A methodology for flood risk appraisal in Lithuania

Open access


This paper presents a methodology for flood risk mapping as envisaged by the Directive on the Assessment and Management of Flood Risks [Directive 2007/60/EC]. Specifically, we aimed at identifying the types of flood damage that can be estimated given data availability in Lithuania. Furthermore, we present the main sources of data and the associated cost functions. The methodology covers the following main types of flood threats: risk to inhabitants, risk to economic activity, and social risk. A multi-criteria framework for aggregation of different risks is proposed to provide a comprehensive appraisal of flood risk. On the basis of the proposed research, flood risk maps have been prepared for Lithuania. These maps are available for each type of flood risk (i.e. inhabitants, economic losses, social risk) as well as for aggregate risk. The results indicate that flood risk management is crucial for western and central Lithuania, whereas other parts of the country are not likely to suffer from significant losses due to flooding.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Brauers W. Zavadskas E.K. 2006. The MOORA method and its application to privatization in a transition economy. Control and Cybernetics. No. 35(2) p. 445–469.

  • Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the council of 23 October 2007 on the assessment and management of flood risks. OJ L 288/27.

  • EEA 2012. Climate change impacts and vulnerability in Europe. EEA Report. No. 12/2012. ISBN 978-92-9213-346-7 pp. 300.

  • Gouldby B. Samuels P. 2005. Language of risk. Project definitions. Report T32-04-01 [online]. [Access 01.06.2015]. Available at: http://www.adbarno.it/rep/biblio/FLOODsite_Language_of_Risk_v4_0_P1.pdf

  • Hartmann T. Albrecht J. 2014. From flood protection to flood risk management: Condition-based and performance-based regulations in German water law. Journal of Environmental Law. No. 26. Iss. 2 p. 243–268.

  • Jongman B. Kreibich H. Apel H. Barredo J.I. Bates P.D. Feyen L. Gericke A. Neal J. Aerts J.C.J.H. Ward P.J. 2012. Comparative Flood Damage Model Assessment: Towards a European Approach. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences. No. 12 p. 3733–3752.

  • Jonkman S.N. Bočkarjova M. Kok M. Bernardini P. 2008. Integrated hydrodynamic and economic modelling of flood damage in the Netherlands. Ecological Economics. Vol. 66. Iss. 1 p. 77–90.

  • Messner F. Penning-Rowsell E. Green C. Meyer V. Tunstall S. van der Veen A. 2007. Evaluating flood damages: guidance and recommendations on principles and methods. Wallingford UK. FLOODsite Consortium pp. 178.

  • Meyer V. Kuhlicke C. Luther J. Unnerstall H. Fuchs S. Priest S. Pardoe J. McCarthy S. Dorner W. Seidel J. Serrhini K. Palka G. Scheuer S. 2011. Risk map. Improving flood risk maps as a means to foster public participation and raising flood risk awareness: Toward flood resilient communities [online]. CRUE Final Report. [Access 01.06.2015]. Available at: http://risk-map.org/outcomes/CRUE_RiskMap_FinalReport_final.pdf

  • Middelmann-Fernandes M.H. 2010. Flood damage estimation beyond stage-damage functions: an Australian example. Journal of Flood Risk Management. Vol. 3. Iss. 1 p. 88–96.

  • Moel H.D. Alphen J.V. Aerts J.C.J.H. 2009. Flood maps in Europe – methods availability and use. Natural Hazards and Earth System Science. No 9 p. 289–301.

  • Ouma Y.O. Tateishi R. 2014. Urban flood vulnerability and risk mapping using integrated multi-parametric AHP and GIS: Methodological overview and case study assessment. Water. Vol. 6. Iss. 6 p. 1515–1545.

  • Reese S. Ramsay D. 2010. RiskScape: Flood fragility methodology. Wellington New Zealand. National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research pp. 42.

  • Sistela 2012. Nekilnojamojo turto atkūrimo kaštų kainynas [Directory of the Real Estate Replacement Costs] NTK 2012. Vilnius.

  • Tapsell S. Tunstall S. Green C. Fernandez-Bilbao A. 2005. Task 11. Social indicator set. Integrated Flood Risk Analysis and Management Methodologies. Wallingford UK. FLOODsite Consortium pp. 32.

  • Tapsell S.M. Penning-Rowsell E.C. Tunstall S.M. Wilson T.L. 2002. Vulnerability to flooding: health and social dimensions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences. Vol. 360. Iss. 1796 p. 1511–1525.

  • van der Sande C.J. de Jong S.M. de Roo A.P.J. 2003. A segmentation and classification approach of IKONOS-2 imagery for land cover mapping to assist flood risk and flood damage assessment. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation. Vol. 4. Iss. 3 p. 217–229.

  • Webster T. McGuigan K. Collins K. MacDonald C. 2014. Integrated river and coastal hydrodynamic flood risk mapping of the LaHave River Estuary and town of Bridgewater Nova Scotia Canada. Water. Vol. 6. Iss. 3 p. 517–546.

Journal information
Impact Factor

CiteScore 2018: 1.55

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.401
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 1.389

Ministry of Science and Higher Education: 40 points

Index Copernicus (ICV) 2018: 132.77 points

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 209 96 3
PDF Downloads 115 72 7