Fedor Baart ^1,2* Gerben de Boer ³ Maarten Pronk ^1,2 Mark van Koningsveld ^1,3 Sanne Muis ^2,4

• ¹ Delft University of Technology, Delft, Netherlands
• ² Deltares (Netherlands), Delft, Netherlands
• ³ Van Oord, Rotterdam, Netherlands
• ⁴ VU Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands, Netherlands

Global coastal flooding maps are now achieving a level of detail suitable for local applications. The resolution of these maps, derived from the now widely available open data sources, is beginning to match that of local flooding maps (0.5 -100m).With this shift to local application, it is crucial that a verdict "prone to flooding" from high-resolution global flood map becomes more suitable for local purposes. This challenge necessitates making the underlying assumptions and resulting indicators more locally relevant, transparent, and Findable Accessible Interoperable Reusable (FAIR).The proposed Waterlevel, Elevation, Protection, Flood, Impact, Future (WEPFIF) notation, along with the corresponding guidance, enhances understanding and explanation of the fitness-for-purpose of flood maps. This notation builds on commonly used methodological choices, dataset variations, and model approaches in global coastal flooding impact research. Analyzing these workflows identifies common elements and highlights the need for a more structured reporting approach to enhance comparability.A case study demonstrates the local relevance and added value of using WEPFIF by highlighting significant differences in results due to parameter changes.Combining results with the annotation of the key assumptions makes it immediately clear why variations occur. Existing literature identifies three primary study types: 1 Baart et al. The WEPFIF notation state of the coast, investment optimization, and raising concern. Maps designed to raise concern differ from those showing the current state of potential coastal flooding impacts, necessitating distinct and recognizable choices.