Climate Change and the Escalating Cost of Floods: New Insights from Regional Risk Assessment Perspective

Abstract

Global climate change is expected to alter characteristics of flood events. This study evaluates the rising flood risk and damage potential in the lower Vipava River valley—a transboundary catchment between Slovenia and Italy—under climate scenarios RCP 2.6, 4.5, and 8.5. The area has experienced multiple floods in recent decades, indicating high vulnerability. Using hydraulic modeling for current and future conditions, flood hazard zones were identified and integrated into the KRPAN model to estimate expected annual damage (EAD). The findings show that EAD escalates from €0.97 million under current conditions to €1.97 million under the most extreme scenario. A 20% rise in flood peaks leads to a 1.4-fold increase in damage, while a 40% rise results in losses that are more than double. Buildings show a 2.5-fold increase in EAD, and water infrastructure EAD rises by a factor of 1.9. These results underscore the substantial economic consequences of climate change on flood risk. The study highlights the urgent need to incorporate climate scenarios into flood risk assessments and spatial planning to support adaptive strategies and reduce future damage. These insights are essential for making informed decisions and achieving long-term resilience.

1. Introduction

Global floods have a significant negative impact on society’s economy and affected billions of people. Fluvial floods are among the most socially and economically catastrophic natural disasters [1]. A statistical analysis of historical flood records from around the globe indicates a tendency toward increased flooding during the 21st century. According to global-scale simulations, a warmer climate in the future will most likely result in more frequent extreme flood events [2]. Depending on emission scenarios, global modeling studies project that flooding could increase by 9% to 49% by the end of the century [3].

Regional implications of ongoing global warming on future precipitation and runoff formation patterns are under extensive investigation especially in view of extreme events [4]. For example, in the Danube River Basin, flood frequency has already increased over recent decades, with major events recorded in last two decades. This trend is attributed to climatic variability and extreme precipitation patterns, which underscores the need for robust flood forecasting and risk mitigation strategies [5]. A substantial number of studies on future flood predictions suggest that climate change will lead to an increase in the flood frequency (e.g., [6]). For instance, ref. [7] reported that at 1.5 °C and 4 °C of rising temperatures, the global average probability of the 50-year return period fluvial flood rises from 2 to 5.4%, respectively. Ref. [8] presents projections of changes in mean annual exceedance frequency of the 100-year return period for selected European rivers for three future time horizons. On average, in Europe, exceedance of Q₁₀₀ established for the control period is indicated to be twice as frequent within three decades (time horizon 1990 to 2020). Flood risk is projected to increase significantly across Central Europe under all global warming scenarios [6]. Mediterranean is identified as one of climate change hotspots, with projections showing increased flood intensity, especially for severe events [9]. However, changes for more distant time horizons are less consistent.

It is evident that as populations grow and socio-economic development continues, there will be an increase in pressure on flood-prone areas. Consequently, the risk of flooding is anticipated to rise in the future. The extensive implementation of structural flood protection measures in the past resulted in an adverse increase in exposure as people and economic activities tend to concentrate in the areas that were considered to be flood safe. Conversely, this phenomenon can amplify the severity of consequences during extreme flood events extending beyond the design flood criteria [10]. Improved evaluation of fluvial flood hazards and the likely future exposure to flood risk plays an important role in decision making when considering societal adaptation to future climate change and for developing the flood risk mitigation strategies [11,12]. Therefore, endeavors to enhance the evaluation of flood risk in the context of future climate change may offer significant insights for more consistent flood risk analysis, accounting for various uncertainties, including the modified probability of a specific region being impacted by a flood of a designated return period.

There is ample evidence supporting the assertion that flood damage costs have increased, partly due to growing exposure of people and assets [12,13]. Evaluating flood damage has become essential to flood risk management and is a key part of flood protection programs in Europe [14,15]. From 1980 to 2023, climate-related extremes cost the EU an estimated EUR 738 billion [16]. It is evident that the risk will increase in the future due to climate and socioeconomic factors. However, global and broader regional flood risk models often rely on coarse-resolution datasets that fail to capture local topography and land use details resulting in limited risk and damage predictions. Further research is necessary to determine the potential risk and quantify flood under future climate conditions at more detailed spatial scales. This study aims to examine how anticipated changes in floods will manifest as altered flood risk and damage in the lower Vipava River valley. The lower Vipava River valley is one of the areas in Slovenia at significant risk of flooding. The area’s specific floodplain topography and extremely scattered land use patterns pose numerous challenges to the existing and future planning of flood mitigation measures. The present study addresses a significant knowledge gap concerning the impact of future climate-driven changes in flood characteristics on economic losses at regional and local scales. To this end, the study integrates detailed hydraulic modeling with scenario-based damage estimation. This is an area that broader, coarse-resolution models often overlook. The primary objectives of the research presented in this paper are as follows:

(1)

Use hydraulic modeling to incorporate the expected increases in the design flood hydrograph peaks according to the RCP 2.6, RCP 4.5, and RCP 8.5 scenarios to determine changes in flood inundation extent.

