# Observation Capability Evaluation Model for Flood-Observation-Oriented Satellite Sensor Selection
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Sensor Type** & **Satellite Sensor** & **SpCo** & **ThCo** & **Enlm** & **SpRes** & **SpeRes** & **Pol** & **RadRes** & **TICo** & **Ref1** & **Refc** \\ \hline \hline \multirow{11}{*}{Optics} & SkySat-1,SkySat & 0.3547 & 0.2667 & 0.0500 & 1 & 1 & & 1 & 0.2841 & 0.5304 & 0.2673 \\  & DubusSat-2,SIRALS & 0.3568 & 0.2667 & 0.2200 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0.2841 & 0.1480 & 0.2673 \\  & UK-DMC-2,SIL6 & 0.3945 & 0.2667 & 0.0600 & 0.0455 & 0 & & 1 & 0.2841 & 0.27429 & 0.2673 \\  & HiyangLoc,CZI & 0.1849 & 0.2667 & 0.0500 & 0.0040 & 1 & & 1 & 0.1162 & 0.5325 & 0.2673 \\  & AustraliaB\_NAMI & 0.4210 & 0.2667 & 0.0200 & 0.0400 & 1 & 1 & 0.2970 & 0.5491 & 0.2673 \\  & SkySat-1,SkySat & 0.2524 & 0.2667 & 0.2100 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0.2583 & 0.9386 & 0.2673 \\  & SkySat-11,SkySat & 0.2687 & 0.2667 & 0.1100 & 0.0008 & 0 & / & 1 & 0.2712 & 0.4215 & 0.2673 \\  & Worldview3,WV110 & 0.3716 & 0.2667 & 0.0500 & 1 & 1 & & 1 & 0.2841 & 0.5337 & 0.2673 \\  & SkySat-5,SkySat & 0.3068 & 0.2667 & 0.2400 & 1 & 1 & & 1 & 0.2841 & 0.0804 & 0.2673 \\  & SkySat-6,SkySat & 0.1549 & 0.2667 & 0.2400 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0.1550 & 0.0802 & 0.2673 \\  & Landsat/ETM4 & 0.0010 & 0.3333 & 0.1200 & 0.0667 & 11 & & 1 & 0.2841 & 0.7657 & 0.2673 \\  & RapidF2-JETS & 0.3537 & 0.2667 & 0.2500 & 0.1538 & & 1 & 1 & 0.2841 & 0.0953 & 0.2673 \\ \hline SAR & COSMO-Skymed3,SAR-2000 & 0.3775 & 0.2000 & 1 & 1 & & 0.8000 & 1 & 0.2841 & 0.7607 & 0.2673 \\  & Sentinel1B\_SAR-C (Sentinel-1) & 0.4336 & 0.1333 & 1 & 0.2500 & / & 0.8000 & 1 & 0.2970 & 0.2474 & 0.2673 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Values of the observation capability factors of each satellite sensor in the recovery-phase task. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **ReTi** & **TiCo** & **ReFc** & **SpaRes** & **SpeRes/Pol** & **RadRes** & **Weight** \\ \hline ReTi & 1 & 2 & 3 & 1/5 & 1/5 & 1/5 & 0.067 \\ TiCo & 1/2 & 1 & 2 & 1/7 & 1/7 & 1/7 & 0.042 \\ ReFc & 1/3 & 1/2 & 1 & 1/9 & 1/9 & 1/9 & 0.027 \\ SpaRes & 5 & 7 & 9 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0.288 \\ SpeRes/Pol & 5 & 7 & 9 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0.288 \\ RadRes & 5 & 7 & 9 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0.288 \\ \multicolumn{7}{c}{\(\lambda_{max}\) = 6.051, CR = 0.008 \(<\) 0.1} \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 10: Weight calculation result of the recovery-phase task. Figure 4: OCEM calculation results of the preparedness-phase task. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **ReTi** & **TiCo** & **ReFc** & **SpaRes** & **SpeRes/Pol** & **RadRes** & **Weight** \\ \hline ReTi & 1 & 1/5 & 1/9 & 1/3 & 1/3 & 1/3 & 0.032 \\ TiCo & 5 & 1 & 1/5 & 5 & 5 & 5 & 0.236 \\ ReFc & 9 & 5 & 1 & 7 & 7 & 7 & 0.534 \\ SpaRes & 3 & 1/5 & 1/7 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0.066 \\ SpeRes/Pol & 3 & 1/5 & 1/7 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0.066 \\ RadRes & 3 & 1/5 & 1/7 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0.066 \\ \multicolumn{7}{c}{\(\lambda_{max}\) = 6.340, CR = 0.055 \(<\) 0.1} \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 8: Weight calculation result of the preparedness-phase task. As shown in Figure 4, the three microwave sensors were ranked as the top three in the preparedness-phase task, where the WindSat sensor carried by Coriolis ranked first, and the SAR-2000 sensor ranked second and third. The NAOMI sensor carried by KazEOSat-1 ranked first among the optical sensors, and the HRPC-2 sensor carried by Ziyuan 1-02C has an OCEM value of 0 because its ThCo value is 0. In terms of the response-phase task, the two microwave sensors were ranked as the top two (Figure 5), where the SAR-2000 sensor ranks first. Notably, Ziyuan 1-02C appears again and has an OCEM value of 0 for the same reason, and the other six sensors have an OCEM value of 0 due to the 100% cloud cover (EnIm = 0). Similarly, the only two existing microwave sensors ranked as the top two in the recovery-phase task, and the top one is SAR-2000 (Figure 6). Compared with the former two tasks, no sensor with an OCEM value of 0 was found.