Assessment of Second Cycle Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments and Identification of Areas of Potential Significant Flood Risk under the Floods Directive : Member State : Denmark.
Date: 2022-01-05
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment
Subjects: Denmark, directive (EU), disaster resilience, environmental risk prevention, flood, national implementing measure, water management, watercourse

Assessment of Second Cycle 
Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments and 
Identification of Areas of Potential Significant 
Flood Risk under the Floods Directive 

Member State: Denmark 

December 2021 

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Directorate-General for Environment 

Directorate C — Zero Pollution 

Unit C.1 — Sustainable Freshwater Management 

Contact: Ioannis Kavvadas 

E-mail:ioannis.kavvadas@ec.europa.eu 

European Commission 
B-1049 Brussels 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Assessment of Second Cycle 
Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments and 
Identification of Areas of Potential Significant Flood Risk 
under the Floods Directive 

Member State: Denmark 

December 2021 

Drafted by 

The European Commission is not liable for any consequence stemming from the reuse of this publication.  

Luxembourg: Publications Oﬃce of the European Union, 2021 

© European Union, 2021  

The reuse policy of European Commission documents is implemented based on Commission Decision 2011/833/
EU of 12 December 2011 on the reuse of Commission documents (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39). 
Except otherwise noted, the reuse of this document is authorised under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 
International (CC-BY 4.0) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This means that reuse is allowed 
provided appropriate credit is given and any changes are indicated. 

For any use or reproduction of elements that are not owned by the European Union, permission may need to be 
sought directly from the respective rightholders. 

PDF 

KH-08-21-401-EN-N

ISBN 978-92-76-46279-8

doi:10.2779/981711

GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THE EU 
In person 
All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct information centres. You can ﬁnd the address of 
the centre nearest you at: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en 
On the phone or by email 
Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. You can contact this service: 
– by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls),
– at the following standard number: +32 22999696 or
– by email via: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en

FINDING INFORMATION ABOUT THE EU 
Online 
Information about the European Union in all the oﬃcial languages of the EU is available on the Europa website 
at: https://europa.eu/european-union/index_en 
EU publications 
You can download or order free and priced EU publications at: https://op.europa.eu/en/publications. Multiple copies 
of free publications may be obtained by contacting Europe Direct or your local information centre (see https://
europa.eu/european-union/contact_en). 
EU law and related documents 
For access to legal information from the EU, including all EU law since 1952 in all the oﬃcial language versions, 
go to EUR-Lex at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu 
Open data from the EU 
The EU Open Data Portal (http://data.europa.eu/euodp/en) provides access to datasets from the EU. Data can be 
downloaded and reused for free, for both commercial and non-commercial purposes. 

The information and views set out in this study are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reﬂect the oﬃcial opinion of 
the European Commission. 

LEGAL NOTICE 

The  information  and  views  set  out  in  this  report  are  those  of  the  author(s)  and  do  not  necessarily  reflect  the 
official  opinion  of  the  Commission.  The  Commission  does  not  guarantee  the  accuracy  of  the  data  included  in  this 
study. Neither the Commission nor any person acting on the Commission ’s behalf may be held responsible for the 
use which may be made of the information contained therein. 

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu). 

© European Union, 2021 
Reuse is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.  The reuse policy of European Commission documents is 
regulated by Decision 2011/833/EU (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39). 

For any use or reproduction of photos or other material that is not under the copyright of the European Union, 
permission must be sought directly from the copyright holders. 

In person 

GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THE EU 

All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct information centres. You can find the address 
of the centre nearest you at: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en 

On the phone or by email 

Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. You can contact this service: 

- by Freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls), 

- at the following standard number: +32 22999696, or 

- by email via: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en  

Online 

FINDING INFORMATION ABOUT THE EU 

Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available on the Europa website 
at: https://europa.eu/european-union/index_en 

EU publications 

You can download or order free and priced EU publications from: 

https://publications.europa.eu/en/publications. Multiple copies of free publications may be obtained by 
contacting Europe Direct or your local information centre (see https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en ). 

EU law and related documents 

For access to legal information from the EU, including all EU law since 1952 in all the official language 
versions, go to EUR-Lex at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu  

Open data from the EU 

The EU Open Data Portal (http://data.europa.eu/euodp/en) provides access to datasets from the EU. Data can be 
downloaded and reused for free, for both commercial and non-commercial purposes. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table of contents 
Acronyms .................................................................................................................................... 3 

Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 4 

Summary of Information reported by MS .................................................................................. 5 

Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 7 

Overview of the assessment .................................................................................................... 7 

Good Practices....................................................................................................................... 16 

Areas for further development .............................................................................................. 17 

Administrative Arrangements ................................................................................................... 17 

Changes to Units of management since the first cycle.......................................................... 17 

Changes to Competent Authorities since the first cycle ....................................................... 18 

Maps of the River Basin Districts ............................................................................................. 19 

Types of Floods considered in the second cycle PFRA ............................................................ 19 

Types of flood included in the assessment of flood risk ....................................................... 19 

Flooding from sewerage systems .......................................................................................... 20 

Application of Articles 4.2(b), (c), (d) ...................................................................................... 21 

Adverse impacts (past floods) and adverse consequences (potential future floods) ............. 21 

Details of important past floods (source, mechanisms, characteristics) ............................... 21 

Criteria for identifying past floods with significant adverse impacts (Article 4.2(b)) .......... 23 

Significant adverse impacts of past floods ............................................................................ 26 

Criteria for identifying past floods without known significant adverse impacts but with 

potential for adverse consequences in the future (Article 4.2(c)) ........................... 28 

Criteria for identifying future floods with potential adverse consequences regardless of 

significance (Article 4.2 (d)) .................................................................................. 29 

Potential adverse consequences of future floods................................................................... 32 

Details about potential future floods ..................................................................................... 34 

Issues considered in the application of Article 4.2(d), the assessment of potential adverse 

consequences ................................................................................................................... 35 

Areas of Potential Significant Flood Risk ................................................................................ 37 

Criteria to determine significance of present or future flood risk ......................................... 38 

Criteria for the inclusion of an area as an APSFR ................................................................ 39 

Designated APSFRs .............................................................................................................. 40 

1 

 
 
 
Consequences considered in the identification of APSFRs .................................................. 43 

Changes to APSFRs since the first cycle assessment ........................................................... 44 

Consideration of climate change ............................................................................................... 45 

International information exchange .......................................................................................... 46 

PFRAs in a transboundary context ........................................................................................ 46 

Transboundary APSFRs ........................................................................................................ 46 

Changes in international information exchange since the first cycle .................................... 47 

Annex A –Flood type definitions .............................................................................................. 48 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
Acronyms 

APSFR 
EEA 
EIONET 
FD 
FHRM 
FRM 
FRMP 
KDI 
MS 
NWRM 
PFRA 
RBD 
SEA 
UoM 
WFD 
WISE 

Areas of Potential Significant Flood Risk 
European Environment Agency 
European Environment Information and Observation Network 
Floods Directive 
Flood Hazard and Risk Map 
Flood risk management 
Flood Risk Management Plan 
Kystdirektoratet (Danish Coastal Authority) 
Member State 
Natural Water Retention Measures 
Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments 
River Basin District (as defined in the WFD) 
Strategic Environmental Assessment 
Unit of Management (as defined in the FD, this overlaps with the RBD) 
Water Framework Directive 
Water Information System for Europe 

3 

 
 
 
Introduction 

The Floods Directive 2007/60/EC (FD)1 came into force in 2007. It established a framework for 
flood risk management (FRM) and foresees 6-yearly cycles aiming to reduce the risk of flood 
damage in the European Union (EU). The first cycle covered the period 2010-15. The second 
cycle covers the period 2016-21. The latter is also the period of implementation of the first Flood 
Risk Management Plans (FRMPs), which were established by the Member States (MS) at the 
end  of  the  first  cycle.  The  first  FRMPs,  but  also  the  first  cycle  Preliminary  Flood  Risk 
Assessments (PFRAs), the Areas of Potential Significant Flood Risk (APSFRs) identified and 
the  Flood  Hazard  and  Risk  Maps  (FHRMs)  were  sequentially  assessed  by  the  European 
Commission  (the Commission). During the  second cycle,  MS are required to  have reviewed, 
and,  if  necessary,  updated,  by  22  December  2018,  their  first  cycle  Preliminary  Flood  Risk 
Assessments. Reporting to the Commission was required to have taken place by 22 March 2019. 
Denmark started reporting in June 2019 and made the last entry in EIONET2 in April 20213 This 
assessment  report  reflects  the  situation  as  reported  by  the  MS  to  the  Commission  before  the 
assessment and with reference to PFRAs conducted earlier. The situation in Denmark may have 
altered since then. 

MS  report  information  to  the  Commission  electronically  using  dedicated  tools  and  databases 
developed  under  the  European  Environment  Agency’s  (EEA)  Water  Information  System  for 
Europe (WISE). Reporting guidance and relevant tools for reporting under the FD have been 
updated for the second cycle and are available on EIONET4.  

The  tables  in  this  report  have  been  generated  from  the  data  and  information  provided  by 
Denmark5. The electronic reporting format includes the requirement for MS to select from pre-

1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:32007L0060  
2  The  European  Environment  Information  and  Observation  Network  (EIONET)  is  a  partnership  network  of  the 
European  Environment  Agency  (EEA)  and  its  38  member  and  cooperating  countries.  Reportnet  is  EIONET’s 
infrastructure  for  supporting  and  improving  data  and  information  flows.  The  Central  Data  Repository  (CDR), 
where MS report, is part of the Reportnet. 

3 None of the MS completed their reporting by March 2019 and only one third of MS commenced reporting in 
March 2019. However, over half completed a substantial part of their reporting within a few months from March 
2019. It should be noted that due to an update in the folder structure of the reporting infrastructure and later to due 
to an issue with the amount of processes that the servers could handle, MS were given until 30 August 2019 to 
complete  their  submissions.  More  generally,  reasons  for  late  reporting  include  one  or  more  of  the  following: 
delayed preparation of PFRAs, data quality control issues or latent bugs in the reporting infrastructure, corrections 
and updates to previous submissions or provision of supplementary information. 

4 http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/help/Floods/Floods_2018/index.html  

5  The  information  reported  to  WISE  was  the  starting  point  for  this  assessment.  The  majority  of  the  statistics 
presented  are  based  on  information  reported  to  WISE.  Assuming  that  the  MS  accurately  transferred  the 
information  contained  in  their  PFRAs  to  the  reporting  sheets  (the  sheets  are  the  same  for  all  MS  and  are  not 

4 

 
                                                           
defined options contained in lists (e.g. a list of criteria for identifying past floods with significant 
adverse impacts). The MS selected the options that correspond to their respective situations when 

reporting to the Commission. In addition to the selection of options, the MS also reported PFRA 
studies and internet links to further information and this information has also been evaluated as 

part of the assessment. 

This  assessment  provides  background  to  an  EU  Overview  (a  European  Commission  Staff 
Working Document) that is published separately. It assesses the PFRAs and APSFRs prepared 

by Denmark. Its structure follows a common assessment template used for all MS. The report 
draws  on  the  data  and  reference  reports  and  documents  reported  to  EIONET  with  additional 

supplementary information being drawn upon only when considered necessary. 

