Hostname: page-component-5cf477f64f-rdph2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-07T15:11:03.400Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

From flood forecasts to rapid assessments of risk and impacts: Establishing operational modelling frameworks for coastal flood management at the German Baltic Sea coast

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 February 2025

Athanasios T. Vafeidis*
Affiliation:
Coastal Risks and Sea-Level Rise Research Group, Institute of Geography, Christian-Albrechts University Kiel, Kiel, Germany
Leigh MacPherson
Affiliation:
Coastal Risks and Sea-Level Rise Research Group, Institute of Geography, Christian-Albrechts University Kiel, Kiel, Germany
Sunna Kupfer
Affiliation:
Coastal Risks and Sea-Level Rise Research Group, Institute of Geography, Christian-Albrechts University Kiel, Kiel, Germany
Claudia Wolff
Affiliation:
Coastal Risks and Sea-Level Rise Research Group, Institute of Geography, Christian-Albrechts University Kiel, Kiel, Germany
Joshua Kiesel
Affiliation:
Institute for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
*
Corresponding author: Athanasios T. Vafeidis; Email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The record storm surge of October 2023, which hit the southwestern German Baltic Sea, not only resulted in significant damages to coastal communities and infrastructure but also demonstrated that the region was prepared and able to avoid loss of lives and other catastrophic impacts. Numerical modelling has been a key tool utilised for providing information to support coastal flood management, at different levels of planning, for such events. Based on recent research conducted in the Baltic coast region as well as on empirical evidence acquired during the event, we present an operational scheme that utilises modelling tools and frameworks for supporting coastal flood management in the region. In this context, we distinguish between three successive phases of an extreme surge event and propose specific actions for each of these phases, aiming towards the development of an operational framework for managing events of high magnitude for the German Baltic Sea region and beyond.

Type
Perspective
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that no alterations are made and the original article is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained prior to any commercial use and/or adaptation of the article.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press

Impact Statement

Extreme storm surges and associated flooding can have devastating effects on coastal communities and ecosystems. Anticipating such events and preparing for them are essential for avoiding catastrophic impacts and loss of lives. Numerical models constitute a key tool in helping to forecast the occurrence of extreme surges, understand their evolution, assess their potential impacts and support recovery efforts. However, co-ordinated and systematic approaches for utilising the potential of these models do not generally exist, even in places where the capacity to operationalise the use of such tools exists. Following the extreme surge that occurred in the German Baltic Sea in October 2023, we propose a framework that can be used to maximise the potential of numerical models and the information they can produce for managing extreme coastal flooding in the region. We identify three phases (before, during and after the event) and suggest specific actions that need to be undertaken in each phase. These actions range from storing, documenting and analysing model results for a range of scenarios; to early warning, data collection and evaluation of recovery needs. Although the proposed framework is based on knowledge that already exists in the German Baltic region and assumes the use of technology and data that are only available in few places in the world, we expect that its general concept and specific elements can be implemented more widely; while rapid advances in technology and data collection will, in time, enable its application in a broader range of locations.

Introduction

On 20 and 21 October 2023, a storm surge hit the western Baltic Sea, mainly impacting the German and Danish coastal areas. The storm led to very high coastal water levels at several locations along the German Baltic Sea (Figure 1), with certain areas experiencing extreme coastal water levels (ECWLs) with return periods potentially in the order of 200 years (Kiesel et al., Reference Kiesel, Wolff and Lorenz2024). Despite preliminary damage estimates being in the order of €200 million in the federal state of Schleswig-Holstein alone (NDR, 2023; Tagesschau, Reference Tagesschau2023) and isolated instances of protection failure (e.g. dike breaches), which led to significant damages in specific locations (e.g. Arnis, see Figure 1), German coastal communities were largely protected and prepared for an event of this extent and magnitude, thus avoiding catastrophic financial losses and loss of lives. Early warning, in the form of real-time ECWL forecasts, and a high level of preparedness at household level (e.g. use of sandbags and mobile barriers), combined with existing coastal protection measures (i.e. dikes), were instrumental in limiting the impacts of this storm surge.

Figure 1. Map of the German Baltic Sea coast, including characteristic locations that were affected by the October storm surge and information on maximum coastal water levels (based on Kiesel et al., Reference Kiesel, Wolff and Lorenz2024) that were recorded during the event.

Simulations based on numerical modelling have provided essential information and important insights for preparing against ECWL. This information includes, for example, the forecasting of ECWL at specific locations (e.g. Kiesel et al., Reference Kiesel, Honsel, Lorenz, Graewe and Vafeidis2023a), the definition of coastal protection standards (MELUND, 2022) and the assessment of potential impacts (e.g. Kupfer et al., Reference Kupfer, MacPherson, Hinkel, Arns and Vafeidis2024). Nevertheless, the occurrence of the event on 20 October and its aftermath demonstrated that the full potential of such models and associated analyses has not yet been attained and that there is considerable scope in further utilising and advancing numerical modelling to prepare for ECWL and manage their impacts. Based on previous and ongoing work in the region, we discuss a number of specific issues related to the modelling of such events and propose an operational scheme that can combine available knowledge, tools and instruments to support coastal flood-risk management. The proposed scheme includes three discrete but interlinked stages (pre-event, during the event, post-event) that correspond to a chain of actions which can (i) improve the preparation for the occurrence of ECWL and help mitigate damages and loss of lives; (ii) provide near real-time support for emergency services and responses; and (iii) support damage assessments and the fair and quick distribution of compensation aid. For these three stages, we assess existing capabilities and highlight priorities for their implementation.