(2)

Analyze flood risk changes for different exposure elements.

(3)

Estimate the shifts in expected annual damage (EAD) for the selected climate-change-driven flood scenarios that could be used for future planning of flood protection measures.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area Description

The geographical area selected for the study was the lower portion of the transboundary Vipava River catchment, situated in the westernmost part of Slovenia and the northeasternmost part of Italy (Figure 1). The total length of the Vipava River section under study is 21 km. The region’s climate is classified as sub-Mediterranean, with relatively high temperatures during the summer months and relatively low temperatures during the winter months. The lower part of the Vipava River valley experiences a transition to a Mediterranean climate. The region’s topography is characterized by complexity (see Figure 1), resulting in heterogeneous spatial distribution of rainfall. The mean annual rainfall in the high-altitude hinterland part of the Vipava River catchment exceeds 2000 mm, while in the lower part, it is approximately 1500 mm. This is one of the factors that contribute to the area’s complex flood situation. The eastern and northeastern highland regions of the Vipava River catchment are predominantly characterized by karst hydrological features, while the Vipava River tributaries exhibit torrential characteristics within the central, southern, and southeastern parts of the catchment. Consequently, the hydrological characteristics of different parts of the Vipava River are in contrast, influencing the formation of flood hydrographs along the Vipava River and its main tributaries. However, the torrential character of the Vipava River along the studied section prevails, as reflected by the ratio of minimum, middle, and maximum discharges (1:10:100) [17].

Land use in flood-prone areas is typically characterized by significant fragmentation (Figure 2), which in turn influences the presence of flood vulnerability elements in floodplains. Agricultural land constitutes 43% of the area, predominantly in low-lying regions along the river and its tributaries. Built-up areas constitute approximately 11% of the total area and are less dominant and more fragmented. Agriculture is important economic sector in the region. Flat floodplain areas have been profoundly influenced in the past by river engineering works, which have considerably altered the hydromorphology of the Vipava River channel to acquire agricultural land. Consequently, the studied section of the Vipava River is subject to frequent flood-related problems, attributable to the complex interplay of catchment hydrological and topographic characteristics, land use patterns in the floodplains, and hydraulic conditions along the Vipava River channel.

Major flood events occurred in 1998, 2009, 2010, and 2012, underscoring the challenge of estimating flood return periods. Several towns (e.g., town of Miren, Figure 1) experienced particularly severe impacts from the floods that occurred in September 2010. The Vipava River flooded many roads, agricultural fields, vineyards, and orchards in the valley. Furthermore, numerous residential and industrial areas were inundated [17]. The expansion of settlements in floodplain areas during the latter half of the 20th century, coupled with the reduced hydraulic conveyance of the main river channel due to the successive overgrowth of riparian vegetation, has exacerbated the flood hazard situation in recent decades. In recent years, a series of small-scale flood protection measures have been executed, predominantly in regions where prompt flood protection interventions were deemed essential. However, the effectiveness of these interventions is generally limited and strongly constrained spatially. The implementation of basin-wide flood protection measures is currently in the preliminary stages of planning. The design of these measures and the selection of design discharges must urgently consider the potential impact of climate change on the characteristics of design flood events.

2.2. Climate Change Driven Changes in Flood Characteristics

Estimated changes in flood characteristics driven by climate change were summarized from official reports prepared by the Slovenian Environmental Agency (ARSO) on the Climate Change Assessment for Slovenia in the 21st Century [18]. The analysis considered IPCC RCP 2.6, RCP 4.5, and RCP 8.5 scenarios [19]. ARSO evaluated three standard 30-year periods for the purpose of climate change assessment 2011–2040 (the near future), 2041–2070 (the mid-century) and 2071–2100 (the end of the century). These periods were aligned with IPCC guidelines. The ARSO study examined the projected consequences of climate change on river discharges at water stations that are components of the state hydrological monitoring network using the NAM hydrological model by MIKE DHI.