Whereas  a  key  role  of  the  Commission  is  to  check  compliance  with  EU  legislation,  the 
Commission also seeks information to determine whether existing policies are adequate. The 

individual MS assessments, such as this one, aim at strengthening flood risk management in the 
EU on the basis of good practice, as it emerges from the implementation of the FD by the MS 
themselves. The Commission also collects information to create an EU-wide picture to inform 

the public on certain  aspects  of policy. The present  assessment therefore  may take a broader 
perspective than the FD; the text of the latter being the only benchmark against which a MS’ 

compliance should be judged. 

Summary of Information reported by MS 

The main PFRA/APSFR document referenced by Denmark can be found online. It contains: 

  A summary of the requirements of the Floods Directive; 

  A description of the implementation process of the Directive in Denmark; 

  A short description of the revised methodology for identification of areas under risk of 

flooding and determination of APSFR; 

  A summary of all APSFR as well as a one-page description of each APSFR; 

  Details on how public participation in the PFRA has been achieved; and 

  A short description on how the process of “flood risk identification” will be finalized and 

how risk management plans will be developed including deadlines for doing so.  

customisable) and barring any undetected errors in the transfer of this information to WISE arising from the use 
of interfacing electronic tools, these statistics should accurately reflect the content of the PFRAs. Please note that 
some tables provide information from the first cycle and this information has been taken from the individual MS 
reports and the EU Summary report for the first cycle – links to these documents are provided in this report. 

5 

 
                                                           
Table 1 summarises the information that has been reported.  

The main PFRA/APSFR document referenced by Denmark can be found online6. It contains: 

  A summary of the requirements of the Floods Directive; 

  A description of the implementation process of the Directive in Denmark; 

  A short description of the revised methodology for identification of areas under risk of 

flooding and determination of APSFR; 

  A summary of all APSFR as well as a one-page description of each APSFR; 

  Details on how public participation in the PFRA has been achieved; and 

  A short description on how the process of “flood risk identification” will be finalized and 

how risk management plans will be developed including deadlines for doing so.  

Table  1  Completeness  check  of  the  information  reported  to  EIONET  Central  Data 

Repository 

CAs UoMs7 

PFRA 

APSFRs 

APSFR Tracking  

PFRA past events (spatial8) 

PFRA future events (spatial) 

APSFR (spatial) 

DK1 

DK2 



 

 

 















DK3 















DK4 

 

 

Details  about  the  applied  methodology  can  be  found  in  a  separate  methodology  report6.  The 
methodology report itself makes also reference to earlier published methodology descriptions, 
which  are  applied  in  the  assessment.  Both  documents  make  reference  to  a  webgis-portal9 

6  The  main  report  and  the  technical  report,  which  describes  the  chosen  approach  are  accessible  here: 
https://oversvommelse.kyst.dk/media/247987/kdi-2018-_hovedrapport-om-revurdering-af-risikoomraader-efter-
oversvoemmelsesloven.pdf 
https://oversvommelse.kyst.dk/media/247988/kdi-2018-
_metoderapport_oversvoemmelsesdirektivet.pdf 

and 

7 Where no information has been reported it has been assumed that the UoMs and CAs have remained the same as 

during the first cycle. 

8 Following some technical issues Denmark subsequently reported spatial data for PFRA past and future events and 

for APSFR in April 2021. 

9 https://oversvommelse.kyst.dk/om-direktivet/webgis/  

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
containing two different webGIS: One contains the results of the second cycle PFRA including 
maps of APSFR10, the other second cycle FHRMs11 for each APSFR. 

The information provided in the PFRA document in combination with the methodology report 

is informative and clear. The PFRA methodology report would benefit from a better explanation 
of  how  the  requirements  of  Article  4.2  (b),  (c)  and  (d)  have  been  met,  although  there  is  an 
illustration providing an overview of the applied methodology12. 

Overview 

Overview of the assessment  

The table below gives an overview of the evidence found during the assessment of PFRAs and 
APSFRs  and  is  based  on  the  information  that  Denmark  reported  to  the  EIONET  CDR.  The 
following categorisation was used for the column concerning evidence: 

  Strong evidence: Clear information provided, describing the approach followed in the 

PFRA/APSFR phase of the flood risk management cycle to address the criterion. 

  Some evidence: Reference to the criterion is brief and vague, without a clear indication 
of the approach followed for the criterion. Depending on the comment in the adjacent 
column, “some evidence” could also denote “weak evidence”. 

  No evidence: No information was found to indicate whether the criterion was met or not. 
  Evidence to the contrary: An explicit statement was found in the reporting stating that 

this criterion was not pursued. 

10 https://gis.nst.dk/portal/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=a380348bad354a0dad558df058e348b8  
11 https://kms.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=63f098e64248465abbd7a3283e5e2707  
12  Concerning  the  requirements  of  Articles  4.2  (b),  (c)  and  (d),  Denmark  recalls  figure  3.4  on  p.  26  and  the 
description in section 3.3 pp. 26-28 in the main report  https://oversvommelse.kyst.dk/media/247987/kdi-2018-
_hovedrapport-om-revurdering-af-risikoomraader-efter-oversvoemmelsesloven.pdf and Figur 3.2 on p. 19 in the 
https://oversvommelse.kyst.dk/media/247988/kdi-2018-
methodology 
_metoderapport_oversvoemmelsesdirektivet.pdf Both of the above refer to chapters 4 and 5 of the methodology 
report, pp. 21-88. 

report 

7 

 
 
 
                                                           
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments13 

CONTEXTUAL INFORMATION 

A PFRA has been undertaken 
for each RBD or UoM or 
portion of international UoM 
lying within the MS territory. 

Maps of the RBD/UoM have 
been provided at the 
appropriate scale, 
including… 

…the borders of river basins 

…sub-basins 

and, where existing, coastal 
areas 

The provided maps of the 
RBD/UoM show 
topography… 

…and land use 

Strong 
evidence 

The assessment was not done seperately for each 
RBD / UoM, but for the whole country together. 

Strong 
evidence 

Maps are provided on a geoportal14 and allow the 
user to zoom in down to the building level.  

Strong 
evidence 

Strong 
evidence 

Strong 
evidence 

A seperate layer with the RBD borders is provided 
in the geoportal15.  

A seperate layer with the borders of sub-basins is 
provided in the geoportal16. 

The Danish coast is divided into 36 areas 
depending on the availability of water level 
measurements time series, extreme value statistics, 
geographic, oceanographic and hydrodynamic 
conditions. For each of these areas the stormflood 
risk is modelled and then combined in a map for 
the whole country.  

No evidence  The maps in the goportal do not contain 
topographic information.  

Some 
evidence 

Corine landcover data was aggregated into three 
categories (built up areas, agriculture and mining, 
other areas), which represent the vulnerabilty of 
these areas17.  

PAST FLOODS WHICH HAD SIGNIFICANT18 ADVERSE IMPACTS19 

13 Brief substantiation to support the choice of evidence category. Should reflect the discussion in the main part of 

the document. 

14 https://oversvommelse.kyst.dk/om-direktivet/webgis/ 
15 https://gis.nst.dk/portal/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=a380348bad354a0dad558df058e348b8  
16 https://gis.nst.dk/portal/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=a380348bad354a0dad558df058e348b8  
17  Methodology 

report 
_metoderapport_oversvoemmelsesdirektivet.pdf  
18 Significance here refers to the damage of the flood. 
19 Note that the term “impact” is used for past floods and the term “consequences” for future floods. Both refer 

https://oversvommelse.kyst.dk/media/247988/kdi-2018-

and 

pp. 

82, 

66 

to damages from floods. 

8 

 
                                                           
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments13 

A methodology for defining 
past floods with significant 
adverse impacts 

Some 
evidence  

Denmark has recorded historic stormflood and 
fluvial flood events and described a methodology 
on how to characterize/describe the severity of the 
event. For stormfloods it is clear how events with 
“significant adverse impacts” are distinguished 
from “normal” events, for fluvial flooding this is 
not clear. 

A description of floods that 
occured in the past which had 
significant adverse impacts 
on… 

…human health 

Some 
evidence 

Not considered in the assessment of past flood 
events. 

Stormflood: even though “human consequences” is 
one of the categories used to assess historic 
stormfloods, the impacts on human health are not 
assessed in detail. The indicator “phenomenon” 
contains qualitative assessments (i.e. coordinated 
evacuation before the stormflood, homeless after 
the stormflood/rehousing needed, fatalities on land 
due to stormflood). These are all aspects which 
touch upon human health, but do not directly 
address it. 

Fluvial flooding: the survey among municipalities 
to identify historic fluvial flood events included a 
question asking if “more than 50 houses were 
flooded”. This relates indirectly to human health 
(psychological impacts of flooding), but health is 
not addressed further.  

…the environment 

No evidence  Not considered in the assessment of past flood 

events.  

Stormflood: “Damages” is one of the assessment 
categories for stormflood events, but the indicator 
“severeness/strength” contains only a qualitative 
description, which refers to the extent of area 
damaged and the severity of the damage (i.e. local, 
minor damages or extensive damage in a large 
city/over a long coastal stretch). It does not 
explicitly address impacts on the environment. 

9 

 
 
 
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments13 

…cultural heritage 

No evidence  Not considered in the assessment of past flood 

events. 

Stormflood: As above. It does not explicitly 
address impacts on cultural heritage. 

and economic activity 

No evidence  Not considered in the assessment of past flood 

events. 

Stormflood: As above. It does not explicitly 
address impacts on economic activity. 

Fluvial flooding: The survey among municipalities 
to identify historic fluvial flood events included a 
question asking if “more than 50 houses were 
flooded” and if “critical infrastructure was 
affected”. This relates indirectly to economic 
activity, but it is not addressed in detail. 

For the assessment of stormfloods and fluvial 
flooding Denmark considers as “extreme event” 
either the historic event or the statistical 1000 year 
event depending on which of them is more extreme 
i.e. has the highest water level.   

...and for which the likelihood 
of similar future events is still 
relevant including… 

Strong 
evidence 

…their flood extent and 

Strong 
evidence 

Flood extend and water level are simulated for 
“extreme events”. Some of them correspond to 
historic events (see description in cell above).  

…conveyance routes and 

No evidence   Conveyance routes are not assessed. 

an assessment of the adverse 
impacts they have entailed. 

Strong 
evidence 

Following the requirements of Article 4.2(b) 
Denmark has identified past flood events, which 
have caused adverse impacts. 

PAST SIGNIFICANT20 FLOODS21 WHICH IF REPEATED 
COULD HAVE SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES 

A methodology for defining 
significant floods which have 
occured in the past, where 
significant adverse impacts 
are unknown but significant 

Strong 
evidence22 

Significant flood risk is determined by using a risk-
index, which combines hazard and vulnerability 
information. Hazard is determined by flood 
modelling with consideration of past flood events. 
Vulnerability is calculated as an index 

20 Significance here refers to the magnitude of the flood: although the extent of the flood may have been large, the 

impact was not significant e.g. because the area was not built-up at the time. 
21 Without known significant adverse impacts at the time of their occurrence. 
22 Although the methodology has not been developed specifically to address this category of floods (generally, the 
methodology has not been designed specifically to fit Article 4.2), however, it encompasses the definition of this 
category of floods through the vulnerability/risk assessment. 

10 

 
                                                           
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments13 

adverse consequences of 
similiar future events might 
be envisaged 

summarizing several vulnerability categories. Both 
are combined in the risk-index.  