Pre-event

Systematic recording of sea-level measurements at tide gauges along the German Baltic Sea region has provided relatively long time series of water-level data (around 60 years, Wolski and Wiśniewski, Reference Wolski and Wiśniewski2021) that are essential for understanding the frequency and magnitude of storm surges, quantifying coastal flood risk and for planning effective coastal protection strategies to ECWL. However, sea-level observations are limited both spatially and temporally, and a range of statistical and numerical techniques have been developed to overcome these limitations. ECWLs are often defined by their return period, which describes the average amount of time between events of equal or greater magnitude and is used as the basis for the design of coastal protection structures. Along the German Baltic Sea coast, flood defences are designed based on an estimated ECWL with a return period of up to 200 years (HW200) and an additional height increase of 50 cm (constant value) to account for wave overtopping and sea-level rise (MELUND, 2022). Given that the longest high-resolution tide gauge record in the region extends for only about 75 years, the record length is short for estimating the return period of high-end events and estimates of HW200 can be highly uncertain. Recent work by MacPherson et al. (Reference MacPherson, Arns, Fischer, Méndez and Jensen2023) suggests that the current tide gauge network along the German Baltic Sea coast is not sufficient for estimating HW200 alone and that by including historical information on ECWL recorded before the installation of tide gauges, estimates can be vastly improved. For example, the inclusion of such information substantially reduces the uncertainty of the estimated ECWL (Figure 2) at Travemünde (see Figure 1) where there is an absolute reduction of approximately 50% (1.14–0.55 m).

Figure 2. Estimates of ECWL at Flensburg based on tide gauge data only (blue) and tide gauge data with historical information (H.I., in red) based on MacPherson et al. (Reference MacPherson, Arns, Fischer, Méndez and Jensen2023). Solid lines show the maximum likelihood estimates with uncertainties shown as shaded areas (95% significance intervals). The height of the October 2023 event is shown as a dashed black line.

In those cases where limited or no sea-level information is available, hydrodynamic numerical modelling can provide useful data for the estimation of ECWL. Previous studies have extended the available tide gauge data along the German Baltic Sea coast, both temporally and spatially, using hindcast simulations (Lorenz and Gräwe, Reference Lorenz and Gräwe2023). Validated against observations, these models provide long records of sea levels, even at ungauged sites (Kiesel et al., Reference Kiesel, Lorenz, König, Gräwe and Vafeidis2023b), and can be used for the estimation of return water levels. This is particularly useful when considering the large spatial variation of the experienced ECWL along the German Baltic coast during the recent storm surge. Other methods, such as spatiotemporal probabilistic modelling of surges, have also recently been used to provide probabilistic reanalyses of surge extremes and estimates of event probabilities at ungauged locations with high accuracy (Calafat and Marcos, Reference Calafat and Marcos2020).

The estimated return water levels constitute the basis for risk assessments, where, typically, a stylised hydrograph or a hydrograph of a past event is used as input into a hydrodynamic model to simulate flooding and associated risk (e.g. Wadey et al., Reference Wadey, Cope, Nicholls, McHugh, Grewcock and Mason2015). Due to the high computational requirements of numerical models and the lack of data, these studies have often focussed on only one or few events and typically only on the peak water level of ECWL. However, various studies (Hoeffken et al., Reference Hoeffken, Vafeidis, MacPherson and Dangendorf2020; Kupfer et al., Reference Kupfer, MacPherson, Hinkel, Arns and Vafeidis2024; Santamaria-Aguilar et al., Reference Santamaria-Aguilar, Arns and Vafeidis2017) have shown that the temporal evolution of the event can have a significant effect on flooding characteristics, with flood extent varying up to 60% for different intensities. Techniques to model the possible temporal evolution of storm surges (see MacPherson et al. Reference MacPherson, Arns, Dangendorf, Vafeidis and Jensen2019) and advances in computing, which allow for large numbers of hydrodynamic simulations to be conducted in short time, have enabled comprehensive assessments of flood risk at local scale, where a wide range of ECWL parameters can be tested. For example, Kupfer et al. (Reference Kupfer, MacPherson, Hinkel, Arns and Vafeidis2024) explore the sensitivity of flooding at Lübeck in Germany, producing probabilistic flood maps based on flooding from a large set of physically plausible synthetic hydrographs and/or ECWL of different return periods. Digital libraries of such maps are essential for providing a better understanding of the characteristics and uncertainties related to the temporal and spatial evolution of flooding, can account for many different hazard scenarios and are useful for evaluating and planning potential responses to specific types of events. In addition, various adaptation responses or scenarios can be integrated into the model setup in order to explore their effectiveness. This includes hard protection but also increasingly discussed and implemented nature-based solutions, such as the restoration of coastal vegetation via managed realignment (Kiesel et al., Reference Kiesel, Honsel, Lorenz, Graewe and Vafeidis2023a). In combination with sea-level rise scenarios, scenarios of failure of existing defences and the consideration of compound flood events (Kumbier et al., Reference Kumbier, Carvalho, Vafeidis and Woodroffe2018), this information can provide significant insights in decision analysis for developing optimal future adaptation strategies (van der Pol et al., Reference van der Pol, Hinkel, Merkens, MacPherson, Vafeidis, Arns and Dangendorf2021; Völz and Hinkel, Reference Völz and Hinkel2023) and efficient emergency planning.

