations
In general, the mapped results with different damage levels agree with the mapped
In general, the mapped results
water surface, witha noticeable
showing different distance-decay
damage levels agree
pattern with
from the the
rivermapped
to surrounding
water surface, showing
areasa(Figure
noticeable distance‐decay
10). The pattern
area statistic results fromthe
suggest the rivertype
normal to surrounding
has the largest area,
accounting
areas (Figure 10). The for about
area statistic 50% ofsuggest
results the total the
cropnormal
areas. Whereas
type hasfor the
theother three
largest types (i.e.,
area,
accounting for aboutslight,
50%moderate, and severe), their areas are similar and spatially close regarding their
of the total crop areas. Whereas for the other three types (i.e.,
water content differences. According to the distribution of mapped disaster levels, it can be
slight, moderate, and severe),
found their
that most areascrops
affected are similar andconcentrated
are roughly spatially close regarding
in the flooded their
areas, especially
water content differences.
for HebiAccording
and Xinxiang. to The
the degree
distribution
of damageof mapped disaster
overall shows a goodlevels, it can
agreement with the
be found that most affected crops areasroughly
water distribution, the field concentrated
survey of crops in thethe
took flooded areas,
water depth and especially
extent as crucial
criteria
for Hebi and Xinxiang. The fordegree
judgment. As two categories
of damage overalldistinctly
shows aaffected
good by the flooding,
agreement the the
with moderate
and severe damage levels are close regarding their distribution.
water distribution, as the field survey of crops took the water depth and extent as crucial
criteria for judgment. As two categories distinctly affected by the flooding, the moderate
and severe damage levels are close regarding their distribution.
Remote
Remote Sens.
Sens. 2023,
2023, 15,
15, x1305
FOR PEER REVIEW 11
10of
of16
15

Figure 10.
Figure Distributionof
10. Distribution offour
fourmapped
mapped categories
categories with
with different
different damage
damage levels.
levels.

Supported by the field survey samples and the RF classifier, we mapped these
Supported by the field survey samples and the RF classifier, we mapped these four
four damage categories with an overall accuracy of 88% and a kappa coefficient of 0.83
damage categories with an overall accuracy of 88% and a kappa coefficient of 0.83 (see
(see Table 2). Regarding the user’s s accuracy, the slight and moderate categories are
Table 2). Regarding the user’s s accuracy, the slight and moderate categories are likely to
likely to be confused, whereas normal and slight are easily misclassified for the producer’s
be confused, whereas normal and slight are easily misclassified for the producer’s accu‐
accuracy. The confusion matrix suggests two transition categories—normal to slight, and
racy. The confusion matrix suggests two transition categories—normal to slight, and
slight to moderate—that are easily misclassified. This issue is related to the definition of
slight to moderate—that are easily misclassified. This issue is related to the definition of
these categories in the training samples, as well as the mixed pixel effect from the remote
these categories
sensing aspect. in the training samples, as well as the mixed pixel effect from the remote
sensing aspect.
Table 2. Confusion matrix of mapped damage levels.
Table 2. Confusion matrix of mapped damage levels.
Normal Slight Moderate Severe User’s Accuracy
Normal Slight Moderate Severe User’s Accuracy
Normal 27 0 1 0 96.43%
Slight
Normal 273 0 22 1 4 00 75.86%
96.43%
Moderate 2 1 54 11 79.41%
Slight
Severe 30 22 3 4 8 089 75.86%
95.70%
Producer’s Accuracy 84.38% 84.62% 90.00% 89.00% 218
Moderate 2 1 54 11 79.41%
Overall Accuracy 88.07% Kappa: 0.83
Severe 0 3 8 89 95.70%

