Santa Catarina, Brazilrun 25-08-2026 screening and technical layers
Santa Catarina, Brazil: physical climate risk assessment
Single site, at -27.200778, -48.613775.
Composite score at baseline
Moderate
score 1.8, rising to 2.53 by 2050 on the high scenario
Recorded flood episodes
50
within 10 km of site, 2011 to 2026
Modelled depth at the site
3.47 m
river flood at the 1 in 500 year, from 1.78 m at the 1 in 10 year. Rainfall on the site reaches 0.00 m. The coastal model puts no water on this cell
Layer status
| Layer | Status | Covers |
|---|---|---|
| Climate hazard screen | complete | 12 hazards, 3 scenarios, 4 horizons |
| Water stress | complete | sub-basin annual, monthly and three future pathways |
| Land cover and nature | complete | 6 years, 1 km box, plus the nature screen |
| Fluvial flood field | complete | 92.8 m, 4 return periods, 6 km box |
| Coastal flood field | complete | 927.7 m, 4 return periods from 116 bands pulled, same 6 km box |
| Observed flood record | complete | 203 reports, 10 km radius |
| Observed landslide record | complete | zero events, with three regional controls |
| Terrain | complete | 30 m bare earth, 73 by 65 cells, 2 km box |
| Pluvial flood | complete | 4 return periods, one-hour storms, 9.17 by 10.31 m mesh |
| Financial exposure | pending | to be executed once asset value is provided |
Site context
- Coordinate submitted
- -27.200778, -48.613775
- Coordinate stored by the observed-record service
- -27.2008, -48.6138
- Ground elevation
- 1.3 m
- Terrain
- flat
- Land cover
- built_area
- Climate zone
- temperate
- Sub-basin
- 641105-BRA.24_1-2485
- Distance to water, hazard screen
- 2.4 km
- Nearest permanent water, hazard field
- 189 m
- Nearest modelled riverine wet cell
- the site cell itself
- Riverine depth at the site
- 1.78 m at the 1 in 10 year, rising to 3.47 m at the 1 in 500 year
- Coastal inundation at the site
- 0.00 m, modelled
- Fluvial field
- 74 by 65 cells at 92.766 m
- Coastal field
- 8 by 8 cells at 927.662 m
The site is flat built area at 1.3 m above sea level. The riverine field puts water on the site cell.
Terrain: bare-earth ground at 2.1 m, and how firm that number is
A bare-earth elevation surface for a 2 km box, with building footprints planted on it. Bare earth means buildings and vegetation are removed, so the surface is the ground water would actually run over. 73 by 65 cells at 27.5 by 30.92 m.
4.0x1.0x is true scale. Higher values stretch height only, never distance.
- Elevation at the site
- 2.1 m
- Stated uncertainty at the site
- plus or minus 0.75 m
- Relief across the box
- -0.9 m to 80.2 m
- Median elevation
- 1.9 m
- Middle half of the box
- 1.1 m to 2.8 m
- Median uncertainty across the box
- 0.27 m
- Cells with no data
- 0
- Terrain source
- GEDTM30 v1.2 (Global Ensemble Digital Terrain Model, 30 m)
- Vertical datum
- EGM2008 (EPSG:3855)
- Native resolution
- 30 m, resampling NONE
- Building footprints
- 262, status ok
- Footprints with a measured height
- 0 of 262
- Road centrelines
- 117, ODbL 1.0 (share-alike)
- Bundle generated
- 25-08-2026
No building here carries a measured height. 0 of 262 footprints publish one, because the building source does not survey heights in this region. Every structure in the view is therefore drawn at the renderer default (5 m) and the heights are placeholders, not observations.
Climate hazard screen, 12 hazards across three scenarios
Each hazard is rated on a five-step scale from a climate grid about 25 km across, to show which hazards deserve closer work. It computes no depths, extents or losses. Ratings run Low, Moderate, High, Severe, Extreme, shown by first letter.
