## 5 Discussion  
### Findings and Outcomes  
The tool employed in this study is a single-event severity scale designed for post-flood scenarios, offering a spatial representation of flash flood impacts. By incorporating a spatial dimension, this scale enhances the current methodologies for assessing flood impacts in several ways:  
1. It is adaptable to various geographic settings and landscapes, even those lacking human infrastructure, activities, or hydrological data.
2. It enables the mapping and classification of the impact severity and its spatial variability within the flood-affected area. This approach provides a valuable framework for addressing the following critical question: \"How severe were the impacts of the flood?\".  
The scale ensures continuous severity coverage across the floodplain, contingent on the availability of observations and data. This capability allows for detailed mapping of the severity variations across different floodplain regions, aiding in the identification of areas with consistently higher impact levels. Consequently, this approach enhances the spatial delineation of flood impacts, a need highlighted in the literature [17].  
The proposed scale holds practical value for emergency management agencies, helping them predict the types and intensities of the impacts in various locations within their jurisdiction. This information can guide targeted prevention and mitigation efforts [28].  
One of the limitations of the approach concerns the subjectivity of the assessment of the expert opinion and the deal to minimize it. The severity scale used employs specific criteria attribute subjectivity. So, the difference in assessments between different experts will be negligible.  
Figure 22: Comparison of the maximum flash flood impact severity in the affected area of 2009 (**a**) and 2020 (**b**). The zones of impact concentration are divided as follows: at the estuary of the Lilas River, upstream of the Vassiliko bridge and downstream of Filla, in Afrati, and along the Afrati–Pissonas road.  
Another limitation of the approach is that future flood events in the same region may not produce identical impacts due to changes in the exposure, such as population shifts. Nevertheless, gaining a deeper understanding of flood impacts remains crucial for effective prevention. For example, identifying hotspots for human fatalities can inform emergency planning by highlighting locations for road closures or the installation of preventive measures such as barricades and warning signs.  
Additionally, applying the scale to multiple flood events within the same area can reveal recurring hotspots and patterns of impact. This methodology mirrors practices used in terms of the severity or intensity scales for other natural hazards, such as earthquakes and tsunamis, to identify consistent patterns over time.  
The data collection for documenting the impacts and subsequently applying the scale was carried out through aerial and ground-based observations, supplemented by additional sources, as referenced in Table 2. The analyses presented in this paper could be significantly enhanced by incorporating a survey among the population affected by these two flood events, capturing their perspectives on the perceived severity of the incidents. The findings of such a survey could further contribute to the development of predictive models for flood impacts, enabling authorities and planners to anticipate high-risk scenarios and implement targeted mitigation measures. This type of study is planned for future implementation.