During the course of an event

During the October 2023 surge, the German Federal Maritime and Hydrographic Agency (BSH) was providing real-time information on the temporal evolution of water levels at specific tide-gauge locations of the German coast, along with modelled short-term forecasts regarding the possible future development of water levels. Despite underestimating the surge by some 10–20 cm in some locations and occasional deviations when forecasting the temporal evolution of the surge (BSH, 2023) at the tide-gauge locations, the real-time forecasts were very useful for keeping the authorities and the public informed and for maintaining alertness during the event. This type of information can be further utilised as input for near real-time flood modelling, using models that have already been setup, calibrated and validated for specific locations, in order to provide timely information on the spatial development of the flood on land. In addition to a digital library of simulated flood maps that can be available before a surge, such information can be crucial for guiding emergency responses and evacuations but also for supporting the public in actions related to household-level adaptation. As Longenecker et al. (Reference Longenecker, Graeden, Kluskiewicz, Zuzak, Rozelle and Aziz2020) emphasise, flood-risk planning and emergency response at community levels rely on fast access to accurate inundation models that identify geographic areas, assets and populations that can be flooded.

Finally, an important element for refining and evaluating the models and the results is the collection of field data during the actual flood events. On-site measurements of flood characteristics (current flow velocity, flood depth and extent; e.g. Spencer et al., Reference Spencer, Brooks and Möller2014) or analysis of potentially available aerial (e.g. drones) or even satellite data obtained during the course of an event are important for model fine-tuning and validation. Field data are very rare as they are generally difficult to collect during an event, and the possibility of acquiring them with other methods is limited. For example, the Copernicus rapid mapping emergency service was activated for the October surge event but was unable to provide much relevant information due to cloud cover (https://rapidmapping.emergency.copernicus.eu/EMSR701/download, accessed 21 March 2024). However, near real-time data on flood characteristics are essential for model calibration and validation (Molinari et al., Reference Molinari, De Bruijn, Castillo-Rodríguez, Aronica and Bouwer2019) and for improving our general understanding of coastal flooding processes. To this end, instrumentation (e.g., pressure sensors) for collecting such data during a flood is generally available and affordable and networks of low-cost sensors can be established in flood-prone high-risk areas to automatically record and monitor, in real time, flood characteristics. Such information would also enable the use of data assimilation techniques for further improving flood modelling and the estimation of flood characteristics (Alvarez-Cuesta et al., Reference Alvarez-Cuesta, Toimil and Losada2024). Promising low-cost alternatives for data collection include harnessing the potential of citizen science and leveraging information from social media to obtain data on flood events (Eilander et al., Reference Eilander, Trambauer, Wagemaker and van Loenen2016; Pollard et al., Reference Pollard, Spencer and Jude2018). In this context, local residents can record water marks, measure water depth and collect geotagged photos of flooded areas (see e.g. https://mycoast.org/nj/high-water), while automated analysis of social media posts could provide high volumes of useful data at high spatial and temporal resolution (de Bruijn et al., Reference de Bruijn, de Moel, Jongman, Wagemaker and Aerts2017).

Post-event analysis

Following the storm surge, model simulations of the actual event, together with measurements acquired during the event, can in short time provide accurate mapping of flood extent and depth. Combined with detailed spatial data on assets and infrastructure exposure and associated vulnerability information, as well as post-event surveys, reliable preliminary assessments of damages can be conducted directly after the event in order to support rapid and effective restoration responses. Such methods are key to increasing the usefulness of early warning and can contribute to the mitigation of impacts (Dottori et al., Reference Dottori, Kalas, Salamon, Bianchi, Alfieri and Feyen2017). Further, these first-order estimates of damages can be used for the fair and timely allocation of resources/funds for compensation aid, a process which can be lengthy in terms of time, does not always address those most at need and is often implemented in ways that do not promote a resilient recovery (Slavíková et al., Reference Slavíková, Hartmann and Thaler2021).

Concluding remarks: Towards real-time flood-risk assessments and beyond

Advances in computing and data collection and the increased availability of elevation and assets data of high quality have in recent years introduced new possibilities and paved new pathways for supporting flood-risk assessment and management. With the use of hydrodynamic models at local scale, we are now in the position to produce comprehensive information on a wide spectrum of events of different magnitudes and can create digital portfolios of flood maps and associated risks for a wide range of plausible events and scenarios. At the same time, we can explore a range of adaptation measures, as computational capabilities allow us to conduct large numbers of simulations that are required for decision analysis. This also includes scenarios of future flooding under rising sea levels that are essential for understanding impending increases in flood risk that can be non-linear (Arns et al., Reference Arns, Wahl, Wolff, Vafeidis, Haigh, Woodworth, Niehueser and Jensen2020; Lorenz et al., Reference Lorenz, Arns and Gräwe2023) and for preparing for such events. This information should be complemented with data collected during events, which will help in fine-tuning and validating models, thus increasing confidence in their use. Near real time information on the evolution of the flood can complement early warning and can be instrumental in reducing damages and loss of life. How this information is communicated and managed is also a crucial element of this process; for example, failing to foresee potential defence failures can create a false sense of safety and lead to larger impacts (Haer et al., Reference Haer, Husby, Botzen and Aerts2020), whereas warnings on defence failures can result in panic reactions. All these elements can be integrated in an operational framework, which can support emergency planning and response (Figure 3). Further, in combination with data on exposure, such a framework can provide credible and transparent information for rapid assessments of impacts and can be used for streamlining financial and other support to those who have been impacted most.