Producer’s Accuracy 84.38% 84.62%

There is a distinct 90.00% the terrain (e.g.,
relationship between 89.00%
DEM) and the damage 218 degree
(Figure 11a). To explore this issue, we analyzed their relationship using box plots. We
Overall Accuracy excluded those high 88.07% Kappa: of 100, and only those0.83
DEM regions using the threshold crops in the
flattened plain were considered. We found that the most severe damage regions were in
relatively
Therelow
is a regions, as the 25th and
distinct relationship 75th quantile
between range
the terrain was
(e.g., relatively
DEM) and thelow. The range
damage de‐
of the
gree box was
(Figure between
11a). 70 and
To explore 60,issue,
this with weits median
analyzedline near
their 65 m. The upper
relationship and plots.
using box lower
quartiles
We and those
excluded median positions
high of the three
DEM regions usingcategories,
the thresholdexcept for severely
of 100, and onlydamaged areas,
those crops in
show a general decreasing trend with the severity of the flooding event.
the flattened plain were considered. We found that the most severe damage regions were The DEM value
corresponding
in relatively lowto its median
regions, as theline
25thposition
and 75th gradually
quantile decreased
range was from above
relatively 70 The
low. m torange
65 m.
Similarly,
of the closer
the box was betweenthe70flood
and is,
60,the
withmore serious line
its median the damage
near 65 m. will be,upper
The as illustrated
and lower in
Figure 11b.
quartiles andObviously, the category
median positions of theofthree
severely damaged
categories, is closer
except to the flooded
for severely damaged area, with
areas,
 show a general decreasing trend with the severity of the flooding event. The DEM va
corresponding to its median line position gradually decreased from above 70 m to 65
Similarly, the closer the flood is, the more serious the damage will be, as illustrated
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 1305 11 of 15
Figure 11b. Obviously, the category of severely damaged is closer to the flooded area, w
a relatively close distance of less than 200 m, regarding the length of the boxplot. T
distance corresponding
a relatively to its
close distance median
of less linem,position
than 200 showed
regarding a decreasing
the length trend
of the boxplot. The from n
mal to severe,
distance from above
corresponding to 0.2 km toline
its median below 0.1 km.
position showed a decreasing trend from normal
to severe, from above 0.2 km to below 0.1 km.

Figure 11. Study

Figure of influencing
11. Study of influencingfactors
factors that mayexplain
that may explain thethe distribution
distribution of theoffour
thecategories,
four categories,
cluding the DEM
including (a) and
the DEM thethe
(a) and distance
distance to theriver
to the river
(b).(b).
TheThe central
central line indicates
line indicates theand
the median, median,
the and
bottom and and
bottom top top
edges
edgesofofthe
thebox indicatethethe
box indicate 25th
25th andand
75th 75th percentiles,
percentiles, respectively.
respectively.