If larger areas are affected by flooding, i.e. show an 
high risk index, these areas are determined to be at 
significant flood risk.  

FUTURE FLOODS WITH POTENTIALLY ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES 

A methodology for defining 
potential adverse 
consequences of future floods 

Strong 
evidence 

A detailed description of a methodology for 
mapping of potential adverse consequences of 
future floods is available in the methodology 
description23 of the Kystdirektoratet (KDI), i.e. the 
Danish Coastal Authority, (KDI24 (2018)) and 
made operational in a webGIS25. It follows an 
approach developed in the EU-project 
http://www.risckit.eu/. The approach considers 
several vulnerability aspects. For each aspect its 
vulnerability is assessed seperately on a scale from 
1-5 (low-high) and merged into one overall 
vulnerability index.  

An assessment of the potential adverse consequences of future floods on... 

…human health 

Some 
evidence 

Adverse consequences for human health are not 
directly assessed, but the flood risk maps can be 
overlayed in the WebGIS with layers showing 
“potentially polluting activities” (i.e. chemical 
industry, Seveso Directive relevant industry) and 
population density. These activities might, in a 
flood situation, pollute, which could have an 
adverse effect on human health. In the assessment 
it is assumed that pollution would spread in a 
radius of 500m around the activities26.  

Infrastructure, which has an influence on human 
health such as hospitals or health centers, is also 
available as a layer in the webGIS27.  

23 https://oversvommelse.kyst.dk/media/247988/kdi-2018-_metoderapport_oversvoemmelsesdirektivet.pdf  
24 Kystdirektoratet, i.e. the Danish Coastal Authority. 
25 https://gis.nst.dk/portal/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=a380348bad354a0dad558df058e348b8 
26 It is acknowledged that this is a simplification of reality, but detailed pollution modelling was not undertaken. 
27  Denmark  subsequently  recalled  this  is  shown  as  Emergency  Response  (Beredskab)  in  the  PFRA  webGIS, 

https://gis.nst.dk/portal/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=a380348bad354a0dad558df058e348b8  

11 

 
                                                           
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments13 

…the environment 

Some 
evidence 

In the geoportal map layers for bore holes for water 
supply, water abstraction areas and protected 
nature areas are available and can be overlayed 
with flood maps28. According to the methodology 
description KDI (2018) is the location of 
potentially polluting activities including a 500m 
radius from the geocoded adresses used as a proxy 
for potential damages to the environment. 

…cultural heritage 

Strong 
evidence 

Cultural heritage objects are geocoded and 
accesible as map layers in the geoportal. They can 
be overlayed with the flood risk maps29. 

The methodology description KDI (2018) 
described an indexing process, where the 
vulnerability of cultural heritage assets is judged on 
a scale from 1-5 (1=low, 5 = high vulnerability). 
The resulting map is shown in the methodology 
description KDI (2018)and in the WebGIS.  

…economic activity 

Strong 
evidence 

The number of employees per grid cell is used as 
an indicator for the vulnerability of economic 
activities to flooding30.  

A consideration of possible issues in connection to future floods including... 

…topography 

…the position of water courses 

…hydrological and 
geomorphological 

Some 
evidence 

Strong 
evidence 

Topography was considered in the flood modelling, 
but there is no topographic map included in the 
national geoportal for the floods directive.  

For fluvial flood assessment a typology for streams 
was used, which characterise them according to the 
size of catchment, stream width and length. This 
typology originates from Denmark’s work under 
the Water Framework Directive.  

No evidence   These aspects were not explicitly addressed.  

28 Denmark subsequently recalled this is shown as Land Use (Arealanvendelse) and Critical Infrastructure (Kritisk 
webGIS, 
the 

infrastruktur) 
https://gis.nst.dk/portal/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=a380348bad354a0dad558df058e348b8  

PFRA 

in 

29 Denmark subsequently recalled this is shown as Cultural Heritage (Kulturarv) in gridcells in the PFRA webGIS, 

https://gis.nst.dk/portal/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=a380348bad354a0dad558df058e348b8  

30 Denmark subsequently recalled that in the 2nd cycle PFRA webGIS, Economic Activity (Økonomisk aktivitet) is 
gridcells, 
index 

shown 
https://gis.nst.dk/portal/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=a380348bad354a0dad558df058e348b8  

using 

in 

12 

 
                                                           
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments13 

characteristics (e.g. floodplains 
as natural retention areas) 

…effectiveness of existing 
manmade flood defence 
infrastructures 

Strong 
evidence 

Dikes and similar infrastructure was considered in 
the flood modelling of stormfloods.  

…the position of populated 
areas 

Strong 
evidence 

Population density per grid-cell (100x100m) is 
available as a map layer in the geoportal.  

In the vulnerability assessment described in KDI 
(2018), population density is also considered as a 
factor in the overall vulnerability assessment.  

…areas of economic activity 

Strong 
evidence 

The number of employees per grid cell is used as 
an indicator for the vulnerability of economic 
activities to flooding.  

…long term developments 
(including e.g. the impact of 
urbanisation and climate 
change) 

Focus on the consideration of 
the likely impact of climate 
change on the occurence of 
floods (second cycle onwards) 

International information 
exchange has taken place 
between MS in the case of 
international River Basin 
Districts or UoMs with a clear 
description of the 
methodology used provided 

Some 
evidence 

Climate change is considered, no other long term 
developments. 

Strong 
evidence 

No evidence 

Modelling of the geographic extend of APSFRs 
prone to stormfloods was done for extreme future 
flood events for the year 2115 by consideration of 
climate scenario RCP 8.5  

For fluvial flooding the impact of climate change 
was not considered due to lack of data.  

In the only international water district Vidå/Kruså, 
which is shared between Denmark and Germany, 
no areas with potentially significant risk of 
flooding were identified.  

It is not described if there has been information 
exchange between Denmark and Germany on this 
issue31. 

APSFRs 

(FUTURE FLOODS WITH POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES) 

For each River Basin District 
or UoM, the MS has 
identified areas for which 

Strong 
evidence 

Areas are briefly described in the methodology 
description KDI (2018) and in the main report. 

31 Denmark subsequently informed there are annual bilateral meetings with Germany (federated state of Schleswig-

Holstein); the last was held on 25 June 2021. 

13 

 
 
                                                           
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments13 

they conclude that potential 
significant flood risks exist or 
might be considered likely to 
occur (APSFR) 

A clear methodology for the 
designation of APSFRs has 
been provided by the MS 
which includes 

(a) Criteria to distinguish 

between present day/future 
floods and significant 
present day/future floods 

Strong 
evidence 

(b) Criteria to distinguish 

between… 

…significant flood risk existing 
presently in an APSFR, or 

Strong 
evidence 

More detailed information can be accessed in form 
of maps in the geoportal. 

Areas with significant potential flood risk are 
defined as areas where the consequences of 
flooding are in an order of magnitude which will be 
of national relevance.  

The methodology used to determine APSFRs is 
described in detail in methodology report KDI 
(2018) in chapters 5 and 6. It contains two main 
steps: (1) calculation of an overall risk index 
(described by flood hazard and parameters 
representing vulnerability) and (2) a spatial ranking 
process to identify agglomerations of areas with 
high flood risk.  

The methodology was adjusted from the first to the 
second flood risk assessment cycle, therefore new 
areas of significant potential flood risk were 
determined.  

According to the reference documents (KDI 2018 
methodology report and main report) the spatial 
extent of all APSFRs is assessed based on an 
extreme event (historic extreme event or 1000 
years statistical event, whichever is more extreme) 
plus a climate factor. The APSFRs determined by 
this approach are shown in the reference 
documents and in the webGIS. 

In the webGIS additional layers for fluvial flooding 
(20 and 100 year floods) are shown.  

…significant flood risk likely to 
arise in the future in an APSFR 

Some 
evidence 

Only climate change is considered as long-term 
development. According to the reference 
documents (KDI 2018 methodology report and 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments13 

(consideration of long term 
developments) 

Criteria relating to how human 
health, the environment, 
cultural heritage and economic 
activity have been considered in 
the inclusion of APSFRs 

Strong 
evidence 

main report) the spatial extent of all APSFRs is 
assessed based on an extreme event (historic 
extreme event or 1000 years statistical event, 
whichever is more extreme) plus a climate factor. 
The climate factor was determined in a previous 
study of the CA and is for fluvial flooding and 
stormflood based on scenario RCP8.5 of IPCC’s 
5th asessment report. 

All criteria were considered as described in the 
methodology description KDI (2018), even though 
the the use of certain indicators could be 
revisited32. Adverse consequences for human 
health are indirectly addressed33, and there is some 
evidence that the environment has been included. 
A thorough assessment of the impact on cultural 
heritage and economic activity has been carried out 
[see also comments under the heading “An 
assessment of the potential adverse consequences 
of future floods on...” above and under 
“Recommendations” below].  

In the case of international 
UoMs, the designation of 
APSFRs has been 
coordinated with the MS 
concerned with a clear 
description of the 
methodology used provided 

For each APSFR MS have 
made clear any change in 
APSFRs since the first cycle 
including details of such 
change, deletion or creation 
since the previous cycle 

Not relevant  Not relevant as there is no APSFR in the 

international water district34.  

Strong 
evidence 

Changes in APSFRs from the first to the second 
flood risk assessment cycle are mentioned in the 
description of the methodology followed, KDI 
(2018).  

32 Denmark chose “number of employees” as indicator for economic activity. This is a good proxy to estimate how 
many physical work-places will be affected in case of flooding, but may struggle to act as a proxy of expected 
economic damage due to business interruption since number of employees may not necessarily reflect the value 
of an activity. 

33 Via the number of inhabitants which is used as a proxy for effects to human health. 
34 Denmark has divided the country in four water districts, which represent the UoM for the Flood Directive.  

15 

 
 
                                                           
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments13 

assessment to allow the 
complete legacy of APSFRs to 
be understood 

Good Practices 

The assessment identified the following good practices in the PFRAs assessed. 

Good practices identified 

Denmark has made an attempt to overcome data scarcity for past 
fluvial flood events by conducting a survey amongst municipalities. 

The application of Article 4.2(d) includes a specific methodology for 
addressing cultural heritage. 

Clear methodology used to determine APSFRs using a spatial 
process to rank areas of flood risk which includes the consideration 
of climate change.  

Topic area 

Types of floods 
considered 

Application of Article 
4.2(b) 

Application of Article 
4.2(c) 

Application of Article 
4.2(d) 

Methodology for the 
designation of APSFRs 

Consideration of climate 
change 

International 
information exchange 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Areas for further development 

The assessment identified the following areas for further development in the PFRAs assessed. 

Topic area 

Types of floods 
considered 

Application of Article 
4.2(b) 

Application of Article 
4.2(c) 

Application of Article 
4.2(d) 

Methodology for the 
designation of APSFRs 

Areas for further development 

Pluvial floods should be also considered – at least in areas with high 
vulnerabilities. Even though it is argued that this aspect is covered by 
municipal climate adaptation management, it would be advantageous 
to also integrate it in the geoportal to get an overview of all types of 
flood risk.  

A critical assessment of the indicators chosen to describe 
vulnerability should be carried out as there might be better or 
additional indicators, which could be considered in future 
assessments.  