Composite score at baseline
Moderate
score 1.8
Composite 2050, high scenario
High
score 2.53
Hazards at High or above by 2050
5 of 12
Heat wave, Temperature change, Precipitation change, Severe storm, Sea level rise
Composite score
| Scenario | baseline | 2030 | 2040 | 2050 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SSP1-2.6, Paris-aligned, about 1.8C | Moderate 1.8 | Moderate 2.06 | Moderate 2.21 | Moderate 2.21 |
| SSP2-4.5, middle of the road, about 2.7C | Moderate 1.8 | Moderate 1.9 | Moderate 2.21 | Moderate 2.37 |
| SSP5-8.5, high emissions, about 4.4C | Moderate 1.8 | Moderate 2.06 | Moderate 2.21 | High 2.53 |
Hazard matrix
LowModerateHighSevereExtremenot applicable or unavailable
SSP1-2.6, Paris-aligned, about 1.8C
| base | 2030 | 2040 | 2050 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Heat wave | L | M | H | H |
| Cold stress | L | L | L | L |
| Temperature change | L | L | M | M |
| Drought | L | L | L | L |
| Extreme rainfall | L | M | M | M |
| Precipitation change | L | M | M | M |
| Wildfire | L | L | L | L |
| Landslide | L | L | L | L |
| Severe storm | H | H | H | H |
| River flood | L | L | L | L |
| Sea level rise | E | E | E | E |
| Water stress | L | L | L | L |
SSP2-4.5, middle of the road, about 2.7C
| base | 2030 | 2040 | 2050 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Heat wave | L | M | H | H |
| Cold stress | L | L | L | L |
| Temperature change | L | L | M | M |
| Drought | L | L | L | L |
| Extreme rainfall | L | L | M | M |
| Precipitation change | L | L | M | H |
| Wildfire | L | L | L | L |
| Landslide | L | L | L | L |
| Severe storm | H | H | H | H |
| River flood | L | L | L | M |
| Sea level rise | E | E | E | E |
| Water stress | L | L | L | L |
SSP5-8.5, high emissions, about 4.4C
| base | 2030 | 2040 | 2050 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Heat wave | L | M | H | S |
| Cold stress | L | L | L | L |
| Temperature change | L | L | M | H |
| Drought | L | L | L | L |
| Extreme rainfall | L | M | M | M |
| Precipitation change | L | M | M | H |
| Wildfire | L | L | L | L |
| Landslide | L | L | L | L |
| Severe storm | H | H | H | H |
| River flood | L | L | L | M |
| Sea level rise | E | E | E | E |
| Water stress | L | L | L | L |
Notes:
| Hazard | Reading | Assessment |
|---|---|---|
| Sea level rise | High at every scenario and horizon | The site is 2.4 km from water at 1.3 m. Freeboard is elevation minus projected rise minus a 1.5 m tidal allowance, giving -0.6 m by 2050 on the high scenario, which stays inside the High band throughout. The coastal depth model below (WRI Aqueduct Flood Hazard Maps V2) returns no water at this site at any return period. |
| Severe storm | High at every cell including today | Rests on a single historical cyclone track within 250 km, peaking at 75 kt. For this coast that is almost certainly the March 2004 South Atlantic hurricane, the only one on record in that ocean. The rating is defensible. The sample size is one. |
| Severe storm value | Storm days read 3.8 per year | That number is Low on its own scale while the cell reads High, because the rating takes the higher of the wind reading and the cyclone reading. Value and rating cannot be reconciled without this note. |
| Water stress | Low, score 0.00 | A real zero, not missing data. The basin was found and its sibling indicators are populated. |
Water stress: the monthly and scenario figures behind the matrix row
Water stress is not computed from the climate model. It is read from a water accounting dataset (WRI Aqueduct 4.0) that divides withdrawals by available renewable supply for a hydrological sub-basin. The figures below come from that dataset directly rather than from the summary the screen reports, so the score can be shown with the numbers underneath it.