4.3. Identify Resilient Crops from the Sentinel-2 Time Series Data
4.3. Identify Resilient Crops from the Sentinel‐2 Time Series Data
The distribution of vegetation resilience was consistent with the results of disaster
The distribution
classification. of vegetation
The analysis resilience
was performed basedwas consistent
on the with the results
estimated vegetation resilienceof disas
(Figure 12). Because the NDVI calculation value of the flood
classification. The analysis was performed based on the estimated vegetation part was negative, it affected resilien
the calculation results; thus, the maximum flood area extracted was used as a mask, and
(Figure 12). Because the NDVI calculation value of the flood part was negative, it affect
only the non-flooded areas were analyzed. An NDVI of less than one indicated a region
the calculation
in which crops results; thus, the
were severely maximum
damaged; flood
for crops area
that can extracted
be recovered, was
theused
NDVIas a mask, a
ratio
only commonly
the non‐flooded areasdue
was elevated were analyzed.
to corn’s growthAn stage NDVI
duringofJuly–August.
less than one indicated a regi
As illustrated
in Figure
in which crops12, were
those severely
severelydamaged
damaged; regions
forwith
cropsan that
NDVIcan ratiobe
below one are mainly
recovered, the NDVI ra
distributed in the Gongchanzhuyi Channel and Weihe River, suggesting the hotspot of the
commonly was elevated due to corn’s growth stage during July–August. As illustrated
flooded area has permanent damage from floods. Conversely, less severely damaged pixels
Figureare12, thosedistributed
sparsely severely in damaged regions
the southwest part ofwith an NDVI ratio below one are mainly d
Xinxiang.
tributed in Thethe Gongchanzhuyi
overall resilience of corn Channel
agrees withandtheWeihe
damage River, suggesting
level pattern, the hotspot
as illustrated in of t
flooded area has permanent damage from floods. Conversely, less severely damaged p
Figure 13, using the NDVI ratio before and after the flooding event. It can be found that
with
els are the severity
sparsely of the disaster,
distributed thesouthwest
in the resilience of maize
part ofgradually
Xinxiang.weakens until the harvest
fails. We found along with the increase of damage degree (e.g., from slight to severely
The overall resilience of corn agrees with the damage level pattern, as illustrated
damaged), the resilience gradually decreases, as illustrated by the height of four boxes
Figurein 13,
Figureusing13. the NDVIregions
For those ratio with
before and after
a normal thedue
status, flooding event.stage
to the growth It can be found th
of corn
with during
the severity of thecommonly
July–August, disaster, the theNDVI
resilience of maizeFor
ratio increased. gradually
instance, weakens
the NDVI after until the h
the flooding rose by about 50% relative to before. Such a pattern
vest fails. We found along with the increase of damage degree (e.g., from slight to severof NDVI ratio decrease
across categories from slightly, moderately, and severely damaged categories, suggested our
damaged), the resilience gradually decreases, as illustrated by the height of four boxes
classification of the damage degrees agreed with the resilience reflected by the NDVI time
Figure 13. change.
series For those regions
There is a clearwith
trendaofnormal
decreasestatus,
from mildduetoto the growth
severe, where thestage
NDVIof corn duri
ratio
July–August, commonly
corresponding to its median line changes from above 1.5 to 1. Using the NDVI ratio equal the floo
the NDVI ratio increased. For instance, the NDVI after
to 1, it
ing rose bycan be found
about 50%that more maize
relative in the extinction
to before. Such a and severeofcases
pattern NDVIcould not recover.
ratio decrease acro
In contrast, most of the maize in normal and light cases could
categories from slightly, moderately, and severely damaged categories, suggested o recover after the damage.

classification of the damage degrees agreed with the resilience reflected by the NDVI ti
series change. There is a clear trend of decrease from mild to severe, where the NDVI ra
corresponding to its median line changes from above 1.5 to 1. Using the NDVI ratio equ
to 1, it can be found that more maize in the extinction and severe cases could not recov
In contrast, most of the maize in normal and light cases could recover after the damage
Remote Sens.
Remote Sens. 2023,
2023, 15,
15, 1305
x FOR PEER REVIEW 13
12 of
of 16
15

Figure 12. The distribution of NDVI ratio before and after the flooding in our study area.
area.

Figure 13.
Figure Box plot
13. Box plot of
of NDVI
NDVI ratio
ratio in
in four
four categories
categories with
with different
different damage
damage degrees.
degrees.
5. Discussion
5. Discussion
The double-Gaussian model is a statistical approach that is rapid and accurate in
The double‐Gaussian
extracting flood areas. Themodel
modelisworks
a statistical approach
by fitting that is rapid
two Gaussian and accurate
distributions to aintime
ex‐
tracting flood areas. The model works by fitting two Gaussian distributions
series of satellite images, one representing the dry season and the other the wet season. to a time se‐
ries of satellite images, one representing the dry season and the other the wet
The difference between the two distributions is then used to identify flooded areas. This season. The
difference
approach has between
severalthe two distributions
advantages is then
over other floodused to identify
detection methods,flooded areas.its
including This ap‐
ability
proach
to quickly and accurately identify flooded areas and its simplicity and applicability intoa
has several advantages over other flood detection methods, including its ability
quickly
wide rangeand ofaccurately identify flooded areas and its simplicity and applicability in a wide
regions [37].
rangeExploring
of regionschanges
[37]. in crop growth over time can reveal the long-term impact of
Exploring
flooding changes in
on agricultural crop growth
productivity. Byover time canthe
examining reveal theand
extent long‐term
severityimpact
of cropof flood‐
damage
ing on agricultural productivity. By examining the extent and severity of crop
in a time series, it is possible to identify trends in crop growth and resilience after flood damage in
aevents.
time series, it is possible to identify trends in crop growth and resilience
For example, certain crops may be more resilient to flooding than others, and after flood
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 1305 13 of 15