Consideration of climate 
change 

Only RCP 8.5 is considered, which takes into account the worst case 
scenario. Other scenarios sould also be considered. 

International 
information exchange 

Administrative Arrangements  

MS  may  make  changes  to  their  administrative  arrangements  which  include  their  Units  of 

Management (UoMs) and their relevant Competent Authorities (CAs). If such changes occur, 
MS are required to notify the Commission within three months. The following section presents 

an assessment of how these have changed since the first cycle reporting. If no information has 
been reported during the second cycle then it is assumed that UoMs and CAs have remained the 

same as during the first cycle. 

Changes to Units of management since the first cycle 

MS are required to report details of any changes to UoMs since the first cycle of reporting under 
the FD. The UoMs are shown in Figure 1. No changes to the UoMs were reported. 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 1 Map of UoMs in Denmark 

  Units of Management/International River Basin Districts (within European Union) 
  Units of Management/International River Basin Districts (outside European Union) 
  National River Basin Districts (within European Union) 
  Countries (outside European Union) 
  Coastal Waters 

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) 

Changes to Competent Authorities since the first cycle 

MS are also given the option to provide a reference or references to document(s) if the CAs or 
their roles have changed since the first cycle of reporting under the FD. 

The  CA  is  the  Danish  Coastal  Authority  under  the  Ministry  of  Environment  and  Food  of 
Denmark. There was no change in the CA between the first and second cycle.  

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Maps of the River Basin Districts 

For  each  PFRA  as  stated  under  Article  4.2(a),  MS  should  provide  maps  of  the  River  Basin 

District at the appropriate scale, including the borders of the river basins, sub-basins and, where 

existing, coastal areas, showing topography and land use.  

There are no maps for RBDs in the PFRA. Denmark distinguished four water districts as UoMs, 

but  they  are  not  shown  as  separate  maps  –  neither  in  the  geoportal,  the  main  report  nor  the 
methodology description. Instead Denmark has a national flood risk map of the whole country. 

This map is provided at the geoportal and is at an adequate scale allowing to zoom in and out. 
Assessments are aggregated to 100x100m grid size. The maps35 include the borders of RBDs 
and  sub-basins36.  Coastal  areas  are  shown  in  the  map,  but  no  topographic  information  is 
provided. The map shows three types of land-use indicated by different colors, but a legend is 
not available in the webGIS, only in the methodology description report KDI (2018)37. 

The methodology description report KDI (2018)38 explainsthe changes made in the second cycle 
in comparison to the first cycle in the risk assessment methodology .  

Types of Floods considered in the second cycle PFRA  

Types of flood included in the assessment of flood risk 

Article 2.1 of the FD provides a list of types of floods that are covered by, or fall within the 

scope  of,  the  Directive  (this  includes  floods  from  rivers,  mountain  torrents,  Mediterranean 
ephemeral water courses, and floods from the sea in coastal areas) (these are listed in Annex A). 

However, it is not stated that the scope of the definition of a flood is limited to these types of 
flood. As such, the scope of the definition of a flood should be considered to be open and all-

inclusive (subject to possible exemption of floods from sewerage systems), and that any covering 
of land by water (other than that ‘normally’ covered by water) represents a flood, regardless of 

the source of the water. 

Table 2 summarises the types of floods considered in each UoM.  

35 https://gis.nst.dk/portal/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=a380348bad354a0dad558df058e348b8  
36  The  RBDs  and  sub-basins  are  shown  in  the  webGIS.  They  are  called  “Vandområdedistrikter”  and 

“Hovedvandoplande”. 

37 https://oversvommelse.kyst.dk/media/247988/kdi-2018-_metoderapport_oversvoemmelsesdirektivet.pdf 
38 https://oversvommelse.kyst.dk/media/247988/kdi-2018-_metoderapport_oversvoemmelsesdirektivet.pdf  

19 

 
                                                           
Table 2  Types of floods considered in the PFRAs  

DK1 

DK2 

DK3 

DK4 

 

 





 

 

 

 

Fluvial 

Pluvial 

Groundwater 

Sea Water 

Artificial Water Bearing Infrastructure 

Other 

No data 

Not  all  types  of  floods  that  might  be  reasonably  expected  in  Denmark  are  included  in  the 

assessment of the risk of flooding under Article 4. Pluvial flooding and flooding from artificial 
water bearing infrastructure are missing. The reasons for the omission of pluvial flooding is that 

it is covered by the climate change adaptation plans of the Danish municipalities. The types of 

floods considered in the assessment are the same as during the first cycle. 

Flooding from sewerage systems 

Article 2 of the FD also states that the definition of a flood ‘may exclude floods from sewerage 

systems’. During the first cycle, it was not always immediately clear whether or not floods from 
sewerage systems were exluded from consideration, consequently, the second cycle assessment 

requires greater clarity on this issue.  

Table  3  indicates  that,  according  to  the  data  submitted  by  Denmark  to  the  EIONET  CDR, 
Denmark has considered flooding from sewerage systems under the Floods Directive. However, 

according  to  the  documents  provided  by  Denmark  for  this  assessment    the  assessment  and 
management  of  pluvial  flooding  (including  flooding  from  combined  sewer  systems)  is  not 

covered  under  the  FD,  rather  by  the  climate  change  adaptation  plans  of  the  Danish 

municipalities. 

Table 3 

 Consideration of sewerage systems under the Floods Directive39 

UoM 

DK1 

DK2 

DK3 

DK4 

Floods from sewerage systems considered 

Included 

Included 

Included 

Included 

39 Table 3 reflects Denmark’s digital reporting. Denmark subsequently confirmed that pluvial flooding and flooding 
from  sewerage  systems  is  not  directly  covered  under  Denmark’s  implementation  of  the  Floods  Directive  at 
national level. 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Application of Articles 4.2(b), (c), (d) 

Adverse  impacts  (past  floods)  and  adverse  consequences  (potential  future 
floods) 

Four broad categories of impact/consequence are given in the FD. Article 4.2 (b) and Article 

4.2(d) require an assessment of the impacts of past floods and potential adverse consequences of 
future  floods  with  regard  to  human  health,  the  environment,  cultural  heritage  and  economic 

activity respectively.  

A list of types and sub-types of consequence was developed by the Common Implementation 
Strategy’s Working Group on Floods40 for the reporting of impact/consequence.  It  should be 
noted  that  references  describing  approaches  to  assessing  impact/consequence  on  to  human 
health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity may have been reported at the 

UoM or national level and not individually for flood events.  

Details of important past floods (source, mechanisms, characteristics) 

In the first cycle, Denmark reported 205 historical floods (between the years 1532 and 2008). In 
the second cycle 135 historical floods were reported for stormflood (between the years 1532 and 

2017) and 57 historical floods were reported for fluvial flooding (between the years 1910 and 
2017) according to the methodology description report KDI (2018)41, which was listed as the 
main  reference  for  the  assessment  of  Denmark.  However,  in  the  information  reported  by 
Denmark to the EIONET CDR there are 97 data entries for flood events. The location of the 

flood event is provided for 89 of the flood events together with qualitative information for the 
impact of the flood at that location. Quantitative information on the duration and frequency42 is 
provided for 15 of these events (the duration and frequency of the other 82 events are marked as 

“unknown”). Based on the information provided, it is not possible to explain these differences. 

Table  4  presents  the  sources,  mechanisms  and  characteristics  of  historical  significant  flood 

events reported during the second cycle.  

40 

https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/9ab5926d-bed4-4322-9aa7-9964bbe8312d/library/9560db96-04c6-4377-

bf82-84766955e54a?fromLink=true  

41 https://oversvommelse.kyst.dk/media/247988/kdi-2018-_metoderapport_oversvoemmelsesdirektivet.pdf  
42 Defined in the reporting guidance as “The statistical prediction of years between certain flood magnitude events. 
Can  also  be  reported  as  a  range,  as  a  return  period  (e.g.  once  in  every  100  years)  or  an  annual  exceedance 
probability (the percentage chance of a flood of a certain size happening in any year).” 

21 

 
                                                           
Table 4 Sources, mechanisms and characteristics of flooding identified for past floods 

Source 

Mechanism 

Characteristics 

DK1  DK2  DK3  DK4 

Fluvial 

Fluvial 

Fluvial 

Fluvial 

Fluvial 

Natural exceedance  Medium onset flood 

Natural exceedance  Other characteristics 

Defence failure 

Medium onset flood 

18 

2 

Blockage 

Blockage 

Medium onset flood 

10 

Other characteristics 

Sea Water  Natural exceedance  Slow onset flood 

Sea Water  Natural exceedance  Deep Flood 

Sea Water  Defence exceedance  Slow onset flood 

Sea Water  Defence exceedance  Deep Flood 

5 

1 

4 

6 

1 

5 

1 

6 

6 

4 

4 

1 

1 

1 

1 

0 

0 

2 

8 

8 

3 

3 

The source ‘Other: Flooding of land by water due to other mechanisms, for instance wind setup 

floods’  was  not  selected  from  the  enumeration  lists,  but  could  have  been  included,  because 

Denmark assessed the combination of high flow (fluvial) and high sea water level. 

The area of the flood has been reported only for extreme historic flood events. Frequency43 and 
recurrence intervals44 are only reported for some events, but not for the large majority of events. 
When considering damages  from historic floods, Denmark does not explicitly distinguish the 
categories  human  health,  the  environment,  cultural  heritage  and  economic  activity.  Denmark 

chose  other  damage  categories,  which  might  be  considered  to  have  some  overlap  with  the 
categories prescribed in the FD. For example, “human consequences” is one of the categories 

used to assess historic stormfloods, but the impacts on human health are not assessed in detail. 
The  assessment  indicator  “phenomenon”  contains  a  qualitative  assessments  (i.e.  coordinated 

evacuation before the stormflood, homeless after the stormflood/rehousing needed, fatalities on 
land due to stormflood). These are all aspects which touch upon human health, but do not directly 

address it. 

“Damages”  is  another  assessment  category  for  stormflood  events,  but  the  indicator 
“phenomenon”  contains  only  a  qualitative  description,  which  refers  to  the  extend  of  area 
damaged and the severity of the damage (i.e. local, minor damages or extensive damage in a 
large  city/over  a  long  coastal  stretch).  So  this  indicator  probably  touches  upon  “economic 
activity”, but does not explicitely address it. 

43 The statistical prediction of years between certain flood magnitude events. Can also be reported as a range, as a 
return period (e.g. once in every 100 years) or an annual exceedance probability (the percentage chance of a flood 
of a certain size happening in any year). 

44 On average, the number of that years elapse between floods of a similar size at a specific location. 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
For historic fluvial flooding, the survey among municipalities to identify historic fluvial flood 
events  included  a  question  asking  if  “more  than  50  houses  were  flooded”  and  if  “critical 

infrastructure was affected”. This relates indirectly to economic activity and the first one also to 

human health (psychological implications), but both are not addressed in further detail.  

The assessment did not provide any indication whether the reported floods are getting worse. It 

is stated in the methodology report KDI (2018), that it can not be expected that the risk in the 
APSFRs  is  significantly  lower  after  only  one  flood  risk  management  planning  period  since 

reducing the risk is usually a longer process.  

