the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
FLEMOflash – Flood Loss Estimation MOdels for companies and households affected by flash floods
Abstract. In light of the increasing losses from flash floods intensified by climate change, there is a critical need for improved loss models. Loss assessments predominantly focus on fluvial flood processes, leaving a significant gap in understanding the key drivers of flash floods and the effect of preparedness on losses. To address these gaps, we introduce FLEMOflash—a novel multivariate probabilistic Flood Loss Estimation Model compilation for flash floods. The models are developed for companies and households based on survey data collected after flash flood events in 2002, 2016, and 2021 in Germany. FLEMOflash employs a data-driven feature selection approach, combining machine learning techniques (Elastic Net, Random Forest, XGBoost) to identify key drivers influencing flash flood losses and Bayesian networks to model probabilistic loss estimates, including uncertainty. Model-based findings show that in extreme hazard scenarios, high preparedness can reduce building losses by up to 47 % for large companies. Households who knew exactly what to do during high water depth were able to reduce their building losses by 77 % and contents losses by 55 %. Thus, FLEMOflash can support risk communication and management by providing reliable estimation of flash flood losses along with the loss differential considering the level of risk preparedness.
Competing interests: The author Heidi Kreibich is a member of the editorial board of Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences.
Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.- Preprint
(1368 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1726 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1512', Anonymous Referee #1, 06 Jun 2025
NHESS 1512
This paper is in the context of flash floods, loss estimation models, and flood preparedness. The paper introduces the FLEMOflash model, using data from past German flash floods; methodologically, it combines machine learning and Bayesian networks to estimate probabilistic losses and their uncertainties. In terms of topics, the paper is relevant for and aligned with NHESS.
The paper is well-written and -organised. Comments are mostly minor (even typos). The only major comment is about preparedness. From the paper, I do not understand what is meant by preparedness, and in specific what ‘high’ and ‘low’ preparedness mean. What are the assumptions behind ‘preparedness’? e.g. that people with more knowledge of risk will act in a certain way (which way?)? At page 14, it is said: ‘…doesn’t knew what to do’. For high preparedness, what people know about what to do? The model seems suited to derive the predictive density of losses, however I have doubt about the effect of preparedness. I would be very cautious to include this part in the paper.
A secondary comment is that I would add some background about the previous/traditional version of FLEMO (e.g. https://www.gfz.de/en/section/hydrology/projects/4-flood-loss-model-flemo-for-residential-and-commercial-sectors); there is none at the moment I think.
Specific comments (P for page, L for line):
- Valid for all direct citations: coma is not needed before the year, e.g. Smith et al. (2000) - and not Smith et al., (2000)
- Valid for the whole paper: equation factors, such as rloss, need to be in italic in the main text of the manuscript
- Valid for the whole paper: do not use contracted forms like ‘doesn’t’
- P2L42: double parenthesis in the citation
- P2L50: double space before ‘significant’
- P4L101: double space before ‘The percentage’?
- P7L146, P11L236: ‘This’ what? Add a noun, specify
- P9L190: remove the dot before the parenthesis of Fig. 1d-e
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1512-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Ravi Kumar Guntu, 23 Aug 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-1512/egusphere-2025-1512-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1512', Anonymous Referee #2, 19 Jun 2025
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Ravi Kumar Guntu, 23 Aug 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-1512/egusphere-2025-1512-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Ravi Kumar Guntu, 23 Aug 2025
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
452 | 148 | 19 | 619 | 62 | 14 | 39 |
- HTML: 452
- PDF: 148
- XML: 19
- Total: 619
- Supplement: 62
- BibTeX: 14
- EndNote: 39
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1