- Sub-basin
- 641105-BRA.24_1-2485
- Country and province
- Brazil, Santa Catarina
- Sub-basin area
- 5975.6 km2
- Annual baseline
- 0.018, which is 1.75 % of available renewable supply
- Annual baseline score
- 0.00 out of 5, Low (<10%)
- Baseline
- 1979-2019, a long-term average and not any single year. It describes a typical year and is the reference the projections below are measured against
- Reporting unit
- The reporting unit is a hydrological sub-basin. The value is constant across it, so it is a basin property and not a site measurement.
The zero is a floor, not a measurement. The score formula is score = clamp(log2(raw / 0.1) + 1, 0, 5), so it only starts to register once withdrawals reach 10 % of supply. This basin sits at 1.75 %. Applied literally the formula returns -1.51, which is clamped up to 0. That reflects withdrawals roughly 6 times below the point where this scale begins. It does not mean no water stress was measured.
Monthly baseline, long-term average for each calendar month
Low (<10%)Low – Medium (10-20%)Medium – High (20-40%)High (40-80%)Extremely High (>80%)
Every month scores 0 of 5 and sits in the lowest band, so every bar carries the same colour. The underlying ratio is not flat: it runs from 0.005 in Sep to 0.025 in Dec, a 4.8 times swing across the year. The lowest band begins at 0.10, four times the wettest month here, so the score cannot show that seasonality.
| Month | Withdrawals / supply | Score | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jan | 0.020 | 0.00 | Low (<10%) |
| Feb | 0.024 | 0.00 | Low (<10%) |
| Mar | 0.014 | 0.00 | Low (<10%) |
| Apr | 0.007 | 0.00 | Low (<10%) |
| May | 0.007 | 0.00 | Low (<10%) |
| Jun | 0.007 | 0.00 | Low (<10%) |
| Jul | 0.007 | 0.00 | Low (<10%) |
| Aug | 0.007 | 0.00 | Low (<10%) |
| Sep | 0.005 | 0.00 | Low (<10%) |
| Oct | 0.006 | 0.00 | Low (<10%) |
| Nov | 0.024 | 0.00 | Low (<10%) |
| Dec | 0.025 | 0.00 | Low (<10%) |
The annual figure and the monthly figures answer different questions and neither can be worked out from the other. The annual value is total yearly withdrawal divided by total yearly supply. The monthly values are twelve separate ratios. Aqueduct publishes monthly values for the baseline only, so no monthly pattern exists for any future pathway below.
How the 0 to 5 score is defined
| Band | Withdrawals as a share of supply | This basin |
|---|---|---|
| Low | <10% | yes, and far below the band floor |
| Low – Medium | 10-20% | |
| Medium – High | 20-40% | |
| High | 40-80% | |
| Extremely High | >80% |
Score formula: score = clamp(log2(raw / 0.1) + 1, 0, 5). Reproduced against every published score for this basin with a maximum error of 0.0e+0, so the mapping above is the dataset’s own, not an approximation. The top band is open ended: it has a lower bound of 80 % and no upper bound.