Criteria for identifying past floods with significant adverse impacts (Article 
4.2(b)) 

Under Article 4.2(b) of the Directive, MS should provide a description of past floods with known 
significant  adverse  impacts  that  may  reoccur  along  with  a  methodology  for  defining  what 

constituted a ‘significant adverse impact’ at the time of flooding.  

Article 

Summary Description 

Implications 

4.2(b) – Past 
Adverse 
Consequences 

Description of past 
flood with significant 
adverse impacts, with 
likelihood of repetition. 

To filter past flood events a methodology is 
required for defining what constituted a 
"significant adverse impact" at the time of the 
flooding. 

Requires defining the likelihood of repetition for 
each past flood that had a significant adverse 
impact (zero likelihood = irrelevant flood). 

To further filter events, requires a methodology 
for defining what adverse impacts are to be 
considered as significant now, should the past 
flood repeat itself at the same location/s today, or 
in the future (long term developments relevant 
here). 

Table  5  summarises  the  criteria  for  defining  significant  adverse  impacts  of  flood  events. 

Denmark has developed two separate methodologies, one for stormfloods and one for fluvial 
flooding, for defining past floods with (significant) adverse impacts. These methodologies are 

different from the methodology used for adverse consequences of future flood events.  

23 

 
 
Table 5 Criteria for defining significant adverse impacts of past floods as required under 

Article 4.2(b) 

Flooded area 

Residents affected 

Buildings affected 

Commercial area 

Level of damage 

Amount compensation 

Return period 

Infrastructure affected 

Community assets 

Duration 

Speed of onset 

Triggered warning level 

Weighting systems 

Expert Judgement 

Other 

DK1 

DK2 



DK3 

DK4 













 

 

 

 





 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For stormfloods Denmark has first documented and recorded all historic flood events. Each event 
is described by five categories: water level measurement, meteorological conditions, flooding, 
damages  and  impacts  to  humans.  For  each  category  the  indicators  “data  availability”,  “data 
quality” and “phenomenon45” (are rated on a scale from 1 to 3, where 3 means very good data 
availability  and  quality  and  strongest  phenomenon/impact.  For  each  indicator  and  rating  a 
qualitative description exists46.  

For the assessment of the “phenomenon”for the category “water level measurement”, the water 
level is considered, for the category “flooding” the extent of flooded area  is considered, for the 
category  “damage”  the  extent  of  the  area  with  damages  and  the  magnitude  of  damages  are 
considered, for the category “impact to humans” the magnitude of evacuation and fatalities are 
considered. The categories “damage” and “impact to humans” describe the consequences of a 
flood  event  and 
these 
consequences. If the indicator phenomenon is two or larger for the categories damage and impact 
to humans, , then the event is considered as a flood event with significant adverse impacts. Note 
that the threshold criteria of phenomenon ≥ 2 is not mentioned in the KDI (2018) methodology 
report55. It remains also unclear how the criterion phenomenon ≥ 2 should be understood, i.e. if 

the  magnitude/severity/strength  of 

indicator  phenomenon 

the 

45 The indicator “phenomenon” can be described as severity, strength or magnitude of each category.  
46  P.  25  in  methodology  description  KDI  (2018),  https://oversvommelse.kyst.dk/media/247988/kdi-2018-

_metoderapport_oversvoemmelsesdirektivet.pdf  

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
“phenomenon” must ≥ 2 in both categories (damage and impacts to humans) or if the average 
of both categories must fulfil this criterion.  

For fluvial flooding the following methodology was used:  

As fluvial flooding happens locally in Denmark, a survey was initiated during the second cycle 

among Danish municipalities to find out more about historic fluvial flood events. The survey 
contained questions about when the event happened, the reason for flooding, if more than 50 
houses  were  flooded  and  if  critical  infrastructure  was  affected.  Of  57  reported  fluvial  flood 

events since 1910 (the majority, 43, took place after 2007), 13 events were selected for detailed 
analysis. The selected events either affected five or more municipalities or happened in areas 
with  high  priority  due  to  concrete  events  (p.47  methodology  report  KDI,  201855).  It  remains 
unclear from the information provided by  Denmark if the selected events were automatically 

considered as events with significant adverse impacts or if other criteria were used to determine 

events with significant adverse impacts.  

Expert judgement was used for the description of past stormflood events according to the five 

categories: water level, meteorological conditions, flooded area, damages and impacts to humans 
and in the municipal survey for fluvial flooding. For stormfloods the experts came from the CA 

i.e. the Danish  Coastal Authority, for fluvial  flooding  from  the  municipalities.  The described 

methodologies were used nationally, so the approach is the same in all UoMs.  

Table  6  provides  information  on  the  criteria  used  to  define  historic  significant  flood  events 
during  the  first  cycle.  The  methodology  report  KDI,  2018,  makes  reference  to  the  2011 

methodology report showing that Denmark has applied the same criteria to identify historical 

flood events in the first and second cycles.  

25 

 
 
Table  6  Summary  of  assessment  of  MS  WISE  reports  and  available  supplementary 

information during the first cycle assessment47  

MS 

Criteria to define significant historical floods 

Reasons for not including some 
types of floods that occurred in the 
past 

DK 

The selection criteria to define historical 
significant floods are based on: water level; 
meteorological conditions; flooded area; damage; 
and, consequences to human populations. The 
selection process involves a ranking exercise, 
based on those criteria. A common methodology 
is used across Denmark.  

For sea water floods: considerable historic 
damage; expected considerable damage, if the 
same flood would happen today; enough data 
available and data quality is good enough to 
reconstruct the flood event. 

For fluvial floods the criteria are extent of 
damage, secondary flood area and potential 
damage, if the same flood would happen today. 

Significant adverse impacts of past floods 

Table 7 summarises the types of impacts identified for past flood events as required under Article 

4.2(b). 

For all categories of damages the highest number of historic flood locations was reported for 

Jutland and Funen (DK1), followed by Zealand (DK2), while for Vidå-Kruså (DK4) only some, 
and  for  Bornholm  (DK3)  very  few  historic  flood  locations  were  reported.  All  categories  of 
adverse  impacts  have  been  considered.  Most  detailed  information  is  available  for  the  impact 
category “economic damages”. For all types of impacts, the sub-category “unknown” has been 

frequently reported. For the impact category “Human Health Social” the sub-category “other” 

and 

of  Areas 

Identification 

47 Taken from the first cycle European Overview Assessment of Member States’ reports on Preliminary Flood Risk 
Assessment 
2014, 
of 
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/pdf/pfra_reports/EU%20PFRA%20Overview%20Report.pdf 
and  the  Assessment  of  data  and  information  reported  by  Member  States  on  their  Preliminary  Flood  Risk 
Assessments and identification of Areas of Potentially Significant Flood Risk under the Floods Directive Member 
State 
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/pdf/pfra_reports/PFRA%20Report%20-
%20DK.pdf 

Flood  Risk, 

Significant 

Potentially 

Report 

26 

 
 
 
                                                           
was  chosen.  The  damages  in  the  sub-category  “other”  are  specified  as  “evacuation  and 

rehousing” and “inconveniences due to flooded houses”.  

Table  7  Adverse  impacts  identified  for  all  past  flood  events  as  required  under  Article 

4.2(b)*  

Cultural Heritage 

Cultural Assets 

Landscape 

Other 

Not applicable 

Unknown 

Economic Activity 

Property 

Infrastructure 

Rural land use 

Economic activity 

Other 

Not applicable 

Unknown  

Environment 

Waterbody 

Protected area 

Pollution sources 

Other 

Not applicable 

Unknown 

Human Health Social 

Human Health 

Community 

Other 

Not applicable 

Unknown 

DK1 

DK2 

DK3 

DK4 

1 

21 

18 

14 

6 

2 

3 

54 

32 

17 

11 

5 

18 

10 

10 

1 

3 

1 

1 

2 

54 

22 

3 

10 

27 

27 

13 

9 

3 

8 

2 

* Numbers represent the number of historic flood locations for which the adverse impact is relevant.  Note, one 
flood event can impact multiple flood locations. 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Criteria for identifying past floods without known significant adverse impacts 
but with potential for adverse consequences in the future (Article 4.2(c)) 

Under Article 4.2(c), MS should provide a description of significant past floods without known 

significant adverse impacts for which the likelihood of similar future events is still relevant and 
where significant adverse consequences might be envisaged. They should devise a methodology 

for defining what constitutes a significant flood at the time of flooding.  

Article 

Summary Description 

Implications 

4.2(c) – Significant 
Adverse 
Consequences 

Description of significant 
past flood [without 
known significant 
adverse impacts at the 
time], but with likelihood 
for significant adverse 
consequences in the 
future. 

To filter past flood events a methodology is 
required for defining what constituted "a 
significant flood" at the time of the flooding. 

Requires defining the likelihood of repetition for 
each significant past flood (zero likelihood = 
irrelevant flood). 

To further filter events, requires a methodology 
for defining what would constitute a "significant 
adverse consequence" now, should the past flood 
repeat itself at the same location/s today, or in the 
future (long term developments relevant here). 

Table 8 reports which criteria have been used by each UoM for defining past floods without 

known significant adverse impacts. As described previously, Denmark generated an inventory 
of past stormflood events, where the “phenomenon” (severity/strength) is judged on a scale from 

1  to  3  using  qualitative  descriptions,  which  take  into  account  the  categories  water  level 
measurement, meteorological conditions, flooding, damages and impacts to humans. If the value 

of “phenomenon” is two or larger for the categories damages and impacts to humans, then the 
event is considered as flood event with significant adverse impacts. Expert assessment by the 

CA (the Danish  Coastal  Authorithy) determines if past  stormflood  events  without significant 
adverse impacts can have significant adverse consequences, if they happen again in the future.  

For  fluvial  flooding,  Denmark  considered  local  authorities  in  municipalities  to  be  most 

knowledgable on fluvial flooding. But it is not described if and how this knowledge has been 
used to determine if past fluvial flood events without significant adverse impacts, could have 

significant adverse consequences, if they happen again in the future.  

For stormfloods it is clear that expert judgement is used to make a distinction between Articles 

4.2(b) and (c), even though there are no results shown. For fluvial flooding it remains unclear 

how a distinction is made between Articles 4.2(b) and (c). 

28 

 
 
The  category  “Other”  indicates  that  for  historic  stormflood  assessment  the  categories  “water 
level”,  “meteorological  conditions”,  “flooding”,  “damage”  and  “impact  to  humans”  were 

considered.  

Table  8  Criteria  for  defining  past  floods  without  known  significant  adverse  impacts  as 

required under Article 4.2(c) 

Flooded area 

Residents affected 

Buildings affected 

Commercial area 

Level of damage 

Amount compensation 

Return period 

Infrastructure affected 

Community assets 

Duration 

Speed of onset 

Triggered warning level 

Weighting systems 

Expert Judgement 

Other 

DK1  DK2  DK3  DK4 













 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Criteria  for  identifying  future  floods  with  potential  adverse  consequences 
regardless of significance (Article 4.2 (d)) 

With regard to future floods, the PFRA process under Art. 4 (Article 4.2(d)), does not include 

the term “significance”. Only once information about past floods has been assessed, and once 
this  information  is  projected  into  the  future,  and  once  any  other  entirely  new  areas  of  future 

floods have been researched (regardless of significance), should the APSFRs be pronounced. 