the extent of the damage may depend on the timing and duration of the flood event. By
examining these factors, farmers and policymakers can develop strategies for managing the
risks associated with flooding and other environmental stresses. Moreover, the resilience
of crops after flood events can depend on a variety of factors, such as soil quality, water
availability, and climate conditions. By examining these factors in conjunction with crop
damage, it is possible to develop a more comprehensive understanding of the long-term
impact of flooding on agricultural productivity. For example, if a particular crop is found
to be more resilient to flooding than others, it may be possible to promote the cultivation of
that crop in flood-prone areas, thereby reducing the risk of crop damage and promoting
food security.
There are still some uncertainties in this study. These include the effects of farmers
replanting crops after the flooding, such as clearing existing crops to plant vegetables.
Although we quantified this impact by exploring the changes in NDVI over time, the
analysis based on NDVI time series still contains some uncertainties due to the lack of
detailed crop type information and updated data.

6. Conclusions
The primary purpose of this study is to evaluate the damage degree and the resilience
of crops caused by heavy flooding in Henan in 2021. First, we used the double-Gaussian
model to determine the optical threshold and extract the flooding area from the Sentinel-1
SAR data. Then, we classified the damage degree (i.e., normal, slight, moderate, and severe)
as the guideline from the Department of Emergency Management, using the samples
collected from the field survey. Finally, we evaluated crop resilience to flooding across
different damage categories, using NDVI time series before and after the flooding events.
The double-Gaussian model performs well in extracting the flood area, and it is suitable
for in-time flooding monitoring during the event, especially for large-scale applications.
With the supporting field survey samples, we mapped the damage degree of this flooding
on agricultural lands. The overall accuracy and Kappa coefficient are above 80% and 0.8,
respectively. The lower the DEM values and the closer to the flooding areas, the more
severe the crop damage. This finding is in line with our understanding of disaster-affected
factors. The resilience analysis suggests for those regions with slight or moderately damage
that there is a relatively high chance of recovery after the flooding. Thus, a comprehensive
evaluation of crops during and after flooding should be considered in future works to
support a more rational and scientific evaluation of disaster-induced risks. In the future,
diverse crop types’ response to flooding events should be comprehensively studied to
better adapt to and mitigate agricultural climate risks.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, S.M. and X.L.; methodology, S.M., Y.Z. (Yixuan Zhao) and
Y.Z. (Yelu Zeng); writing–original draft preparation, J.H., R.W.; writing–review and editing, W.S. and
M.A.M.A.E.; supervision, H.G. and J.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: This research is supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of
China (2022YFB3903504) and National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 41971383, 42001336).
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Chen, Z.; Kong, F.; Zhang, M. A Case Study of the “7–20” Extreme Rainfall and Flooding Event in Zhengzhou, Henan Province,
China from the Perspective of Fragmentation. Water 2022, 14, 2970. [CrossRef]
2. Ministry of Emergency Management of the People’s Republic of China. Top 10 National Natural Disasters in 2021. Available
online: https://www.mem.gov.cn/xw/yjglbgzdt/202201/t20220123_407199.shtml (accessed on 23 January 2022).
3. Adhikari, P.; Hong, Y.; Douglas, K.R.; Kirschbaum, D.B.; Gourley, J.; Adler, R.; Brakenridge, G.R. A digitized global flood
inventory (1998–2008): Compilation and preliminary results. Nat. Hazards 2010, 55, 405–422. [CrossRef]
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 1305 14 of 15