The annual flood peaks in Slovenia are generally expected to rise by 10 to 40% for modeled 30-year time horizons compared to the reference period of 1981–2010, under the considered RCP scenarios. Regarding changes in extreme discharge peaks (100-year return period), an overall increase in discharge peak values is expected at most water stations in Slovenia by the end of the 21st century (Figure 3). More specifically, for the Vipava River catchment, the relative changes in peak discharges for different RCP scenarios compared to the 1981–2010 reference period are generally in the range of 5–40% for the three projection periods [18]. To account for the projected changes under the RCP 8.5 scenario in more detail, we introduced two sub-scenarios: RCP(I) and RCP(II) (see

Table 1. Expected increases in discharge peaks of the Vipava River according to the considered RCP scenarios.

RCP Scenario	RCP 2.6	RCP 4.5	RCP 8.5(I)	RCP 8.5(II)
Mean relative change in discharge peaks	5%	10%	20%	40%

). These sub-scenarios offer better coverage of the anticipated extreme changes in flood characteristics.

It is important to note that the reported ranges of relative changes of peak discharges gives a robust estimate of the expected impact of climate change on the severity of extreme flood events. Ref. [20] demonstrated clear regional patterns of increases and decreases in observed river flood discharges in Europe over the past five decades, which are manifestations of a changing climate. Ref. [21] identified a general tendency toward increasing flood magnitude and decreasing flood frequency in Mediterranean regions. However, the situation regarding flood changes in Europe is highly heterogeneous, and it is not possible to draw universal conclusions about uniform trends across different spatial scales. Consequently, without intending to be excessively prescriptive regarding the impact of climate change on discharges with varying return periods in the Vipava River study area, the following assumptions were made. Firstly, we considered the same range of relative changes in discharge and return period peak changes related to RCP scenarios (Table 1) for the entire range of discharge return periods considered in the expected flood damage analysis (5-, 10-, 20-, 50-, 100-, and 500-year return periods). Secondly, given the limited understanding of the anticipated effects of climate change on flood hydrograph characteristics at regional scales, with the exception of the projected increase in hydrograph peaks, the 48-h SCS design hydrograph was employed as a reference design hydrograph. Subsequently, the peak discharge was modified in accordance with the projected relative increase in peak discharge. The 48-h SCS hydrograph exhibited characteristics that closely resembled the lag times and time of concentration of the Vipava River catchment, as previously determined through hydrological studies.

2.3. Hydraulic Simulation and Flood Damage Estimation

A combination of 1D/2D unsteady hydraulic simulations was conducted using the HEC-RAS 6.6 hydrodynamic model (Hydrologic Engineering Center, USA). The Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning of the Republic of Slovenia furnished official high-resolution LiDAR data, which was utilized to build a digital terrain model (DTM) with a grid size of 1 × 1 m. The DTM was subsequently integrated with the Slovenian Water Agency’s ground survey data of the Vipava River cross-section to formulate a 1D/2D hydraulic model. The calibration of the hydrodynamic model involved adjusting the roughness coefficients for the river channel and floodplains to ensure that the simulated flood extents and water levels closely matched observed values. Validation was performed using data from several flood events, focusing on water levels at specific locations and inundation extents along the Vipava River. The results showed a satisfactory correspondence between modeled and observed inundation areas at specific Vipava River subsections, with a mean difference of 7% between modelled and observed inundated area extension. This level of agreement serves as a general representative measure of the uncertainty associated with the modeled inundation extents in this study. A detailed land use data layer was employed to associate Manning’s roughness coefficient values with each land use type in the 2D modeling domain. The finite difference method was selected as the 1D numerical solution, and the diffusion wave equation was set for the 2D computational domain. A time step adjustment based on the Courant number (0.45–1) was considered. This was done to ensure the stability of the simulation and to minimize percent error. To mitigate the influence of numerical parameters on the outcomes of the simulation, the hydrodynamic model settings were left unaltered during the execution of the simulation runs. A total of 30 simulation runs were conducted, considering six different return periods, the current situation, and four different climate change scenarios (see Table 1). The methodological framework employed is illustrated by the flowchart in Figure 4.