Figure 3. Conceptual framework for integrating numerical modelling in coastal flood management.

Some aspects of the above are already used and implemented in several countries (e.g., the United States, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Germany) where flood management is an established component of environmental policy. Also, efforts in this direction have been initiated by organisations in the form of prototypes, a prominent example being the European Coastal Flood Awareness System (Irazoqui Apecechea et al., Reference Irazoqui Apecechea, Melet and Armaroli2023). However, even in those cases where models are extensively employed to provide related information, they are not specifically designed for emergency response operations and emergency managers are left with little information on the spatial characteristics of the flood (Longenecker et al., Reference Longenecker, Graeden, Kluskiewicz, Zuzak, Rozelle and Aziz2020).

It is also important to consider that, in order to produce the necessary information, such modelling frameworks require infrastructure that combines access to high-quality spatial data, computing infrastructure and expertise. Although very few countries in the world have access to such infrastructure, global geospatial data and high computing power are becoming increasingly available and affordable, while technology is enabling rapid knowledge transfer. At the same time, reduced-complexity models (Leijnse et al., Reference Leijnse, van Ormondt, Nederhoff and van Dongeren2021; Wing et al., Reference Wing, Bates, Quinn, Savage, Uhe, Cooper, Collings, Addor, Lord, Hatchard, Hoch, Bates, Probyn, Himsworth, Rodríguez González, Brine, Wilkinson, Sampson, Smith, Neal and Haigh2024) that are becoming freely available; the use of non-physics-based models and model emulations; and machine-learning methods applied in flood mapping (Bentivoglio et al., Reference Bentivoglio, Isufi, Jonkman and Taormina2022) can substantially reduce computational requirements and costs (Najafi et al., Reference Najafi, Shrestha, Rakovec, Apel, Vorogushyn, Kumar, Thober, Merz and Samaniego2024). Complementing the use of these methods, the rapid development of internet platforms and mobile applications offers new tools for producing and acquiring new data and information online, even in data-poor regions. These trends will hopefully allow for such methods to be more widely adopted, potentially leading to the development of local digital twins (Li et al., Reference Li, Feng, Ran, Su, Liu, Huang, Shen, Xiao, Su, Yuan and Guo2023) for managing coastal floods more effectively in the near future. We must nevertheless emphasise that for most places in the world these developments are currently still far from the point where they can be realistically implemented and significant efforts and investments need to be undertaken towards this end.

Considering the unavoidable increase in coastal flood risk as a consequence of climate-induced sea-level rise, potential changes in storminess and rapid socioeconomic development in coastal regions, our ability to contain loss and damage can be greatly enhanced by effectively utilising flood models in improving preparedness, providing near real-time information and supporting the response of the authorities to flood events. Our scientific and technical capabilities allow us to utilise inundation models at an increasing pace in order to provide fast access to accurate, understandable and actionable knowledge for supporting flood risk planning and emergency response at community level and for better managing flood risk. Operationalising this process however still remains a challenge and will require concerted efforts from scientists, local communities and governments.

Open peer review

To view the open peer review materials for this article, please visit http://doi.org/10.1017/cft.2025.4.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the Federal Ministry of Education and Research and German Research Foundation (DFG) for funding. The authors would also like to thank Mrs. Saskia Erken and Mrs. Maureen Tsakiris for designing Figures 1 and 3.

Financial support

ATV and JK were supported by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research through the “ECAS-Baltic project: Strategies of ecosystem-friendly coastal protection and ecosystem-supporting coastal adaptation for the German Baltic Sea Coast” (BMBF, funding code 03F0860H). ATV, SK and LM were supported by the German Research Foundation (DFG) under the SEASCAPE II project as part of the Special Priority Program (SPP) -1889 “Regional Sea Level Change and Society.”