Future annual projections, three pathways
| Pathway name | Scenario | Horizon | Withdrawals, % of supply | Score | Supply, cm/yr | Demand, cm/yr |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Optimistic | SSP1-2.6 | 2030 | 1.88 | 0.00 | 350.9 | 5.24 |
| Optimistic | SSP1-2.6 | 2050 | 1.82 | 0.00 | 374.5 | 5.45 |
| Optimistic | SSP1-2.6 | 2080 | 1.76 | 0.00 | 367.0 | 5.21 |
| Business as usual | SSP3-7.0 | 2030 | 1.99 | 0.00 | 335.8 | 5.29 |
| Business as usual | SSP3-7.0 | 2050 | 1.93 | 0.00 | 376.7 | 5.82 |
| Business as usual | SSP3-7.0 | 2080 | 2.02 | 0.00 | 394.3 | 6.29 |
| Pessimistic | SSP5-8.5 | 2030 | 1.96 | 0.00 | 345.3 | 5.21 |
| Pessimistic | SSP5-8.5 | 2050 | 1.97 | 0.00 | 346.7 | 5.46 |
| Pessimistic | SSP5-8.5 | 2080 | 1.87 | 0.00 | 353.1 | 5.22 |
The dataset publishes both halves of the ratio, so supply and demand can be read separately rather than only as a share. Demand rises fastest on the business-as-usual pathway, from 5.29 to 6.29 cm per year by 2080, a 19 % increase, while supply rises too, so the ratio barely moves. Every projected cell still scores 0 of 5.
Other indicators published for this sub-basin
| Indicator | Raw | Score of 5 | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Water depletion | 0.0072 | 0.14 | Low (<5%) |
| Interannual variability | 0.3640 | 1.46 | Low – Medium (0.25-0.50) |
| Seasonal variability | 0.0857 | 0.26 | Low (<0.33) |
| Groundwater table decline | 0.8180 | n/a | Insignificant Trend |
| Drought risk | 0.5573 | 2.79 | Medium (0.4-0.6) |
Land cover around the site, and the open water that is not there
Land cover is classified every year from 2020 to 2025, from satellite imagery over a 1 km box (100 ha) centred on the site.
builttreesgrasswatercropsshrubbare
- Built area
- 13.0 % to 16.7 % (+3.68 pp)
- Tree cover
- 11.0 % to 14.4 % (+3.42 pp)
- Open water
- 0.0 % to 0.0 % (+0.01 pp)
- Years returned
- all 6, every one above 99 % cloud-free
- Analysis box
- 1 km, Dynamic World classification
Open water in the box moved +0.01 pp while built area moved +3.68 pp.
Satellite composite and classification, 2020 to 2025
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Top row: Sentinel-2 surface reflectance, natural colour. Bottom row: the Dynamic World classification of the same year, drawn at native resolution so the class boundaries stay visible. Both cover the same 1 km box, one frame per year.
Nature screen
- Ecoregion
- Serra do Mar coastal forests
- Biome
- Tropical & Subtropical Moist Broadleaf Forests, Neotropic realm
- Protection outlook
- Nature Could Reach Half Protected
- Inside a protected area
- No
- Forest type
- Non-Forest
- Forest loss after 2020
- None detected
Fluvial flood risk at 90 m resolution, across four return periods
The published river-flood hazard field (JRC CEMS GloFAS River Flood Hazard Maps v2.1) is read at its native resolution of 92.766 m over a 6 km box, tile ID92_S20_W50, raw and unmasked. A return period is the average gap between events of that size, so a 1-in-100-year flood has a 1% chance in any given year.
shallow2.33 m4.67 m, deepest in the boxtile fill value, exactly 1.000 mnull, outside the mapped footprintthe site
6 km box, 74 by 65 cells at 82.51 by 92.77 m.
Hover a cell for depth and distance from the site.
The site and its seven by seven neighbourhood
N
W
| 2.18 | 2.29 | 2.29 | 1.88 | 1.38 | 1.99 | 2.79 |
| 2.59 | 2.18 | 2.18 | 2.48 | 2.18 | 1.78 | 1.99 |
| 2.98 | 2.48 | 2.79 | 2.98 | 2.88 | 2.68 | 1.28 |
| 2.98 | 2.38 | 2.68 | 2.88 | 2.98 | 2.79 | 2.09 |
| 3.09 | 2.98 | 3.09 | 3.09 | 3.09 | 1.88 | 0.58 |
| 2.88 | 3.09 | 2.98 | 3.09 | 2.68 | 2.88 | 1.68 |
| 2.88 | 2.59 | 2.79 | 3.29 | 3.38 | 3.18 | 3.08 |
E
S
Depth in metres at the selected return period. A dot is null, meaning the cell lies outside the mapped floodplain. The outlined cell is the site. North is up, east is right.