Various methodologies for assessing flood damage have been developed and implemented in Europe and around the world. Flood depth-damage functions (FDF), which relate flood water depth to anticipated adverse effects, are typically used to evaluate flood damage in economic terms [22]. In this study, the KRPAN (Cumulative Calculation of Flood Damage and Analyses) methodology was employed to assess the damage caused by the flood. The KRPAN methodology was developed in response to the urgent need for advanced flood damage analysis methodologies and to evaluate the benefits of planned flood protection measures in the Republic of Slovenia [23]. The KRPAN model’s innovative approach to flood damage estimation lies in its integration of high-resolution spatial data from multiple sources, enabling detailed estimation of flood damage for each vulnerability element and across diverse economic sectors. The KRPAN model has a distinctly modular design and incorporates powerful external tools (e.g., SAGA and GDAL), intentionally avoiding higher-level programming languages when performing complex flood damage analyses.

The model enables estimation of flood damage to different economic sectors, including agriculture, buildings, businesses, people, environment, and public infrastructure [24]. The model considers various FDF from the literature (e.g., [25,26]) as well as site-specific ones in order to relate specific characteristics of vulnerability elements to flood water depth. The KRPAN database contains statewide data on various exposure elements, including data from the building cadaster (different types of buildings, e.g., residential, industrial, commercial, agricultural, etc.), the register of spatial units, the real estate register, land use data, the central residential register, the cultural heritage register, the business register, water infrastructure, the IPPC and SEVESO register, etc. Therefore, the KRPAN model can provide EAD estimation for each vulnerability element (e.g., at the building level). By combining hydraulic simulation outputs (flood inundation depths) with exposure and vulnerability databases, the model provides a locally tailored flood risk and damage assessment, surpassing the limitations of conventional, coarse-resolution approaches.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Flood Risk Changes for Different Climate Change Scenarios

The extent of the inundated area along the studied Vipava River section exhibits significant variation in flood hazard due to the distinct topography of the surrounding floodplains. In certain regions along the Vipava River, the inundation is constrained by the incised and relatively narrow river valley. Conversely, in other sections, inundation can extend beyond 1 km width. This complicates the analysis of flood hazard and the climate change-induced changes in inundated areas. Figure 5 shows an example of changes in the spatial extent of inundated areas in the area of the town of Miren. The situation for 10-year and 100-year flood events and the selected RCP scenarios is shown. It is evident that alterations in the flood peaks result in substantial variations in inundation extension.

Figure 6 shows the percentage increase in inundated areas for each scenario compared to the current state. The 5-year RP demonstrates a greater degree of variability in the inundated area for flood scenarios. For the optimistic RCP 2.6 scenario, the anticipated increase in the inundated area is approx. 5%. Conversely, under the most pessimistic RCP 8.5(II) scenario, the projected escalation in the inundated area amounts to 23% for a 5-year RP. The flood RP increase results in a reduction in the inundation extent increases. These findings suggest that the assumed alterations in the estimated hydrograph peaks will exert a considerably more substantial influence on short return periods. To illustrate, for a 500-year return period flood, the increase in the inundated area extension is 13% for the RCP 8.5(II) scenario.

The concept of return periods is becoming increasingly problematic in the context of climate change. Several nonstationary analyses have revealed that flood return periods (RPs) are shifting rapidly. Historical 100-year flood RPs are projected to decrease to 20–50-year RPs in many regions by the end of the century [27]. Given the anticipated increase in flood peaks, we expect the 100-year return period is expected to decrease to approximately a 70-year return period under the RCP 2.6 scenario and to approximately a 50-year return period under the RCP 4.5 scenario. Misusing return periods in risk communication can lead to an underestimation of future hazards because different stakeholders often interpret them as fixed intervals rather than evolving probabilities [28,29]. To improve risk communication under changing climate conditions, expressing flood hazard in terms of changed return period or annual exceedance probability can help stakeholders better understand the evolving likelihood of extreme events. Additionally, using non-stationary design flood estimates that explicitly consider climate-driven trends ensures that flood risk assessments remain robust and relevant for future planning scenarios [30]. Consistent with our findings, many studies (e.g., [31,32]) have predicted floodplain expansion along rivers. A study by [33] indicates that undefended 100-year flood extents in the UK will substantially increase due to climate change. Therefore, a systematic analysis of climate-driven changes in flood hazards is urgently needed [34,35].