4. Hallegatte, S.; Green, C.; Nicholls, R.J.; Corfee-Morlot, J. Future flood losses in major coastal cities. Nat. Clim. Change 2013, 3,
802–806. [CrossRef]
5. Bofana, J.; Zhang, M.; Wu, B.; Zeng, H.; Nabil, M.; Zhang, N.; Elnashar, A.; Tian, F.; Silva, J.; Botao, A.; et al. How long did
crops survive from floods caused by Cyclone Idai in Mozambique detected with multi-satellite data. Remote Sens. Environ. 2022,
269, 112808. [CrossRef]
6. Chen, H.; Liang, Z.; Liu, Y.; Liang, Q.; Xie, S. Integrated remote sensing imagery and two-dimensional hydraulic modeling
approach for impact evaluation of flood on crop yields. J. Hydrol. 2017, 553, 262–275. [CrossRef]
7. 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]
8. Sun, C.; Fagherazzi, S.; Liu, Y. Classification mapping of salt marsh vegetation by flexible monthly NDVI time-series using
Landsat imagery. Estuarine. Coast. Shelf Sci. 2018, 213, 61–80. [CrossRef]
9. Vittorro, A.; Georgakakos, A. Land cover classification and wetland inundation mapping using MODIS. Remote Sens. Environ.
2018, 204, 1–17. [CrossRef]
10. Amitrano, D.; Di Martino, G.; Iodice, A.; Riccio, D.; Ruello, G. Unsupervised Rapid Flood Mapping Using Sentinel-1 GRD SAR
Images. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 2018, 56, 3290–3299. [CrossRef]
11. Li, Y.; Martinis, S.; Wieland, M. Urban flood mapping with an active self-learning convolutional neural network based on
TerraSAR-X intensity and interferometric coherence. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2019, 152, 178–191. [CrossRef]
12. Schlaffer, S.; Matgen, P.; Hollaus, M.; Wagner, W. Flood detection from multi-temporal SAR data using harmonic analysis and
change detection. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 2015, 38, 15–24. [CrossRef]
13. Brody, S.D.; Highfield, W.E.; Blessing, R. An analysis of the effects of land use and land cover on flood losses along the Gulf of
Mexico coast from 1999 to 2009. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2015, 51, 1556–1567. [CrossRef]
14. Rahman, M.S.; Di, L.; Shrestha, R.; Yu, E.G.; Lin, L.; Zhang, C.; Hu, L.; Tang, J.; Yang, Z. Agriculture flood mapping with soil
moisture active passive (SMAP) data: A case of 2016 Louisiana flood. In Proceedings of the 2017 6th International Conference on
AgroGeoinformatics, Agro-Geoinformatics, Fairfax, VA, USA, 7–10 August 2017; pp. 2–7. [CrossRef]
15. Smith, A.B.; Katz, R.W. US billion-dollar weather and climate disasters: Data sources, trends, accuracy and biases. Nat. Hazards
2013, 67, 387–410. [CrossRef]
16. Wobus, C.; Lawson, M.; Jones, R.; Smith, J.; Martinich, J. Estimating monetary damages from flooding in the United States under
a changing climate. J. Flood Risk Manag. 2014, 7, 217–229. [CrossRef]
17. Zhang, B.; Di, L.; Yu, G.; Shao, Y.; Shrestha, R.; Kang, L. A web service-based application serving vegetation condition indices for
flood crop loss assessment. In Proceedings of the 2013 2nd International Conference on Agro-Geoinformatics: Information for
Sustainable Agriculture, Agro-Geoinformatics, Fairfax, VA, USA, 12–16 August 2013; pp. 215–220. [CrossRef]
18. Haq, M.; Akhtar, M.; Muhammad, S.; Paras, S.; Rahmatullah, J. Techniques of remote sensing and GIS for flood monitoring and
damage assessment: A case study of Sindh province, Pakistan. Egypt. J. Remote Sens. Space Sci. 2012, 15, 135–141. [CrossRef]
19. Pacetti, T.; Caporali, E.; Rulli, M.C. Floods and food security: A method to estimate the effect of inundation on crops availability.
Adv. Water Resour. 2017, 110, 494–504. [CrossRef]
20. Iervolino, P.; Guida, R.; Iodice, A.; Riccio, D. Flooding water depth estimation with high-resolution SAR. IEEE Trans. Geosci.
Remote Sens. 2014, 53, 2295–2307. [CrossRef]
21. Schumann, G.; Bates, P.D.; Horritt, M.S.; Matgen, P.; Pappenberger, F. Progress in integration of remote sensing–derived flood
extent and stage data and hydraulic models. Rev. Geophys. 2009, 47, 1–20. [CrossRef]
22. Voigt, S.; Giulio-Tonolo, F.; Lyons, J.; Kučera, J.; Jones, B.; Schneiderhan, T.; Platzeck, G.; Kaku, K.; Hazarika, M.K.; Czaran, L.
Global trends in satellite-based emergency mapping. Science 2016, 353, 247–252. [CrossRef]
23. Jo, M.J.; Osmanoglu, B.; Zhang, B.; Wdowinski, S. Flood extent mapping using dual-polarimetric sentinel-1 synthetic aperture
radar imagery. Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci.-ISPRS Arch. 2018, 42, 711–713. [CrossRef]
24. Markert, K.N.; Chishtie, F.; Anderson, E.R.; Saah, D.; Griffin, R.E. On the merging of optical and SAR satellite imagery for surface
water mapping applications. Result Phys. 2018, 9, 275–277. [CrossRef]
25. Martinis, S.; Kuenzer, C.; Wendleder, A.; Huth, J.; Twele, A.; Roth, A.; Dech, S. Comparing four operational SAR-based water and
flood detection approaches. J. Remote Sens. 2015, 36, 3519–3543. [CrossRef]
26. Martinis, S.; Plank, S.; Cwik, K. The use of Sentinel-1 time-series data to improve flood monitoring in arid areas. Remote Sens.
2018, 10, 583. [CrossRef]
27. Song, Y.; Sohn, H.; Park, C. Efficient water area classification Usingradarsat-1 SAR imagery in a high reliefmountainous
environment. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 2007, 73, 285–296. [CrossRef]
28. Pulvirenti, L.; Chini, M.; Pierdicca, N.; Boni, G. Use of SAR data for detecting floodwater in urban and agricultural areas: The role
of the interferometric coherence. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 2015, 54, 1532–1544. [CrossRef]
29. Martinis, S.; Twele, A.; Voigt, S. Unsupervised Extraction of Flood-Induced Backscatter Changes in SAR Data Using Markov
Image Modeling on Irregular Graphs. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 2011, 49, 251–263. [CrossRef]
30. The European Space Agency. ASF DAAC 2014, Contains Modified Copernicus Sentinel Data 2014, Processed by ESA. Available
online: https://sentinel.esa.int/web/sentinel/user-guides/sentinel-1-sar/ (accessed on 23 January 2022).
31. Chen, X.; Wang, D.; Chen, J.; Wang, C.; Shen, M. The mixed pixel effect in land surface phenology: A simulation study. Remote
Sens. Environ. 2018, 211, 338–344. [CrossRef]
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 1305 15 of 15