What the field carries at each return period
| Return period | Non-null cells | of which fill value | exact zeros | real depth cells | masked |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 in 10 year | 1380 | 235 | 0 | 1145 | 3430 |
| 1 in 50 year | 1618 | 217 | 0 | 1401 | 3192 |
| 1 in 100 year | 1708 | 213 | 0 | 1495 | 3102 |
| 1 in 500 year | 1881 | 197 | 0 | 1684 | 2929 |
The box holds 4810 cells of about 83 by 93 m. Cells carrying a modelled depth rise from 1145 at the 1 in 10 year event to 1684 at the 1 in 500 year, and the deepest cell from 2.98 m to 4.67 m. Both rise with return period, which is how the product should behave. 4 of the four return periods also carry the 1.000 m tile fill value, on 197 cells at the rarest, and those are excluded from the counts above. The site cell carries 3.47 m at the 1 in 500 year event. There are zero cells valued 0.0 anywhere in the field, so a missing value here means “outside the mapped floodplain”.
Coastal flood risk at 1 km resolution, across four return periods
The published coastal hazard field, read over the same 6 km box as the river field so the two overlay, at a native resolution of 927.662 m against the river field’s 92.766 m. The same ground is therefore only 64 cells. Four of the nine published return periods are shown, the same four as the river field, and this card shows the historical baseline so the two read alike.
modelled, depth 0.0 mmodelled depth above zeromaskedthe site
6 km box, 8 by 8 cells at 825.08 by 927.67 m. Showing the historical baseline at the 1 in 100 year event.
The site and its seven by seven neighbourhood
N
W
| 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | . |
| 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | . | . | . |
E
S
Depth in metres at the selected return period. A dot is a masked cell. The outlined cell is the site. North is up, east is right. At this resolution the neighbourhood is most of the box.
Cells modelled
60 of 64
4 masked, no value published
Cells carrying water
0
every modelled cell is exactly 0.0 m
Deepest cell in the box
0.00 m
at the 1 in 100 year event
The site cell
0.00 m
modelled, not missing
Every return period shown below shows 0 flood depth in the grid
| Return period | Cells with a value | of which exactly 0.0 m | cells carrying water | deepest cell, m | masked |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 in 10 year | 60 | 60 | 0 | 0.00 | 4 |
| 1 in 50 year | 60 | 60 | 0 | 0.00 | 4 |
| 1 in 100 year | 60 | 60 | 0 | 0.00 | 4 |
| 1 in 500 year | 60 | 60 | 0 | 0.00 | 4 |
What this dataset publishes, and what this card shows of it
| Dimension | Published | Shown here |
|---|---|---|
| Return periods | 2, 5, 10, 25, 50, 100, 250, 500, 1000 | 10, 50, 100, 500, the same four as the river field, on the buttons above. |
| Horizon | historical baseline, 2030, 2050, 2080 | The historical baseline only, so this card reads the same way as the river field above, which is a baseline field with no scenario dimension. The 108 projected bands were pulled and audited as well; the deepest cell in any of them is 0.00 m. |
| Scenarios | historical, rcp4p5, rcp8p5 | None. The two future pathways are an older model generation than the screen above and carry no Paris-aligned pathway, so the coastal layer would offer two futures where the screen offers three. Labels here are the dataset’s own and are not mapped onto the screen’s. |
| Subsidence | with and without | Both pulled. The baseline shown is without subsidence; with subsidence is identical here. |
Pluvial flood: rain landing on the site itself
Pluvial flooding is rain falling on the ground itself, rather than water arriving from a channel or the sea. It is solved on the same terrain bundle as the section above, subdivided 3 times to a 219 by 195 mesh at 9.17 by 10.31 m, with building footprints standing as obstacles. 4 runs are shown, each a 1-hour storm, with the rainfall depth for each return period read from an intensity-duration-frequency curve at a gauge 14.1 km from the site.
shallowabout 0.3 mabout 1 m3 m and deeperthe site
Rain on grid, 165 mm delivered storm, shown 122 minutes into the run. That is the state of the surface at that moment, not a maximum. Mesh 219 by 195 cells at 9.17 by 10.31 m. Boundary open, Manning n 0.05. Mass error 1.4e-15.