Figure 7 shows the increase in the total number of flooded buildings and affected people for different return periods and scenarios. Building and people are generally considered to be among the most significant elements of flood vulnerability. The findings unequivocally suggest a substantial escalation in flood risk, particularly in the context of climate change-induced alterations in flood peaks.

The combination of probabilistic modeling, high-resolution inundation mapping, and scenario-based planning has been shown to increase resilience against the growing threat of climate-driven floods [36,37]. The anticipated changes in the spatial extent of inundated regions resulting from climate change, as shown in Figure 6, will require significant revisions to floodplain management strategies and flood risk understanding. Information about anticipated changes in flood risk should be incorporated into the design of flood mitigation measures from the beginning. This could help identify potential hotspots for future changes in flood risk. An in-depth analysis of flood damage, as presented in the subsequent section, must accompany these updates.

3.2. Estimated Flood Damage for Climate Change Scenarios

The analysis of flood damage in the lower Vipava River Valley focuses on direct economic losses. Inundation depth is considered the primary input parameter for flood damage assessment. The highly fragmented land use in the study area considerably influences the spatial distribution of economic activities and sectors, which were grouped into exposure elements. Figure 8 (left) shows the EAD for the selected exposure elements and the total EAD. Buildings (residential and non-residential) express the highest flood damage, followed by damage to water infrastructure and the agricultural sector. In the current state, damage to buildings represents 55% of total flood damage. In the most pessimistic scenario (RCP 8.5(II)), flood damage to buildings increases to 68%. Total EAD damage is estimated at €0.97 million for the current state and increases to €1.97 million for the worst-case RCP 8.5(II) scenario. A 20% increase in flood peak discharges results in a 1.4-fold increase in total EAD, while a 40% increase results in a more than twofold increase. Based on our analysis of peak discharge increase scenarios and calculated EAD, we derived a relationship described by a regression equation that can be used to project future EAD considering anticipated changes in flood peaks (Figure 8 (right)).

Projected EAD estimates are of critical importance for cost–benefit analyses (CBA) in contexts involving intensified flood risks and economic damage. The efficacy of a CBA for flood protection measures is contingent upon its capacity to incorporate prospective changes in flood risk and damage, which are frequently underestimated or inadequately modeled in conventional approaches [38,39]. In this regard, information regarding the increase in EAD could prove highly valuable in guiding future flood protection efforts by taking into account the expected flood damage and the funds required to implement these measures. The projected doubling of EAD in the lower Vipava River valley under extreme climate scenarios aligns with multi-model projections for Central and Western Europe. Studies in these regions have identified significant increases in flood risk and economic losses under higher warming scenarios [6]. However, the magnitude of risk escalation in the Vipava River catchment appears particularly pronounced compared to some other European basins, likely due to its complex topography and fragmented land use, which amplify local vulnerability.

As demonstrated in Figure 9, variable increase in EAD is estimated for different exposure elements to the current state. The aforementioned information offers supplementary insight into the alterations in flood damage to various elements or economic sectors associated with climate change. In comparison with the present condition, the maximum projected increase in flood damage is anticipated to be observed in buildings and cultural heritage (an increase factor of 2.5 for RCP 8.5(II)), followed by water infrastructure (an increase factor of 1.9 for RCP 8.5(II)).

Increased floods EAD are indicative of a building’s heightened vulnerability to the anticipated consequences of climate change. According to the more optimistic climate change scenarios (RCP 2.6 and RCP 4.5), the expected increase in EAD is calculated to be 1.15 and 1.3, respectively. A considerable number of structures currently designated as flood-prone are projected to be susceptible to future flood events. This phenomenon presents several challenges in designing flood protection measures and developing spatial plans for areas that are currently considered low-risk but which are likely to become flood-prone in the future. As indicated by Figure 8, elements pertaining to cultural heritage exposure generally constitute a relatively modest proportion of the aggregate EAD. However, it is imperative to acknowledge the multifaceted nature of cultural heritage elements, encompassing both economic and non-economic dimensions, when assessing their value. A marginal rise in damage to the agricultural sector is anticipated, along with a somewhat higher increase in EAD for public infrastructure.

