## 3 Results and Discussion
The obtained flood depth map is presented in Figure 9. Specifically, in Figure 9a the flood depth map is limited to the flooded polygons delimited by RS, while in Figure 9b the flood depth map is extended outside the boundaries of flooded polygons; thus, the inundated area delineation was further improved by considering areas near the flooded polygons with lower ground elevation than the water elevation. The flood depth maps presented in Figure 9 were clipped on the utilized agricultural area in order to provide a better representation of the flood impacts neglecting uncultivable trails, ditches, etc. The corresponding flooded areas statistics for both the original and the clipped flood depth maps are presented in Table 3. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Original**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Clipped to Parcels**} \\ \hline
**Depth** & **RS** & **Extended** & **RS** & **Extended** \\
**(m)** & **(m\({}^{2}\))** & **(m\({}^{2}\))** & **(m\({}^{2}\))** & **(m\({}^{2}\))** \\ \hline \hline \(<\)0.5 & 17,637,200 & 81,388,900 & 15,025,100 & 68,525,900 \\ 0.5–1.0 & 19,159,300 & 75,632,000 & 16,665,100 & 64,701,000 \\ 1.0–2.0 & 10,526,900 & 30,376,500 & 8,034,700 & 23,390,500 \\ \(>\)2.0 & 1,212,700 & 1,896,300 & 211,500 & 306,300 \\ \hline
**Sum** & **48,536,100** & **189,293,700** & **39,963,400** & **156,923,700** \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Flooded area statistics for the original and the clipped flood depth maps and for the cases that the flooded areas are limited to the flooded polygons delimited by RS or are extended outside the boundaries of the delimited polygons (extended). Figure 9: The obtained flood depth map. **(a)** Clipped to the flooded polygons delineated with the RS methodology; and **(b)** extended in the entire affected area. As it can be seen the fine-tuned total affected area obtained by the flood depth map (48,536,100 m\({}^{2}\)) is a little smaller than the total flooded area obtained by RS (53,836,700 m\({}^{2}\)); this is because parts of the inundated area (according to RS) had actually higher or equal ground elevation than the flood water elevation. Furthermore, the total affected area clipped to the cultivated parcels (neglecting uncultivable trails, ditches, etc.) is about 18% smaller than the original flooded area delimited by RS, revealing that the use of detailed spatial information for the UAA is important for the accurate estimation of the impacts on the agricultural production. Another important finding is that the extended area, including areas near the flooded polygons with lower ground elevation than the water elevation, is considerably larger than the total flooded area obtained by RS. This is due to the fact that the available RS image acquired one day after the end of the storm event. During this one-day period, large parts of the initially flooded area naturally drained as the water level in the main streams dropped. The extended map, therefore, may provide a hint of the possible extent of the flooded areas at the end of the storm event. However, it should be noted that this assumption cannot be tested with the applied methodology, because the extent of the area drained in one day depends on many factors (e.g., floodplain morphology, drainage network characteristics, stream flow dynamics) and its estimation requires hydraulic modeling techniques. It is also interesting that the total area which received compensations (38,238,400 m\({}^{2}\)) by the Greek Agricultural Insurance Organization (ELGA) is very close to the total affected area delimited by RS and clipped to the UAA (39,963,400 m\({}^{2}\)). This observation indicates that acquiring the RS image one day after the end of the event provided a sufficient time window for the estimation of areas that were inundated long enough to significantly affect the cultivations (i.e., very short inundation may have a limited impact on production depending on the cultivation).