Author(s): Emina Hadzic; Giuseppe Tito Aronica; Hata Milisic; Simon Mccarty; Christophe Viavatte; Miranda Deda; Negin Binesh

Linked Author(s):

Keywords: Hazard maps; Flood risk maps; Methodology

Abstract: The transposition of the requirements of the Floods Directive Directive 2007/60 / EC on Flood Risk Assessment and Management (Flood Directive) into Laws, ie bylaws in Bosnia and Herzegovina, represents a significant step in improving the water protection segment. In this way, the principle of objectification of prioritization in flood risk management is introduced. The key paradigm shift is the transition from a flood control approach to a flood risk management approach, with the aim of reducing adverse effects [1]. “Methodology for the development of a hazard map and a flood risk map” (Methodology) for the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina has been developed through the process of transposition of the Flood Directive. And it is important to note that it is largely in line with the Methodologies used in most EU Member States, but with some adjustments in accordance with the specifics of Bosnia and Herzegovina [3]. After the Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment phase, a flood hazard map and a risk map for areas of potentially significant flood risk were prepared (APSFRs - Further Assessment Areas (AFA) in Bosnia and Herzegovina [2]. It should be noted that the hazard map and the risk map for the area of Bosnia and Herzegovina were made for flood events 1/100. On the other hand, the damage caused by more frequent floods, such as floods of the return period 1/20, especially when we talk about the cascade effect, can be significant [4]. In this regard, the paper compares different methodologies applied in Bosnia and Herzegovina and some EU countries, especially in the segment related to the definition of flood risk. After that, on the concrete example of the river Zujevina, flood risk maps for the return period 1/20 were determined, applying several analyzed methodologies. A comparison of the results showed significant differences.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3850/IAHR-39WC2521711920221441

Year: 2022