Standing water around the site
N
W
| 1.06 | 1.03 | 1.01 | 0.99 | 0.96 | 0.92 | 0.89 | 0.58 | 0.27 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 1.02 | 1.01 | 0 | 0.99 | 0.96 | 0.92 | 0 | 0.57 | 0 | 0 | 0.05 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 |
| 0.99 | 0.99 | 0.99 | 0.99 | 0.96 | 0 | 0 | 0.56 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.12 | 0.15 | 0.00 | 0 |
| 0.62 | 0.62 | 0.62 | 0.62 | 0.60 | 0 | 0 | 0.33 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.10 | 0.12 | 0 | 0 |
| 0.26 | 0.26 | 0.26 | 0.26 | 0.24 | 0.23 | 0.22 | 0.11 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.09 | 0 | 0 |
| 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0.00 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2.06 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | 2.06 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.99 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.88 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.71 |
E
S
Standing water in metres, one cell per solver cell at 9.17 by 10.31 m. This window is 15 by 15 cells, about 138 m by 155 m of ground, so it covers the immediate vicinity rather than the whole box. 83 of 225 cells here carry water, the deepest at 2.06 m. A grey 0 is modelled ground with no standing water on it, not missing data. The outlined cell is the site. North is up, east is right.
Rainfall applied
165 mm
1-in-500-year hour, delivered over 1 h
Ground under water
65.9 %
28,133 of 42,705 cells at least 1 mm deep, at this snapshot
Deepest ponding
2.71 m
median where wet 0.12 m
At the site
0.00 m
dry at the coordinate
Where the rainfall depths come from. Each run applies the one-hour rainfall expected at that return period, read from a published intensity-duration-frequency curve for a Governador Celso Ramos gauge 14.1 km from the site, fitted to 15 years of sub-daily rainfall records. The return period describes the rainfall hour, not the flood. Source: Oliveira (2019), cited in full under Data sources.
What this model does not include. Pluvial only: no infiltration, so every millimetre of rain becomes runoff and the result is an upper bound on ponding over any permeable ground. No drainage network, so nothing is carried away by pipes. No river or tidal inflow, and no bathymetry. Buildings stand as obstacles, and since none of them publishes a height every one uses the same default wall: the obstacle layout is real, the obstacle heights are an assumption.
The observed record: frequent flooding that neither depth model maps
Flood and landslide incidents compiled from news reporting, each carrying a location, a date and an affected area. This is what was recorded near the site, independent of every model above.
- Clustered episodes
- 50 from 203 raw reports
- Mean duration
- 2.3 days
- Observed span
- 05-09-2011 to 19-01-2026, across 83 distinct start dates
- Largest recorded
- 98.3 km2 on 25-05-2012
- Nearest recorded centroid
- 1.00 km from the site
- Centroids within 1 km
- 1, carrying 6 reports
One flood usually generates several news reports. Reports are grouped into one episode when each starts within seven days of both the first report of the episode and the report before it, so a flood covered over several days is counted once. That turns 203 reports into 50 episodes inside a 10 km radius. The rule is temporal only: it has no distance term, so two floods on the same day in different places still merge.