Article 4.2(d) requires that an assessment of the potential adverse consequences of future floods 
is carried out for human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity, taking 

into account as far as possible issues such as the topography, the position of watercourses and 
their general hydrological and geomorphological characteristics, including floodplains as natural 
retention areas, the effectiveness of existing manmade flood defence infrastructures, the position 
of populated areas, areas of economic activity and long-term developments including impacts of 

climate change on the occurrence of floods.  

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Article 

Summary Description 

Implications 

4.2(d) – Potential 
Adverse 
Consequences 

Assessment of potential 
adverse consequences 
of future floods 

Depending on the specific needs of MS, requires 
looking at the whole territory of the MS* (in 
addition to areas identified under arts. 4.2.b and 
4.2.c) to scan for locations of future floods with 
potential adverse consequences (NB: There is no 
reference to significance here). 

Requires a methodology for defining what 
constitutes potential "adverse consequences" for 
each future flood (long term developments 
relevant also here). 

*hence the detailing of what should be taken into 
account as far as possible. 

Table  9  reports  which  criteria  have  been  used  by  each  UoM  for  defining  potential  adverse 
consequences of future floods. Denmark used a national approach for assessing potential adverse 

consequences of future floods. The same approach is used for stormfloods and fluvial flooding. 
It is based on assessing and mapping the vulnerability of areas to flooding. It considers direct 

and indirect as well as tangible and intangible damages of flooding. The approach was developed 
by Deltares under an EU-project48. The approach is clearly described in the methodology report 
KDI (2018)49 and is the same for all UoMs. Denmark used the enumeration of potential adverse 
consequences of future floods provided in  Article 4.2(d) of the FD as a  point of departure to 

define  criteria,  which  describe  the  adverse  consequences  of  floods.  The  criteria  are  called 
“vulnerability indicators”. In order to assure coherence of the approach used across all UoMs, 

the  data  sets,  which  were  used  to  describe  the  vulnerability  indicators,  had  to  be  nationally 

available. 

The  approach  considers  several  vulnerability  aspects  (population  density,  type  of  land-use, 
cultural heritage, (transport) infrastructure, potentially polluting activities, emergency services, 
critical infrastructure, economic activity), which are understood to cover the aspects mentioned 
in Article 4.2 (d) of the FD. For each aspect its vulnerability is assessed/indexed separately on a 
scale  from  1  to  5  (low  to  high)  and  later  merged  into  one  overall  vulnerability  index.  In  the 
indexing  process  mainly  qualitative  data  (i.e.  type  of  infrastructure)  was  used,  except  for 
population density and economic activity (described by number of employees), where absolute 
numbers  were  used  for  indexing.  So  potential  future  adverse  consequences  are  not  really 
quanitified.  

48 http://www.risckit.eu/  
49 https://oversvommelse.kyst.dk/media/247988/kdi-2018-_metoderapport_oversvoemmelsesdirektivet.pdf  

30 

 
 
                                                           
In the process of indexing vulnerability indicators expert judgement from the CA (the Danish 

Coastal Authority) was used in cooperation with other relevant authorities.  

As “other” criteria (see Table 9) important locations of emergency services (police, fire brigade, 

emergency centers, hospitals) were mapped. 

It  should  be  noted  that  the  approach  is  described  in  detail  in  the  methodology  report  KDI 
(2018)50, which has been provided by Denmark as a main reference. In this report there are also 
national maps and some summary maps for each APSFR provided, showing selected details.   

In the reporting Denmark makes a clear disctinction between Article 4.2(d) and the Articles 4.2 

(b) and (c). The distinction between Articles 4.2(b) and (c) is not so clear.  

Table  9  Criteria  for  potential  adverse  consequences  of  future  floods  as  required  under 

Article 4.2 (d) 

Residents affected 

Value property 

Buildings affected 

Infrastructural assets 

Exceedance threshold 

Economic damage 

Waterbodies 

Pollution from industry 

Rural land use 

Economic activity 

Cultural assets 

Recurrence periods 

Recurrence periods with land use 

Community assets 

Water level 

Water velocity 

Past occurrence 

Weighting systems 

Expert judgement 

Other 

No assessment required 

DK1 

 

DK2 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DK3 





DK4 











 





 

 



 

 

 



 





 

 



 

 

 

50 https://oversvommelse.kyst.dk/media/247988/kdi-2018-_metoderapport_oversvoemmelsesdirektivet.pdf  

31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Table 10 provides information on the methods used to define potentially significant future floods 
used during the first cycle. The methodology to identify potential adverse consequences of future 

floods has improved from the first cycle to the second cycle, but there are also disadvantages. 
The methodology used in the second cycle considers several vulnerability indicators, which are 

understood to cover the adverse consequence categories mentioned in Article 4.2(d), while in 
the  first  cycle  only  economic  damages  and  number  of  affected  people  were  considered.  A 

disadvantage  of  the  second  cycle  methodology  may  be  that  the  vulnerability  indicators  are 
indexed, in order to make them comparable, and merged into an overall vulnerability index. So 

there is no quantitative information available about the magnitude of adverse consequences. This 
was also the case for the first cycle – although only for the categories economic damages and 

number of affected people. For example the second cycle assessment shows which grid-cells 
have a very high vulnerability, but it does not reveal in which grid-cell one can expect economic 

damage  in  the  highest  category  i.e.  larger  than  10 000 000  Danish  krone/grid.  Further 
improvement could be made in the third cycle by better describing how the selected variables 
and  datasets  link  to  the  adverse  consequences,  i.e.  it  is  stated  the  potential  pollution  from 
polluting activities (e.g. chemical companies) can have an impact on human health, but not how 

(i.e. pollution pathways via air, water,…).  

Table 10 Summary overview of the methods used to identify and quantify potential future 

adverse consequences reported in the first cycle51 

Expert judgement / qualitative 
manner 

MS 

DK 

Quantitative methods 

Not fully clear ‘screening water levels’ taking into 
account climate change.  

Return periods: Q1000 for sea water flood; Q100 for 
fluvial flood. 

Potential future adverse consequences and impacts were 
in the first cycle assessed based on economic damage 
and number of affected people. 

Potential adverse consequences of future floods 

Table  11  summarises  the  types  of  potential  adverse  consequences  identified  for  future  flood 

events.  

51 Taken from the first cycle European Overview Assessment of Member States’ reports on Preliminary Flood Risk 

Assessment and Identification of Areas of Potentially Significant Flood Risk, 2014. 

32 

 
 
 
                                                           
Table  11  Potential  adverse  consequences  identified  for  future  flood  events  as  required 

under Article 4.2(d)*  

DK1 

DK2 

DK3 

DK4 

Cultural Heritage 

Cultural Assets 

Landscape 

Other 

Not applicable 

Unknown 

Economic Activity 

Property 

Infrastructure 

Rural land use 

Economic activity 

Other 

Not applicable 

Unknown  

Environment 

Waterbody 

Protected area 

Pollution sources 

Other 

Not applicable 

Unknown 

Human Health Social 

Human Health 

Community 

Other 

Not applicable 

Unknown 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

* Numbers represent the number of future flood locations for which the potential adverse consequence is relevant.    

Based on Table 9 one could assume that the locations of future floods are distributed equally 
over the four UoMs. This is interesting as adverse impacts of past flood events (Table 7) showed 
that  Jutland  and  Funen  (DK1)  were  most  affected,  followed  by  Zealand  (DK2),  Vidå-Kruså 
(DK4) and Bornholm (DK3). The information provided by Denmark states that it is expected 

that in Zealand (DK2) very many people will be affected by future floods, whilst in Jutland and 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Funen (DK1) many people will be affected and in Bornholm (DK3) and Vidå-Kruså (DK4) only 
some people will be affected. For the consequence category “Human health” Denmark lists in 

the sub-category “other” the number of affected people. 

Denmark  has  considered  all  types  of  consequences  in  its  assessment  of  future  adverse 
consequences (Economic, Environment, Human Health, and Cultural) by chosing vulnerability 

indicators to describe them. For the indicators, data sets, which were nationally available, have 
been chosen in order to assure a coherent approach across all UoMs. Additional descriptions of 

single events and their potential adverse consequences have not been provided.  

Details about potential future floods 

Denmark  did  not  report  data  on  the  sources,  mechanisms  and  characteristics  provided  for 
potential future flood events to the EIONET CDR. Based on the information in the PFRA and 

methodology  report,  it  can  be  concluded  that  the  sources,  mechanisms  and  characteristics  of 
potential  future  floods  are  considered  to  be  the  same  or  similar  to  past  flood  events.  The 

methodology  applied  is  the  same  in  all  UoMs  and  based  on  overlaying  a  vulnerability  map 
(developed by integrating several vulnerability aspects into one overall vulnerability indicator) 

with a flood hazard map (extend of flooded area and water level) to create a flood risk map. 

Table 12 provides a summary of the methods and criteria used to identify potentially significant 

future floods during the first cycle.  

By calculating the flood risk as a product of vulnerability (taking into account population density, 
type  of  land-use,  cultural  heritage,  (transport)  infrastructure,  potentially  polluting  activities, 

emergency  services,  critical  infrastructure,  economic  activity)  and  hazard  and  taking  into 
account more vulnerability aspects than in the first cycle, equal weight is now given to hazard 
and vulnerability aspects (see methodology description KDI (2018)52). In addition, for fluvial 
flooding the risk areas is determined by using the 1/1000 year flood, instead of the 1/100 year 

flood  as  in  the  first  cycle.  This  approach  led  thus  to  the  identification  of  new  APSFRs  and 

extended areas for some already identified APSFRs.  

The  approach  considers  several  vulnerability  aspects  (population  density,  type  of  land-use, 

cultural heritage, (transport) infrastructure, potentially polluting activities, emergency services, 

critical infrastructure, economic activity). 

52 https://oversvommelse.kyst.dk/media/247988/kdi-2018-_metoderapport_oversvoemmelsesdirektivet.pdf  

34 

 
                                                           
Table  12  Summary  of  assessment  of  MS  WISE  reports  and  available  supplementary 
information  on  methods  and  criteria  used  to  identify  potentially  significant 
future floods from the first cycle assessment53 

MS 

Methods and criteria were used to identify 
potentially significant future floods 

Reasons for not including some types 
of potential future floods 

DK 

For sea water two historic floods were 
selected per coastal stretch. Climate change 
scenarios were used to model future levels of 
1/1000 year floods and the foreseen damage 
was assessed. If the damage was significant 
these floods were classified as potentially 
significant future floods. For fluvial floods a 
1/100 year flood was constructed for 
catchment covering at least 200km2 and 
flowing through areas with high building 
densities. Potentially significant future floods 
were selected applying the criteria potential 
damage and secondary flood area. 

Issues considered in the application of Article 4.2(d), the assessment 
of potential adverse consequences   

During  the  assessment  potential  adverse  consequences  of  future  floods,  MS  should  take  into 

account possible issues as specified in Article 4.2(d).  