32. MZ/T042-2013; National Technical Committee for Disaster Reduction and Relief Standardization. Natural Disaster Loss Field
Survey Specification. Ministry of Civil Affairs of the People’s Republic of China: Beijing, China, 2013.
33. Huang, H.; Huang, J.; Li, X.; Zhuo, W.; Wu, Y.; Niu, Q.; Su, W.; Yuan, W. A dataset of winter wheat aboveground biomass in
China during 2007–2015 based on data assimilation. Sci. Data 2022, 9, 200.
34. Wen, Y.; Li, X.; Mu, H.; Zhong, L.; Chen, H.; Zeng, Y.; Miao, S.; Su, W.; Gong, P.; Li, B.; et al. Mapping corn dynamics using limited
but representative samples with adaptive strategies. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2022, 190, 252–266. [CrossRef]
35. Niu, Q.; Li, X.; Huang, J.; Huang, H.; Huang, X.; Su, W.; Yuan, W. A 30-m annual maize phenology dataset from 1985 to 2020 in
China. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 2022, 14, 2851–2864. [CrossRef]
36. Wang, X.; Huang, J.; Feng, Q.; Yin, D. Winter Wheat Yield Prediction at County Level and Uncertainty Analysis in Main
Wheat-producing Regions of China with Deep Learning Approaches. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 1744. [CrossRef]
37. Huang, Z.; Chau, K. A new image thresholding method based on Gaussian mixture model. Appl. Math. Comput. 2008, 205,
899–907. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.