Damage to water infrastructure, specifically river engineering structures, is expected to increase considerably (by a factor of 1.2 for the RCP 4.5 scenario and up to 1.9 for the RCP 8.5(II) scenario). In a multitude of instances, impairment to water infrastructure is often disregarded during the estimation of flood-related damages. Fluvial erosion processes, occurring during flood events, have the potential to cause permanent damage to embankments, weirs, and other hydraulic structures. It is evident that an elevated frequency of flood events will invariably lead to a heightened degree of damage to water infrastructure [40,41]. Higher frequencies of non-extreme flood events—for example, those with a RP ranging from 5 to 10 years—subject water infrastructure to increased weakening and can lead to considerably accelerated fluvial erosion processes during extreme flood events [42,43,44]. During the devastating flood in Slovenia in August 2023, the most substantial damage due to fluvial erosion processes was observed in the water infrastructure category, amounting to 1.3 billion euros, as reported by the Government of the Republic of Slovenia [45]. An augmented frequency of flood events, attributable to climate change, will exert a considerable influence on the amount of damage and necessary maintenance costs for water infrastructure.

The reliability of the study’s results is contingent upon the uncertainty of the input hydrological data, the appropriateness of the selected climate change scenarios, and the adequacy of the chosen flood damage functions. The present analysis addresses these uncertainties by considering a wide range of climate change scenarios. A scenario-based modeling framework helps to capture potential variability and the propagation of unknowns in flood risk and damage estimates, particularly in instances where the quantification of detailed uncertainty is challenging. Relatively small changes in input data can lead to significant differences in flood risk and damage estimates, underscoring the importance of scenario-based approaches in capturing the full spectrum of potential climate change impacts.

In the broader context of scientific discourse, the findings of this study are consistent with global research indicating that climate change is intensifying the frequency and severity of flood events, thereby increasing economic losses. Specifically, the study’s results demonstrate a doubling of EAD under the most extreme climate scenario. Whilst the predominant role of climate-driven hydrological changes is widely recognized, some discrepancies persist regarding the relative influence of socioeconomic factors, such as land use changes, on flood damage trends. Our results emphasize the importance of implementing adaptive strategies that address both climatic and societal factors.

4. Conclusions

It is anticipated that climate change will result in substantial alterations to the characteristics of floods under various RCP scenarios. The findings of our study underscore the necessity for dynamic, climate-informed flood risk and damage assessments. The following key findings were derived from the study:

(1)

It is anticipated that the heightened flood peaks will result in a substantial escalation in economic repercussions. The total EAD is projected to range from 0.97 million euros in the present to 1.97 million euros under the most pessimistic scenario (RCP(II)), signifying a twofold augmentation in flood-related damage.

(2)

It has been determined that buildings represent the most vulnerable element and will constitute most of the projected damage. A substantial number of structures currently regarded as flood safe or at low flood risk, as determined by the present flood hazard assessment, will become increasingly susceptible to flooding in the event of the anticipated climate-driven changes in flood peaks.

(3)

Water infrastructure will be particularly vulnerable to impairment. It is anticipated that the heightened frequency and severity of flood events, precipitated by climate change, will result in a substantial escalation in damage to water infrastructure. It is reasonable to hypothesize that this phenomenon will result in increased maintenance expenditures. This, in turn, poses a significant threat to the reliability of critical services during increasingly recurrent flood events.

To address the challenges posed by future climate change, it is imperative that the integration of projected changes in flood characteristics, as presented in this study, be incorporated into spatial planning, infrastructure design, and public policy. This integration is not merely recommended; rather, it is deemed essential for mitigating future damage and enhancing long-term resilience. In light of the modifications to flood characteristics stemming from climate change, there is an increasing recognition that reliance on historical flood data is no longer adequate for effective flood risk assessment. The incorporation of climate change scenarios enables planners and decision-makers to assess a range of potential future scenarios and gain a more profound understanding of the magnitude and distribution of potential flood impacts. The present study is constrained by the inherent uncertainties associated with climate projections and the representation of socioeconomic factors. These elements may exert an influence on the precision of future flood damage estimates. Nevertheless, the forward-looking approach delineated in this study is imperative for the identification of vulnerable areas, estimation of future economic losses, and the design of adaptive measures that maintain effectiveness under changing conditions. Future research endeavors should prioritize the refinement of local climate and flood models. Additionally, these efforts should encompass the integration of dynamic land use practices, such as managed retreat and floodplain restoration, along with population scenarios. A further imperative is to assess the efficacy of adaptive flood mitigation strategies, including green infrastructure, in the context of evolving climate conditions. The exclusion of climate projections from risk assessments pertaining to flood damage can result in an underestimation of future threats. This, in turn, may result in the underinvestment of critical resources in flood protection and resilience.