Competing interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

References

Alvarez-Cuesta, M, Toimil, A and Losada, IJ (2024) Which data assimilation method to use and when: Unlocking the potential of observations in shoreline modelling. Environmental Research Letters 19, 044023. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ad3143.Google Scholar
Arns, A, Wahl, T, Wolff, C, Vafeidis, AT, Haigh, ID, Woodworth, P, Niehueser, S and Jensen, J (2020) Non-linear interaction modulates global extreme sea levels, coastal flood exposure, and impacts. Nature Communications 11, 1918. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-15752-5.Google Scholar
Bentivoglio, R, Isufi, E, Jonkman, SN and Taormina, R (2022) Deep learning methods for flood mapping: A review of existing applications and future research directions. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 26, 43454378. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-4345-2022.Google Scholar
BSH (2023) Bundesamt für Seeschiffffahrt und Hydrographie, Wasserstandsvorhersage Ostsee. Available at https://www.bsh.de/DE/DATEN/Vorhersagen/Wasserstand_Ostsee/wasserstand_ostsee_node.html;jsessionid=B8AF37CF432E36DD07C20924449B32B3.live11313 (accessed 22 October 2024).Google Scholar
Calafat, FM and Marcos, M (2020) Probabilistic reanalysis of storm surge extremes in Europe. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117, 18771883. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1913049117.Google Scholar
de Bruijn, JA, de Moel, H, Jongman, B, Wagemaker, J and Aerts, JCJH (2017) TAGGS: Grouping tweets to improve global Geoparsing for disaster response. Journal of Geovisualization and Spatial Analysis 2, 2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41651-017-0010-6.Google Scholar
Dottori, F, Kalas, M, Salamon, P, Bianchi, A, Alfieri, L and Feyen, L (2017) An operational procedure for rapid flood risk assessment in Europe. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 17, 11111126. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-17-1111-2017.Google Scholar
Eilander, D, Trambauer, P, Wagemaker, J and van Loenen, A (2016) Harvesting social media for generation of near real-time flood maps. Procedia Engineering 154, 176183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2016.07.441.Google Scholar
Haer, T, Husby, TG, Botzen, WJW and Aerts, JCJH (2020) The safe development paradox: An agent-based model for flood risk under climate change in the European Union. Global Environmental Change 60, 102009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.102009.Google Scholar
Hoeffken, J, Vafeidis, AT, MacPherson, LR and Dangendorf, S (2020) Effects of the temporal variability of storm surges on coastal flooding. Frontiers in Marine Science 7, 98. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.00098.Google Scholar
Irazoqui Apecechea, M, Melet, A and Armaroli, C (2023) Towards a pan-European coastal flood awareness system: Skill of extreme sea-level forecasts from the Copernicus marine service. Frontiers in Marine Science 9. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JC014718.Google Scholar
Kiesel, J, Honsel, LE, Lorenz, M, Graewe, U and Vafeidis, AT (2023a) Raising dikes and managed realignment may be insufficient for maintaining current flood risk along the German Baltic Sea coast. Communications Earth & Environment 4, 433. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-023-01100-0.Google Scholar
Kiesel, J, Lorenz, M, König, M, Gräwe, U and Vafeidis, AT (2023b) Regional assessment of extreme sea levels and associated coastal flooding along the German Baltic Sea coast. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 23, 29612985. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-23-2961-2023.Google Scholar
Kiesel, J, Wolff, C and Lorenz, M (2024) Brief communication: From modelling to reality – Flood modelling gaps highlighted by a recent severe storm surge event along the German Baltic Sea coast. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 24, 38413849. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-24-3841-2024.Google Scholar
Kumbier, K, Carvalho, RC, Vafeidis, AT and Woodroffe, CD (2018) Investigating compound flooding in an estuary using hydrodynamic modelling: A case study from the Shoalhaven River, Australia. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 18, 463477. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-18-463-2018.Google Scholar
Kupfer, S, MacPherson, LR, Hinkel, J, Arns, A and Vafeidis, AT (2024) A comprehensive probabilistic flood assessment accounting for hydrograph variability of ESL events. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 129, e2023JC019886. https://doi.org/10.1029/2023JC019886.Google Scholar
Leijnse, T, van Ormondt, M, Nederhoff, K and van Dongeren, A (2021) Modeling compound flooding in coastal systems using a computationally efficient reduced-physics solver: Including fluvial, pluvial, tidal, wind- and wave-driven processes. Coastal Engineering 163, 103796. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coastaleng.2020.103796.Google Scholar
Li, X, Feng, M, Ran, Y, Su, Y, Liu, F, Huang, C, Shen, H, Xiao, Q, Su, J. Yuan, S and Guo, H (2023) Big data in earth system science and progress towards a digital twin. Nature Reviews Earth and Environment 4, 319332. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-023-00409-w.Google Scholar
Longenecker, HE, Graeden, E, Kluskiewicz, D, Zuzak, C, Rozelle, J and Aziz, AL (2020) A rapid flood risk assessment method for response operations and nonsubject-matter-expert community planning. Journal of Flood Risk Management 13, e12579. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfr3.12579.Google Scholar
Lorenz, M, Arns, A and Gräwe, U (2023) How sea level rise may hit you through the backdoor: Changing extreme water levels in shallow coastal lagoons. Geophysical Research Letters 50, e2023GL105512. https://doi.org/10.1029/2023GL105512.Google Scholar
Lorenz, M and Gräwe, U (2023) Uncertainties and discrepancies in the representation of recent storm surges in a non-tidal semi-enclosed basin: A hindcast ensemble for the Baltic Sea. Ocean Science 19, 17531771. https://doi.org/10.5194/os-19-1753-2023.Google Scholar
MacPherson, LR, Arns, A, Dangendorf, S, Vafeidis, AT and Jensen, J (2019) ‘A Stochastic Extreme Sea Level Model for the German Baltic Sea Coast’. Journal of Geophysical Research-Oceans 124 (3): 2054–71. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JC014718.Google Scholar
MacPherson, LR, Arns, A, Fischer, S, Méndez, FJ and Jensen, J (2023) Bayesian extreme value analysis of extreme sea levels along the German Baltic coast using historical information. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 23, 36853701. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-23-3685-2023.Google Scholar
MELUND (2022) Generalplan Küstenschutz des Landes Schleswig-Holstein, Ministerium für Energiewende, Landwirschaft, Umwelt, Natur und Digitalisierung, pp. 111.Google Scholar
Molinari, D, De Bruijn, KM, Castillo-Rodríguez, JT, Aronica, GT and Bouwer, LM (2019) Validation of flood risk models: Current practice and possible improvements. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 33, 441448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2018.10.022.Google Scholar
Najafi, H, Shrestha, PK, Rakovec, O, Apel, H, Vorogushyn, S, Kumar, R, Thober, S, Merz, B and Samaniego, L (2024) High-resolution impact-based early warning system for riverine flooding. Nature Communications 15, 3726. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-48065-y.Google Scholar
NDR (2023) Ostsee-Sturmflut: Etwa 200 Millionen Euro Schaden in SH.Google Scholar
Pollard, JA, Spencer, T and Jude, S (2018) Big data approaches for coastal flood risk assessment and emergency response. WIREs Climate Change 9, e543. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.543.Google Scholar
Santamaria-Aguilar, S, Arns, A and Vafeidis, AT (2017) Sea-level rise impacts on the temporal and spatial variability of extreme water levels: A case study for St. Peter-Ording, Germany. Journal of Geophysics and Research: Oceans 122, 27422759. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JC012579.Google Scholar
Slavíková, L, Hartmann, T and Thaler, T (2021) Paradoxes of financial schemes for resilient flood recovery of households. WIREs Water 8, e1497. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1497.Google Scholar
Spencer, T, Brooks, SM and Möller, I (2014) Storm-surge impact depends on setting. Nature 505, 26. https://doi.org/10.1038/505026b.Google Scholar
Tagesschau, (2023) Pegelstände sinken - Millionenschäden befürchtet.Google Scholar
van der Pol, T, Hinkel, J, Merkens, J, MacPherson, L, Vafeidis, AT Arns, A and Dangendorf, S (2021) Regional economic analysis of flood defence heights at the German Baltic Sea coast: A multi-method cost-benefit approach for flood prevention. Climate Risk Management 32, 100289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2021.100289.Google Scholar
Völz, V and Hinkel, J (2023) Climate learning scenarios for adaptation decision analyses: Review and classification. Climate Risk Management 40, 100512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2023.100512.Google Scholar
Wadey, MP, Cope, SN, Nicholls, RJ, McHugh, K, Grewcock, G and Mason, T (2015) Coastal flood analysis and visualisation for a small town. Ocean & Coastal Management 116, 237247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.07.028.Google Scholar
Wing, OEJ, Bates, PD, Quinn, ND, Savage, JTS, Uhe, PF, Cooper, A, Collings, TP, Addor, N, Lord, NS, Hatchard, S, Hoch, JM, Bates, J, Probyn, I, Himsworth, S, Rodríguez González, J, Brine, MP, Wilkinson, H, Sampson, CC, Smith, AM, Neal, JC and Haigh, ID (2024) A 30 m global flood inundation model for any climate scenario. Water Resources Research 60, e2023WR036460. https://doi.org/10.1029/2023WR036460.Google Scholar
Wolski, T and Wiśniewski, B (2021 ) Characteristics and long-term variability of occurrences of storm surges in the Baltic Sea. Atmosphere 12, 1679. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos12121679.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1. Map of the German Baltic Sea coast, including characteristic locations that were affected by the October storm surge and information on maximum coastal water levels (based on Kiesel et al., 2024) that were recorded during the event.

