Randomized trial analyzes flood damage severity in residential buildings, indicating climate change impacts.
Flood risk is increasingly shaped by the combined effects of climate change and the vulnerability of built environments, while building-level flood damage severity analysis is often constrained by limited data availability. This study develops a transparent and reproducible framework for analyzing building-level flood damage severity under climate-adjusted hazard conditions in data-constrained environments. The framework integrates administrative post-event damage records, GIS-based terrain information, a terrain-based proxy flood-depth reconstruction procedure, and a standardized Rhine Atlas/ICPR depth–damage relationship. Representative terrain-based proxy flood depths are reconstructed using building locations, terrain elevation, and settlement-level exposure assumptions. Observed damage categories are not used to assign proxy flood depths directly, but serve exclusively as empirical ordinal reference information for ordinal consistency assessment of model-derived damage severity. Climate effects are incorporated through a simplified hazard adjustment based on projected changes in extreme precipitation intensity. The framework is applied to 413 residential buildings affected by flood events in Serbia during the period 2016–2021. Results show a consistent nonlinear relationship between terrain-based proxy flood depth and ICPR-derived structural damage severity, as well as a strong influence of terrain elevation on relative hazard intensity. Climate-adjusted sensitivity scenarios indicate that even moderate increases in extreme precipitation lead to measurable increases in structural damage severity and an upward shift in model-derived damage levels. The proposed framework provides a practical approach for flood damage severity analysis in data-constrained environments, supporting improved decision-making in sustainable flood risk management and climate adaptation planning.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nedeljković et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: