Assessing the effectiveness of flood management:

a comparative study between Turkey and the UK

Ali N. Yasitli

The thesis is submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements

for the award of the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy of the University of Portsmouth

June 2021
Declaration

Whilst registered as a candidate for the above degree, I have not been registered for any
other research award. The results and conclusions embodied in this thesis are the work of
the named candidate and have not been submitted for any other academic award.

Ali N. Yasitli, 2021

I
Abstract
Flooding is a serious hydrological hazard that affects more people globally than any other
type of threat, with urbanization and climate change increasing the occurrence of flooding.
A wide range of flood management strategies and legal frameworks are put in place and
are being used by governments to prevent, respond, and to lower the impacts of flooding.
The aim of this research is to assess the effectiveness of flood management in Turkey and
the United Kingdom, and provide recommendations for improving their effectiveness. The
research methods used in this study include a comparative study, the development of flood
management efficiency indicators (FMEIs), and series of interviews with flood management
professionals and comparative case studies.

The findings of the research revealed that in Turkey, the government adopts a
predominantly reactive approach, while the UK has put in place policies and legislation for
proactive flood management. Key legislation in the UK is the Flood and Water Management
Act 2010, which advocates for the cooperation and sharing of information among all
stakeholder entities within flood management, extending down to local community level.
The reactive approaches in Turkey are characterised by non-definite laws that have caused
ineffective planning, poor warning systems, and unorganised stakeholders within the flood
management system. Additionally, flood management is lacking at the local community
level in Turkey. Although the two countries have not achieved impeccable flood
management in terms of preparedness, response, and recovery, this research indicates
that the UK system is more effective than the Turkish system.

The study makes some recommendations for improving flood management in the two
countries, notably that Turkey should improve its flood planning initiatives and early
warning system. Also, Turkey should improve the level of institutional learning and
integrate more flood management stakeholders. In the context of the UK, the study
recommends that flood management should be improved, and that the early warnings
should be implemented effectively during actual flooding events. Finally, there is a need to
provide more frequent training and proper institutional learning for flood managers in both
countries.

II
 Table of Contents
Declaration ..........................................................................................................................................I
Abstract ..............................................................................................................................................II
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................... VIII
List of Figures ......................................................................................................................................X
List of Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................XII
Glossary of Key Terms .................................................................................................................... XIV
Acknowledgments .......................................................................................................................... XVI
Chapter 1 – Introduction ....................................................................................................................1
1.1 Background ...............................................................................................................................1
1.2 Types of flooding ......................................................................................................................2
1.2.1 Coastal flooding .................................................................................................................3
1.2.2 Fluvial flooding ..................................................................................................................4
1.2.3 Pluvial flooding ..................................................................................................................5
1.3 Global risks from flooding ........................................................................................................8
1.4 Socio-economic flood vulnerability .......................................................................................14
1.5 Flood Management ................................................................................................................18
1.5.1 International Efforts to Disaster Risk Reduction............................................................22
1.5.2 What then is effective flood management?...................................................................27
1.6 Rationale of this study ...........................................................................................................29
1.6.1 Flood events and the economic costs of flooding in Turkey and UK.............................35
1.6.2 İzmit/Kocaeli, TURKEY versus Southampton/Hampshire, UK .......................................38
1.7. Research questions, aim, objectives ....................................................................................39
1.7.1 Research questions .........................................................................................................39
1.7.2 Aim ...................................................................................................................................40
1.7.3 Objectives ........................................................................................................................40
1.8 The overall approach to the research methodology.............................................................40
1.9 Research design ......................................................................................................................41
1.9.1 Comparative analysis (comparison between the UK and Turkish systems) .................44
1.9.2 Developing efficiency indicators.....................................................................................45
1.9.3 Interviews with flood professionals from government and NGOs................................46
1.9.4 Disaster case studies on past flood events ....................................................................46
1.10 Research outline ...................................................................................................................46
Chapter 2 – A comparison of flood management and insurance mechanisms in Turkey and the
UK......................................................................................................................................................50
2.1 Flood management: a comparative study of Turkey and the UK .........................................50

III
 2.1.1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................50
2.1.2 An international flood context .......................................................................................50
2.1.3 Selecting the UK and Turkey for this study ....................................................................57
2.1.4 Methodology ...................................................................................................................58
2.1.5 The flood management system in the United Kingdom ................................................59
2.1.6 The flood management system in Turkey ......................................................................64
2.1.7 A comparative analysis of flood management in the UK and Turkey ...........................68
2.1.8 Discussion ........................................................................................................................78
2.2 Insurance mechanisms for flood risk management in Turkey and the UK ..........................83
2.2.1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................83
2.2.2 Objectives and rationale of this chapter ........................................................................84
2.2.3 Methodology ...................................................................................................................85
2.2.4 Results .............................................................................................................................86
2.3 Overall summary and recommendations ..............................................................................93
Chapter 3 – Developing Flood Management Efficiency Indicators (FMEIs) ...................................96
3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................96
3.2 Rationale for this chapter ......................................................................................................97
3.3 Objectives of this chapter ......................................................................................................98
3.4 Methodology ..........................................................................................................................98
3.4.1 Study Design ....................................................................................................................99
3.4.2 Sampling ........................................................................................................................107
3.4.3 Data collection procedure.............................................................................................111
3.4.4 Pilot study ......................................................................................................................112
3.5 Results ..................................................................................................................................113
3.5.1 A strategic approach to managing the flood risk (Sayers et al., 2013)........................113
3.5.2 Stakeholder involvement (Sheikhbardsiri et al., 2018) ...............................................114
3.5.3 Effectiveness of flood management measures (WMO, 2015) .....................................115
3.5.4 Flood preparedness (Lo and Chan, 2017) .....................................................................115
3.5.5 Assessing integration in flood management (Cumiskey et al., 2019) .........................116
3.5.6 The effectiveness of non-structural flood management measures (Dawson et al.,
2011) .......................................................................................................................................116
3.5.7 Effective response and Flood Planning (Gilissen et al., 2016) .....................................117
3.5.8 Flood planning and preparedness (Ogunlana, 2010) ...................................................118
3.5.9 Recovery (Litman, 2007) ...............................................................................................120
3.5.10 Preparedness policies, response policies, and recovery policies (Henstra, 2010) ....120
3.6 Indicators of efficiency for flood management ...................................................................124

IV
 3.7 How FMEIs can be used to examine the strengths and weaknesses of flood management
....................................................................................................................................................126
3.8 Recommendations ...............................................................................................................128
3.9 Summary...............................................................................................................................129
Chapter 4 – Practitioners viewpoints: strengths and weaknesses of flood management in Turkey
and the UK ......................................................................................................................................134
4.1 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................134
4.2 Objectives of this study ........................................................................................................134
4.3 Background to Izmit/Kocaeli and Southampton/Hampshire .............................................134
4.3.1 Flood risk in Izmit/Kocaeli.............................................................................................135
4.3.2 Flood risk in Southampton/Hampshire ........................................................................136
4.4 Their flood management systems .......................................................................................137
4.4.1 Flood management system in Izmit/Kocaeli ................................................................137
4.4.2 Flood management system in Southampton/Hampshire ...........................................138
4.5 Methodology ........................................................................................................................139
4.5.1 Design ............................................................................................................................140
4.5.2 Sample size ....................................................................................................................142
4.5.3 Response rate ................................................................................................................143
4.5.4 The interview process ...................................................................................................143
4.5.5 Data analysis..................................................................................................................145
4.5.6 Translation protocols ....................................................................................................148
4.5.7 Research biases and control .........................................................................................149
4.6 Results obtained from the interviews on the effectiveness of the flood management
systems in the UK and Turkey....................................................................................................149
4.6.1 General demographic information of the employees .................................................149
4.6.2 What makes an effective flood management system, based on daily work
experience? ............................................................................................................................152
4.6.3 Types of flood mitigation plan used by sampled organisations, based on daily work
experience ..............................................................................................................................154
4.6.4 The existence of an early warning system, based on daily work experience .............155
4.6.5 The existence of flood response plan in the sampled organisations, based on daily
work experience .....................................................................................................................156
4.6.6 The existence of a volunteer team that works with the flood management
organisation, based on daily work experience .....................................................................158
4.6.7 The existence of a flood recovery plan, based on daily work experience ..................158
4.6.8 Community involvement and preparedness, based on their daily work experience .159
4.6.9 Existence of room for institutional learning, based on daily work experience ..........160

V
 4.6.10 Distribution of the responsibilities between emergency actors, based on daily work
experience ..............................................................................................................................161
4.7 Discussion: Practitioner viewpoints on effective flood management ...............................162
4.7.1 What makes an effective flood management system? ...............................................162
4.7.2 Flood mitigation and emergency response planning...................................................164
4.7.3 Recovery plans and early warning systems..................................................................165
4.7.4 Community preparedness and involvement ................................................................166
4.7.5 Institutional learning .....................................................................................................169
4.7.6 Distribution of the responsibilities between emergency actors .................................171
4.7.7 Decision making in flooding events and scoring; FMS effectiveness ..........................172
4.8 Why does the bulk of Turkish DRR funding go to earthquakes? ........................................176
4.9 Summary and recommendations ........................................................................................178
4.9.1 The effectiveness of flood management in the UK and Turkey ..................................178
4.9.2 Lessons the two nations can learn from each other ....................................................179
Chapter 5 – Case studies of flood disasters in Turkey and the UK ...............................................181
5.1 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................181
5.2 Methodology ........................................................................................................................181
5.3 Case study 1 – the 2009 Marmara floods in Turkey ............................................................183
5.3.1 Background ....................................................................................................................183
5.3.2 Inventory .......................................................................................................................184
5.3.3 Causes of flooding in the Marmara Region ..................................................................187
5.3.4 The Marmara floods, 7–10 September 2009 ................................................................189
5.3.5 Measuring the effectiveness of flood management during the Marmara floods ......189
5.3.6 Summary and recommendations .................................................................................197
5.4 Case Study 2 – The 2015 Kendal flooding in the UK............................................................198
5.4.1 Background ....................................................................................................................199
5.4.2 Inventory .......................................................................................................................200
5.4.3 The flooding incident ....................................................................................................200
5.4.4 Strengths and weaknesses of flood management in the Kendal flood.......................203
5.4.5 Testing the effectiveness of flood management during the Kendal floods ................203
5.4.6 Summary and recommendations .................................................................................210
5.5 Lessons learned from the case studies and the interviews ................................................211
5.5.1 Lessons from the 2015 Kendal Flooding .......................................................................211
5.5.2 Lessons from the 2009 Marmara Flooding ...................................................................212
5.5.3 Lessons from the Interviews .........................................................................................213
5.5.4 Comparison of the 2015 Kendal Flooding and the 2009 Marmara Flooding ..............214

VI
Chapter 6 – Results and Discussion ...............................................................................................217
6.1 Review of the main research findings .................................................................................217
6.1.1 Research question 1: How do the flood management systems in the UK and Turkey
compare? ................................................................................................................................217
6.1.2 Research question 2: How effective is flood management in the UK and Turkey? ....221
6.1.3 Research question 3: What are the strengths and weaknesses of flood management
practices? ................................................................................................................................233
6.1.4 Research question 4: How could flood management in the UK and Turkey be
improved? ...............................................................................................................................240
6.2 Summary...............................................................................................................................256
Chapter 7 – Conclusions .................................................................................................................258
7.1 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................258
7.1.1 The identification of indicators from the literature.....................................................258
7.1.2 Taking professionals’ perspectives into account .........................................................258
7.1.3 Case studies ...................................................................................................................259
7.2 Summary of research findings .............................................................................................259
7.2.1 Addressing the research questions...............................................................................259
7.3 Contribution to knowledge ..................................................................................................262
7.4 Limitations of this project ....................................................................................................265
7.5 Recommendations for further research ..............................................................................265
References ......................................................................................................................................267
Appendices .....................................................................................................................................327
Appendix A - Ethics committee review letter ...............................................................................328
Appendix B - Ethical conduct declaration form.............................................................................329
Appendix C - Participant information sheet ..................................................................................330
Appendix D - Consent form ............................................................................................................334
Appendix E - Interview questions ..................................................................................................336

VII
List of Tables
Chapter 1
Table 1.1: The 10 deadliest flood events between 1980 and 2020 (EM-DAT, 2020) .......................10
Table 1.2: The costs of flooding in various countries during 2019 (Podlaha et al., 2020) ...............16
Table 1.3: Actions for reducing flood hazard and flood vulnerability (Table adapted from Schanze
et al. (2008) and National Research Council (2013) .........................................................................21
Table 1.4: The costs of major flood events in Turkey and in the UK between 2005 and 2020 (EM-
DAT, 2020).........................................................................................................................................37
Table 1.5: Geographical features of Southampton/Hampshire & Izmit/Kocaeli (İzmit Belediyesi,
2021; Southampton City Council, 2021) ...........................................................................................39

Chapter 2
Table 2.1: Levels of flood emergencies and the respective response in the UK and Turkey ...........72
Table 2.2: Legislative structure and emergency planning in the UK and Turkey .............................75
Table 2.3: Comparison of UK and Turkey insurance coverage .........................................................93

Chapter 3
Table 3.1: The differences in the efficiency indicators between the sources ................................122
Table 3.2: Flood Management Efficiency Indicators (FMEIs) and their corresponding benchmarks
........................................................................................................................................................130
Table 3.3: FMEIs for Preparedness Phase and their corresponding benchmarks ..........................132
Table 3.4: FMEIs for Response Phase and their corresponding benchmarks ................................133
Table 3.5: FMEIs for Recovery Phase and their corresponding benchmarks .................................133

Chapter 4
Table 4.1: Gender of the subjects...................................................................................................149
Table 4.2: Organisations and professions of the respondents .......................................................151
Table 4.3: The perception about what makes an effective flood management ............................152
Table 4.4: Types of flood mitigation approaches ...........................................................................154
Table 4.5: The existence of an early warning system .....................................................................156
Table 4.6: Existence of a flood response plan ................................................................................157
Table 4.7: Existence of a volunteer team that works with the flood management organisation ..158
Table 4.8: Existence of a flood recovery plan, based on daily work experience ............................159
Table 4.9: Community involvement and preparedness .................................................................159
Table 4.10: Existence of room for institutional learning ................................................................160
Table 4.11: Distribution of the responsibilities between emergency actors .................................161
Table 4.12: Measurement table to assess the effectiveness of flood management practices, based
on the Interview findings ................................................................................................................174

Chapter 5
Table 5.1: History of flooding in the Marmara Region (Gorur, et al., 2002; Koc and Thieken, 2018)
........................................................................................................................................................184
Table 5.2: Rainfall intensity between 7th and 10th September .......................................................189

VIII
Table 5.3: Comparison of the interview findings (IF) and Marmara flooding (MF) based on
preparedness indicators of the FMEIs ............................................................................................191
Table 5.4: Comparison of the interview findings (IF) and Marmara flooding (MF) based on
response indicators of the FMEIs....................................................................................................194
Table 5.5: Comparison of the interview findings (IF) and Marmara flooding (MF) based on
recovery indicators of the FMEIs ....................................................................................................196
Table 5.6: History of flooding in the Kendal Region. In all of the cited cases fluvial flooding
occurred when rivers burst their banks due to intense or sustained rainfall (Environment Agency,
2016b) .............................................................................................................................................200
Table 5.7: Rainfall intensity between 5th and 6th December ..........................................................201
Table 5.8: Comparison of the interview findings (IF) and Kendal flooding (KF) based on
preparedness indicators of the FMEIs ............................................................................................204
Table 5.9: Comparison of the interview findings (IF) and Kendal flooding (KF) based on response
indicators of the FMEIs ...................................................................................................................208
Table 5.10: Comparison of the interview findings (IF) and Kendal flooding (MF) based on recovery
indicators of the FMEIs ...................................................................................................................209
Table 5.11: Overall scoring the management of Kendal flooding (KF) and Marmara flooding (MF)
based on FMEIs ...............................................................................................................................214

Chapter 6
Table 6.1: International comparison with key findings in general approach of flood management
........................................................................................................................................................242
Table 6.2: International comparison of the preparedness phase in flood management...............244
Table 6.3: International comparison of the response phase in flood management ......................248
Table 6.4: International comparison of the recovery phase in flood management.......................251

IX
List of Figures
Chapter 1
Figure 1.1: Coastal flood damage caused by Hurricane Sandy (RealClimate, 2014) ..........................3
Figure 1.2: 2020, 2019 and 2007 flooding of Tewkesbury, Gloucestershire (source: Internewscast,
2020) ...................................................................................................................................................4
Figure 1.3: The 2007 UK Summer floods (Whitelaw, 2009) ...............................................................7
Figure 1.4: Difference between tangible, intangible, direct and indirect impacts of flooding (Nicklin
et al., 2019) .......................................................................................................................................11
Figure 1.5: The three phases of flood management (Alexander, 2015; Gilissen et al., 2016, Trogrlić
et al., 2019) .......................................................................................................................................20
Figure 1.6: Hazard risk management approach (drawn by the author) ...........................................27
Figure 1.7: Triangulation validation method to confirm the findings (drawn by the author) ..........43
Figure 1.8: Research methods of the study ......................................................................................44
Figure 1.9: Flow of the Research ......................................................................................................49

Chapter 2
Figure 2.1: Coordination of flood management in all levels in the UK.............................................63
Figure 2.2: Coordination of flood management in all levels in Turkey.............................................67
Figure 2.3: Coordination of flood management at all levels in the UK and Turkey..........................70

Chapter 4
Figure 4.1: The spatial distribution of the flooded settlements in Turkey (Figure adapted from
Kocaeli Valiligi, 2020) ......................................................................................................................135
Figure 4.2: Tidal and fluvial (main river) flood risk in Southampton (Figure adapted from
Southampton City Council, 2014) ...................................................................................................137
Figure 4.3: Measurement of flood risk by hierarchy (SCC, 2014, p. 31) .........................................138
Figure 4.4: Word frequency results from NVIVO for the UK ..........................................................147
Figure 4.5: Word frequency results from NVIVO for Turkey ..........................................................147
Figure 4.6: Period the respondents had worked in their organisation ..........................................150
Figure 4.7: Structures of centralisation and decentralisation systems (Surbhi, 2017)...................173
Figure 4.8: Seismic hazard zones of Turkey (Figure adapted from Aygili, 2014) ............................177

Chapter 5
Figure 5.1: Image of the Marmara Flooding 2009 (Usta, 2009) .....................................................183
Figure 5.2: The location of Marmara Region (Figure adapted from OpenStreetMap, 2019a). The
floods affect the northern part of the sea along the Istanbul area. ...............................................185
Figure 5.3: Comparison between section of the area after the flood incident and the flood map
drawn based on the 500-year flood value (Yucel, 2015) ................................................................193
Figure 5.4: Photo of the Kendal Flooding 2015 (Humphreys, 2015) ..............................................198
Figure 5.5: The Kendal Region (Figure adapted from OpenStreetMap, 2019b).............................199
Figure 5.6: The Kendal Flood Map (Open Flood Risk by Postcode, adapted from Getthedata.com,
2019) ...............................................................................................................................................203
Figure 5.7: Combination of the Sandilands area after the flood incident and the Kendal flood map
(Figure adapted from Environment Agency, 2016b) ......................................................................207

X
Chapter 6
Figure 6.1: Coordination of flood management at different levels in the UK ................................217
Figure 6.2: Coordination of flood management at different levels in Turkey ................................217

XI
List of Abbreviations
ABI Association of British Insurers
AFAD Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency
APFM Associated Programme on Flood Management
CCA Civil Contingencies Act
CCS Civil Contingencies Secretariat
COBR Cabinet Office Briefing Rooms
CRS Community Ratings System
CSIRO Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
DEFRA Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs
DRR Disaster Risk Reduction
DSI State Hydraulic Works
EA Environment Agency
EMC Emergency Management Cycle
EM-DAT Emergency Events Database
FBS Federation of Small Businesses
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Maps
FMEIs Flood Management Efficiency Indicators
FM Flood Management
FMS Flood Management System
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GDWM General Directorate of Water Management
GPS Global Positioning System
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
ISDR International Strategy for Disaster Reduction
IWR Institute for Water Resources
KENTGES Integrated Urban Development Strategy and Action Plan
LLFA Lead Local Flood Authority
LRF Local Resilience Forum
MAFP Multi-Agency Flood Plan

XII
MFWA Ministry of Forestry and Water Affairs
MHCLG Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
MoEF Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
MP Member of Parliament
NFIP National Flood Insurance Program
NFM Natural Flood Management
NGO Non-governmental organization
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
SCC Southampton City Council
SCC Strategic Coordinating Centre
SCG Strategic Coordinating Groups
SEPA Scotland Environmental Protection Agency
SME Small to Medium Enterprise
SimEx Simulation Exercise
TCIP Turkish Catastrophe Insurance Pool
TGMP Turkish Grameen Microfinance Program
UK United Kingdom
UN United Nations
UN/ECE United Nations Economic Commission for Europe
UNISDR United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction
US United States
WMO World Meteorological Organization

XIII
Glossary of Key Terms
Coping Capacity - Coping capacity is the ability of people, organizations and systems, using
available skills and resources, to manage adverse conditions, risk or disasters. The capacity
to cope requires continuing awareness, resources and good management, both in normal
times as well as during disasters or adverse conditions. Coping capacities contribute to the
reduction of disaster risks.

Disaster Management - The organization, planning and application of measures preparing

for, responding to and recovering from disasters.

Disaster Risk - The potential loss of life, injury, or destroyed or damaged assets which could
occur to a system, society or a community in a specific period of time, determined
probabilistically as a function of hazard, exposure, vulnerability and capacity.

Emergency - Emergency is sometimes used interchangeably with the term disaster, as, for
example, in the context of biological and technological hazards or health emergencies,
which, however, can also relate to hazardous events that do not result in the serious
disruption of the functioning of a community or society.

Emergency Management - Emergency management is also used, sometimes

interchangeably, with the term disaster management, particularly in the context of
biological and technological hazards and for health emergencies. While there is a large
degree of overlap, an emergency can also relate to hazardous events that do not result in
the serious disruption of the functioning of a community or society.

Exposure - The situation of people, infrastructure, housing, production capacities and other
tangible human assets located in hazard-prone areas.

Flood - Flood is an excessive amount of water discharged compared to the drainage

capacity.

XIV
Hazard - A process, phenomenon or human activity that may cause loss of life, injury or
other health impacts, property damage, social and economic disruption or environmental
degradation.

Inundation - Generally, the term refers to an overabundance of things. In the context of

flooding, inundation is too much water than the normal capacity that can be held by the
rivers or streams.

Mitigation - The lessening or minimizing of the adverse impacts of a hazardous event.

Preparedness - The knowledge and capacities developed by governments, response and

recovery organizations, communities and individuals to effectively anticipate, respond to
and recover from the impacts of likely, imminent or current disasters.

Recovery - The restoring or improving of livelihoods and health, as well as economic,

physical, social, cultural and environmental assets, systems and activities, of a disaster-
affected community or society, aligning with the principles of sustainable development and
“build back better”, to avoid or reduce future disaster risk.

Resilience - The ability of a system, community or society exposed to hazards to resist,

absorb, accommodate, adapt to, transform and recover from the effects of a hazard in a
timely and efficient manner, including through the preservation and restoration of its
essential basic structures and functions through risk management.

Response - Actions taken directly before, during or immediately after a disaster in order to
save lives, reduce health impacts, ensure public safety and meet the basic subsistence
needs of the people affected.

Vulnerability - The conditions determined by physical, social, economic and environmental

factors or processes which increase the susceptibility of an individual, a community, assets
or systems to the impacts of hazards.
(Source: from primarily based on PreventionWeb.net, 2021)

XV
Acknowledgments
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my advisors: Prof. Dr. Richard Teeuw, Dr.
Carmen Solana and Dr. Jessica Roberts. They have continuously supported my Ph.D. study
research showing patience, motivation, as well as enthusiasm. Their guidance has
significantly helped me throughout my research, data collection, analysis, and compilation
of the final report. Furthermore, I would like to appreciate all the support staff in the thesis
committee for their insightful comments and hard questions that helped me rethink my
thesis.

This thesis would not be successful without the assistance of the Turkish government. They
funded my research and program from the beginning to the end.

The flood management organizations both in Turkey and in the UK were of great assistance
to my study. The agencies allowed me to access information and data relating to flood
management practices in both countries. Besides, the staff helped me with their expertise
in the field of flood management, technical terms, and laws governing all undertaken
actions.

Finally, yet importantly, I give my sincere appreciation to my family: my parents for your
spiritual support and guidance in my entire lifetime.

XVI
 Chapter 1 – Introduction
1.1 Background
In recent years, the world has experienced an escalation in the occurrence of storms and
flooding, a change that can be linked to global warming and increased urbanization
(Perrow, 2011; Miller and Hutchins, 2017; Vaughan, 2019; Williams et al., 2020). According
to Hui et al. (2018), global warming has resulted in a significant increase in the earth’s
overall temperature, which has caused significant climatic changes. The association
between global warming and floods can be explained by the warmer air holds more
moisture (Hui et al., 2018; IPCC, 2018). As a result, increased air temperature through
global warming causes significant rain, which subsequently causes flooding (Kaufmann et
al., 2016). As Zheng et al. (2019) report, a failure to curb the emissions by global warming
is likely to increase precipitation by 40% during the normal heavy rainy seasons. Further,
even if the global warming trends were reversed, the precipitation is still likely to remain
20% higher at the end of this century (Willner et al., 2018; Zheng et al., 2019). It is evident,
therefore, that the flood emergency is likely to increase in the future, hence the need for
flood emergency preparedness and management.

Contemporary society is, therefore, still grappling to find the most effective measures of
dealing with flooding incidences (Brown et al., 2018). Without mincing words, every nation
of the world has been faced with the effects of flooding emergencies, irrespective of their
relative wealth (Al-Amin et al., 2019). An incident that showed how dangerous and
uncontrollable floods can be, and the level of intricacy that exists in managing floods during
the actual event, was the 2017 flooding in Houston Texas (Noh, et al. 2019). Hurricane
Harvey caused the most substantial tropical cyclone rainfall event in the United States (US)
history, leading to excess flooding (Blake and Zelinsky, 2018). Although the US has a well-
established system of flood management, the aftermath of the 20 cm of rainfall in 24 hours
indicated just how difficult it can be to combat the predicament (Blake and Zelinsky, 2018).

The global impact of floods has been adverse. Each year, floods claim the lives of a total of
25,000 individuals globally (UNU, 2004) and this threat is bound to increase as climate
change continues (IPCC, 2018; Torzhkov et al., 2019; Boé et al., 2020). Projections are that
climate change has disclosed that there is no systematic alteration or changes in the level

1
of annual rainfall between now and the year between 2080 (Dadson et al., 2017; IPCC,
2018; Kang et al., 2018; Zhang and Soden, 2019). What these findings imply is that regions
that experience excessive rainfall will continue in the experience, making it intricate to
resolve the problem of flooding in the coming years.

As countries continue to contemplate options to manage climate change and the effects of
urbanization, effective flood management remains an issue for many nations (Rosenzweig
et al., 2018). Notably, however, the risk of flooding is one of the most manageable of all
natural emergencies because the urgency mainly rests on launching effective systems and
partnerships for lowering the risk (Peters‐Guarin et al., 2011 and Berndtsson et al., 2019).
Unlike other natural emergencies, scientists have the capability of estimating where exactly
the floods will occur, the likelihood of the flooding, the flooding behaviour and its
consequences (Rehman et al., 2019; Wingfield et al., 2019). In the United Kingdom for
instance, the Environment Agency (EA), and Natural Resources Wales (NRW), and Scottish
Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) are the bodies in charge of constant monitoring the
rainfall patterns, river levels, and the condition of the sea to predict the potential of
flooding; and consequently issue early warnings (Met Office, 2020). Therefore, society has
few excuses for not managing flood hazards in a responsible manner. A key problem arises
when the likelihood of occurrence is unknown and when a short lead-time before the
response action is taken.

1.2 Types of flooding

Understanding the various types of flood is critical in the design, development, and
implementation of flood management systems. Vojtek and Vojtekova (2016) define flood
as an excessive amount of water discharged compared to the drainage capacity. Various
phenomena are associated with, and as such, there are different types of floods, which are
typically defined in terms of occurrences, damage caused, and mode of the forecast. The
main types of flooding are: coastal (storm surge), fluvial (river), pluvial (surface and flash-
flood) and groundwater floods. The severity of the floods is dependent on the intensity of
the rainfall, spatial distribution of rainfall, topography, and surface conditions (Tramblay et
al., 2011; Diakakis et al., 2016).

2
1.2.1 Coastal flooding
A storm surge, the main cause of coastal flooding, is an abnormal rise in the seawater
caused by low-pressure storm systems, and is always measured as the height of the
seawater above the normally predicted tides (Prime, 2018). The tides often occur when a
storm wind pushes the seawater towards the coastal shore (Jalili Pirani and Najafi, 2020).
At any given location, a storm surge is determined by the coastline orientation to the storm
track, speed, size, and intensity of the storm (Fernández-Montblanc et al., 2019). The type
of flood is characterized by water overflowing on low-lying land, thereby causing
devastating loss of life and destruction of property (Duncombe, 2019). The three common
levels of coastal floods are minor, moderate, and major (Takagi et al., 2016). Minor coastal
flood witnesses a slight amount of beach erosion with no major expected damage (Takagi
et al., 2016). According to Kwari et al. (2015), the moderate type is characterized by a fair
amount of beach erosion accompanied by some home damages. A major coastal flood
poses a serious threat to life and property, causing large scale beach erosion, flooding of
numerous roads, and damage to many structures (Sobel, 2014; Kirezci et al., 2020). As
illustrated in Figure 1.1, the major coastal flood brought about by Hurricane Sandy caused
significant destruction of property along the shore of Jersey in October 2012.

Figure 1.1: Coastal flood damage caused by Hurricane Sandy (RealClimate, 2014)

A study conducted by Hinkel et al. (2014) estimated that in the 21st century, at least 0.2-
4.6% of the global population is going to be experiencing flooding, based on the predicted
rise of the sea level by a magnitude of 25-123 cm. The consequences of such sea level rise,

3
if not mitigated, would result in approximately 0.3-9.3% loss of the global gross domestic
product; which is unlikely to be tolerated. The study reported that as a result, the global
estimated cost of constructing and maintaining dikes at the coast could reach $12-71 billion
dollars in the 21st century (Hinkel et al., 2014).

1.2.2 Fluvial flooding

This type of flooding occurs after excessive rainfall over an extended period causing a river
to exceed its capacity (Nace, 2017). According to Nabangchang et al. (2015), the flooding
can also be an outcome of a heavy snowmelt or ice jams, with the damage being
widespread given that the river overflow affects other smaller rivers downstream. The
flood could cause dams and dikes to break and swamp in surrounding areas (Nace, 2017).
Overbank flooding, which is the main type of fluvial flooding and which occurs in any size
of a river channel, is an outcome of water rising and overflowing over the edges of a river
(Cook et al., 2018). An example is illustrated in Figure 1.2, where heavy rainfall caused
flooding of the Rivers Severn and Avon along with the front range of Tewkesbury Abbey
and other houses in 2020.

Figure 1.2: 2020, 2019 and 2007 flooding of Tewkesbury, Gloucestershire (source:
Internewscast, 2020)

Nace (2017) and Noy et al. (2017) aver that the severity of fluvial flooding is established by
the rainfall in an area, the period of precipitation accumulation, previous saturation of local

4
soils, and the terrain of the nearby river systems. Flat areas experience a slow water rise,
which remains shallow for days. As stated by Nace (2017) and Pommeranz and Steininger
(2019), rainwater itself is not enough to cause fluvial floods. Otherwise, the water that
flows into the river from the rain would move downstream into the sea as usual without
breaking the riverbanks. When the rain falls, some water falls directly into the river, while
some falls on the soil surface. As the rain persists, the soil gets saturated and cannot take
more water from the surface, and hence surface runoff occurs. Depending on the slope of
the land surface, the runoffs empty into streams which flow into the river. As the water
from the surface run off increases, the river level begins to rise, and this is dependent on
the duration and amount of precipitation. Eventually, the river level rises and bursts off the
banks and causes fluvial flooding (Nace, 2017; Pommeranz and Steininger, 2019).

In hilly or mountainous regions, however, flooding occurs within minutes after heavy
precipitation and snow melting. Models often consider the history of precipitation,
forecasted rainfall, current levels of water in the river, and temperatures to establish the
probability of fluvial flooding (Comer et al., 2017; Nace, 2017; Kirkpatrick and Olbert, 2020).
In most cases, fluvial floods occur in low-lying areas that are located at the foot of
mountains or hills. The snow melting and rainwater from the hills and mountains flow down
onto the low-lying land (Bernhofen et al., 2018). Naturally, there are rivers that channel the
surface runoffs from the hills downwards to lakes, seas, or oceans. The speed of drainage
is dependent on the gradient, surface roughness and the soil type (Comer et al., 2017;
Kirkpatrick and Olbert, 2020).

1.2.3 Pluvial flooding

Pluvial flooding is brought about by heavy rainfall that overwhelms the local natural and
man-made drainage systems (Thieken et al., 2019). According to Rosenzweig et al. (2018)
and Thieken et al. (2019) pluvial flooding mostly occurs in urban areas. The authors define
pluvial flooding as that which occurs when the natural precipitation exceeds the capacity
that can be handled by both natural and engineered drainage. Urban centres mainly have
engineered drainage systems which are vulnerable to flooding. Excess rains are likely to
overwhelm the urban drainage because of their limited capacity to hold and transport
water (Pommeranz and Steininger, 2019). On the other hand, poor drainage systems within

5
the urban areas are likely to cause flooding; especially blockage, of some drainage systems
because of the urban effluent (Rosenzweig et al., 2018). A common misconception is that
people who live close to the river and other water bodies are the most vulnerable to floods.
Pluvial floods indicate otherwise. Such floods occur in areas that are far located from water
bodies (Netzel et al., 2021). The two common types are:

a) Surface water floods are common in urban areas where intense rain saturates an
urban drainage system. Noy et al. (2017) argue that the urban drainage system can
be saturated to a level of being overwhelmed, and water begins to flow out into
streets and nearby structures. Other than intense rain, concretisation of the urban
drainage system, specifically the tunnels, is a major cause of blockage. Most of the
internal surfaces of urban drainage systems are made of concrete, and plastered
with cement to provide a less turbulent flow of water (Jha et al., 2012). McGrane
(2016) also asserts that man-made transformation of habitats to expedite
development of buildings and facilities have an influence on dominant runoff-
generating processes and main flow pathways, having a considerable impact on
catchment boundaries and drainage pathways. As illustrated in Figure 1.3, extensive
pluvial flooding was caused by the severe rainfall in the UK during the summer of
2007. Areas of clay-rich bedrocks and/or soils lead to pluvial flooding. During the
past decade, the UK EA have added clay-rich substrate to their designated areas of
flood hazard (Archer et al., 2019).

b) Flash floods are from rainfall in hilly rural or mountainous areas. Hillsides with
recent forest fires are common sources of pluvial floods similar to suburban
communities living on the hillside (Rözer et al., 2016). In the UK, in the past 30 years
there have been many devastating flash-floods in narrow rocky valleys, such as
Boscastle (2004) and Calderdale (1989, 2012) (Doe, 2015).

6
Figure 1.3: The 2007 UK Summer floods (Whitelaw, 2009)

A country’s economic level of development is associated with the efficiency of the urban
drainage systems. Cities with high population density are likely to have poor drainage
systems if there are ineffective garbage management strategies (Koop and van Leeuwen,
2016; Ferronato and Torretta, 2019). There are specific programmes designed to manage
the drainage of water in the urban areas. Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SUDS) is a
designed system that is meant to manage the surface drainage in the urban areas (Hoang
and Fenner, 2016). Naturally, various landscapes including the urban areas have natural
ways of draining surface water. However, with the construction of buildings, and altering
the otherwise soft and permeable urban soil surface, natural drainage is significantly
impeded (Ellis and Viavattene, 2013). Furthermore, farming around the urban areas also
changes the landscape topography significantly. As such, surface water from large
agricultural lands finds their way into the drainage system faster than it would have been
under a natural drainage system. The level of infrastructural development determines the
complexity and design of the SUDS (Koop and van Leeuwen, 2016).

Despite the level of complexity and design of the SUDS, there are several factors that
determine the effectiveness of urban flood management systems. Population growth is
particularly the major determinant of the effectiveness of an urban drainage system. When
the SUDS is designed, the current population of the urban area, and a projection of the
potential population increase is the measurement standard (Hoang and Fenner, 2016).

7
However, the population may grow faster than projected and outpace the design of the
urban drainage system. As population increases, there is the need to develop more houses,
more schools, parks, and many other infrastructures, which ultimately changes the
topography of the urban areas (Fengxiang, 2018). A sustainable urban drainage system
should therefore take care of the potential population growth, as well as changing in the
sub-urban topographical environment, especially with regards to agricultural production
(Lashford et al., 2019; Mielby and Henriksen, 2020).

1.3 Global risks from flooding

Risks and consequences associated with flooding are often classified as either direct or
indirect, and tangible or intangible, respectively. According to Rothkrantz and Fitrianie
(2018), direct consequences of flooding have a direct effect on the area and time of the
flood event. When floods occur, they cause significant losses that are immediately
measurable or quantifiable. Among the direct consequences of floods include loss of lives,
loss of property, injuries, displacement of people from their homes, loss of livestock, and
destruction of crops in the field (Rothkrantz and Fitriane, 2018). All these factors can
immediately be verified or quantified because of the observable nature. It is logical to
argue, therefore, that the direct consequences of floods include things that can be
quantified numerically (Armaroli et al., 2019). The number of people and livestock dead,
houses destroyed, cars washed away, sizes of crop fields destroyed can all be quantified
numerically (Hudson et al., 2017). Pregnolato et al. (2017) report that direct flood risks
often affect both individuals and the community at large. Frequently, floods cause
destruction of communication and transport infrastructure, which not only affect the
community but the government as well (Armaroli et al., 2019). Since 1995, the number of
lives that have been lost through the flood and other weather disasters is over 600,000
(Wallemacq et al., 2015). Jonkman et al. (2009) applied "mathematical modelling" and
"spatial mapping techniques" in the analysis of the mortality-flood relationship after
Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, USA. The study analysed 1118 deaths and found that
one-third of the 771 deaths have taken place outside flooded areas or in hospitals or
shelters in flooded areas, and were attributed to the adverse post-flood state of public
health. Two-thirds of deaths were caused due to the immediate physical impact of the flood
and the majority of the people died due to drowning. Majority of the victims belong to

8
higher age groups, almost sixty percent of whom were more than 65 (Jonkman et al., 2009;
Miao, 2018; Arrighi et al., 2019). The lives and injuries that accrue from floods can be
classified as socioeconomic under the subsequent section.

On the other hand, indirect consequences are losses that do not incur immediately after
the disaster; but they are primarily associated with the direct consequences (Nicklin et al.,
2019). For example, friends and relatives are impacted by the loss of the lives of their loved
ones. Destruction of electricity and communication lines causes inaccessibility to services,
especially in the modern digital society. The stagnant water resulting from floods may be
breeding ground for some diseases including malaria, and typhoid (Nicklin et al., 2019;
Saulnier et al., 2019). The government incurs an additional economic cost in reconstructing
areas destroyed by floods (Zeng et al., 2019). As a result, the resources that had otherwise
been planned for priority projects are channelled towards emergency management. Talbot
et al. (2018) assert that usually, only the direct and most noticeable effects of the flood are
always reported, yet there are several indirect ones. Specifically, the study explored the
impact of floods on aquatic ecosystems. The following areas were identified: support
services such as formation and primary production of soil; water regulation, disease
regulation, and water quality; service provision such as drinking water, and supply of food,
and cultural values including recreation, tourism, and aesthetic values (Talbot et al., 2018).

Tangible refers to the effects that can be monetized, while intangible consequences are
those flood effects that are more difficult to quantify or monetize (Andrade and Szlafsztein,
2018). UNISDR (2017) argues that catastrophic floods also have significant economic
impacts, often outside the area affected by the floods. Consequently, the major flooding
risks relate to the destruction of property (buildings and infrastructure such as roads and
electricity) and loss of lives (both human and animals). The value of the destroyed property
such as buildings and washed away automobiles among other aspects can be quantified in
monetary terms (Allaire, 2018). If the government compensates the victims, then the
consequences would be termed as an indirect tangible impact. Additionally, direct
intangible risks include loss of lives, both human and non-human in the affected areas
(Nicklin et al., 2019; Frazier et al., 2020). These risks differ from direct tangible ones in the
sense that these impacts cannot be monetized because there is no specific measure or

9
“market value” for the lives that are lost or the damages occurred; thus, it is considered as
the most critical and irreversible societal flood impact (Frongia et al., 2016). Physical
injuries, ecosystem and cultural heritage destruction are other types of direct intangible
impacts that are viewed as less severe compared to human life losses (Bubeck et al., 2017).
An example of a serious flood event that resulted in great fatalities is the Venezuela flood
(1999) which occurred due to profuse rains. These rains were accompanied by mudslides
steeping of the “Sierra de Avila” leading to life losses of almost 30,000 individuals (Bubeck
et al., 2017). Therefore, flooding has significant damages to humans and property in the
affected areas. The following Table 1.1 illustrates a list of the 10 deadliest flood events and
the total damages since 1980, based on the EM-DAT database.

Table 1.1: The 10 deadliest flood events between 1980 and 2020 (EM-DAT, 2020)

Rank Country Year Total Deaths Total Damages

(‘000 US$)
1 Venezuela 1999 30000 3160000
2 China 1980 6200 160000
3 India 2013 6054 1100000
4 China 1998 3656 30000000
5 China 1996 2775 12600000
6 Haiti 2004 2665
7 Bangladesh 1988 2379 2137000
8 Somalia 1997 2311
9 Bangladesh 1987 2055 330000
10 India 1994 2001 175000

From the above table, it is clear that the highest fatalities due to flooding were observed
primarily in Asia with a percentage of (67%). This is followed by fatalities in America with
(22%) and finally Africa with (9%). It is worth noting that for developed regions such as
Europe, the losses in human lives are not that high as compared to other regions. This is
due to the implementation of efficient and effective disaster management systems and the
enhanced capacity of early warnings.

Figure 1.4 summarizes the typology of societal flood impacts and examples for each
category.

10
 Direct

Physical contact of Physical contact of

floodwaters with floodwaters with
economic assets live stocks and
-Buildings humans
-Vehicles -Mortality and
injuries
-Agricultural
Commodities -Ecological looses
Tangible Intangible

Impacts on society Impacts on society

that are outside the that are outside the
flood zone flood zone
-Traffic congestions -Psychological
and disruptions trauma
-Business -Loss of trust in
disruption authorities

Indirect

Figure 1.4: Difference between tangible, intangible, direct and indirect impacts of flooding
(Nicklin et al., 2019)

The following examples identify several flooding events that occurred in different places
around the world along with their impacts on the country. To start with, the United Nations
Office for Disaster Risk Reduction UNDRR (2015) reports the global impact of adverse
weather, including floods. According to the report, since the first Convention on Climate
Change, which was held in 1995, approximately 90% of disasters have been caused by
floods, heatwaves, storms and droughts, with over 600,000 lives lost, and 4 billion injured
or displaced. The most affected countries include the United States, which has recorded
472 disasters over the 20-year period, China with 441, India – 288, Philippines – 274, and
Indonesia – 163. In economic terms, the report indicates that approximately $1.89 trillion
has been lost through weather-related disasters (UNDRR, 2015).

The 100-year flood incident is an example of one of the major emergencies with severe
impacts that occurred in Europe in 2006. The flood happened in the “March” river which is

11
located at the border of Slovakia and Lower Austria. It took place at the lower reach of the
river with an associated increase in flow rate that is almost 13 times greater than the
water’s average flow rate (from 108 m3/sec to 1400 m3/sec). As a result, The Austrian
Federal Northern Railway (OBB), which is considered as a fundamental line connecting
Vienna and the Czech Republic, was severely destroyed. The affected section was evaluated
to be about 10 km while the repairing costs of this direct tangible impact exceed (EUR 41.4
million). Alongside, the event had indirect impacts that emerged as a result of the shut
down of both freight operations and passenger transport for a few months (Kellermann et
al., 2015).

Many countries in Africa had also witnessed flash floods during the past two decades and
one of these countries is Egypt which encountered a severe flash flood in “El Arish''-
(Northern Sinai) in 2010. During the event, the water rose up to 2 metres above the ground
surface level and thousands of people were injured. Moreover, many serious damages
were associated with this flood such as roads, trees, water and electric lines destructions
with a total estimated losses of about EGP- 137 million (Moawad et al., 2014; Prama et al.,
2020).

In Asia, one of the countries that is very vulnerable to floods is Pakistan as it has
experienced several flood events since 1928. However, the worst flood in Pakistan’s history
was the one that took place in 2010 (Shah et al., 2020). Excessive monsoon rain-falls
occurred in many regions of the country including Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Sindh, Punjab and
Balochistan; thus, these rain falls affected the “Indus River” basin with massive damages
and destruction. In addition, many people were injured, affected and died as a result. The
consequences of Pakistan’s-2010 flood were as follows: 1,985 people died, 2,946 were
injured, 132,000 km2 of land area was destructed, 1,894,530 homes were shattered and
smashed, 2.1 million hectares of cultivated lands were destroyed along with damages that
ruined 78 out of 121 districts (Shah et al, 2017). The estimated number of affected
individuals in total was about 20 Million. In addition, the services sector was also immensely
impacted such as the health and education sectors. According to the World Bank and the
Asian Development Bank, the estimated costs were on the order of $ 8.74 to 10.85 billion
(Shabir, 2013).

12
Sri Lanka is also one of Asia’s countries that encountered serious flood events in the past
few years such as the 2016’s torrential rain event that had caused floods along with
landslides that affected 22 out of 25 districts. According to the Department of Meteorology
of Sri-Lanka, Colombo was one of the most affected districts as a total of 256mm of rain
was recorded during a 24-hour period leading to numerous damages. This flood is
considered the worst flood that Sri-Lanka encountered in the past three decades. The
records of the event revealed that 101 people were killed, 116 individuals were missing and
a total of 301,601 individuals were affected. Moreover, more than 5,037 houses were
partially damaged and about 68 were completely destroyed. The costs of the total damages
due to the flood was estimated to be $ 2 billion (Samantha, 2018; Siriwardana et al., 2018).

Besides Pakistan and Sri-Lanka, Vietnam is ranked among the top five countries that are
the most vulnerable to floods due to severe climate changes (Bangalore et al., 2019).
Vietnam loses from 1-1.5 % of its annual GDP (Gross Domestic Product) due to natural
disasters with floods and storms accounting for 40% of all-natural events and Force
Majeure (Quy, 2018). Vietnam encountered multiple continuous floods during 2018 such
as the flood event in its Northern region due to heavy rains. These rains were associated
with the tropical storm “Son-Tinh” which led to landfalls in many coastal areas. The flooding
events continued until December followed by “Torrential” rains that caused landslides in
several other areas such as Quang Tri, Da Nang, Quang Nam, and Quang Ngai. Based on the
Central Steering Committee on Natural Disaster Prevention and Control, a total of 181
people were killed and 37 were missing during this event. It was also reported that the total
estimated losses of 2018 was about $858 million. However, the losses were much less than
that reported in 2017 ($2.6 billion) which is almost three times lower (Quy, 2018).

Another example is the flood that happened in Mumbai, India in 2005. The flood is
considered one of the most terrible disasters to the city as it persisted for seven weeks
(Murali et al., 2019). This flood event contributed to massive direct and indirect impacts on
the citizens as it affected almost 20 million people, from which 1,200 individuals and about
26,000 livestock were killed. Several destructions were caused and included the complete
destruction of more than 14,000 and the damage of 350,000 houses leaving almost 200,000
individuals homeless or in camps. Besides, one of the major sectors that were heavily

13
affected was the agriculture sector as about 20,000 hectares of land’s topsoil were eroded
and 550,000 hectares of land of crops were completely damaged. Apart from agriculture,
several infrastructures were also affected such as bridges and roads where the costs were
estimated to be $ 254 million (Nandy, 2005; Joshi, 2016).

One of India’s most recent flood events was encountered by the Kerala state in 2018 due
to a “low-pressure” system followed by a monsoon depression that led to excessive rain-
fall causing floods and landslides. It was characterized as one of the worst floods that
happened in Kerala since 1924 affecting more than 5.4 million people and had killed almost
400 individuals. Based on reports by the Government of Kerala, the assessments of the
post-disaster economic situation reported an economic loss of more than $3.8 million
(Hunt and Menon, 2020).

1.4 Socio-economic flood vulnerability

The socio-economic impacts of flooding affect people living in areas of the emergency. A
study by Hammond et al. (2015) reported the loss of lives and property as the biggest
impact of flooding. Empirical estimates of the building and content losses are the correct
measure of the value of the lost assets. A case in point is during 2010, when Pakistan
experienced extensive severe flooding in the Indus River basin. 20 million people were
gravely affected by the flooding and 1400 individuals lost their lives (Hussain, 2015). China
has also been adversely affected by river flooding and landslides. In 1998, the country
experienced flooding that instigated a total of 3,656 deaths. Similarly in 2016, a total of 449
deaths occurred due to floods (Lyu et al., 2018). The case of China and Pakistan indicates a
sample of the number of lives that have been lost as a result of the problem of flooding. It
is essential to have effective flood management systems anywhere in the world in order to
eradicate the loss of life (Gilissen et al., 2016).

The loss of life and property are direct effects and are often accompanied by the
destruction of crops and livestock. For instance, the 2011 flooding in Queensland Australia
led to the loss of thousands of animals due to water inundating their habitats while
livestock was unable to relocate to higher grounds in time. As a result, they have washed
away (Keogh et al., 2011; Keoduangsine et al., 2014). The loss of wildlife biodiversity is

14
another significant loss. On their part, the June 2013 floods in Alberta led to the loss of four
lives while the 2015 floods in Myanmar resulted in the displacement of 1.6 million people.
The cost of the floods was estimated to be 3.1% of the country’s 2014/2015 GDP. The
residents of affected areas in Chin (Myanmar) reported losses estimated to be about $115
per person (World Bank, 2019).

According to Cassar et al. (2017), flash floods with little or no warning time result in more
deaths compared to slow-rising riverine flooding. The loss of livelihoods and social
infrastructures such as power plants, roads, and bridges are among major destructions
resulting from flooding (Niipare et al., 2020). Additionally, flood emergencies result in
disruption of economic activities and dislocation and dysfunction of normal lives for a
period that surpasses the duration of flooding (Kousky, 2014). Furthermore, a direct effect
on production assets in agriculture or manufacturing can inhibit regular activities and lead
to loss of livelihoods (Wreford and Topp, 2020).

Dolman et al. (2018) assessed the floods that often occur in Rio Branco, Brazil. According
to the authors, fluvial floods are common and severe in the Amazon region. The study,
therefore, explored the socio economic losses that often occur in the city as a result of
floods that occur almost annually. The common socioeconomic factors reported herein
include loss of lives and injuries, which may result in significant economic losses if the
primary family breadwinner is affected. Other socioeconomic losses include flood-related
emergencies, inability to go to work and attend to other economic activities. Dolman et al.
(2018) reported that the estimated socio economic losses to Rio Branco were $98 million
as per the government estimates. However, using a different model, the study found that
the losses could have amounted to up to $200 million. Worse still, is that the floods occur
almost every year.

Decreased purchasing power and production capabilities are the other outcomes of floods.
A study by Carrera et al. (2015) reported that damage to infrastructure could cause other
long term effects such as limited availability of clean water and electricity, communication,
education, and transport. Often, floodplains experience reduced purchasing power and
loss of land value, which essentially increases the vulnerabilities of communities that live

15
in the areas (Allaire, 2018). Due to the vulnerabilities, Schroter et al. (2014) argue that
communities in such areas report mass migrations to other safer and economically
developed areas. Most people migrate to developed urban areas. A study by Lopez-
Marrero and Tschakert (2011) on the socioeconomic impacts of flooding found that
communities living in floodplains suffer psychosocial effects that can traumatize them for
long periods. For instance, the loss of loved ones, especially children, displacement from
one’s home, and loss of livelihoods, can cause continuous stress and depression to the
victims (Shabir, 2013). Furthermore, these factors often are accompanied by other health
effects such as drowning, hypothermia, and electrical injuries, with families incurring
significant health losses (Shabir, 2013). Table 1.2 indicated the costs of flooding in various
countries during 2019.

Table 1.2: The costs of flooding in various countries during 2019 (Podlaha et al., 2020)

Date (year 2019) Country Deaths Structure/ Economic

Claims Losses (USD)
09-31 Jul Bangladesh 210 584,000+ 75+ million
16-18 Mar Indonesia 194 3,000+ 103+ million
07 Jul-23 Aug Pakistan 143 4,000+ 75+ million
22-24 Apr South Africa 87 7,500+ 100+ million
28 Jun-04 Jul India 77 25,000+ 100+ million
26 Dec Colombia 18 2,000+ 15+ million
27-29 Jan Saudi Arabia 12 2,000+ 25+ million
11-15 Sept Spain 7 70,000+ 2.5+ billion
15-17 Dec France 3 10,000+ 100+ million
29 Jun-04 Jul Japan 2 1,000+ 125+ million
26-28 Feb California, USA 1 6,000+ 175+ million
24-26 Oct Italy 1 1,000+ 590+ million
24-25 Mar New Zealand 1 2,000+ 15+ million
13-16 Mar Canada 0 11,000+ 240+ million

According to Table 1.2, it seems that flood losses are significantly higher in developing and
emerging countries as compared to the developed ones. For instance, over 100 people died
in Indonesia, Pakistan and Bangladesh while less than 10 people died in Spain, France and
Japan. However, the economic losses seem to be significantly higher in developed nations
than the developing ones. While the economic losses in the floods in Italy where one

16
person died were more than $ 590 million, in the floods in Bangladesh where 210 people
lost their lives, the financial losses were ca. $ 75 million.

Impacts that are outside the flood event in terms of time and space are known as indirect
impacts and they are divided into tangible, which could be expressed in monetary terms,
and intangible which does not have a “market value” (Allaire, 2018). To begin with, losses
related to businesses can be identified as indirect tangible impacts (Allaire, 2018). An
example could be the 2011’s flood that hit Thailand had led to severe indirect impacts that
affected the supply chain of the manufacturing industry (Bubeck et al, 2017). Some of the
industries that were heavily affected were the automobile industry and the hard disk drive
industry (HDD). The latter is considered as one of Thailand’s biggest industries as about
43% of the world’s Hard Disk Drives were exported from Thailand before the flood event
(Haraguchi and Lall, 2015). Thus, the HDD shipments decreased by almost 30% which
further led to a great increase in the prices ranging from 80 to 190%. This clarifies the
indirect impacts of a flood event on the country’s economy and its businesses which lasts
far beyond the duration of the event. In the case of Thailand, the prices of (HDD) were still
high even after one year from the flooding event (Haraguchi and Lall, 2015).

Moreover, as indicated by Thieken (2016), floods can also cause disruptions in several
networks such as transportation and this was the case in Germany. The 2013’s huge flood
of Germany had affected the operation of several railways as 75% of the routes were shut
down; one of the major routes that connects Berlin to other cities such as Frankfurt and
Cologne was also affected. To illustrate, the damage caused by the flood to various high-
speed railway tracks had led to the closure of the route for 5 months leading to diverting
the routes of almost 10,000 passenger trains and 3,000 freight trains (Thieken, 2016;
Bubeck et al., 2019). Several factors can be used to measure the severity of indirect impact
on the country’s economy which include the sum of indirect losses, the resilience and
flexibility to redress the lacking inputs, and the type and size of the economy such as
whether it is a developing or an industrialised economy (Koks and Thissen, 2016; Zeng et
al., 2019). The indirect economic impacts are not addressed and measured to the extent of
which the direct losses are; however, approaches to measure such impacts are being
developed. Examples of current assessment models of indirect impacts are the Input-

17
output model and the Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) model (Oosterhaven and
Bouwmeester, 2016; Koks et al., 2019).

Moving on to the indirect intangible impacts which are the societal impacts that occur in
regions away from the areas of flood events (Allaire, 2018). Apart from health problems
directly related to floods, other long-term issues are indirectly related to such events. These
include malnutrition, contamination due to displacement, and the disturbance of the social
environment which might lead to long-term health problems (Isaranuwatchai et al., 2017;
Tong, 2017). People are more vulnerable to suffering from long-term effects if they were
personally displaced, suffered from insufficient health care services, or were being exposed
to low quality (hygiene) water (Munro et al., 2017). Therefore, the country’s income is one
of the fundamental factors that identifies the severity of health problems that the
individuals might encounter post-disaster. For instance, in developed countries with high
incomes, people are less likely to encounter such types of health issues due to their high-
standard infrastructures and hygiene levels (Bubeck et al., 2017).

1.5 Flood Management

The concept of flood management which basically aims to prevent or reduce the damaging
effects of flooding has been widely defined (Morita, 2008; Nye et al., 2011; Schanze, 2012;
Samuels, 2018). According to Benson et al. (2016), flood management is a collective noun
for a series of activities following sustainable development principles, aimed at creating
harmony between man and nature, and normalizing flood control. Priest (2019) on the
other hand defines flood management as our ability to manage floods and associated risks,
while Shah et al. (2015) and Juarez-Lucas et al. (2018) denote flood management to involve
the adoption of strategies that can lower the effects and likelihood of flooding. Natural
management is an effective way of controlling floods, especially fluvial, as opposed to the
traditional methods that often aim at preventing the occurrence of floods (Schanze, 2012).
The natural methods involve the introduction of measures upstream from where surface
runoff originates. Natural flood management can be achieved in three ways: (i) reduction
of the rate of runoff from the mountain or hillside; (ii) water storage during raining seasons,
which can be achieved by the construction of dikes; (iii) slowing the rate at which the runoff
from the hillside connects to the potential zones of inundation (Lane, 2017). Challies et al.

18
(2016) define flood management as steps and procedures that are used to lower the social-
economic and human losses that are instigated by flooding at the same time factoring in
the benefits that can be derived from the flooding incidences. Consequently, flood
management should involve an examination of the social, economic environment, and
institutional frameworks.

How to deal with the likelihood and consequences of flooding is not a novel task, but rather
an old concept (CSIRO, 2000). For instance, the English Parliament passed laws about
flooding & sewerage back in the 1300's (Parliament House of Commons, 1877). Crowe and
Rotherham (2019) highlight that flood management’s history can be traced back to the
early writing of landscape pioneers such as Frederick Law Olmstead in the mid-nineteenth
century. Some of the ancient approaches were to include constructing flood ways, terracing
to reduce the flow of water to non-erosive velocity and planting vegetation that
significantly controls sediment flow (Lane, 2017). Additionally, flood risk management has
been practiced ever since the consequences of flooding were appreciated and addressed
by leaders in the past. For instance, governor Lachlan Macquarie in 1817, proclaimed the
danger of flooding and proposed the development of the first formal flood risk
management measure taken by European settlers in Australia (CSIRO, 2000).
Unfortunately, his advice was largely unheeded.

Managing natural hazards such as flooding have been embodied in the arrangements of
emergency management, which are purposely designed to improve three primary clusters
of activities - preparedness, response, and recovery - regardless of the nature of an
emergency (Evans, 2011; Nicholson, 2013; Mohamad Yusoff et al., 2018). These
arrangements have to be fundamentally dynamic and change with the emergence of new
risks (Ritchie and MacDonald, 2010; Gilissen et al., 2016). Even though the arrangements
of flood management have been embedded within legal and policy frameworks for
emergency management, the pressing challenges posed by floods ensure a strong case for
researching flood management on an individual basis (Gilissen et al., 2016). This study thus,
considers flood management in the context of the emergency management cycle. In most
cases, the flood management cycle encompasses the mitigation/prevention stage that is
also interconnected to the preparedness stage. Next is the response phase, then the

19
recovery stage (Alexander, 2015; Gilissen et al., 2016, Trogrlić et al., 2019). In order to make
flood management initiatives and programs effective, the emergency management cycle
should automatically be incorporated into the practice of flood management. Figure 1.5
highlights the emergency management phases that are used in numerous countries.

Before
After Flooding
Flooding
-Recovery
-Risk Reduction
-Reconstruction
-Preparedness

During Flooding
-Response

Figure 1.5: The three phases of flood management (Alexander, 2015; Gilissen et al., 2016,
Trogrlić et al., 2019)

Studies by Lopez-Marrero and Tschakert (2011), Chacowry et al. (2018) and Kuang and Liao
(2020) argue that since the number of flood-related emergencies is on the rise, there is an
increasing emphasis on the notion of “living with risk.” In the face of hazards, it has been
suggested that certain elements can enhance their management. The authors argue that
learning to live with hazards and using all types of knowledge for learning and adapting are
essential factors. People are encouraged to live with flood hazards by adapting to the
situation and putting in place coping mechanisms. For instance, early warning systems
should be used to predict the probability of flood emergencies and develop risk reduction
strategies, such as evacuation and building dikes along river banks used to mitigate the
involved risks (Shah et al., 2017). Table 1.3 provides actions aimed at reducing flood hazard
and flood vulnerability.

20
Table 1.3: Actions for reducing flood hazard and flood vulnerability (Table adapted from
Schanze et al. (2008) and National Research Council (2013)

Flood risk reduction

Flood hazard reduction (Structural measures)
Functional Type of measure Measure (Examples)
group
Flood Control Flood water Dam
storage Flood polder
River training By-pass channel
Channelization
Flood protection Dike
Mobile wall
Drainage and Urban sewer system
pumping Pumping system
Flood vulnerability reduction (Non-structural measure)
Functional Type of measure Measure (Examples)
group
Flood Control Adapted land use Conservation tillage
in source area
(catchment of the Afforestation
headwater)
River Dredging of sediments
management
Use and retreat Land use in flood- Avoiding land use in flood prone areas
prone area Relocation of buildings from flood prone areas
Flood proofing Adapted construction
Relocation of buildings from flood prone areas
Evacuation Evacuation of human life
Evacuation of assets
Regulation Water Restriction of land uses in flood plains and source
management areas
Flood protection standards
Civil protection Civil protection and disaster protection act
Spatial planning Priority area “flood prevention”
Building ban
Financial Financial Investment programmes (e.g. for river works)
stimulation incentives Subsidies for relocation or adaptation
Financial Insurance premium according to flood zone
disincentives
Information Communication/ Public events
Dissemination Brochure
Instruction, Hazard and risk map
warnings Forecasting and warning system
Compensation Loss Insurance payments
compensation Public payments

21
As noted by Table 1.3, various measures have been provided to reduce flood hazards and
vulnerability. The practices have been useful in enhancing the management of floods.
It is advised that all stakeholders nurture diversity and flexibility, including aspects such as
diversifying knowledge, practices, management options, and institutions that manage
flood emergencies. According to Deryugina et al. (2018), people ought to use strategies
that foster adaptation, preparation, mitigation, and recovery from hazards. For instance,
diversity and flexibility could include the option of increasing the opportunities to cope with
floods. Besides, diversity encourages social learning and adaptation through the inclusion
of different stakeholders, knowledge, and experiences (Kuang and Liao, 2020). Birnbaum
et al. (2015) add that people should create opportunities for self-organization, which
entails the establishment of networks (vertical and horizontal), partnerships, and
collaborations. The strategies have been proven successful, especially in countries such as
Puerto Rico (Birnbaum et al., 2015).

1.5.1 International Efforts to Disaster Risk Reduction

International initiatives and efforts have since been established towards the mitigation of
natural disasters, including floods. Most of the international strategies recognise the
importance of collaborative efforts in the reduction and management of natural disasters
(Etinay et al., 2018; Bera, 2019; Kunreuther et al., 2019). Among such international bodies
include the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction (IDNDR), which was
launched by the United Nations in 1990. The goal of the decade is to mitigate natural
disasters, particularly in developing countries through concerted international efforts. The
program targets the prevention and reduction of loss of lives and property, economic
disruption, and poverty, which are associated with the natural disaster (Goldammer, 2017;
Schemper, 2019). The decade has functions in the following areas: urban risk and planning,
earthquake, disaster risk management, governance, environmental and ecosystem, floods,
education, and safety at school, among others (Goldammer, 2017; Imperiale and Vanclay,
2019). Ideally, the program functions on the basis of collaboration. The underlying principle
in formulating the program was that natural disaster management requires adequate
resources and non-resource capacities, such as skills, technology, and knowledge, which
were otherwise limited in developing nations. As such, a collaboration by international
partners, especially the developed nations, provided an opportunity for delivering natural

22
disaster management capacity to the developing countries (Goldammer, 2017). The IDNDR
was essentially focused on the protection and prevention of natural disasters. To enhance
natural disaster management further, the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction
(ISDR) was introduced in 2000. Its focus was to enhance natural disaster reduction through
the incorporation of awareness, risk management, and risk assessment (Zentel and Glade,
2013; Chen et al., 2019). The program is equally an inter-agency involving the government,
communities, and other interest groups, including profits and non-profit organizations
(Zentel and Glade, 2013).

The Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015 (HFA) was a significant milestone regarding
building the resilience of nations and communities to disaster. The Hyogo framework was
developed at the World Conference on Disaster Reduction, which took place in Hyogo,
Japan on January 18-22, 2005 (Enia, 2020). From the conference, a unique opportunity for
developing systematic and strategic approaches to minimise nations and community’s
vulnerability to disaster occurred (UNISDR, 2011; Djalante et al., 2012; Sayers, 2017).
Before the development of the HFA, the first world conference on natural disaster
reduction - Yokohama Strategy and Plan of Action for a Safer World, was developed in
1994. It is through the review of the progress of the Yokohama strategy that current and
unique challenges on disaster risk management were identified and provided the
foundation for the Hyogo framework (IDNDR, 1994; Tozier de la Poterie and Baudoin, 2015;
Mal et al., 2018; Enia, 2020). The challenges of the Yokohama strategy were associated with
five main areas (IDNDR, 1994):
● Governance: legal, organizational, and policy framework;
● Reduction of risks, monitoring and assessment and early warnings;
● Education and knowledge management;
● Reduction of the underlying factors;
● Preparedness for effective response and recovery.

Based on the challenges identified in the above-mentioned areas, and review and
conclusion from the Yokohama strategy, the following priority actions were identified
(IDNDR, 1994):

23
 ● Ensure that reduction of disaster risk is both a national, and local priority which are
strongly founded on institutions;
● Early identification, assessment, and monitoring of disaster risks to enable early
warning of potential disaster;
● Build a safety culture through the use of innovation, knowledge, and education in
order to enhance resilience at all levels;
● Identify and reduce the disaster risks underlying factors;
● Strengthen the local and national government preparedness for disaster
management.

The Hyogo framework sought to enhance natural disaster management strategy

incorporating both the community and the national stakeholders in the process of flood
management. It included making disaster reduction a priority, understanding risks and
taking action, and building understanding and awareness of risks in the community
(UNISDR, 2011; Amaratunga et al., 2018). Further, the strategy encouraged for the
consideration of international cooperations where disaster risk management was not only
left to the individual nation, but also through cooperation between regional, and global
partners which included nation-to-nation collaboration; or any other arrangement that
went beyond a state’s geographic boundary (Tozier de la Poterie and Baudoin, 2015; Etinay
et al., 2018). The HFA had indeed succeeded in improving hazard monitoring which saved
the lives of thousands of people globally. This success was attributed to the effective
integration of both the political and the scientific progress (Djalante et al., 2012; Aitsi-Selmi
et al., 2016). Apart from monitoring hazards, some assessors affirmed its poor and slow
progress towards addressing the core of the causes of risk. Hence, the frontline views,
which are assessments of HFA, emphasized the ability of the framework to develop policies
nationally but had failed to produce an impact on the local level. The failure was primarily
due to the lack of building on the capacities and knowledge on the local-level (Pearson and
Pelling, 2015).

The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 (SFFDRR) is another
international disaster management program, which was established in 2015 during the
Third United Nations World Conference in Sendai, Japan. The Sendai framework was

24
developed in a similar manner to the Hyogo framework (UNISDR, 2015). The Hyogo
framework was designed to serve the period 2005-2015; after which it became necessary
to review, learn from it, and redesign another framework. The SFFDRR was therefore
developed based on the review of the Hyogo framework in which challenges were
identified, and better strategies developed to enhance disaster risk management
(Wahlström, 2015; Siriwardana et al., 2018; Saulnier et al., 2019; Enia, 2020). A crucial
lesson learned from the review of the Hyogo framework is that disaster risk, and
consequences have persisted over the 10 year period despite the existence of the
framework. For instance, between the period 2005-2015, at least 700 thousand lives were
lost through disaster, while 1.4 million people were injured (UNISDR, 2015). This indicates
that the frameworks cannot fully resolve the flood challenges experienced by humanity,
much more has to be done to manage inundation effectively. Another lesson learned was
that the rate at which people and assets are exposed to disaster has rather increased faster
than vulnerability (Tozier de la Poterie and Baudoin, 2015; Mal et al., 2018; Maly and
Suppasri, 2020). As such, it was necessary and urgent for another disaster reduction
strategy to be developed. The Sendai framework was therefore developed with focus in
the following priority areas (UNISDR, 2015):
● Understanding more, the disaster risk;
● Strengthening disaster risk governance to manage disaster risk;
● Increase investment in disaster risk reduction for resilience;
● Enhancing disaster preparedness for effective response and to "Build Back Better"
at post disaster.

Within each of the priority areas, specific goals are designed to guide the enhancement of
effective disaster management. Among the identified actions are to include the promotion
of data collection and analysis, use and management in order to enhance better the
stakeholders understanding of the disaster risks (Surianto et al., 2019; Mizutori, 2020).
Under the priority area of strengthening disaster risk management, the main objective is
to integrate the efforts and actions of disaster risk reduction in all sectors, and by all
stakeholders. Regarding the priority area of investment, the major goal is to allocate
adequate resources such as finances, administration, and necessary logistics to strengthen
the implementation of the disaster risk management in terms of policies, plans, laws, and

25
other necessary aspects. With respect to the priority area of preparedness to disasters to
enhance effective response and develop better recovery mechanisms, the approach is to
require involvement of the community to effectively implement it. More countries and
state agencies across the globe are now interested in involving the community and
obtaining feedback from it in consequence (Pearson and Pelling, 2015; Tozier de la Poterie
and Baudoin, 2015; UNISDR, 2015; Wahlström, 2015; van Niekerk et al, 2020).

Although the HFA adopted strategies to support resilience, SFDRR moved towards a more
specific and technical use of resilience to explain the post-disaster developmental gains. It
surpasses the HFA by reflecting the vision of its members to include opportunities such as
reconstruction periods along with responses for reducing risks and the conduction of
effective restorations (Aitsi-Selmi et al., 2016). SFDRR also tackled the importance of
technology transfer for the enhancement of early warning systems (Deeming et al., 2019).
Furthermore, SFDRR, through resilience, aims to integrate the DRR and the UN’s
Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) which further leads to achieving a wider and a more
comprehensive development agenda (Amaratunga et al., 2018; Etinay et al., 2018).
However, many critics identified this framework as ineffective in contributing to major and
important breakthroughs. Although the main aim of the SFDRR is to fill the gap left by the
predecessor framework through mentioning the communities’ capacities and the urgent
need of integrating scientific and local knowledge, there was no clear strategy through
which the communities could be involved in the decision-making process (Pearson and
Pelling, 2015). Besides the SFDRR targets are not considered legally binding, it was clear
that the intergovernmental political process had difficulties in keeping pace with both
practitioners and scientific progress. Thus, such separate negotiations hinders the shift
towards sustainability (Etinay et al., 2018; Keating and Hanger-Kopp, 2020).

In relation to the current study, the Sendai framework reiterates the importance of
collaboration among all the stakeholders and levels of governance. However, the
framework introduces the issue of increased financing of various elements of flood risk
management including planning, laws, and related policies. The Hyogo and Sendai
framework also recommends the use of more knowledge and data for flood management

26
at the local levels (Amaratunga et al., 2018; Maly and Suppasri, 2020). The two frameworks
are the most important international strategies.

The effective flood management has been explained through the international settings and
history. This begins from the international top-down government approach to government
driven top-down approach and eventually to community-based bottom-up approach as
illustrated in Figure 1.6.

International Organisations
(E.g. the UN)

Government
Driven
“Top-down”

Risk Management
Local Resilience Forums (LRFs) (UK)

Community
Based
“Bottom-up”

Figure 1.6: Hazard risk management approach (drawn by the author)

1.5.2 What then is effective flood management?

Over the years, nations have struggled with managing flooding incidences. It is, therefore,
essential to examine the determinants of effective flood management. According to FEMA
(2010), emergency management is more effective when all the actors at federal/central
and local/community levels, as well as voluntary agencies and individuals, are able to fulfil
their emergency management responsibilities. On the basis of this backdrop, the local
governments should develop plans and allocate resources to defend their citizens from the
flood hazards that intimidate their communities (Sadiq et al., 2019). The process can be

27
undertaken through mitigation actions, preparedness plans, response to flooding
incidences, and recovery activities (Benson et al., 2016; Priest, 2019). Additionally, the
government should support flood management initiatives by providing funding and
resources to organizations directly involved in flood management (FEMA, 2010). The
perspective of the United Nations and Economic Commission for Europe (UN/ECE) (2004),
Shah et al. (2015) and Samuels (2018) is that the effectiveness of flood management is
grounded on non-structural and mitigation measures that can result in long-term and
sustainable solutions for dealing with flooding. It can be argued that the above definitions
derived from FEMA, the UN and the authors are fundamental benchmarks for flood
management because their effectiveness has been tested and proven to be useful. An
example of the effectiveness of the proposed model is the case of the United States. During
the 2017 flooding in Houston, Texas, the flood management agencies in the country were
able to save lives and restore the community back to normalcy (Blake and Zelinsky, 2018;
Jonkman et al., 2018).

According to Li et al. (2016) and Juarez-Lucas et al. (2018), effective flood management
systems should have the ability to adopt flood control measures that work in terms of
reducing the level of damage caused by flooding. The measures include both structural and
non-structural measures. Jha et al. (2012), Kovář et al. (2014) and Chan et al. (2020)
highlight that an integrated approach to flood management is essential in making the flood
management process successful. Flood management measures are usually either non-
structural or structural approaches. The structural measures are usually geared towards
reducing the risk of floods by controlling the flow of floodwater in a particular area. The
non-structural measures complement the structural measures by trying to keep people
safe from flooding through better planning and management (Jha et al., 2012; Kovář et al.,
2014, Li et al., 2016; Juarez-Lucas et al., 2018). Benson et al. (2016) and Bubeck et al. (2017)
also assert that a credible flood control system should not ignore both structural and non-
structural measures of flood management. The structural measures should be adopted to
meet the demands of lowering the risk of flooding and enhancing sustainable development
in the entire system. Additionally, in order to effectively deal with floods, residents should
be supported with non-structural measures such as legislation, education, finance, and
good planning (Priest, 2019; Lumbroso, 2020).

28
1.6 Rationale of this study
As noted in the introduction, many nations have devised frameworks and strategies for
flood management. Most flood management frameworks promote preparedness and
efficient response, which further enhances recovery. A case in point is the Sendai
Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 that was approved at the Third United
Nations World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR, 2015). The Framework
proposes the strengthening of disaster preparedness for effective response which
ultimately leads to effective recovery (Maly and Suppasri, 2020).

This study has focused on two nations: Turkey and the UK, due to many reasons. Foremost,
Turkey has landscapes prone to flooding. Since 1960, 43 flood incidents have occurred in
Turkey (EM-DAT, 2020). The previous impacts of flooding and the lack of systematic
response resulted in the selection of Turkey for the research. The UK has also experienced
intense flooding in recent years. According to EM-DAT (2020), 35 flood incidents have
occured in the UK since 1960. It can also be stated that the nation has established systems
of flood management that have been cited as some of the best practices in Europe (Gilissen
et al., 2016). It can, therefore, be useful in undertaking a comparative study.

Some countries have been forced to re-examine their flood management practices to
determine if they are efficient (Pant et al., 2017; Paprotny et al., 2018). For instance, in the
UK, the catalyst to re-examine flood risk and resilience occurred in 2007 when intense
floods affected Worcestershire, Gloucestershire, Hull, and York. 13 fatalities were
recorded, schools, businesses, homes, and vital services were adversely affected (IWR
Report, 2011). Additionally, in 2015, the Kendal Flooding incident demonstrated that the
UK is very susceptible to urban/suburban flooding (Environment Agency, 2016b).
Nevertheless, in the UK, the EA and Defra always produce review reports after major flood
incidents.

Similarly, Turkey has also been driven to re-examine its flood management operations after
the realization that the country is not only at high risk from earthquakes but also from
floods due to climate change and extensive urbanization (Bjerrum and Atakan, 2008). The
2009 flush floods in Istanbul demonstrated the weaknesses of Turkey’s management of

29
flood emergencies. It was clear that the Turkish Government was struggling with increased
heavy rainfall in the last 60 years (Ağırbaş and Ersoy, 2019), with flooding killing at least
thirty people and causing $70 million worth of damage (Özcan, 2017).

For the past few decades, Turkey’s approach to emergencies, including floods, had focused
on the concept of “crisis management”. There have been multiple institutions that were in
charge of being alert to emergencies and having a prompt response scheme that could be
readily effectuated upon the occurrence of emergencies. However, such an approach had
changed following the establishment of The Disaster and Emergency Management
Presidency (AFAD) in 2009. The new approach involves the adoption and implementation
of a coordinated emergency management system. Thus, it consists of four main aspects:
mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery (Sahin, 2013). This had further evolved
with the establishment of emergency management systems in each province. The
responsibilities of the provincial governor include risk and hazard identification, the
development and implementation of risk response plans, the quantification of losses
incurred, and the establishment of warehouses to store necessary equipment related to
rescue operations. For flood management, in particular, AFAD’s approach includes the
following processes: Risk Identification, Risk Reduction, and Risk Transfer (Sahin, 2013;
Ocal, 2019; Öztürk and Uzuntaş, 2019).

Several projects have been implemented to tackle the issue of flood management in
Turkey. To illustrate, the “gapsel” project aims to mitigate the risks associated with floods
and eliminate infrastructural, economic, and social losses encountered as a result of floods.
The “feasibility studies on flood forecasting and early warning” project aims to conduct
studies that assess infrastructure needs and to develop early warning systems for floods.
The “regional flash flood guidance system for black sea and Mediterranean regions'' project
aims to further enhance the region’s abilities in developing precise and timely warning
systems. The “capacity building to implement the flood directive” project aims to reduce
the negative impacts associated with floods through the conduction of flood risk
assessments and management plans that could be implemented nationwide (Sahin, 2013).

30
It is apparent that all approaches implemented by legal authorities in Turkey lack a
systematic procedure through which such flood management systems could be assessed
and evaluated. It is evident that the primary focus is to identify probable risks and set forth
risk mitigation plans. However, the efficiency and effectiveness of such plans should be
evaluated to aid in the implementation of corrective measures that would enhance
performance towards managing risks associated with floods.

The knowledge gaps that this project seeks to fill

Considering academic research in Turkey, the literature is scarce when it comes to flood
management. There is no clear indication of the exact measures and practices that are
being implemented in the adopted flood management systems. Therefore this research
seeks to fill that information gap via studies into Turkey’s flood management practices. The
UK’s practices will be presented as well, in order to have an inclusive comparative study
between both countries. Turkey is classified as a developing country (Cafri, 2018; United
Nations, 2020), and partially-developed country using various classification criteria (Top 25
Developed and Developing Countries, 2020). This research should thus give many useful
insights into the flood management practices of developed countries (represented by the
UK) versus the practices of a developing country (represented by Turkey).

The literature further lacks studies that propose techniques through which the efficiency
of flood management systems could be examined. The main trend in the literature on flood
management in Turkey, is the modification of risk assessment techniques and the
development of novel risk assessment models to augment the procedures of risk
identification and prioritization. Another trend is the development of flood warning
systems, e.g. the literature contains several proposed techniques for the prediction and
measurement of rainfall. Dönmez and Tekeli (2017) have developed three indices that, with
the aid of TRMM 3B42RT 3-hourly data, could estimate thresholds needed for the detection
of floods. These indices are the high-intensity rainfall index, Cumulative distribution
functions index, and Gaziantep Flood Precipitation Index. Another trend that was observed
in the literature is the development of flood potential maps or what is known as “flood
mapping” to prevent the emergence of new risks, eliminate the occurrence of existing risks,
and to adapt to environmental changes. Onuşluel Gül (2013), using several indices, had

31
generated a flood potential map that revealed areas with high flood potentials. The map
was generated using data related to topography, and hydrological and meteorological
factors. Such maps are beneficial as they could aid governments in setting policies and risk
mitigation plans. Besides flood mapping, another observed trend is the development of
flood hazard maps to identify areas that are most likely to be affected by floods. Demir and
Kisi (2016) have developed 3D flood hazard maps for the Mert River Basin. The map
revealed areas that are most likely to be negatively influenced following a flood event.
Thus, aiding authorities in conducting effective urban planning. Nevertheless, there is a lack
of systematic approach through which the effectiveness and efficacy of flood management
systems could be evaluated both in the literature and from a public administration
perspective. Hence, this research paper aims to fill the existing gap in the literature by
developing a model that could be utilized to assess the efficiency of flood management
systems in Turkey.

The situation is quite similar when it comes to the UK. The UK has shifted from flood
management that has purely economic targets, to the broader strategy of “resilience”
(Sayers et al., 2017; Ntontis et al., 2018; Fenner et al., 2019). The National Flood Emergency
Framework has four main sections: (i) the risk assessment section, which guides
practitioners on how to identify and monitor risks; (ii) the preparation, and planning section
which outlines the government’s role in improving preparedness; (iii) the response and
recovery section; and (iv) the building a resilient society section that illustrates how
communities could better recover from the consequences of floods (The National Flood
Emergency Framework for England, 2014). Thus, the lack of an assessment scheme for the
developed plans and the implemented measures is apparent. Using the approach of
resilience within the context of flood management, the risks are being assessed based on
vulnerability, exposure, and probability. This is where the national Flood Resilience
Community Pathfinder Scheme (2013‐15) was launched. The main aim of this scheme is to
develop innovative solutions for flood risk management (Sayers et al., 2017). However,
again, the evaluation of such innovative solutions would be impossible with the lack of a
precise and comprehensive assessment scheme.

32
On the other hand, there are several attempts to evaluate and assess natural flood
management measures. Despite the fact that such measures constitute a fundamental
component of flood risk management in the UK, the approach is not conclusive. Such a
technique appraises the efforts exerted towards the deployment of natural resources to
reduce the risks that are often associated with floods such as land use management and
land restoration. Connelly et al. (2020) have developed a map that illustrates all available
methods for the evaluation of natural flood management (NFM). However, it is evident
that other flood management approaches exist and should be accounted for, as well
(Bracken et al., 2016). Therefore, this research aims to contribute to the existing gap by
developing a framework through which the efficiency of flood management systems could
be examined.

There have been several demands for the creation of a new governance model that would
assign a national flood commissioner and regional flood boards and authorities in an
attempt to separate the responsibilities of flood risks from other environmental concerns.
The proposed model is expected to aid in strengthening the accountability on flood
management which will be done through the regular assessment of flood risk management
procedures (Alexander et al., 2017). The proposed framework of this study could be very
beneficial in attaining such goals. The use of flood management efficiency indicators
(FMEIs) developed within this research would aid in the assessment of the weaknesses and
strengths of the existing flood management system; thus, facilitating the decision making
process for legal authorities.

According to Gilissen et al. (2016), the flood management practices of any country should
be dynamic and adapt as the flood threats transform and evolve. It is projected that the
nature of flooding will intensify with both severity and frequency as climate change lingers
(IPCC, 2018). Thus, the development of an assessment framework is crucial to achieving
such an adaptation. Through such a framework, the measures and techniques that are
being implemented would be examined regularly to reveal areas of flaws and deficiencies
that may develop due to the dynamic and evolving nature of the issue. Hence, such
measures could be easily modified and amended to suit the changes in the environment.

33
The implemented reviews and amendments, based on the efficiency assessment, would
aid in the development of a sustainable and effective flood management system in the UK.

This research has identified that there is a lack of a universal efficiency assessment tool that
could be utilized to assess the efficiency of flood management systems by different
countries. Given that the framework proved to be beneficial to both the UK and Turkey, it
could act as a universal assessment tool that could be used by both developed and
developing countries.

As aforementioned, flood events are accompanied by several devastating consequences

that affect the vast majority of people. To briefly shed light on such consequences, it has
been established that flood impacts are classified into three types namely, social, ecological
and economic losses (Bertilsson et al., 2019). These losses are further categorised into
direct, indirect, tangible and intangible losses (Rothkrantz and Fitrianie, 2018). Social
impacts are primary consequences of flood events that directly and indirectly affect human
individuals. These include casualties, harms, destruction of human habitats, chemical plant
hazards (Ten Brinke et al., 2017; Tariq et al., 2020), increased health hazards, destruction
to agricultural lands, loss of livestock and food shortage, etc (Thanh Thi Pham et al., 2020).
Social impacts also include multiple psychological impacts which are experienced due to
evacuations, relocations, loss of family members and friends, (Bubeck et al., 2017; Shah et
al., 2020), economic hardships, etc (Miao, 2018).

The ecological impacts of floods include destruction to the environment, loss of natural
habitats, disruptions of migration patterns, land degradation, and land and water erosion,
(Bubeck et al., 2017). Whereas, economic impacts are tertiary impacts and include direct
and indirect losses. Direct losses involve losses due to the destruction of vital infrastructure
and institutes such as roads, railways, hospitals and schools, electricity and water networks,
buildings, and businesses. On the other hand, indirect losses are losses encountered as a
result of the consequences of flood events. These include reduced productivity,
bankruptcies and closure of small businesses, frost damages to buildings, water pollution,
etc (Salman and Li, 2018; Al-Amin et al., 2019; Formetta and Feyen, 2019).

34
Therefore, despite the widespread body of literature that talks about successful outcomes
of supposed efficient flood management, it is essential to examine if flood management
systems are effective enough to deal with the growing problem of flooding. The rationale
for this study is to assess the effectiveness of flood management through the cases of
Turkey and the UK, and to provide recommendations for improving their effectiveness.

1.6.1 Flood events and the economic costs of flooding in Turkey and UK
In the United Kingdom, a flood is considered as a major natural hazard since approximately
5.6 million properties are vulnerable to floods (Lumbroso et al., 2010). Furthermore, over
5.3 million people are working as well as living in 2.4 million buildings which are vulnerable
to flood events caused by sea or rivers while another one million are in danger of surface
water flooding (Haigh and Nicholls, 2017; Beltrán et al., 2019). Despite investing heavily on
the coastal and flood defences, the flooding financial impact is still enormous since the UK
incurs an average of £1 billion worth of damages annually as a result of flooding (McNulty,
2013; Haigh and Nicholls, 2017).

The flood events in 1953 that impacted the England and Netherlands coastlines were
mainly caused by a windstorm as well as high spring tide. Such factors resulted in increased
levels of water, which rose by almost 5.6 meters leading to the destruction of flood
defences deaths of 307 people in the UK, and 1835 in the Netherlands (Henry, 2010; Haigh
and Nicholls, 2017). Simon (2015) reports that over the last 20 years, the flood events in
the United Kingdom have increased because of climatic changes, and construction of
buildings in flood plain areas. An account of major flooding events in the UK is hereby
provided by Simon (2015). The first major flooding event occurred in 1998 during the Easter
break when heavy rains occurred. The rains caused flooding in the whole central England
ranging from Worcestershire to the Wash. It affected major towns, five people dead and
several properties destroyed. Another major event occurred two years later in 2000. Heavy
torrential downpour caused flooding in many parts of England. However, the most affected
part was York, Lewes, Shrewsbury, and Maidstone. According to Simon (2015), this major
flood event prompted many urban locations in the UK to review and revise their flood risk
management plans. In 2007, yet another major flood occurred in the United Kingdom
although the most affected area was the County of Gloucestershire. Within this county, 13

35
people died. Also, approximately half a million people in the United Kingdom were left
without drinking water since contamination following the flood made water unsafe for
consumption. The government and insurance companies incurred a cost of six billion
pounds as compensation to those who have been affected by the floods. In 2012, the
wettest months in the UK were reported. Rains started in April, through May, and got worse
in June when flooding occurred in most parts of the UK. The worst hit area in this event
was Aberystwyth. Fortunately, people were rescued by lifeboats. The flood depths reached
2 meters in some cases (Simon, 2015).

A report by Priestley (2016) indicated that in the winter of 2015/2016, at least 16,000
properties across England were flooded. Also, the report indicated that another 20,000
properties were not affected from flooding because of existing flood defences. As a result,
in the same period, the government allocated £200 million to assist with flood risk
management in various parts of the country. Most of the funds were allocated to Farming
Recovery, and community rescue schemes in Cumbria and Lancashire which were mostly
affected by the winter floods (Priestley, 2016).

In Turkey, Yuksel et al. (2011) posit that floods are mainly caused by heavy rainfall on the
southern and the western coastal areas of the country or because of sudden air
temperature increase that leads to snow melt in the south-eastern Turkey, particularly the
Eastern Black Sea Region. Furthermore, floods have been exacerbated by ignorant
development, erosion and deforestation (Sahin, 2013; Özcan, 2017). Failure to take into
account sustainable measures would make impacts of flood events more widespread and
intense because of climate change and the growing population concentration in cities
(Şenol Balaban, 2016; Memiş and Düzgün, 2020). A report by the Turkish Department of
Flood and Drought Management (2015) indicates that floods are the second destructive
emergencies in the country. More often, substantial economic losses related to destruction
of properties, infrastructure, and health costs have been linked to inundations. The
monetary losses associated with floods can be approximated to be 100 million dollars every
year (Turkish Department of Flood and Drought Management, 2015). In the previous 60
years, 2563 flooding incidents occurred, and a total of 1496 individuals lost their lives
(Turkish Department of Flood and Drought Management, 2015).

36
Due to historical emphasis on earthquake disasters, there are only a few sets of data with
regard to flood emergencies in Turkey, particularly in EM-DAT, a database for emergency
events. The database is publicly accessible and will be utilised to illustrate trends in
emergency-related losses. The Turkey Disaster DataBase (TABB) would also facilitate
comprehensive investigation of the flood impacts in Turkey. EM-DAT reported
approximately 38 flood events between 1960 and 2020 in Turkey that led to 791 fatalities;
thus, exhibiting why flood is the second most destructive form of natural hazard in Turkey
after the earthquake. Since 1965, floods have resulted in economic damage of
approximately US$ 2.2 billion (Koc and Thieken, 2016). On the other hand, TABB highlights
1076 flood events that led to the death of 795 people. Some of the flood events in Turkey
include: In December 1968, a flood event in Mersin, Adana led to 147 fatalities (Koc and
Thieken, 2016). In March 1980, a flood event in Anatolia led to 65 fatalities and affected
over 60,000 people. In August 1996, a flood event in Trabzon, Rize resulted in 60 fatalities
and affected more than 1000 people. The Table 1.4 indicates the costs of major flood
events in Turkey and in the UK in the past 15 years.

Table 1.4: The costs of major flood events in Turkey and in the UK between 2005 and 2020
(EM-DAT, 2020)

Date Country Disaster Total Total Total Insured

Subtitle Deaths Affected Damage Losses
(‘000 US$) (‘000 US$)
02-03/08/2005 TR Flash 7
04/07/2005 TR 3000
27/10-07/11/2006 TR Flash 47 63015 317000
01-03/07/2006 TR Riverine 12
27/05-01/06/2007 TR Riverine 13 750
03/08/2007 TR Riverine 2 186
16-21/11/2007 TR Riverine 1 2250
10-16/07/2009 TR Riverine 7 111
07-10/09/2009 TR Flash 40 35020 550000 250000
08-11/10/2011 TR Riverine 8 3
04/07/2012 TR Riverine 13
30/01-02/02/2015 TR Riverine 8 6500
25/08/2015 TR Flash 9
17-18/07/2019 TR Flash 7 220
18-20/06/2019 TR Flash 10 70

37
 Date Country Disaster Total Total Total Insured
Subtitle Deaths Affected Damage Losses
(‘000 US$) (‘000 US$)
17/08/2019 TR Flash 1 15000 10000
15-21/06/2007 UK Riverine 1 200 448000 299000
20-24/07/2007 UK Riverine 7 340000 4000000 3000000
25/06-03/07/2007 UK Riverine 6 30000 4000000 3000000
06-08/09/2008 UK Riverine 8 3000 50000
15-26/01/2008 UK Riverine 300
19-22/11/2009 UK Riverine 3 3900 484000 333000
23-24/06/2012 UK Flash 1 785000
23-27/09/2012 UK Riverine 3 1500 81000
23/12/2012 UK Riverine 585
10-11/06/2012 UK Riverine 450000
21/11 - 18/12/2012 UK Riverine 4 1700 1630000 813000
27/12/2013 - UK Riverine 2 600 1500000
/01/2014
01/2014 - 02/2014 UK Riverine 540 624000 530000
26/12/2015 UK Riverine 48000 1200000 1000000
22-26/11/2017 UK Riverine 70
07-08/11/2019 UK 1 100 142000

When the flood events that occurred in the past 15 years in Turkey and the UK are
examined, it can be observed that although more people were affected by the events in
the UK, there were over 4 times more fatalities in Turkey. In addition, the UK incurred more
economic loss during the flood events and there is a more insured financial loss in the UK
than in Turkey.

1.6.2 İzmit/Kocaeli, TURKEY versus Southampton/Hampshire, UK

Southampton/Hampshire in the UK and Izmit/Kocaeli in Turkey have been chosen as
representative case study locations in order to assess the effectiveness of flood
management in both countries. The rationale behind the selection of
Southampton/Hampshire and Izmit/Kocaeli for this research, as representative case study
locations in two countries, is influenced by a number of factors. One of the reasons is
because the two locations are of comparable sizes in terms of their geography and
population. Both the UK and Turkey used standardized approaches of flood management
in both rural and urban areas. The study areas, which are coastal and riverine cities, have
inland and coastal communities and are at risk from coastal, river, flash-flood and
combined flood hazards. Additionally, the lead researcher is familiar with flood
38
management in both Turkey (1,5 years of working in the emergency management sector)
and the UK (4 years of studying emergency management).

Based on the fact that Turkey and the UK follow nationwide structures and procedures for
flood management, the study settled for Southampton/Hampshire and Izmit/Kocaeli as
representative samples for how flooding is managed in the rest of England and Turkey. In
terms of flood hazards, both study areas have relatively large amounts of seasonal rainfall
with intense convective storms in summer months, as well as extensive areas of riverine
and coastal floodplains.

Table 1.5: Geographical features of Southampton/Hampshire & Izmit/Kocaeli (İzmit

Belediyesi, 2021; Southampton City Council, 2021)

Geographical features Southampton/Hampshire Izmit/Kocaeli

Coordinates 50.9097° N, 1.4045° W 40.7654° N, 29.9408° E
Area 72.8 km² 58,04 km²
Topography Uplands with a few areas of Hill slopes with flat planes
downlands and march around the sea
Bordered by Dorset to the West, The Gulf of İzmit in the
Wiltshire to the north, south, Istanbul and the Sea
Berkshire and to the east by of Marmara to the west, the
Surrey and West Sussex Black Sea at north, and
Sakarya at east
Water courses The Itchen and Test rivers Kumla creek and the Sea of
Marmara

1.7. Research questions, aim, objectives

1.7.1 Research questions
Four key questions form the basis of this research. Those questions are used to draw
recommendations for good practice in flood management, with the view of improving the
effectiveness of flood management in Turkey and the UK. Those research questions are:
1. How do the flood management systems in the UK and Turkey compare?
2. How effective is flood management in the UK and Turkey?
3. What are the strengths and weaknesses of flood management practices?
4. How could flood management in the UK and Turkey be improved?

39
1.7.2 Aim
The aim of this research is to assess the effectiveness of flood management, from the
perspectives of a developing country (Turkey) and a developed country (UK), seeking to
provide recommendations for improving the effectiveness of flood management.
The following objectives are drawn to attain the purpose of the research:

1.7.3 Objectives
I. To compare the flood management systems in Turkey and the UK;
II. To develop Flood Management Efficiency Indicators (FMEIs);
III. To use the FMEIs to examine strengths and weaknesses of flood management
systems in Turkey and the UK;
IV. To carry out reviews of damaging flood events in both countries, noting the
strengthens and weaknesses in flood management and testing the FMEIs;
V. To identify characteristics of flood management in both countries that others can
benefit from;
VI. To provide recommendations for improving the effectiveness of flood management
systems in both countries.

1.8 The overall approach to the research methodology

This section presents the research methods, processes, and the philosophy adopted to
assess the effectiveness of flood management systems in Turkey and the UK, from a public
administration perspective.

The primary goal is to fill the existing gap in knowledge by identifying, comparing and
evaluating the efficiency and efficacy of the strategies that are being implemented towards
flood management in both countries. This goal will be achieved through the following.
Firstly, the strategies that were adopted to tackle the flood management issue are
identified. These include old and novel frameworks that have been developed and
implemented to manage and mitigate emerging risks. Secondly, the research identifies
efficiency indicators that are used to evaluate the flood management performance of each
country. Finally, the study compares the results obtained regarding the effectiveness of

40
flood management in Turkey and the UK. A firm and comprehensive conclusion on the most
efficient techniques and strategies for flood management will be presented.

These findings are then utilized to provide recommendations that could aid Turkey, the UK
and other countries in identifying the areas of strengths and flaws or deficiencies in their
existing approaches; thus, the study could provide guidance and shed light on probable
corrective actions that could be adopted by Turkey, the UK and other countries to enhance
their flood management processes.

The research methodology is essential because it seeks to provide a description of how to

resolve the research problem (Walliman, 2017). According to Kumar (2008), the research
methodology can be described as an approach to answer the research problem
systematically.

Flood management is a challenge that many regions encounter across the globe. Jonkman
and Dawson (2012) state that all over the world, flood management agencies experience
problems in attaining effective maintenance and management of floods. For instance, the
Netherlands has often been viewed as a model “of the best flood management
approaches” in the globe due to its high safety standards, adequate funding, and advanced
organization of flooding incidences. An astonishing occurrence is that recent flooding
occurrences, for instance, in 2011, it was discovered that the main flooding defence
apparatus in the Netherlands are not up to standard (Jonkman and Dawson, 2012).

Flood management organizations in Turkey and the United Kingdom are no exception to
challenges in their flood management systems because they also experience various
intricacies. Consequently, the research methodology adopted by the study sought to
examine the effectiveness of the flood management systems adopted by the agencies in
the two study areas.

1.9 Research design

The study embraced the use of qualitative and quantitative research designs. The
qualitative research approach is basically concerned with the validity of the

41
communication. As a result, in order to lower the likelihood of misinterpretation, as argued
by Hennink et al. (2020), the study employed various procedures to collect data. The
processes resulted in triangulation, which is the practice of using multiple perceptions in
order to validate data findings and develop a clear meaning. The study was grounded on
the proposition that the use of the multiple methods of data collection to achieve
triangulation is essential in obtaining an in-depth understanding of flood management in
the UK and Turkey.

Triangulation is commonly used to enhance validity in research by using multiple data

sources or methods (Gibson, 2017). Although triangulation can be used both in qualitative
and quantitative research approaches, it is commonly used in qualitative studies where
validity and reliability are challenges. Qualitative research, which is based on the
interpretivist philosophy, relies on non-numerical variables to report findings of a research
study. According to Ryan (2018), the interpretivist philosophy posits that knowledge or
truth about a research subject is subjective, which implies that the researcher can use his
knowledge, understanding, rationale, and even intuition to understand a given research
phenomenon. Unlike the quantitative approaches, the qualitative does not rely on logic, or
observable features to answer the research question. As such, the qualitative research
approach is always vulnerable to bias, hence the need for using methods that enhance
validity and trustworthiness like the triangulation method as illustrated in Figure 1.7.

42
 Literature
Review
(Comparative
analysis)

Research
Design
Interviews
(with flood
professionals Case studies
from (on past
government flood events)
and NGOs)

Figure 1.7: Triangulation validation method to confirm the findings (drawn by the author)

The aim of the study involved assessing the effectiveness of flood management in two
diverse European settings: Turkey and the UK. There is no primary method or technique of
effectively managing floods. Different countries have different strategies. Turkey is likely
to have a different method compared to the UK. Furthermore, the vulnerability of the two
countries to flooding is also a critical determinant. Triangulation is therefore used to
compare various sources of data, as well as the use of different research approaches to
arrive at a valid conclusion. Data was used from the two countries – the United Kingdom,
and Turkey. Also, different research methods were used, which included a case study and
interview to collect data. A comparative analysis was also used. A comprehensive
breakdown of the qualitative and quantitative techniques used is presented below.

Based on this assumption, the study used a number of data collection methods to respond
to the objectives of the study, summarised in Figure 1.8.

43
 Research Objectives

Literature Review

FM in UK FM in Turkey Flood Management Efficiency

(From National (From National Indicators
to Local) To Local) (Developing FMEIs)

Expert interviews with Case Studies on Past Flood Events

Flood Managers and NGOs (Testing FMEIs)

Experts from Experts from Marmara

Izmit/Kocaeli Southampton/Hampshire - Kendal Flood
Flood
- TR UK Management
Management

Analysis and Interpretation

Conclusion and Recommendation

Figure 1.8: Research methods of the study

1.9.1 Comparative analysis (comparison between the UK and Turkish systems)

The study incorporated a comparative analysis that involved the comparison of the UK and
Turkish flood management systems.

44
Conducting a comparative analysis was selected because it would assist in meeting
objective number one, which was to compare the flood management systems at all levels
in the UK and Turkey. It is essential to determine the existing facts concerning the variations
in the flood management of the two regions. It is apparent that the flood management
system in both Turkey and the UK have some similarities and differences. To determine the
effectiveness or the weaknesses of both systems, the comparative analysis was warranted.

In addition, the comparative analysis was considered essential because it would assist in
gaining an understanding of the flooding management practices of both regions by
highlighting the familiar procedures and structures of one system against those of the other
system (Esser and Vliegenthart, 2017). Comparing the two systems also provided a fresh
insight into flood management conducted in Turkey and the United Kingdom. Additionally,
the researcher considered a comparison of the two systems important bec. As stated by
Esser and Vliegenthart (2017), researchers are prone to overgeneralizing facts based on
their own experiences or idiosyncratic perspectives. To do away with such views, clear
differentiation of two phenomena should be conducted. A fundamental aspect of the
comparative analysis is that it provides an opportunity for comparing the two flood
management systems on the basis of a joint theoretical framework.

In conducting the comparative analysis, the study followed several steps. The first step
involved providing an overview of the flooding risk in both regions. The aim of the overview
is to highlight the background of flooding in both regions in terms of the type of flooding,
which contributes to the flooding, its gravity, and effects. The second step involved
examining the flood management practices in Turkey and the UK and the framework used
to manage floods in the regions.

1.9.2 Developing efficiency indicators

Flood management indicators are essential in comparing the flood management systems
between the UK and Turkey. Developing efficiency indicators of the flood management
practices necessitated an in-depth analysis of the strategies used in managing floods.
Through the evaluation, the researcher was able to deduce whether the existing flood

45
management agencies in the areas have effectively implemented and integrated the flood
management frameworks in their flood management practices.

1.9.3 Interviews with flood professionals from government and NGOs

The study considered semi-structured interviews as the primary method of data collection.
Significantly, the researcher developed interview questions, provided in Appendix E, that
would answer all the research questions. Consequently, designing the right interview
questions was critical for the study.

1.9.4 Disaster case studies on past flood events

The study used the case study approach, which involved actual flooding incidents that
occurred in Turkey and the UK. According to Yin (2017), the case study method is advocated
based on the fact that it can capture the unique aspects of a situation and present the case
authentically. The researcher wanted to present authentic scenarios of how flood
management is undertaken in Turkey and the UK. Essentially, the use of actual flood case
studies, which include the 2009 Marmara flooding in Turkey and the 2015 Kendal flooding
in the UK, was considered prolific. Additionally, the case studies are able to establish causal
relations through a comparative analysis of what actions emergency workers in both
nations do and what happened during the flooding incidences.

1.10 Research outline

To achieve the research objectives and research aim, the following tasks were undertaken.

Phase 1: A literature review

Foremost, the study carried out a comparative analysis of flood management systems in
the UK and Turkey at the onset of the research. The comparison was undertaken in order
to:
● Give an overview of the flood management initiatives adopted by Turkey and the
UK;
● Compare and contrast flood management systems and frameworks used by the two
countries;

46
 ● Identify the existing weaknesses in the flood management practices of both
jurisdictions and how they can make improvements and create resilience.

Secondly, the study examined flood insurance systems in both nations with the objective
of indicating how insurance can be used to enable people to recover quicker after floods
have occurred. Effectiveness can be attained if insurance systems are able to support
communities to recover from flooding.

Phase 2: Development of Flood Management Efficiency Indicators (FMEIs)

This study formulated efficiency indicators to assess the effectiveness of flood
management. Developing the indicators was undertaken in order to attain the following
objectives:
● To develop indicators of efficiency for flood management that can be adopted in
Turkey and the UK;
● To investigate the factors or indicators of the efficiency of flood management
systems in both jurisdictions;
● To compare different benchmarks used to measure the efficiency of different flood
management strategies;
● To identify a series of benchmarks used to measure and compare the efficiency of
flood management systems.

Phase 3: Evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of flood management systems

Examining the strong points and limitations of the flood management systems was another
critical step that was undertaken by the study. The purpose of providing the specifications
was:
● To examine the areas of weaknesses and strengths in the flood management
practices in the UK and Turkey in order to highlight the areas of improvement;
● To identify areas of learning where the UK flood management system can learn
from the Turkey flood management system and vice versa.

47
Phase 4: To identify the effectiveness of flood management practices from analysis of
actual flood events
Case studies were examined in order to evaluate the effectiveness of flood management
practices in Turkey and the United Kingdom. The objectives of the case studies were:
● To examine the reality of flood management operations in Turkey and the UK;
● To determine where flood management practices were effective or ineffective.

Phase 5: To develop recommendations for improving the effectiveness of flood

management systems
After an in-depth evaluation through primary data collection, analysis of case studies, and
review of literature on flood management practices in Turkey and the UK,
recommendations concerning the areas that need improvement were made.
.

48
 Chapter I
Introduction

Chapter II
Comparison of Flood Management and Insurance
Mechanisms

Chapter III
Developing Efficiency Indicators for Flood
Management

Chapter IV, V
Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis

Case Studies of
Selected Flood Interviews to Evaluate
Triangulation at Strengths and Weaknesses
Emergencies in UK and the Local Level
Turkey of Flood management

Chapter VI
Discussion

Chapter VII
Conclusion and Recommendations

Figure 1.9: Flow of the Research

49
 Chapter 2 – A comparison of flood management and insurance
mechanisms in Turkey and the UK

2.1 Flood management: a comparative study of Turkey and the UK

2.1.1 Introduction
Floods have presented significant challenges to different countries across the globe. Recent
flood-related events in the UK, Turkey, Australia, United States, Thailand, and Japan
highlight the need for countries to develop effective flood management strategies to plan
and respond to such emergencies whenever they occur (Jonkman and Dawson, 2012;
Genovese and Thaler, 2020; Hegger et al., 2020). Flooding incidences have also instigated
severe economic and human impacts as witnessed in the United Kingdom and Turkey in
the past sixty years (Svetlana et al., 2015; Xia et al., 2019; Eryılmaz Türkkan and Hırca,
2021).

2.1.2 An international flood context

Flood management today involves several strategies, which function dependently to
achieve the outcome of the flood management projects. Unlike in the past where
traditional methods mainly involved implementation and maintenance, the current
strategies encompass a variety of functions. A study conducted by Sayers et al. (2013) and
Walker-Springett et al. (2017) found that an effective flood management serves the
following goals:
✔ Reducing flood hazards to the people and community in general;
✔ Reduce economic risks associated with floods;
✔ Promote fluvial ecosystems and biodiversity;
✔ Promote social well-being.

Based on the above-mentioned goals, a good flood management system should be able to
monitor the currently established practices, review their performance, and adjust based on
new knowledge and technological development. As such, the infrastructure design and
management should be developed such that it is capable of incorporating the new
knowledge and information (Lara et al., 2016). In addition, an effective flood management
system should understand how the whole system functions including how it services the
societal goals. As such, a flood management system should consider both the short and
50
long-term goals. Sayers et al. (2013) and Tariq et al. (2020) further argue that a good flood
management system should have effective measures of reducing flood hazards with
regards to both exposure and vulnerability. The pre, during, and post-event measures
should also be planned strategically. Further, flood management should incorporate
innovative solutions. Lastly, the international flood management standards assert that
flood management efforts should be based on priorities determined by risks and
uncertainties (Frigerio and De Amicis, 2016; Atanga, 2020).

According to the National Research Council (2013), flood management is dependent on

factors such as the type of mitigation, type of flood, and the vulnerability of a given area to
flood. The author argues that flood management programs should not only consider the
benefits, but also the potential consequences of transferring risks, which is often common.
Depending on the type of flooding, Kreibich et al. (2015) further argue that management
of flood at a given area is likely to transfer some risks to other areas. As such, strategies
should always consider complete management rather than risk transfer as a mitigation. The
study reports on the international practices of management of levees (Chan et al., 2020).
A levee is an embankment that is usually constructed to prevent a river from overflowing
(National Research Council, 2013). Levees are one of the structural measures of flood
mitigation in floodplain areas. Other structural approaches include: seawall, floodwalls,
dams, spillways and floodways, controlled overtopping, channels, seepage control, and
levee armouring (National Research Council, 2013; Ogie et al., 2019). Depending on the
type of flood, one or more of the aforementioned structural measures can be used to
manage flood hazards. However, the structural measures alone are not enough, effective
flood management involves the use of non-structural measures which include: mapping of
risks, use of natural systems, forecasting and early warning of hazards, emergency plans,
planning and zoning of land use, building and construction standards and codes in the flood
prone areas, insurance, and relocation (Singkran, 2017; Martinez et al., 2020).

Nature-based strategies are based on the Adaptive Management Process (AMP). The first
stage of the AMP is design, which involves the identification of flexible and manageable
courses of action (Chaffin et al., 2014; Kumar et al., 2020). After the design stage is
implementation; which involves selection of the best alternative option from a variety of

51
options. The third stage is monitoring the effectiveness of the flood management strategy
using the outcomes following a flooding event. Evaluation is the fourth stage and it involves
examining the effectiveness of the strategy based on the set goals. The last stage is
adaptation, which may include adjustments and innovation based on the outcome of the
assessment (Chaffin et al., 2014; McLoughlin et al., 2020; Qi et al., 2020).

2.1.2.1 Flood management approaches in different countries

Floods are one of the major causes of severe destruction across the globe and their
occurrences are becoming more frequent, recently. This could be attributed to several
reasons including climate changes and urbanization (IPCC, 2018). The significant increase
in flood events had created an urge to raise the awareness of different stakeholders
including public authorities, scientific researchers and the local communities (Rubinato et
al., 2019). As aforementioned in the background chapter, Asia has been encountering
floods in several regions at an unprecedented rate. These include countries such as
Thailand, India, China, and Japan. These regions had specified various flood management
approaches to prevent and mitigate flooding events to reduce the direct and indirect
impacts that are associated with such events (Thanvisitthpon et al., 2018; Rubinato et al.,
2019; Oktari et al., 2020; Nguyen et al., 2021).

The flood management practices of China, for instance, date back to as long as 4000 years
ago. The first initiatives that were adopted by the Chinese civilizations focused on building
canals to prevent flooding. China had also built upstream reservoirs for the sake of storing
water. Throughout the years, these structure-based strategies were enhanced and
modified to better cope with the emerging risks; this was done through the development
of new methods in designing dams and levees. All the adopted strategies and approaches
concerning the techniques of structure-building were altered dramatically after the
Yangtze River flooding event in 1998 (Luo et al., 2015; Du et al., 2019). This event acted as
an alarm that revealed the inadequacy of structures’ capabilities to solely combat the
fatalities and damaging impacts of floods. Therefore, the most recent policies and
guidelines regarding flood management encompass both structural and non-structural
solutions and measures (He et al., 2017). Examples of non-structural solutions are
modifying land use by converting urban and agricultural lands to forests. Also, there was

52
an increased momentum towards establishing new welfare laws, resettling people in safer
areas, and developing new strategies to protect the environment (Lashford et al., 2019).

In Japan, the strategies implemented to manage floods were no different than that of China
as levees were constructed along with reservoirs to reduce flood risks. As in the Chinese
case, this systematic flood control approach was insufficient alone; therefore, a new
concept was developed focusing on the idea of directing flood water to the sea (Luo et al.,
2015). River straightening was proposed to direct the upstream flow quickly to control
floods and decrease sedimentation. However, such a method had a great impact as it
damaged ecosystems, river appearances, and the environment. Since then, this approach
was altered and the focus was shifted towards the implementation of the concept of
integrating rivers and on constructing multi-purpose dams. Additionally, the increase in
flood occurrences that are associated with typhoons due to climatic changes initiated the
Green Dam concept which counts on forests to control the floodwater (Kimura et al., 2018).

Moreover, the Japanese Ministry of Construction’s River Council has introduced many
policies that are part of the flood preparedness phase, to protect urban areas against
extreme floods. One of the proposals was to construct super embankments
complementing existing embankments to raise the ground levels around rivers; thus,
preventing the inundating of houses. Recently, the government encountered a lot of
opposition from the public regarding the implementation of hard solutions such as
constructing embankments as it destroyed the riparian environment. Thus, the modern
approaches focus on gathering the public’s opinions along with the knowledge of scientists
in an approach that is known as the public-private partnership. The main aim is to develop
soft flood management measures such as land use management, planting trees and
warning people while conserving the environment (Luo et al., 2015).

There is no doubt that the frequency of flood events has surged tremendously worldwide
increasing the vulnerability of several areas to extreme flooding. An example could be the
Netherlands, which is considered one of the world’s most vulnerable countries to floods.
This is because a large land proportion, approximately 60% of the available land, is
susceptible to floods (Wiering and Winnubst, 2017). Several strategies had been adopted

53
to decrease the risk of these flood-prone areas through implementing Delta Works. To
illustrate, the country had experienced a serious flood event in 1953. This event had
created an urge to establish a “Delta programme” for flood management. The committee
of that programme suggested and implemented structures such as dikes, storm surge
barriers, and coastal dunes to protect against flooding and storm surges (Malecha et al.,
2018). Later on, a reassessment of the strategies implemented was conducted and several
science-based evidence indicated that the hydraulic baseline conditions seemed to be
more intense than the pre assumed ones. The debate was intensified by the flooding events
of Meuse and Rhine rivers in the years 1993 and 1995 respectively. The rise of water levels
in these rivers, which affected the built dikes leading to its failure, triggered the
development of new strategies (Hoeksema, 2007). Accordingly, the second Delta
Committee was established in 2009. Its Act was then approved in the Dutch Senate in 2011
and was also funded by €1bn per year. Resilience was at the core of the programme which
aims to accomplish adequate measures that balance between protecting, preventing and
preparing against current and future events (Stive et al., 2011). “Building with Nature''
concept that involves coastal aspects and “Room for The River” concept that is concerned
with river aspects are the two main approaches that are being implemented by the
programme (Zevenbergen et al., 2012; Klijn et al., 2018). The concept behind these
strategies is to encourage flexible building and to make robust the foundation of flood-
protection infrastructures through natural procedures and also to consider sustainability
while planning for land use. The latter method will allow space for water expansion when
high flows are encountered (Zevenbergen et al., 2012).

Moreover, another approach, called the Multi-Level Safety (MLS), tackles the three safety
measures; the protection, prevention, and preparedness measures. Pilot Projects will be
submitted within the programme to study the MLS potentials in reducing existing levels of
risks through including responses that were not part of the risk management process and
policies, cost-effectively (Hoss et al., 2013). This might be demonstrated through the
development of more sustainable forms to accommodate excess streams that exceed the
defense (Hoss et al., 2013). Additionally, Adaptive Delta Management is the major edge of
the Delta Programme. It refers to its ambition in coping with unforeseen events through
developing a connection between long-term challenges (the rise in sea levels) and short-

54
term consequences. It is a method that exploits knowledge to enhance planning on the
long run and short-term modifications (Zevenbergen et al., 2012; van Buuren et al., 2018;
Ishiwatari, 2019). A new planning strategy scheduled in 2014, known as the Delta Decisions,
was launched by the Delta programme. It correlates relevant governmental agencies at all
levels including national, regional and local agencies with the private sector and community
groups (Kaufmann et al., 2016). Such coordination will aid in determining and
understanding the long and short-term challenges. One of the key advantages is
encouraging flexibility and incorporating different responses to the intrusions made
(Zevenbergen et al., 2012). Besides, aiding in retaining a vivid long-term emphasis to build
shared commitment between political sectors to ensure continuous investments by
demonstrating tangible results. Adding on this, another reason that enhanced or reinforced
commitments is the possibility of exporting Dutch knowledge along with its technology to
the internationally rising market for the “Delta technology” (Zevenbergen et al., 2012;
Rutten et al., 2020).

2.1.2.2 The European Union Action Program

Under the European Union Action Program, the European Commission published the floods
directive (Directive 2007/60/EC), which aimed to guide the assessment and management
of flood risks (Priest et al., 2016). The directive proposes for integrated efforts by the
member states to develop and implement common strategies for flood management. In
July 2004, the commission proposed the following common actions to be taken (European
Commission, 2006).

Preliminary flood risk assessment: As a union, efforts on flood management would only
be effective if they are directed towards areas of regions with high priority. As such, the
member states are required to make preliminary assessment of their hazard and
vulnerability regarding flood. This will allow effective resource planning and allocation to
countries that are more vulnerable (European Commission, 2006).

Flood risk maps: Although the flood management provides relevant information on the
potential flood risk areas for the member states, some crucial information that is otherwise
necessary for planning may be left out. It is therefore important for the member state to

55
develop flood risk maps. The mappings are proposed to capture information on the river
basins and sub-basins where significant flooding is likely. The purpose for flood risk maps
is to increase the public awareness on potential flood areas. The maps also help the
processes of prioritizing, and allocation of resources. In addition, the maps aid in designing
flood management programs (Priest et al., 2016).

Flood management plans: This objective takes care of the potential details or information
that may have been left out in the mapping and flood risk assessment. The flood
management plans are developed in the spirit of solidarity where the risks are equally
distributed such that neither downstream, nor upstream areas are affected (Albano et al.,
2017). The proposed flood management plans are developed and implemented at river
basin, or sub-basin levels. The plan includes the risk analysis, and risk assessment, level
protection definition, and identifying and implementing sustainable measures. Taking into
consideration the diversity and vulnerability of the member states regarding floods; the
following elements are left at the liberty of the member state:
o Objectives and deadlines for flood management such as the establishment of
community wide level of flood protection; and
o The accompanying measures of flood management including the structural and
non-structural measures, and the timeline for the implementation (European
Commission, 2006).

The appropriate levels of protection will vary from member state, to member state, and
also across the river basins. High levels of protections are proposed to be implemented
near major cities where there is significant population and property that would suffer
significant loss in the event of major floods. Further, the commission recognizes the fact
that flood management may change over time because of climate change (Priest et al.,
2016).

Based on the information presented herein, it is evident that flood management takes
various strategies internationally. Specific country factors are critical in determining the
method, or technique for managing flood risks in a given area (Benson et al., 2016).
However, the recommended flood management practices emphasize a holistic approach

56
which does not only involve implementation and maintenance; which is the typical
traditional practice. Instead, it involves active monitoring and evaluation of the established
practices and implementing necessary adjustments where required (Vojinovic, 2015).
Further, such adjustments should be based on new knowledge, technology, and innovation.
Additionally, flood management as per the international standards do not only involve
structural mitigation, but also non-structural interventions. The latter involves actions such
as issuance of insurance, relocation of people from flood-risk areas, zoning and planning of
land use among others (Jamrussri and Toda, 2017). It is therefore expected that the flood
management practices in Turkey and the United Kingdom are at least based on the holistic
framework.

2.1.3 Selecting the UK and Turkey for this study

The United Kingdom has an elaborate policy framework to guide flood risk management
and response to flood related emergencies. For example, the Flood and Water
Management Act (2010) incorporates Natural Flood Management (NFM) as a key element
in sustainable flood management strategy. On the other hand, Turkey lacks similar
comprehensive policy and planning for floods and related emergencies. Studies indicate
that flooding incidents such as river flooding tend to be destructive in the majority of
Turkish cities due to the lack of proper flood management strategies and land use policies
(Şenol Balaban, 2016; Canpolat et al., 2020). As such, these two countries provide a useful
comparative study for analysing flood management programs.

According to the Environment Agency (2009) report, one out of every six properties in
England are susceptible or at risk to flooding. The report also indicated that over 5 million
people in England live in 2.4 million properties which are susceptible to flooding from seas,
or rivers. Of the 2.4 million properties, 1 million are at risk of surface flooding. Another 2.8
million properties in the country are vulnerable to surface water flooding. The Department
for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) bears the nationwide responsibility for
managing the flood risk. In the context of Turkey, flood risk accounts for 30% of all water-
related emergencies (Ceylan et al., 2007). The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MoEF)
is responsible for managing flood risk in Turkey. In both the UK and Turkey, coastal flooding
presents the greatest risk (Karaca and Nicholls, 2008; Hall et al., 2014; Beltrán et al, 2019;

57
Öztürk and Uzuntaş, 2019). This paper explores and compares the flood management
systems adopted by the UK and Turkey, identifying problems and providing
recommendations for a good practice.

2.1.4 Methodology
The aim of the study is to compare the flood management systems in the UK and Turkey.
The comparative study was highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of one system over
the other. The approaches of the two countries are first compared via a literature review
with a thematic analysis to identify the preconditions and recurrent themes in their flood
management systems. The literature search was undertaken using online search engines
that have open access to online journal publication and documents that present the flood
management practices of both nations. The main search items that were used included:
flood management practices, levels of flood emergency response, stakeholder approach,
and local initiatives. The search uncovered a total of 50 useful materials. In order to
evaluate the applicability of the material for this particular study, thematic analysis was
conducted. The objective of the thematic analysis was mainly to answer the research
question which is how the flood management systems in the UK and Turkey can be
compared. A second question involved the level of flood response in the UK and Turkey
and the flood management frameworks in the two countries.

The review focused on identifying data relevant to the preparedness, response and
recovery stages of flood management. The analysis of those stages provided a framework
to compare and contrast the flood management operations in both countries, at multiple
scales (national, sub-national/district, local/community). The questions that informed the
review and guided the data collection included:
a) What are the main flood management systems in the UK and Turkey?
b) What local initiatives do Turkey and the UK use in their flood management
operations?
c) Which stakeholders are involved in the flood management initiatives of the two
countries?
d) Are there similarities or differences in the flood management systems?
e) What are the main reasons for key differences and similarities in the two countries?

58
 f) Are there examples of good practice which could improve the efficiency of flood
management systems?

To analyse online articles, search strings were used for each country, with truncation
searches and Boolean operators associated with "emergency management", "inundations
or floods'', and "effectiveness and ineffectiveness of flood management approaches''. The
academic databases used to access scholarly articles included Google Scholar, JSTOR,
Springerlink, ProQuest, Agricultural Online Access (AGRICOLA), EBSCO, Science Direct,
GeoScienceWorld, GeoRef, Spatial Hazard, EKUAL Veritabanları, ULAKBİM Keşif, TR Dizin,
and DergiPark, as well as including the COPAC catalogue, the British Library, institutional
library, newspaper reports, non-governmental, and interest group reports, and other
online authentic sources in both English and Turkish languages. Policy documents were
sourced from DEFRA, the Environment Agency (EA) and the Government (Gov.uk) for the
UK; and for Turkey, via MoAF (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry) and AFAD (Disaster and
Emergency Management Presidency).

2.1.5 The flood management system in the United Kingdom

In the UK, the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) is responsible
for managing the flood risk, via the Environment Agency (EA). The EA plays a strategic
overview role in managing all types of flood emergencies, ensuring that all stakeholders in
the flood management process respond appropriately, besides understanding their role in
the management of the emergency. The stakeholders involved in the management of flood
related emergencies in the UK include District Councils, Internal Drainage Boards, Lead
Local Flood Authorities, highway authorities, as well as water and sewerage utilities
(Surminski et al., 2020). The EA had invested in England an amount of £741 million on flood
risk management along with coastal erosion management during the period between 2015
and 2016. A proportion which is equivalent to £438 million was capital investments
whereas an amount of £123 million was devoted to the local councils and the International
Drainage Board (IDB). These funds were provided for research purposes that attempt to
develop different defence plans regarding flood and coastal management. Besides, the
DEFRA also offered an aid grant with a total amount of £665 million (Environment Agency,
2016a).

59
The idea behind the establishment of the “National Flood Emergency Framework” is to
deliver a farsighted framework that guides the planning and responses for emergency
floods by combining information, major policies. This guiding tool could be utilised at all
levels; nationally, regionally and locally (Department for Environment Food and Rural
Affairs, 2014). According to the Cabinet Office (2013), the management of the flooding
takes place in three stages: 1) pre-planning or preparation, 2) response, and 3) recovery. In
the pre-planning or preparation phase, the agency and its stakeholders prepare for the
flooding emergency. In “England”, the country is attempting to enhance its preparedness
through funding the launching of “Flood Warning Service” to areas and communities that
are more prone to flooding risk with a total amount of £5.4 million. The EA will be
responsible for managing this service and it will construct an alerting system that delivers
warning signals or messages, to the media and public across England, incase of emergency
flooding incidents. The service will be provided to communities that have an annual
flooding probability of 3.33%. It is also estimated that the annual savings, as damages are
prevented, might be about £36.8 million (Department for Environment Food and Rural
Affairs, 2019).

The response phase involves mitigating the immediate effects of a flood incidence after its
occurrence, with the objective being to prevent the flooding from having adverse effects
on individuals and property (McCallum et al., 2016). The recovery phase involves
restoration of transport networks, providing shelter, food, and other amenities to the
affected individuals, and the restoration of other critical infrastructure, such as electricity
and water supply. Recovery is one of the flood management aspects that concerns both
the authorities and the general public post natural disaster (Hegger et al., 2016).
Appropriate funding scheme and restoration plan is very crucial as it aids in assessing the
effectiveness of the overall risk management plan and the implemented strategies. The
winter floods in late 2015, for instance, required major recovery programmes and the UK
government had established schemes to recover from such events through assigning
additional amounts of £75 million for asset-restoration purposes. Besides, providing a total
of £700 million for repairing flood defences up to 2021 and restoring areas that were highly
affected by the flooding such as York, Cumbria, Leeds, and Calder Valley. Moreover, an

60
amount of £160 million is also dedicated for boosting the budget related to maintenance
in general (Environment Agency, 2016a).

In the event of a flood incident, the local stakeholders are responsible for initiating the
response process (Begg et al., 2017; Selvaraj and Chandran Sandaran, 2019). The scope of
the emergency determines the number of stakeholders that would engage in the response
and recovery operations. Providers of emergency services and local responders are on the
forefront in dealing with the flood incident. With district or county level flood emergencies,
the police play a central role in coordinating the response process, in conjunction with
other emergency services and local government. A designated Strategic ("Gold" level)
Commander, from the district/county police, coordinates the input of the local
organizations in the response. The district/county response unit consists of the Local
Resilience Forum (LRF) and Strategic Coordinating Groups (SCGs) that take part in
responding to the flood emergency (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs,
2014). In the coming decades, it is expected that the flooding levels will encounter a surge
due to several reasons such as urbanization, rises in sea levels triggered by changes in
climate and also due to a growth in both the population and urban development (Gallien
et al., 2018; Moftakhari et al., 2018; Alipour et al., 2020). All these reasons magnify the
impacts of floods emphasising the idea that comprehensive and successful mitigation
actions cannot be achieved solely by defence mechanisms; thus, the focus should be shifted
towards developing response strategies and resilience (Zhong et al., 2020). Accordingly, the
government had recognised the importance of creating the balance of capital and resource
funding ensuring its capability in meeting the needs associated with various flood
responses. Therefore, it is enhancing its strategy by continuously monitoring its fundings
to cover emergency flood responses and also to reinforce, construct and repair hard
defences (Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, 2019).

Both private and public organizations utilize the LRFs to develop recovery plans that would
ensure the restoration of critical community services (Gilissen et al., 2016). For a severe,
national-level flood emergency, the central government, through the Cabinet Office
Briefing Rooms (COBR), oversees DEFRA’s response. Moreover, the UK had established the
concept of partnership funding which included the contributions of both public and private

61
sectors to aid projects related to flood management (Coles et al., 2017). Partnership
funding reached a total of £31 million where financial aid from authorities was estimated
to be £25 million reaching a capital of £190 million starting from 2011 until 2016. The
Environment Agency-led projects had a 46% proportion of the total amount while the
remaining was provided to the “Other risk management authority-led projects”.
Undoubtedly, such a coordinated system is very crucial as it leads to the development of
much more projects which would be difficult if the funds were raised by the public sector
only (Environment Agency, 2016a).

“Multi-Agency Flood Plans” are plans that are developed by the local resilience forums.
There are 38 forums across England. The management of flood planning and responses
regarding “high” and “medium” flooding risks, was approved by the “General Cross” to be
conducted by these types of forums along with local communities who would contribute
to proposing novel strategies and plans (Department for Environment Food and Rural
Affairs, 2019).

“Local resilience forums'' consist of a group of individuals who take the responsibility of
submitting “Multi-Agency Flood Plans” and ensuring that it has sufficient standards. The
new “Multi-Agency Flood Plans'' were reviewed by the government and several
recommendations were supported and implemented. These include the proposal to
develop a “risk-specific” standard for emergency floods with the aim of outlining their legal
duties under the legislation of Civil Contingencies Act (2004) (Wiering et al., 2017;
Surminski et al., 2020). Besides, providing a more leading practice to these forums as they
respond to emergency incidents. This standard will be part of the standards of the (Cabinet
Office core) series of the “National Resilience”. Moreover, the UK government decided to
update the 2011’s guidance: Firstly, to include the new proposed standard; Secondly, to
provide a framework that assists the writings by the “local resilience forums'' which further
ensures a consistent and clarified approach (Department for Environment Food and Rural
Affairs, 2019). The UK is using a multi-agency and multi-level approach for flood
management, summarised in Figure 2.1.

62
 United Kingdom

The National Security Council

(London)
{Meets in the Cabinet Office Briefing Rooms (COBR)}

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

(DEFRA)
(London & Other Regional Offices)

Environment Agency (EA)

(England and Wales)
Scottish Environmental Protection Agency
(Scotland)

Environment Agency Region

(Based on Drainage Basins)
eg. Thames Region

The Strategic Coordinating Centre (SCC) & The

Strategic Coordinating Groups (SCG)
(At the district/county level)
{Acts through the Gold (Strategic) Commander}

Local Resilience Forums (LRFs)

(At the Local and District/County Level)
(Coordinate the efforts of public and private
organisations in the response)

Local Response
(At the Community Level)
Local responders such as Volunteer Flood Wardens,
neighbours and other NGO emergency service providers

Figure 2.1: Coordination of flood management in all levels in the UK

63
2.1.6 The flood management system in Turkey
In Turkey, The Directorate General for Water Management (DGWM), an affiliate of the
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MoAF) in conjunction with other units is responsible
for managing flood risk. The Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency (AFAD) is
responsible for managing all types of flood emergencies. The Presidency plans and
implements the activities before, during, and after the emergency while ascertaining the
proper coordination and cooperation of all organizations and institutions because of its
central role in addressing the needs of the emergency victims (Sahin, 2013). AFAD works in
conjunction with the Water Management Coordination Board, the Basin Management
Central Board, the Basin Management Committee, and the Provincial Water Management
Coordination Committee (Bodur, 2018). The boards and committees are public entities that
develop policies and identify measures of protecting water sources using the integrated
basin management approach. The Directorate General for Water Management (DGWM)
carries out the Water Management Coordination Board’s secretariat services besides
monitoring and coordinating the implementation of decisions. In managing the flood risk
with a multi-agency approach, the stakeholders manage the planning, strategy, policy,
legislation, and flood protection measures, as well as recovery initiatives such as
rehabilitation works (Öztürk and Uzuntaş, 2019; Uğur and Işik, 2020).

After the 2011 earthquake disaster, the Turkish government established the so-called
“Turkey Disaster Response Plan” (TAMP) which included all the response actions towards
emergency events. It identifies the strategies, activities, duties, level of authorization and
responsibilities of stakeholders whether they are communities and/or organisations.
Personnel of “Public” and “Private” organisations are incorporated in (TAMP). The four
major principles for this plan are: “Comprehensive approach” that considers the
emergency preparation, “Responses to events, and the recovery phase”, “Addressing all
hazards types with all scale sizes”, “Mobilizing the national capacities regarding rapid
responses”. The “TAMP” is divided into four main categories which are the operational
service, the information gathering and planning service, the logistics and maintenance
service, and finally the financial and administration service. Such division ensures a limited
hierarchy and an efficient implementation through the use of a modular framework that is
convenient with the event type and size (Oktay, 2015; Bayraktar and Sahtiyanci, 2020).

64
Starting with the operational services, it is considered as the response base unit that
constructs the long-term recovery basis. This service is splitted into sub-services based on
the type of event and level of response required. The first subservice is known as “Early
Recovery Services” which considers large-scale events while the Emergency sub -service
deals with small-scaled events (Oktay, 2015). The General Directorate of State Hydraulic
Works (DSI) is responsible for the implementation of structural measures prior to the
occurrence of floods. The State Hydraulic Works (DSI) is also responsible for the
maintenance and repair of flood control facilities and the cleaning of riverbeds (DSI, 2012).
The second is the information gathering and planning service which is essential in managing
gathered information and in the monitoring and evaluation processes. During the
emergency event, the responsibility of this response service is to identify the sources of
data required, collect and analyse them, explore the event area and conduct assessments.
Besides, carrying out analysis on the obtained data from the “geographic information
systems (GIS)”, databases, maps and remote sensors in order to prepare alternative
strategies according to the existing data and probability modelling and calculations (Oktay,
2015; Kaya, 2018; Fural et al., 2019).

The third service is the logistics and maintenance service that establishes facilities and
delivers all the essential equipment to assist other groups that are also part of the response
service. Finally, the last service is the financial and administration service which is part of
the response preparedness where financial needs are addressed within the strategic plan
submitted by public organisations. These are part of the Public Financial Management and
Control Law (no.5018) framework. On the other hand, the AFAD is responsible for
monitoring and coordinating emergency management investments for all disaster types
only for institutions that are funded by the general budget resources. For those who have
particular budgets, they may consider allocating part of it for emergency incidents. The
needs of the “Financial management of emergency” are combined with those of “Disaster
and Emergency Management Presidency Institution and Duties Law”, and of “Disaster and
Emergency Expenditures Directive” (Oktay, 2015; Kadioğlu et al., 2017; Çelik et al., 2018).

Local administrators are responsible for preparing flood response plans, conducting
emergency planning, and managing the rescue operations. At the provincial level, the AFAD

65
Presidency works through the Provincial Disaster and Emergency Directorates, which have
been determined as the provincial organization of the Presidency, established under the
governor’s authority (MFWA, 2017). The governor bears the primary responsibility of
emergency activities, as well as the directorate at the provincial level (Yuksel et al., 2011).
The role of the Provincial Disaster and Emergency Directorates is to manage all activities
associated with emergency management at the provincial level. The proper
implementation of such activities necessitates the coordination and cooperation of all
relevant organizations and institutions with reference to the specific type of activity
(Memiş and Babaoğlu, 2020a). Metropolitan Municipalities have either a direct or an
indirect responsibility in flood management within the confines of the law that determines
their scope of operation. The functions include implementing stream remediation, and
executing plans and preparations associated with natural emergencies at the provincial
level. They also execute fire and emergency services, evacuate at-risk individuals from
unsafe buildings, and destroy buildings that bear the risk or pose a significant threat to
property (GDWM, 2016). The General Directorate of Meteorology relays the warning signal
of an impending flooding thus enabling the response team and communities to prepare for
the flood event (Kilicaslan, 2016; Sarigul and Turoglu, 2020). Figure 2.2 summarises the
coordination of flood management operations by the stakeholders in Turkey.

66
 Turkey

The Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency

(AFAD)
(Ankara)
(National Security)

Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MoEF)

(Ankara & Other Regional Offices)

Water Management Coordination Board &

Basin Management Central Board
(Ankara)
(The Directorate General of Water Management is
responsible for the Board's secretariat services)

Basin Management Committee

(In the Basin)
eg. Marmara Basin

Provincial Water Management Coordination Committee

(In the Province)
Acts through a provincial governor

Local Municipalities and Emergency Responders

(At the Local Level)
(Fire Brigade, Police, Gendarmerie and Medical Response)

Figure 2.2: Coordination of flood management in all levels in Turkey

The summary above reveals some differences in the flood management approaches of the
UK and Turkey. In the UK, the EA coordinates flood management, with a comprehensive
response that incorporates the participation of local communities and abides by the Flood
and Water Management Act 2010, which covers mitigation measures, preparedness and
67
response to flood emergencies. As such, flood management in the UK is multi-agency and
multi-level, including Strategic Coordinating Groups (SCG) and Local Resilience Forums
(LRFs) (Forrest et al., 2017). Turkey, on the other hand, has a more centralized system,
managed and implemented at the national level. While the Ministry of Agriculture and
Forestry (MoAF) through the Directorate General for Water Management bears the
nationwide responsibility for managing the flood risk, coordination efforts during and after
the occurrence of a flood incidence are the responsibility of the Disaster and Emergency
Presidency (AFAD) (Öztürk and Uzuntaş, 2019). The next section summarises the findings
of the literature review, with the results revealing differences in flood management,
particularly in the context of emergency management.

2.1.7 A comparative analysis of flood management in the UK and Turkey

The analysis reveals some underlying similarities and differences between the flood
management systems in the two countries. First, both countries have complex
management systems that involve multiple stakeholders. However, the flood emergency
response systems are different:
- Turkey has a centralised system that prioritizes state procedure, with 'top down'
flood management. The Turkish Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency
(law 5902) serves as the central coordinating agency that focuses on long term
strategic planning, preparedness, mitigation, training and logistics for both natural
and man-made disasters (GDWM, 2015).
- The UK has a more cohesive flood management framework, supported by law and
overseen by a government department. Flood management in the UK incorporates
local communities and has policy and resource mechanisms to incorporate inputs
from local communities. It thus has a mix of 'top down' and 'bottom up'
management, with each Local Resilience Forum connecting those two flows of
information and procedures.

The next section delves deeper into the structural systems that characterize the flood
emergency response, with a view to identifying similarities and differences in the UK and
Turkish approaches to flood management.

68
2.1.7.1 Units of management
The flood management approaches employed by both the United Kingdom and Turkey in
managing flood and related emergencies reveal systems that focus on the interdependence
and interactive nature of internal and external factors in the management of the flooding.
Both countries employ a multi-agency hierarchical approach to managing flooding
emergencies. In the United Kingdom, the EA is responsible for coordinating the efforts of
internal and external stakeholders (Alexander et al., 2017; Sayers et al., 2017; Golding et
al., 2019). For a flood emergency on a national scale, the National Security Council meets
in the Cabinet Office Briefing Rooms (COBR) to initiate an immediate response. The Council
gathers ministers, agency representatives, and senior officials to make prompt decisions
regarding the best course of action to handle the disaster with the help of specialist
modelling and advice. The level of involvement in the response and recovery operations
depend on several factors that include the impact of the emergency on key infrastructure,
the depth of flooding, the number of flooded properties, and the response of the media.
At the local level are the Strategic Coordinating Groups (SCGs) and the Strategic
Coordinating Centre (SCC). In addition, the Local Resilience Forums are also positioned at
the local level to enable community responses to flood emergencies. Communities,
businesses, families and individuals that take part in the preparedness, response and
recovery operations are at the lowest end of the hierarchy (Ntontis et al., 2018; Surminski
et al., 2020).

The system approach to flood management adopted by Turkey has some similarities with
the UK system. Because many agencies take part in the flood management system, AFAD
is responsible for coordinating the response and recovery operations of other stakeholders.
The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MoAF) is responsible for handling the policy,
strategy, planning, flood protection and recovery measures, as well as the legislation
underpinning them. As summarised by Kilicaslan (2016), it is the responsibility of AFAD to
ensure the seamless execution of response and recovery measures by all stakeholders. The
Presidency liaises with the Province Governor, Metropolitan Municipalities and other local
institutions to manage flooding emergencies (Kadıoğlu, 2019). Figure 2.3 compares the
coordination of flood management operations by the stakeholders in the UK and Turkey.

69
 United Kingdom Turkey

The Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency

The National Security Council
(AFAD)
(London)
(Ankara)
{Meets in the Cabinet Office Briefing Rooms (COBR)}
(National Security)

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MoEF)
(DEFRA)
(Ankara & Other Regional Offices)
(London & Other Regional Offices)

Environment Agency Water Management Coordination Board &

Basin Management Central Board
(England and Wales)
(Ankara)
Scottish Environmental Protection Agency
(The Directorate General of Water Management is responsible for the
(Scotland) Board's secretariat services)

Environment Agency Region Basin Management Committee

(Based on Drainage Basin) (In the Basin)
eg. Thames Region eg. Marmara basin

The Strategic Coordinating Centre (SCC) & The Strategic Provincial Water Management Coordination Committee
Coordinating Groups (SCG)
(In the Province)
(At the local level)
Acts through a provincial governor
{Acts through the Gold (Strategic) Commander}

Local Resilience Forums (LRFs) Local Municipalities and Emergency Responders

(At the Local Level) (At the Local Level)
(Coordinate the efforts of public and private organisations in the (Fire Brigade, Police, Gendarmerie and Medical Response)
response)

Local Response
(At the Community Level)
(Local responders such as Volunteer Flood Wardens, neighbours and
other NGO emergency service providers)

Figure 2.3: Coordination of flood management at all levels in the UK and Turkey

2.1.7.2 Multiple stakeholder approach

Besides having similar hierarchical approaches in the management of floods, both systems
also utilize multiple stakeholder approaches, rather than allocating the task to a single
entity or agency. In the UK, the National Flood Emergency Framework comprises different
stakeholder organizations and entities such as the Environment Agency, the Internal

70
Drainage Board, District Councils, Lead Local Flood Authorities, Water and Sewerage
Companies, Highways Authorities and Delivery Bodies (Department for Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs, 2014). In Turkey, the different stakeholders that manage the floods
include the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, the General Directorate of State Hydraulic
Works, The General Directorate of Water Management, as well as the General Directorate
for Combating Desertification and Erosion. The other stakeholders in the system include
the General Directorate of Meteorology, the General Directorate of Nature Conservation
National Parks, the General Directorate of Forestry and the Disaster and Emergency
Management Presidency (AFAD). In addition, the Turkish flood management system also
consists of Governorates, Metropolitan Municipalities and the Local Administrations
(MFWA, 2017).

2.1.7.3 Levels of flood emergency response

The flood management systems in the UK adopt a localised response in managing flood
emergencies, with stakeholders at the local level initiating the first response before the
intervention of the central government. In the UK, providers of emergency services and
other local responders initiate the flood response. The police lead the response team
(Environment Agency, 2012). The localised response involves Local Resilience Forums and
Strategic Coordinating Groups. However, the level of intervention increases with the level
of the emergency. Therefore, all stakeholders take part in severe, national-level, flood
emergencies whereas LRFs and SCGs manage local inundations with the help of private
organizations, neighbours, and other local responders (Cabinet Office, 2013). Turkey
adopted a centralised approach to the management of flood emergencies (Kuterdem,
2010; Koçkan, 2015; Memiş and Babaoğlu, 2020a). The Provincial Disaster and Emergency
Directorate established under the governor’s authority is responsible for leading the
response to flood emergencies with the help of the Provincial Water Management
Coordination Committee as well as neighbours, private organizations, and other local
responders. The governor bears the primary responsibility of emergency management
activities in the province. The proper implementation of such activities necessitates the
coordination and cooperation of all relevant organizations and institutions with reference
to the specific type of activity (Yuksel et al., 2011). Table 2.1 compares the levels of flood
emergencies and the respective response in the UK and Turkey.

71
Table 2.1: Levels of flood emergencies and the respective response in the UK and Turkey

United Kingdom Turkey

Description Level of Level of Level of Level of Engagement
Emergency Engagement Emergency
The flood has a Catastrophic The Cabinet National AFAD works in
widespread impact Office Briefing conjunction with the
that requires the Rooms (COBR) / Ministries of Internal
intervention of the The Civil Affairs, Maritime Affairs
central Contingencies & Communications,
government., i.e., Committee Transport, Health,
a flood that affects where the Environment and Urban
a large area of the nominated Planning, Energy &
country Secretary of Natural Resources,
State leads the Family & Social Policies,
intervention to Finance, Food,
the catastrophic Agriculture & Livestock,
flood event and the Turkish Red
Crescent Society
The flood has a Serious The COBR Regional AFAD through the
prolonged and through the aforementioned
wide impact that Lead ministries coordinate
requires support Government the response and
from agencies with Department recovery operations
central Coordinates the based on the scope of
government response while the emergency under
coordination, i.e., the Civil the governorship and
a flood event Contingencies the provincial
displacing Secretariat emergency agencies.
hundreds of (CCS) provides
persons overall support
and
coordination
The focus of the Significant The Lead Local The response team
flood is narrow Government works according to the
and it has limited Department provincial emergency
impacts, i.e., a Minister leads response plan. The local
flood event that the response agencies of the
extend beyond a operations aforementioned
single county and while receiving institutions coordinate
results in the advice from the with the provincial
displacement of CCS as and emergency agencies
many people when required under the governorship.

72
 United Kingdom Turkey
Description Level of Level of Level of Level of Engagement
Emergency Engagement Emergency
Events handled on Local The Gold - -
a routine basis by (Strategic)
local government Commander or
emergency the Lead Police
services, e.g. a leads the
flood emergency response
with small-scale operations with
evacuation and no no intervention
risk to critical from the Central
infrastructure Government

Both systems have a central agency that is responsible for managing the flood emergencies.
The UK has the Environment Agency and Turkey has the Disaster and Emergency
Management Presidency (AFAD) that coordinates the activities of all stakeholders in
managing flood emergencies.

2.1.7.4 Local initiatives

Even though both systems advocate for the input of local responders in the management
of flood emergencies, the level of local response in the UK system exceeds that of the
Turkish system. Following the 2007 floods in the UK and the devastating impact of the
emergency on the lives and property of the victims, the Pitt Review (2008) identified key
recommendations on the part of all stakeholders that are necessary in improving the
efficiency of the country in responding and recovering from flooding in the future. The Pitt
Review provided several recommendations to the UK Government, the Environment
Agency, associated stakeholders, and the public that would improve the resilience of the
country towards flood emergencies. The recommendations include reducing the impact
and risk of floods, knowing where and when the flood risk would occur, hastening the
recovery process and staying healthy, and educating the public on effective ways of
protecting their families and homes. The other recommendations include maintaining
water and power supplies, with other essential ("life-line") services, as well as rescuing and
caring for victims during emergencies. The review also recommended the need for local
authorities to be on the forefront in the management of the flooding risk with support from
the other agencies and stakeholders (Pitt, 2008). Since the 2007 floods and the

73
identification of the appropriate recommendations, the UK Government and other
stakeholders such as the Environment Agency, the Met Office, the Local Resilience Forums
and Local Authorities have strived to implement the recommendations. Therefore, In the
UK, local response is on the forefront in the management of the flood emergency. The
system also encourages substantial input from non-profit organizations in availing aid and
other forms of assistance to the affected areas (Lo and Chan, 2017; Bark and Acreman,
2020).