Figure 1

Figure 2. Estimates of ECWL at Flensburg based on tide gauge data only (blue) and tide gauge data with historical information (H.I., in red) based on MacPherson et al. (2023). Solid lines show the maximum likelihood estimates with uncertainties shown as shaded areas (95% significance intervals). The height of the October 2023 event is shown as a dashed black line.

Figure 2

Figure 3. Conceptual framework for integrating numerical modelling in coastal flood management.

Author comment: From flood forecasts to rapid assessments of risk and impacts: Establishing operational modelling frameworks for coastal flood management at the German Baltic Sea coast — R0/PR1

Comments

Dear Dr Spencer,

Please consider the enclosed manuscript entitled “From flood forecasts to rapid assessments of risk and impacts – establishing operational modelling frameworks for coastal flood management at the German Baltic Sea coast” for publication as a Perspective paper in Coastal Futures. Our manuscript discusses the October 2023 record storm surge that hit the German Baltic coast and how numerical models were used to forecast and prepare for the event. Based on recent work that we have carried out in the region, as well as on in-situ visits during the course of the event, we discuss the potential of numerical models in supporting coastal flood management; and propose specific steps and actions towards operational modelling frameworks.

We believe that our manuscript will be of interest to the coastal hazard community, including researchers, planners and decision makers, and are confident that Coastal Futures is an ideal outlet for our work.