Table  13  details  the  specific  issues  that  have  been  taken  into  account  in  each  UoM  in  the 

assessment  of  potential  adverse  consequences.  Denmark  has  considered  in  its  assessment  all 
issues  detailed  in  Article  4.2(d)  of  the  FD,  except  from  long-term  developments  other  than 

climate  change.  There  is  a  discrepancy  between  the  information  Denmark  reported  to  the 
EIONET CDR (Table 13) and the information in the PFRA and methodology reports. In Table 

13  “Impacts  of  climate  change  on  the  occurrence  of  floods”  is  not  ticked  off,  but  Denmark 
decribes in its methodology report KDI (2018)54 that climate scenario RCP 8.5 is considered 
when  modelling  the  geographic  extent  of  future  floods55,  hence  climate  change  is  taken  into 

53 Taken from the first cycle European Overview Assessment of Member States’ reports on Preliminary Flood Risk 
Assessment 
2014, 
of 
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/pdf/pfra_reports/EU%20PFRA%20Overview%20Report.pdf 

Flood  Risk, 

Identification 

of  Areas 

Significant 

Potentially 

and 

54 https://oversvommelse.kyst.dk/media/247988/kdi-2018-_metoderapport_oversvoemmelsesdirektivet.pdf  
55 Denmark subsequently clarified that the climate scenario is only used to define the geographical extent of the 
APSFRs and not in the PRFA process. Denmark made this decision since it does not wish to appoint APSFRs 

35 

 
 
 
                                                           
account. For the assessment the same methodology was used across the whole country, so there 

are no differences between UoMs. 

Table  13  What  specific  issues  have  been  taken  into  account  in  assessment  of  potential 

adverse consequences in the application of Article 4.2(d) 

DK1 

DK2 

DK3 

DK4 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 





 



 





 



 

Topography  

Position of watercourses and their general hydrological 
and geomorphological characteristics,  

Floodplains as natural retention areas  

The effectiveness of existing man-made flood defence 
infrastructures  

The position of populated areas  

Areas of economic activity  

Impacts of climate change on the occurrence of floods  

Long-term developments; development of settlements 
(private, public and commercial)  

Long-term developments; development of infrastructure 
(transport, water, energy and telecoms)  

Long-term developments; rural land-use change 

The specific needs of the MS do not require an assessment 
under Article 4.2(d)  

Table 14 provides a summary of the aspects considered in the application of Article 4 in the first 
cycle, whilst Table 15 provides more information on the long term developments considered by 

MS in the assessment of flood risk during the first cycle.  

As described in the sections above, in the second cycle a vulnerability approach was used which 

is an improvement from the first cycle.  

based on future risk, but only on the current risk. However, when considering APSFRs’ potential future risk caused 
by climate change, the APSFRs extent is defined using the climate scenario.. 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Table 14 Summary of  aspects considered in the application of Article 4 during the  first 

cycle reporting56 

MS 

DK 

Main Findings from the first cycle reporting 
A number of aspects are not considered or not fully considered. The description 
of historic floods does not explicitly take into account flood conveyance routes. 
Adverse consequences for human health, environment and cultural heritage are 
not considered in detail (they are mapped but consequences not described). 
Similarly, adverse  consequences on economic activity are not considered in 
detail – only property values and the number of affected addresses are 
considered. Climate change is the only long-term trend considered. 

Table 15 Summary of the long term developments considered by MS in the assessment of 

flood risk during the first cycle reporting57 

Climate change 

Long-term trend 
considered under worst 
case scenario 

Development of 
settlements 

Development of 
infrastructure 

Socio-economic 
developments 

Not reported 

Not reported 

Not reported 

Areas of Potential Significant Flood Risk 

Article 5 of the Directive requires MS to use their PFRA analyses to identify areas for which 

MS conclude that potential significant flood risk exists or might exist in the future for each river 
basin district, each UoM or portion of international UoM that lies within their territory. Of all 

the  past  and  future  floods  analysed  during  the  PFRA  phase  only  the  floods  deemed  of 
significance for the present and the future will be retained as APSFRs. MS may designate larger 

APSFRs compared to the areas that might actually be flooded.   

Each MS is asked to provide information on the methodology for the designation of APSFRs, 

including  information  for  the  determination  of  significant  present  and  future  flood  risk,  the 
criteria for inclusion or exclusion of areas (following the analyses carried out under Art. 4) and 

and 

Identification 

56 Taken from the first cycle European Overview Assessment of Member States’ reports on Preliminary Flood Risk 
Assessment 
2014, 
of 
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/pdf/pfra_reports/EU%20PFRA%20Overview%20Report.pdf 
57 Taken from the first cycle European Overview Assessment of Member States’ reports on Preliminary Flood Risk 
Assessment 
2014, 
of 
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/pdf/pfra_reports/EU%20PFRA%20Overview%20Report.pdf 

Flood  Risk, 

Flood  Risk, 

Identification 

of  Areas 

of  Areas 

Significant 

Significant 

Potentially 

Potentially 

and 

37 

 
 
 
                                                           
 
how the consequences to human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity 

have been considered for the identification of APSFRs.  

Criteria to determine significance of present or future flood risk 

As  part  of  their  methodology  for  the  designation  of  APSFRs,  MS  should  specify  in  their 
reporting the criteria used for the determination of present or future significant flood risk as part 

of  their  approach  to  designating  APSFRs.  Table  16  shows  the  information  reported  to  the 
EIONET  CDR  on  the  criteria  that  have  been  used  by  each  UoM  for  the  determination  of 

significant flood risk. The methodology for the application of these criteria is described in the 

section on the application of Article 4.2(d) above. 

Table 16 Criteria for the determination of significant flood risk 

Residents affected 

Value property 

Buildings affected 

Infrastructural assets 

Exceedance threshold 

Economic damage 

Waterbodies 

Pollution from industry 

Rural land use 

Economic activity 

Cultural assets 

Recurrence periods 

Recurrence periods with land use 

Community assets 

Water level depth 

Water velocity 

Past occurrence 

Weighting systems 

Expert judgement 

Other 

Flood extent 

Flood duration 

Past flood events 

Damage caused in past events 

DK1 

 

DK2 

 

DK3 





DK4 





 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

38 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Criteria for the inclusion of an area as an APSFR  

Once significant flood risk has been determined (existing or likely to occur), a MS should decide 

whether to include an area as an APSFR and how (e.g. point, linear or polygon; continuous or 
not). Table 17 reports which criteria have been used by each UoM for including a flood risk area 

as an APSFR.  

Table 17 Criteria for inclusion of flood risk areas as APSFRs 

Risk human Health 

Risk economic activity 

Economic damage 

Risk environment 

Risk cultural heritage 

Community assets 

Infrastructure 

Lack flood defence 

Failure flood defence 

Agreement neighbour 

Occurrence past events 

Impact past events 

Local knowledge 

Increased vulnerability 

Exceedance threshold 

Expert judgement 

High level damage 

Other 

DK1 

DK2 

DK3 



DK4 







 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APSFR are identified based on a national  risk-assessment. The risk assessment considers the 

flood hazard (extend of area flooded and water level) as well as different vulnerability aspects, 
which were chosen to describe the future adverse consequences as defined by Article 4.2(d). The 

end-point of this national risk-assessment is a risk-index, which shows different risk levels on a 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
map (in methodology report KDI (2018)58 and in the webGIS59). A spatial ranking process is 
then used to determine hot-spots i.e. APSFR. In detail this spatial ranking process followed these 

steps:  

1.  Determine all cells (on a 100x100m grid) with a risk-index higher than 12.  
2.  Spatial cluster analysis, to determine if several of these high-risk cells are adjacent or 

close to each other. 

3.  Selection of the largest clusters. 
4.  Listing of all clusters and sorting them after their summarized risk index.  
5.  Selection of clusters which are in the highest quartile.  
6.  Demarcation of the APSFR under the consideration of climate change i.e. the area at risk 
was adapted to the area, which would have been flooded under an extreme event with 

consideration of the climate scenario RCP 8.5 i.e. the flood hazard map generated for the 

climate scenario RCP 8.5 was used to expand the identified risk-area. 

The category “Other” from Table 17 refers to the use of the risk-index, which combines several 

of the other criteria mentioned in Table 17.  

Designated APSFRs  

Table 18 shows the number of APSFRs (14) that have been designated by the MS in each UoM. 
It also indicates those which cross national borders requiring international cooperation, and those 
UoMs where specific hazard areas have been identified60. There are no APSFR designated in 
Bornholm  (DK3)  and  Vidå-Kruså  (DK4),  because,  according  to  the  methodology  outlined 

above, there were no high risk clusters identified in either of these UoMs. 

58 

An 

example 
_metoderapport_oversvoemmelsesdirektivet.pdf  

on 

p. 

is 

87, 

https://oversvommelse.kyst.dk/media/247988/kdi-2018-

59 https://gis.nst.dk/portal/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=a380348bad354a0dad558df058e348b8 
60 MS may designate Hazard Areas which lie within an APSFR (particularly where the APSFR covers a large area). 

Reporting on Hazard Areas is optional.  

40 

 
 
 
                                                           
Table 18 Number of reported APSFRs per UoM and number of APSFRs crossing national 

borders 

UoMs 

Number of APSFRs 

DK1 
DK2 
DK3 
DK4 
TOTAL 

10 
4 
0 
0 
14 

Number of APSFRs 
identified as crossing 
national borders 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

Number of hazard 
areas (if applicable) 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

For  each  APSFR  the  MS  is  required  to  indicate  the  source  of  possible  floods  (sources, 
mechanisms  and  characteristics  of  floods).  Table  19  presents  the  sources,  mechanisms  and 

characteristics of flooding that pose a significant flood risk in a specific APSFR.  

Table 19 Floods identified as posing significant flood risk at the APSFR level. 

UoM 

Source 

Mechanism 

Characteristics 

Number 
of 
APSFRs 

Fluvial 

Fluvial, Sea Water 

Fluvial, Sea Water 

Fluvial, Sea Water 

Natural exceedance, 
Defence exceedance, 
Natural exceedance, 
Defence exceedance, 
Natural exceedance, 
Defence exceedance, 
Natural exceedance, 
Defence exceedance, 

Fluvial, Sea Water  Natural exceedance, Other 

Sea Water 

Sea Water 

Fluvial, Sea Water 

Sea Water 

Sea Water 

Natural exceedance 
Natural exceedance, 
Defence exceedance, 
Natural exceedance, 
Defence exceedance, 

Natural exceedance 
Natural exceedance, 
Defence exceedance, 

Slow onset flood 
Other rapid onset, 
Slow onset flood 
Slow onset flood, 
Deep Flood 
Slow onset flood, 
Deep Flood 
Slow onset flood, 
Deep Flood 
Slow onset flood, 
Deep Flood 
Slow onset flood, 
Deep Flood 
Slow onset flood, 
Deep Flood 
- Slow onset flood, 
Deep Flood 
Slow onset flood, 
Deep Flood 

DK1 

DK1 

DK1 

DK1 

DK1 

DK1 

DK1 

DK2 

DK2 

DK2 
TOTAL 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

2 

1 

1 

2 
14 

41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
There is a discrepancy for Jutland and Funen (DK1) between what is reported to the EIONET 
CDR (Table 19) and the reference document provided (KDI 2018, main report61). Denmark has 
reported  five  APSFRs  in  DK1  to  the  EIONET  CDR,  which  have  as  source  of  flooding  a 
combination of fluvial and sea water floods, while table 3.6 of the reference document62, lists 
only four APSFRs in DK1, where a combination of fluvial and sea water floods is the risk source. 

There are no other’ sources, mechanisms or characteristics of flooding reported. 

The decriptions of the APSFR include a map showing the area at risk/borders of the APSFR. A 

table summarises which municipalities are affected, which water district, the source of flooding 
(sea and/or rivers), the extreme scenarios used, the highest historic water level, how many people 

will be affected and if there are any particular vulnerabilities in the area (i.e. potentially polluting 
entities,  emergency  services,  vulnerable  infrastructure).  Additional  text  details  some  of  the 

aspects of the table. And finally a link to the geoportal is given, were more detailed maps can be 

accessed.  

During the first cycle, Denmark reported ten APSFRs with the types of floods as shown in Table 
20.  The  changes  between  the  first  and  second  cycle  are  due  to  the  application  of  a  new 

methodology for the assessment of potential adverse consequences of future floods. The new 
assessment  is  much  broader,  taking  into  account  more  aspects  of  vulnerability  and  leads 

therefore to the identification of three new APSFRs in Jutland and Funen (DK1) and one new 
APSFR in Zealand (DK2) as well as an increase in the spatial extend of two APSFRs in Zealand 

(DK2) in the second cycle, which were already identified in the first cycle.   

Table 20 Overview of the reported number of the Areas of Potential Significant Flood Risk 

from different types of flood during the first cycle assessment63 

Flood Type 

Source 

Mechanisms 

Characteristics 

Fluvial 

Fluvial, Sea water 

Sea water 

MS 

DK 

DK 

DK 

TOTAL 

Number of 
APSFRs 

1 

3 

6 

10 

61 https://oversvommelse.kyst.dk/media/247987/kdi-2018-_hovedrapport-om-revurdering-af-risikoomraader-efter-

oversvoemmelsesloven.pdf  

62 KDI (2018), main report. 
63 Taken from the first cycle European Overview Assessment of Member States’ reports on Preliminary Flood Risk 
Assessment 
2014, 
of 
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/pdf/pfra_reports/EU%20PFRA%20Overview%20Report.pdf 

Flood  Risk, 

Identification 

of  Areas 

Significant 

Potentially 

and 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Consequences considered in the identification of APSFRs  

MS are required to indicate how the consequences to human health, the environment, cultural 

heritage and economic activity have been considered in the identification of APSFRs. Table 21 
shows the information reported by Denmark to the EIONET CDR on whether or not a UoM has 

considered  consequences  to  human  health,  the  environment,  cultural  heritage  or  economic 
activity in the designation of APSFRs. The description of the methodology used for determining 

APSFRs is described above. 

Table 21 Consideration of consequences in the identification of APSFRs 

MS 

Cultural Heritage  Economic Activity  Environment  Human Health 

DK1 

DK2 

DK3 

DK4 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Table  22  indicates  the  information  on  the  potential  adverse  consequences  in  each  APSFR  as 

reported to the EIONET CDR.  

Table  22  Potential  adverse  consequences  of  floods  in  APSFRs.  Numbers  represent  the 

number of APSFRs to which the consequence applies. 

DK1 

DK2 

DK3 

DK4 

Cultural Heritage 

Cultural Assets 

Landscape 

Other 

Not applicable 

Unknown 

Economic Activity 

Property 

Infrastructure 

Rural land use 

Economic activity 

Other 

Not applicable 

Unknown 

Environment 

Waterbody 

Protected area 

Pollution sources 

Other 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

43 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
DK1 

DK2 

DK3 

DK4 

Not applicable 

Unknown 

Human Health and Social 

Human Health 

Community 

Other 

Not applicable 

Unknown 

10 

10 

4 

4 

During the first cycle, only economic consequences were reported as being applicable to at least 
one APSFR identified64. The second cycle assessment uses more criteria to determine APSFRs. 
It  addresses  all  adverse  consequences  required  by  Article  4.2(d)  and  uses  a  spatial  ranking 

process to determine the significance of risk in an area.  

Changes to APSFRs since the first cycle assessment  

MS  are  required  to  consider  all  APSFRs  that  were  reported  under  the  first  cycle,  to  identify 
where modifications to APSFRs have been made for the second cycle, and to identify where no 

changes have been made since the first cycle. 

Table 23 shows how APSFRs in each UoM have changed since the first cycle (i.e. the number 

of APSFRs in each UoM that have changed, been deleted or been created since the first cycle).  

Table 23 Changes in APSFRs since the first cycle reporting (number of APSFRs) 

DK1 

DK2 

DK3 

DK4 

Change* 

Change Code 

Change Extended Area 

Change Reduced Area 

Creation 

Deletion 

No Change 

2 

1 

1 

3 

7 

* Note that ‘Change’ refers to a slight modification, for example a minor adjustment to the geometry or resolution 
of an existing APSFR that does not fit under any of the other categories. 

64 Information taken from the first cycle European Overview Assessment of Member States’ reports on Preliminary 
Flood  Risk  Assessment  and  Identification  of  Areas  of  Potentially  Significant  Flood  Risk,  2014, 
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/pdf/pfra_reports/EU%20PFRA%20Overview%20Report.pdf 

44 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Due to the application of a revised methodology for the consideration of adverse consequences 
of flooding, three additional APSFRs were identified in Jutland and Funene (DK1) and one in 

Zealand  (DK2).  In  DK2  significant  changes  in  extend  of  risk  areas  were  reported  for  two 
APSFRs  (Køge  Bugt-København,  which  was  labelled  Køge  Bugt  in  first  cycle;  Sydlolland, 

which was labelled Nakskov in  the first cycle). Minor changes in the extent of risk areas are 
mentioned in the descriptions of the APSFRs in the methodology report KDI (2018)65 as well as 
the main report66, but these minor changes are not indicated in Table 23.  

Consideration of climate change  

Article 14 requires reviews and updates of each of the three flood risk management steps of the 

Directive  to  be  provided  and  specifically  requests  that  the  impact  of  climate  change  on  the 

occurrence of floods is taken into account as part of the review process.  

According to the reference documents (KDI 2018 methodology report67 and main report68) the 
spatial extent of all APSFRs is assessed based on an extreme event (historic extreme event or 
1000 years statistical  event, whichever was more extreme) plus a climate factor. The climate 
factor used was determined in a previous study of the CA specifically for Denmark and is for 
fluvial flooding and stormfloods based on the scenario RCP8.5 of IPCC’s 5th asessment report. 

The approach used was consistent for the whole country and all UoMs, with two exeptions in 
Jutland and Funen (DK1): For the “Holstebro” APSFR there was no information on a climate 
factor available, so the risk area was determined only based on the statistical 1/1000 year flood. 
In  APSFR  “Esbjerg”  the  climate  change  induced  change  of  stormflood  risk  was  not  only 
determined by the expected increase in sea level (as in the other stormflood areas), but also by a 
contribution of wind to higher stormflood water levels.  

There is no reference made to the national adaptation strategy, but it is mentioned in the reference 
documents  that  assessment  and  management  of  pluvial  flooding  (including  flooding  from 

combined sewerage systems) is covered by the climate change adaptation plans of the Danish 

municipalities.  

65 https://oversvommelse.kyst.dk/media/247988/kdi-2018-_metoderapport_oversvoemmelsesdirektivet.pdf  
66 https://oversvommelse.kyst.dk/media/247987/kdi-2018-_hovedrapport-om-revurdering-af-risikoomraader-efter-

oversvoemmelsesloven.pdf  

67 https://oversvommelse.kyst.dk/media/247988/kdi-2018-_metoderapport_oversvoemmelsesdirektivet.pdf  
68 https://oversvommelse.kyst.dk/media/247987/kdi-2018-_hovedrapport-om-revurdering-af-risikoomraader-efter-

oversvoemmelsesloven.pdf  

45 

 
                                                           
International information exchange 

In  their  reporting  for  the  second  cycle,  MS  are  required  to  provide  information  on  the 
methodology for international information exchange relating to PFRAs and APSFRs that cross 
international boundaries.  

PFRAs in a transboundary context 

Article 4.3 of the FD states where international river basin districts or units of management exist 
which are shared with other MS, exchange of relevant information relating to the undertaking of 
PFRAs should be ensured between the CAs concerned. 

Table 24 provides an overview of the methods of coordination in  the relevant  transboundary 

UoMs.  

Table 24  Methods of international information exchange during the second cycle PFRA  

DK1 

DK2 

DK3 

DK4 

River Commission 

Bilateral water commission 

International working groups 

Bilateral working groups 

Regulations 

Pre-existing structures 

Informal arrangements 

Joint declaration 

No information 

Other 

 

 

Although Denmark has reported that it participates in bilateral working groups and that there are 

informal arrangements in place for international cooperation, it is not clear from the information 
provided  what  kind  of  information  exchange  or  cooperation  has  been  undertaken  in  the 
transboundary UoM Vidå-Kruså (DK4)69.  

Transboundary APSFRs 

Further  to  information  exchange  during  the  PFRA  phase,  where  an  APSFR  belongs  to  an 
international River Basin District or UoM shared with another MS, the designation of these areas 

69 Denmark subsequently informed there are annual bilateral meetings with Germany (federated state of Schleswig-

Holstein), the last was held on 25 June 2021. 

46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
should be coordinated between the MS concerned. Denmark did not report any transboundary 

APSFRs. 

Changes in international information exchange since the first cycle 

During the first cycle, Denmark reported one international UoM70.  

No mechanisms of international coordination for addressing flood risk management in 

international UoMs were reported by Denmark, but the following were inferred for Denmark 

from the reporting of other MS: 

 

Use of pre-existing structures in place to ensure bilateral coordination (i.e. existed 
before entry into force of WFD or FD, between two MS)71. 

Denmark itself has not provided any information on this issue in any of the reference documents. 

70 

First 

cycle 

MS 

PFRA 

assessment 

https://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/pdf/pfra_reports/PFRA%20Report%20-%20DK.pdf 
cycle PFRA assessment EU overview report: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/overview.htm 
71 Denmark did not directly report this mechanism but was named in another MS’s report as being the subject of 

report, 
First 

their international coordination. 

47 

 
                                                           
Annex A –Flood type definitions72 

Source 

Description  

Fluvial 

Pluvial 

Groundwater 

Sea water 

Flooding of land by waters originating from part of a natural drainage system, 
including natural or modified drainage channels. This source could include 
flooding from rivers, streams, drainage channels, mountain torrents and 
ephemeral watercourses, lakes and floods arising from snow melt. 

Flooding of land directly from rainfall water falling on, or flowing over, the 
land. This source could include urban storm water, rural overland flow or 
excess water, or overland floods arising from snowmelt. 

Flooding of land by waters from underground rising to above the land surface. 
This source could include rising groundwater and underground flow from 
elevated surface waters. 

Flooding of land by water from the sea, estuaries or coastal lakes. This source 
could include flooding from the sea (e.g. extreme tidal level and/or storm 
surges) or arising from wave action or coastal tsunamis. 

Artificial water-
bearing 
Infrastructure 

Flooding of land by water arising from artificial, water-bearing infrastructure or 
failure of such infrastructure. This source could include flooding arising from 
sewerage systems (including storm water, combined and foul sewers), water 
supply and wastewater treatment systems, artificial navigation canals and 
impoundments (e.g. dams and reservoirs). 

Other 

Flooding of land by water due to other sources, can include other tsunamis. 

72 

See 

page 

61 

of 

https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/acbcd98a-9540-480e-a876-

420b7de64eba/Floods%20Reporting%20guidance%20-%20final_with%20revised%20paragraph%204.2.3.pdf 
and https://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/help/Floods/Floods_2018/index.html  

48 

 
 
                                                           
49