Proximity to the site
| Distance from the site to the report centroid | Raw reports |
|---|---|
| 0.00 to 1.00 km | 0 |
| 1.00 to 2.00 km | 9 |
| 2.00 to 3.00 km | 17 |
| 3.00 to 4.00 km | 46 |
| 4.00 to 5.00 km | 34 |
| 5.00 to 6.00 km | 9 |
| 6.00 to 7.00 km | 17 |
| 7.00 to 8.00 km | 27 |
| 8.00 to 9.00 km | 21 |
| 9.00 to 10.00 km | 13 |
Raw reports by month of episode start, 10 km radius. The peak month, Jan, is highlighted.
Report centroids whose location falls within 1 km
| Centroid | Area | As a radius | Distance | Reports |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 25-03-2016 to 15-12-2025 | 0.02 km2 | 80 m | 1.00 km | 6 |
These are region centroids, not parcels. The 203 reports resolve to only 76 distinct coordinates, so the same place recurs on many dates. The rows above are therefore repeat flooding at seven locations near the site, not seven separate floods.
Rainfall on days when flooding was recorded
Peak daily rainfall
27.4 mm
median across 50 matched episodes. Quartiles 16.5 to 44.6 mm.
Wettest 3 days
46.5 mm
median across 50 matched episodes. Quartiles 28.1 to 74.1 mm.
Wettest 7 days
65.6 mm
median across 50 matched episodes. Quartiles 45.1 to 114.8 mm.
No recorded landslides
The landslide record returns zero events and zero fatalities at this site.
Nearest recorded landslides
| Control | Distance | Events | Fatalities |
|---|---|---|---|
| morro do bau ilhota | 43.0 km | 1 | 109 |
| blumenau | 54.6 km | 0 | 0 |
| petropolis rj | 757.0 km | 88 | 599 |
Events at the site
0
within 25 km
Fatalities at the site
0
no active years on record
Nearest control with events
43 km
109 fatalities there
What is not in this report
| Layer | Why not |
|---|---|
| Financial exposure | To be executed once asset value is provided. |
| Compound flooding | River and coastal are modelled independently. Neither accounts for the two arriving together. |
Data sources
| Layer | Dataset | Licence |
|---|---|---|
| Climate hazards | NASA NEX-GDDP-CMIP6, model ACCESS-CM2 | public domain, attribution requested |
| Tropical cyclone exposure | NOAA IBTrACS v4 | public domain |
| Sea level rise | IPCC AR6 WG1 projections | IPCC |
| Water stress | WRI Aqueduct 4.0 | CC BY 4.0 |
| Riverine flood hazard | JRC CEMS GloFAS River Flood Hazard Maps v2.1 | European Commission JRC |
| Coastal flood hazard | WRI Aqueduct Flood Hazard Maps V2 | CC BY 4.0 |
| Bare-earth terrain | GEDTM30 v1.2 (Global Ensemble Digital Terrain Model, 30 m), OpenGeoHub Foundation | CC BY 4.0 |
| Building footprints | Google Open Buildings V3 | CC BY 4.0 |
| Road centrelines | Overture Maps transportation, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors | ODbL 1.0, share-alike |
| Land cover and imagery | Dynamic World V1, Sentinel-2 (ESA) | CC BY 4.0 |
| Forest change | Hansen Global Forest Change, JRC Global Forest Cover 2020 | CC BY 4.0 |
| Protected areas | OpenStreetMap, © OpenStreetMap contributors | ODbL 1.0 |
| Ecoregions | RESOLVE Ecoregions 2017 | CC BY 4.0 |
| Observed flood record | news-derived flood reports, ERA5 rainfall via Open-Meteo | provider terms |
| Observed landslide record | NASA Cooperative Open Online Landslide Repository | NASA |
| Rainfall frequency curve | Oliveira (2019), Chuvas extremas no Brasil, estacao Governador Celso Ramos | published literature |
This assessment is screening and technical analysis built on third-party datasets. It is not engineering analysis, not an insurance loss estimate, and not a substitute for site-specific hydraulic modelling. Flood depth estimates derive from global-scale models and should not be the sole basis for a property-level decision.