Sincerely (also on behalf of the co-authors)

Athanasios Vafeidis

Review: From flood forecasts to rapid assessments of risk and impacts: Establishing operational modelling frameworks for coastal flood management at the German Baltic Sea coast — R0/PR2

Conflict of interest statement

I declared a potential conflict of interest when I accepted reviewing this manuscript and learned about the authors. All the authors are members of my previous research group where I did my PhD, including my PhD supervisor Prof. Athanasios Vafeidis.

Comments

The manuscript discusses the potential of numerical models for different steps of coastal flood management at the German Baltic Sea coast and the importance of operationalizing such models in order to reduce coastal flood impacts. This discussion is presented in the context of a recent extreme storm that impacted the German Baltic Sea coast in 2023, highlighting those factors that were correctly achieved during that event and the ones that can be improved in future events.

The manuscript presents a relevant discussion of important factors required for coastal flood management (such as the lack of observed flood data and its importance), which are well-known by the flood modeling community, but not that well-known by many other users of flood hazard data. It is clear, well written and structured. I only have a few minor comments that I think should be emphasized:

1. I think the authors should emphasize more the lack of observed flood data and its implications. This is a common issue worldwide that prevents a proper validation of flood model outputs. As the authors discuss, flood maps are required for a variety of purposes. Still, if the accuracy of flood maps cannot be measured, any application using unvalidated flood maps will in turn be highly uncertain. This is especially true at the household level, where some data sources such as satellites might not provide a fine enough spatial and temporal resolution. I agree with the authors that establishing a network of sensors and cameras to measure flood characteristics is the best option for operational purposes, but it might not be feasible for all coastal sites. In this context, I am also missing discussing other initiatives such as citizen science initiatives, in which residents help collect high water marks (see e.g. https://mycoast.org/nj/high-water) and efforts of creating flood databases from social media (e.g. https://www.globalfloodmonitor.org/).

2. The discussion is focused only on flooding from coastal water levels (i.e., storm surges, waves, and tides). However, it’s common that storm events, such as the 2023 event, that produce large storm surges, also cause large rainfall that contributes to the total resulting flooding. I think it’s important to discuss other flood drivers since their compound effects can be specifically relevant for flood forecasting, emergency responses (e.g., evacuation routes can be flooded due to the rain when drainage systems are blocked), and flood mitigation measurements (e.g., flood barriers for coastal drivers can block pluvial flooding).

3. I am also missing a better or more detailed discussion of physic-reduced flood models such as LISFLOOD-FP and SFINCS (e.g. in P3-L55). These physic-reduced flood models are especially convenient for rapid flood forecasting due to their reduced computational costs, enabling flood modeling of large areas and ensemble forecasting. In addition, numerical computing features such as subgrid approaches (included in SFINCS) allow running flood models at dual resolutions, further reducing the computational costs of these models at fine scales such as household and/or street levels.

P1-L38-41. It might be interesting to show the spatial footprint of the event with the water level at the tide-gauge locations (e.g. showing the water levels at the gauged locations in Fig 1) to get an idea about the spatial impact of this event and the sites that experienced the largest WLs. (This would also provide a better context for L15-17 in P3.)

P1-L41. Maybe refer to fig. 2 to provide the RP of the event.

P2-L33. References?

P2-L49. Can you provide a range of the length of tide-age records in the region?

P2-L58. Is the safety design increase (to account for waves and SLR) a constant value (e.g. 50cm)? or how is it calculated? I think providing more details is interesting since this safety increase is a common approach in the design of coastal structures, but the approach used changes between places. Therefore, providing more details about the increase used in the German Baltic coast facilitates comparison between states or countries.

P3-L4-7. These lines are a bit vague; I recommend providing an example of the reduction of the CI when including historical information in the extrema value analysis, e.g., 1m? 0.5m?

P3-L9-10. There are some recent probabilistic models that can be used to provide ECWLs at ungauged locations, such as Calafat and Marcos (2019).

Calafat, F. M., & Marcos, M. (2020). Probabilistic reanalysis of storm surge extremes in Europe. PNAS, 117(4). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3471600

P3-L48. Reference?

P4-L28. Score missing in real-time.

P5-L8, Missing comma after “Further”

P5-L21. Missing comma after “scale”

P6-L11. Missing “is”

Review: From flood forecasts to rapid assessments of risk and impacts: Establishing operational modelling frameworks for coastal flood management at the German Baltic Sea coast — R0/PR3

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

This paper presents an overview of the coastal management situation along the German coasts of the Baltic sea, including from the calculation of return levels based on tide gauge observations, development of a numerical model framework, and coastal defenses. The paper focus on an extreme storm surge event that happened in October 2023. The authors argue that the current warning system, which is based on numerical modeling in conjunction with existing flood defenses, successfully mitigated potentially catastrophic impacts.

The paper effectively demonstrates the importance of flood warning systems grounded in scientific methodologies. It highlights the need for rigorous analysis of both historical and current observations (such as return period curves from tide gauge measurements), continuous monitoring before, during, and after storms, and the development of numerical modeling systems capable of producing flood maps, which are essential for calculating risk metrics based on flood depth and extent.

I find the paper to be well-written and address an important topic for coastal communities. I recommend its publication after minor revision. My primary concern relates to the clarity of the paper’s purpose. The main objective of the paper is not clearly defined. As it currently stands, it appears to be a blend of a brief and superficial review of coastal management frameworks and a case study of the October floods. I strongly recommend that the authors tailor the paper to the main message they wish to convey. In this line, I also suggest that the authors explicitly state in the paper why this work is of interest to the scientific community.

What is the final aim of the paper?

(i) To provide an overview of best practices for coastal management, with a specific example of the October 2023 floods?

If this is the objective of the paper, I suggest including a discussion of other methodologies and frameworks also employed in coastal management to provide a more comprehensive review.

(ii) To provide a review of the warning system used on the German coast of the Baltic Sea?

Sharing experiences in coastal protection, both successful and unsuccessful, is essential for developing effective, evidence-based coastal management strategies. Learning from the successes of others allows practitioners to adapt and implement measures tailored to their specific geographic, socio-economic, and environmental conditions. Similarly, understanding and analyzing past failures is equally critical.

If this is the final objective of the paper, then I would recommend including more specific information, such as: What numerical models are employed? Which institutions are responsible for running these models? What is the data availability in the region?

Additional comments, whose relevance may vary depending on the main objective the authors decide to go for.

1. Is the vertical land motion relevant in the Baltic sea? This could be of relevance to others interested in simulating extreme coastal water levels and flooding maps in the region.

2. Abstract. The authors claim “we discuss the potential of modelling frameworks in advancing coastal flood management”. For it to be a comprehensive discussion of modelling frameworks, I suggest including a comparison of the different methods that have been used in coastal flood management, and not only restrict the discussion to hydrodynamic models. Statistical models and machine learning models have been widely used for this propose. This discussion shouldn’t be included in the abstract but somewhere in the manuscript.

3. Page 3, line 3 to 7. Without going into much detail you might want to include here a little bit more information about McPherson et al (2023). As it is now, the text leaves the reader wonder what is that methodology and what historical data has improved the estimation of the return periods.

4. Lines 47- 49. Can you provide more information on the warning systems and level of preparedness? What were they?

5. Page 3, lines 12- 15. How long are the reconstructed sea level time series?

6. Page 3, lines 15- 17. Can you provide a reference that shows the spatially varying ECWL during the October 2023 event?

7. Page 4, lines 3- 8. Machine learning algorithms can be used to obtain a large library of flooding maps based on previous simulations performed by hydrodynamical models. However, machine learning models can’t be used to analyze alternative scenarios (as adaptation strategies). I wonder if the authors would consider a short discussion on machine learning here.

8. Page 4, lines 27- 34. In this case, for instance, machine learning can help producing flooding maps rapidly if the models were trained previously with similar boundary conditions (mainly water level).

9. Page 5, lines 17-20. I disagree with the authors’

10. statement regarding the availability of high-quality asset data. This type of data is often provided at low spatial resolution, tends to be outdated, and is not always publicly accessible. Moreover, the availability of socio-economic data is generally limited to certain regions, such as the European Union and the United States, while other regions that are equally exposed to extreme coastal water levels lack this data. Given the authors' expertise in this area, I suggest including a discussion on the limitations of current socio-economic data and the need for its improvement.

11. Concluding remarks. In this section, the authors could recall the issues discussed regarding the main three points indicated at the beginning of the paper: “(i) improve preparations for the occurrence of ECWL and help mitigate damages and loss of live; (ii) provide real-time support for emergency services and responses; and (iii) support damage assessments and the fair and quick distribution of compensation aid.”

Recommendation: From flood forecasts to rapid assessments of risk and impacts: Establishing operational modelling frameworks for coastal flood management at the German Baltic Sea coast — R0/PR4

Comments

This manuscript provides a useful and well constructed case study of specific flood events however, as both reviews suggest, there is scope for the authors to expand on other methodologies and frameworks used in coastal management to provide a more comprehensive review. Both reviews provide excellent suggestions for possible areas for the authors to explore more fully in this manuscript, suggestions that would allow this submission to add greatly to the existing knowledge base around flood forecasting. I urge the authors to engage fully with the reviewers suggestions to enhance the manuscript. I also urge the authors to be cautious around statements of high-quality data availability in a broader context of global coastal flooding.

Decision: From flood forecasts to rapid assessments of risk and impacts: Establishing operational modelling frameworks for coastal flood management at the German Baltic Sea coast — R0/PR5

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: From flood forecasts to rapid assessments of risk and impacts: Establishing operational modelling frameworks for coastal flood management at the German Baltic Sea coast — R1/PR6

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Recommendation: From flood forecasts to rapid assessments of risk and impacts: Establishing operational modelling frameworks for coastal flood management at the German Baltic Sea coast — R1/PR7

Comments

The authors must be commended for comprehensively engaging with both the reviewers' comments resulting in a manuscript that provides greatly clarity and purpose overall. Engagement with, and discussion around, several technical points within the manuscript has also been hugely welcome. Whilst the length of the article prohibits some additional material, the authors have successfully managed to incorporate edits that respond to many reviewer suggestions, suggestions that have strengthened the paper overall.

Decision: From flood forecasts to rapid assessments of risk and impacts: Establishing operational modelling frameworks for coastal flood management at the German Baltic Sea coast — R1/PR8

Comments

No accompanying comment.