The Turkish system encourages minimal participation of the local authorities, a feature that
could have adverse impacts on the response time and the reporting of actual information.
Even though the flood management system in Turkey falls under a subsidiary of the
country’s emergency management system, it is evident that the system does not
encourage substantial local input that plays a vital role in enabling an appropriate response
at the local level (MFWA, 2017). Rather than developing a robust flood management
system, such as the one adopted by the Netherlands, the evolution of the flood
management system in Turkey has relied on previous experiences, with inefficiencies
observed in previous centralized flood response units. The centralized response structure
that grants the role of governance to the governors has resulted in a very weak system at
the local level (Bodur, 2018; Hermansson, 2018; Memiş and Düzgün, 2020). According to a
study by Hermansson (2018), Turkey has challenges of decentralization, and the existence
of a centralized approach has resulted in failure of the local approach in the management
of catastrophes.

The establishment of a specific agency to manage flood emergencies in the UK resulted in

the creation of the Strategic Coordinating Group (SCG), which coordinates the efforts of all
stakeholders in the response and recovery activities. The Police chief that heads the SCG
has adequate local knowledge about the situation on the ground. As a result, the UK’s
approach towards the management of flood emergencies guarantees better results as
compared to the approach adopted by Turkey. This is an indicator that the first response
operations following the occurrence of a flood emergency are ineffective and problematic
because of the absence of a localized initiative in Turkey (Benson and Lorenzoni, 2016;
Özler, 2019; Çelik et al., 2020; Hegger et al., 2020).

74
2.1.7.5 The legislative structure and emergency planning
With regard to the legislative structure, it is evident that the flood management systems
employed by both countries are in accordance with the European Union Action Program
for flood protection. The published Prime Ministry Circulars in Turkey give the different
ministries and committees the mandate to manage flood events appropriately. This is
comparable to the Civil Contingencies Act (CCA) of 2004 that advocates for the installation
of a civil protection framework in the country to protect citizens and property from
damages and injury caused by hazards. Table 2.2 indicates related legislation, as well as
summarizing the UK and Turkey flood emergency planning arrangements.

Table 2.2: Legislative structure and emergency planning in the UK and Turkey

Governing Rules Approach to emergency planning for floods

The ● Civil Contingencies Act The Civil Contingencies Act 2004 governs the
UK (2004) emergency planning and issues like communication
● Civil Contingencies and evacuation are by and large covered by generic
(Contingency Planning) plans. Such plans are subsequently indicated by the
Regulations (2005) Multi-Agency Flood Plan (MAFP), which is tasked with
● The Flood and Water producing and developing by Local Resilience Forum
Management Act (2010) (LRF). Based on the administrative police boundaries,
● National Flood there are 42 LRFs in the UK. All the LRFs must take
Emergency Framework into consideration the flood risk across the entire
(Department for Environment,
areas they are responsible for. To deal with areas that
Food and Rural Affairs, 2014)
present the highest flood risk, the flood management
approach entails the use of more detailed MAFPs.
Turkey ● Law on Organization Local administrators prepare development plans,
and Duties of the Disaster and conduct emergency rescue operations under the
Emergency Management coordination of Provincial AFADs, the central
Presidency No. 5902 dated governing body that works under the governorships
29.05.2009 and the provincial emergency agencies. The level of
● The Circular Letter the emergency response depends on the severity of
2012/7 Dated 20.03.2012 the flood event.
● Article 35 of Law No.
6525 dated 20.02.2014
● The Communiqué
Dated 20.05.2015
● Flood Management
Plan (MFWA, 2017)

The Turkish system has problems in implementing the first response and effective
coordination as witnessed in the September 2009 flooding around Istanbul. To illustrate, in

75
2009, Turkey had encountered harsh weather conditions leading to a record-breaking
amount of rainfall in the Marmara region and flash flooding in Istanbul and Tekirdag. The
successive and severe rains extended for 3 days producing rainfall over 250mm leading to
the death of 32 individuals, had affected more than 35,000 people, and led to serious
damages in the region's infrastructure and transportation system along with property
destruction (Özcan, 2017). This event is considered as the third deadliest among all natural
disasters that are related to floods in Turkey’s recent decades preceding the floods of
Western Black Sea and Izmir. The Chamber of Commerce of Istanbul evaluated the
damages associated with the flash floods and revealed that the costs were more than $70
million (Komuscu and Celik, 2013).

Turoğlu (2011) and Özcan (2017) demonstrated several destructions in the city’s
transportation system that were not compatible with the natural pattern of drainage; thus,
contributed to flood accumulation. The detoritation in the system acted as a barrier that
prevented the discharge of water in the event of a flood. Moreover, one of the reasons that
increased the damages in Istanbul was the inadequate and ineffective planning as the
region was not designed based on its hydrological conditions which magnified the damages
(Komuscu and Celik, 2013; Dinç, 2019; Gülbaz et al., 2019).

A fundamental feature of the United Kingdom’s flood protection structures is that they are
based on the cost-benefit analysis. Ideally, the Environment Agency works with local
communities to assess the potential flood risks and the areas or societal activities that could
adversely be affected by floods. The decision to erect flood protection structures is,
therefore, based on consultation with the community and the determination of specific
flood thresholds (Nye et al., 2011; Begg et al., 2017; van der Plank et al., 2019). The
assumption is that rainfall may not fall and reach a certain threshold on which the flood
protection structure is constructed. However, if the threshold is exceeded, the structures
are designed to cause minimum damage depending on the pre-existing cost-benefit
analysis and consultation with the residents (Brisibe, 2020). It is, therefore, not logical to
report that the United Kingdom’s flood protection structures are limited. Instead, they are
constructed based on specific projected flood thresholds, which may be overwhelmed
sometimes (Barker et al., 2016; Goytia et al., 2016).

76
An example is the Flood Desmond of 2015, which forced more than 40,000 people off their
homes and properties. The flood occurred despite an expenditure of over £ 45 million
(Nobel, 2015). Furthermore, flooding had not appeared in the area for the previous ten
years, which indicates that the protective structures were effective after all, at least based
on the estimated rainfall threshold. When flood Desmond occurred, it was reported that
the storm could have been the highest local daily rainfall in the history of the place, which
again confirms the assertions that flooding in the UK occurs when the rainfall overwhelms
the projected precipitation or rainfall threshold (Spencer et al., 2017; Rözer and Surminski,
2020).

Another mitigation used by the UK’s Environment Agency is zoning to prevent commercial
and residential buildings in areas with significantly high flood risks (Beddoes et al., 2018).
In such areas, the Environment Agency, through the cost-benefit analysis, may not use a
lot of capital to construct flood protective structures since the resultant benefits when
floods occur is relatively low (Smith and Bond, 2018). Even in communities where there are
adequate commercial and residential buildings, the flood protective structures are
constructed so that when they are overwhelmed, and flooding occurs, they channel the
flood water to less risky areas such as the parks. Additionally, the secondary walls are also
constructed to ensure that some of the water coming from the primary walls is channelled
back to the river (Zevenbergen et al., 2010).

Another reason for flooding in the United Kingdom, which is sometimes attributed to poor
protective structures, is buildings in the flood plains. Although the zoning policy is usually
enforced, it is only effective in the priority high-flood risk areas. However, there are less
restrictive rules in other flood plain areas, which often leads to people constructing in the
floodplains, which compromises the accurate determinant of the precipitation threshold
(Bubeck et al., 2017). The cost-benefit analysis approach of flood protection is yet a major
hindrance to the efficacy of the Environment Agency efforts to mitigate floods in some
parts of the UK. The community, for instance, is involved in making the decisions on where
to construct the protective structures, which is a significant cause of compromise due to
the biased interest of the members of the community (Krieger, 2013). It is, therefore,
logical to argue that the failures of the flood protection systems in the UK are mostly caused

77
by precipitations that overwhelm the set threshold but are also designed to cause limited
damage whenever they occur.

2.1.7.6 Flood emergency reporting framework

The coordinated reporting framework in the UK flood management system is another
aspect that outperforms its equivalent in Turkey. The dedicated framework for managing
flood emergencies in the UK identified the need for reporting the status of the emergency
during both crisis management and consequence management phases. Crisis management
takes place in response to the flooding emergency, whereas consequence management
takes place in the recovery phase. Hall et al. (2014) assert that the UK’s dedicated system
resulted in the splitting of reporting roles between the Environment Agency of DEFRA and
the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) in the response and
recovery phases respectively. The use of a unified reporting structure in the UK ensures the
delivery of the same information to other responders and the public. This ensures the
effective and efficient allocation of resources to the affected areas, addressing the needs
of victims and preventing further loss of property (Coles et al., 2017). In Turkey, the
existence of a weak local response system impacts negatively on the reporting framework.
Even though the centralized response tries to implement the response and recovery
operations, the absence of accurate data regarding the state of events on the ground
impedes the efforts thereby resulting in an efficient resource allocation system (Bayraktar
and Sahtiyanci, 2020).

2.1.8 Discussion
The analysis of the similarities and differences between the British and Turkish flood
management systems reveal significant weaknesses that have often affected the ability of
the respective countries to respond to flood emergencies. While the UK system appears
comprehensive and offers a clear roadmap to addressing every aspect of flood
management, the Turkish system has substantial flaws that compound the adverse effects
of flooding. As such, this section discusses the research findings and makes
recommendations for improved flood management.

78
According to McNulty (2013), historical responses’ charting to UK flooding exhibits some
shifting views and attitudes of these events. The manner in which people perceive flooding
is fundamental in influencing ways of responding to it. A study conducted by
Mukhopadhyay (2017) found that despite the fact that many flood management
programmes are based on the natural causes which is mainly rainfall, people’s perception
on flooding is a fundamental aspect in designing effective strategies. The report found that
people’s perception regarding the contribution of land use management, the effectiveness
of the current strategies, and the local strategies significantly enhances flood management
strategy. According to Mukhopadhyay (2017), the local, or the people living in the flood-
prone areas are well knowledgeable of the flood events, especially those living along river
basins that are vulnerable to flooding. As such, it is important that their perception is
incorporated in managing flood risks. They understand best, the points of inundation, and
would thus, provide better insight on the appropriate protective structure. In addition,
Lechowska (2018) in his study to evaluate what determines risk perception, discloses that
while risk analysis is usually influenced by objective measurements, it often determines the
reactions used towards the emergency. According to Lechowska (2018), the perception of
the risk can result in three reactions, awareness, worry, and preparedness. Imperatively, it
can be stated that the perception of risk determines the reaction towards the risk.

Enhanced warning systems and flood defences, improved flood forecasting, and increased
emergency planning in the UK have resulted in reduced flood risks. Still, it is not
economically affordable or technically feasible for all properties to be protected from
flooding (Sayers et al., 2020). Despite investing heavily on the coastal and flood defences,
the flooding financial impact is still enormous since the UK incurs an average of £1 billion
worth of damages annually as a result of flooding (McNulty, 2013). Likewise, according to
Price and Vojinovic (2008), emergency preparedness and response activities are the most
important factors in the collection of activities related to management of emergencies.
Mohammad-pajooh and Aziz (2014) further argued that the coastal cities should not only
pay attention to the infrastructure aspect of floods but should also consider vulnerabilities
and hotspots, and take proper action which could result in the improvement of the
community’s preparedness level. As pointed out by the authors, emergency preparedness
tries to prevent a potential hazard from turning into an emergency; even though it needs

79
significant efforts to increase awareness about natural emergency preparedness in the
community. A number of studies cited by Mohammad-pajooh and Aziz (2014) established
that the preparedness level in many countries is insufficient; thus, the impact of a flood
emergency remains higher. In Turkey, experiences achieved from the flooding events in the
past decade demonstrate that the implemented structural measures within the basin-wide
have been efficient; however, decreasing the flood damage risk is exceedingly expensive.
For this reason, the focus has been shifted to non-structural measures, especially updating
design standards and guidelines of building code, modifying traditional land use and
creating public awareness, which have recently been applied by the local administrations
(Yuksel et al., 2011; Anilan and Yuksek, 2017; Yilmaz and Kaya, 2020). Still, because of the
current economic status, implementing the required activities by such bodies has been
limited. Yuksel et al. (2011) further posited that the local units lack sufficient trained and
educated staff that can put the non-structural measures into practice.

As stated by Ceylan et al. (2007), there are many factors that cause flood risks in Turkey;
the country’s complex topographic features, its closeness to water makes it vulnerable to
floods. Floods are also caused by land-use, especially illegal and wrong land-use. The county
has lost significant forest cover because of continuous forest cutting by people seeking to
create new areas for agricultural purposes, particularly in the steep slopes of the northern
Anatolian (Ceylan et al., 2007; Özcan, 2017). This has consequently increased the possibility
of debris flows and landslides as well as soil erosion. Another reason as pointed out by Tas
et al. (2013) is the rapid urbanization and the country’s unpreparedness and vulnerability
to emergencies. The 2009 flush floods in Marmara evidently demonstrated the weaknesses
of Turkey’s response and management of flood emergencies. The Marmara flooding killed
at least thirty-one people and caused $80 million worth of damage. Furthermore, as argued
by Sahin (2013) and Kaya (2018), the floods have been exacerbated by ignorant
development, erosion and deforestation. As pointed out by Şenol Balaban (2016), the
urban planning approach considering flooding as a technical issue seems to be the key
factor that brings forth high flood losses in cities across Turkey. Failure to take into account
sustainable measures would make impacts of flood events more widespread and intense
because of climate change and the growing population concentration in coastal cities.
Turkey's urban population rate is projected to reach 84 per cent by 2050 (Şenol Balaban,

80
2016). Given that the coastal cities are the hotspots of economic activities and population,
flood management has turned out to be a pressing issue; thus, creating the need for the
improved resilience of Turkish cities to flood events that would happen in the future.

The 2013-2014 winter floods in the UK that led to the death of seventeen people. Even
though the country had learnt from the 2007-8 floods and employed necessary measures
to counter the effects of future flooding events, it was evident that the emergency
response plan developed by the Environment Agency and other local responders and
agencies had not prepared to deal with an emergency of such magnitude (Thorne, 2014;
Muchan et al., 2015). This also provides an explanation behind the devastating effect of the
2013-14 floods. The distinctive nature of the winter was also evident following the
occurrence of multiple types of flooding. Consequently, the emergency responders had to
deal with pluvial, flooding, coastal, and groundwater flooding that affected many parts
within the country. In some instances, some types of flooding occurred simultaneously. The
exceptional long duration of the flooding event suffices to be the other reason behind the
devastating effect of the 2013-14 flood (Thorne, 2014; Muchan et al., 2015). Apparently,
the 2013-14 floods presented a typical example of an extreme flooding emergency that
required a resilient flood management system. The decline in the funding for flood
resilience and protection are some of the reasons why the latest floods had a devastating
impact on the country (Bennett and Hartwell-Naguib, 2014).

According to Jayasuriya and McCawley (2010) and Eiser et al. (2012), in disaster risk
reduction, emphasis is laid on social relationships and a community approach. Thorne et al.
(2018) argued that risk can be realised on a local level when community members form an
emergency committee. Through participation in such communities, dwellers get motivated
to search how future emergencies can be mitigated. Models and theories have been
considered to ascertain the ways in which communication can help the local population in
mitigating any further emergency (e.g. better management at the community level was
enhanced after Hurricane Katrina in the US). According to Ballard-Reisch et al. (2008), pre-
crisis practices should involve community groups, cultural groups, religious bodies, citizen
organisations and schools, in addition to government level stakeholders, as they all form
networks that can easily disseminate information suitable to each group. Furthermore, as

81
pointed out by Sperry (2013), improving participation of citizens in emergency planning can
help reduce the gap of expectation. When the community is more engaged in emergency
management activities they learn ways of becoming prepared for emergencies. When
people understand the value of being prepared, they will easily understand how to
overcome the emergency response limitations. Similarly, as pointed out by Sayers et al.
(2013), successful managers and leaders should be able to recognize activities which allow
for effective operations and to ensure that the espouse measures are given continuous
attention. Therefore, enablers of flood management at community level include funding
and scheduling of activities, continuous coordination with other emergency response
plans, and establishing an adaptive management program. Other enablers as pointed out
by Sayers et al. (2013) include risk communication as well as stakeholder outreach and
partnership working. As evidenced in the findings, Turkey’s emergency management
system does not involve local stakeholders, such as communities and non-government
organisations. The key to the added efficiency of the UK system in comparison to the
Turkish appears to lie in the localized approach to flood management that has been
adopted. The decentralisation approach in the UK provides a clear picture of the state of
events on the ground, thus enabling the proper allocation of emergency resources to the
affected individuals, unlike in Turkey where the more centralised system makes it difficult
to commit resources where they are most needed. Without a doubt, grassroots action
could offer the social capital and local knowledge required for identification of the factors
behind human vulnerability as well as bringing forth adaptive solutions that would help
resolve flood risk and improve resilience (Carrasco and O’Brien, 2018; Seebauer et al., 2018;
Gimenez-Maranges et al., 2020).

According to Dobrucali and Demir (2016), the primary problem linked to emergency
management in Turkey is at a local level. The authors contend that the migration of people
to bigger cities with greater pressure on housing and illegal settlements in risky areas has
led to more concerns regarding management of the emergencies such as floods. Ovgun
(2013) further contended that in Turkey, though there is presence of a detailed national
plan regarding emergency response, community level awareness of emergency
preparedness is relatively low. It is also reported that public resilience is low, as both local
and national governments have failed to take the necessary steps to increase public

82
awareness for emergency management. Furthermore, Dobrucali and Demir (2016) further
contended that the legal and institutional framework linked to emergency management in
Turkey does not clearly define the role of different stakeholders. Finally, Ovgun (2013)
argues that the legal framework linked to risk reduction and emergency management was
framed in 1959 and was only revised once in 2000. Though efforts have been made by the
Turkish government to improve emergency management, lack of assessment of the system
is evident. The author also indicated that the Turkish emergency management system
predominantly focuses on emergency relief and response, with limited focus on
preparedness and precaution.

Flood management in relation to preparedness, response, and recovery for the UK is much
stronger than the Turkish system. In fact, the UK’s flood management system was
described by Gilissen et al. (2016) as one of the 'best practices' in Europe for having
"adequate and coordinated" response to emergencies as outlined in the European Union
Flood Directive 2007. Therefore, Turkey needs to learn from and improve the areas of
weaknesses especially in the general organisation levels, reporting, and recovery.

2.2 Insurance mechanisms for flood risk management in Turkey and the UK
2.2.1 Introduction
One of the most common natural emergencies is flooding, accounting for about one third
of all natural calamities (Jha et al., 2012). A study by Wing et al. (2018) reported that about
13.3% of the global population are currently exposed to flooding. Future estimates are even
higher, with a 41% increase in population exposure to flooding for a 1 in 500 year by 2050
(Wing et al., 2018). Similarly, the resulting risk or loss is expected to increase by a similar
margin (41%). To mitigate this risk, insurance companies offer flood insurance policies to
individuals living in floodplains as well as businesses operating in affected areas (Wing et
al., 2018; Surminski et al., 2020). The importance of flood, or other catastrophic insurance
policies is to compensate people affected by natural hazards without necessarily reverting
to the government resources that had already been allocated for other development
projects (Shao et al., 2017).

83
Insurance could be considered one of flood management mechanisms that could act as a
catalyst for a strategic flood preparation approach. It is a financial instrument that allows
for the transference of risks from one person or entity to another through payment of a
premium. When addressing the concept of insurance based on socio-economic point of
view, it promotes an effective method, as compared to that addressed by the government,
to evaluate costs associated with disasters (Surminski and Thieken, 2017). An appropriate
implementation of insurance aids in spreading the risks over space and time as it smoothen
the risk leading to an efficient reconstruction approach. Besides, it ensures that there will
be support post the disaster incident and it can also aid in decreasing “immediate” welfare
losses. However, severe risks might exceed the industry’s capacity which will apply a
burden on the country’s authorities as assistance will be required if there were no effective
insurance implementations (Surminski and Thieken, 2017). Risk layering is one of the
strategies that allows for the development of economic-related analysis as to how various
tools, such as direct assessment, resilient infrastructure execution and risk can be
integrated together. Therefore, insurance should be viewed as an interacting instrument,
within risk management that has potential in forming “risk governance” and altering risk
behaviour, rather than independent financial risk (Tyler et al., 2019; Kuhlicke et al., 2020;
Raška et al., 2020).

The section analyses documents that present information concerning insurance for
homeowners and businesses in Turkey and the UK and why Turkey has been more inclined
to the management of earthquakes and offering insurance products for earthquakes as
opposed to flooding.

2.2.2 Objectives and rationale of this chapter

This chapter investigates flood insurance policies in the UK and Turkey. Specifically, the
chapter discusses insurance mechanisms for flood risk management in Turkey and the UK,
such as the type of insured risks, insured items like debris removal and structural aspects
of insurance e.g. the roof, walls, and floor.
1. The first objective is to evaluate whether flooding insurance is prioritised over other
disaster funding in the two countries;

84
 2. The second objective is to identify the specific challenges related to the provision
of insurance for both residential areas and businesses in the two countries.

These aspects are closely related to the main objectives of the study since they are about
modes of compensating affected victims without fostering migration from the floodplains.
Without insurance, people would fear living in floodplains or using them for economic
purposes.

2.2.3 Methodology
To evaluate the insurance mechanisms for risk management in Turkey and the UK a
literature review was deemed the most suitable methodology. The reason is that at the
time of carrying out this study, there was limited flooding activity that could have prompted
for an observational design about the flood insurance compensation to victims. The
literature review also provides an in-depth analysis of previous efforts of handling flood
risks.

2.2.3.1 Sample population

The study population comprised all literature, documents, and data related to flood
insurance policies. However, the study narrowed down to only information related to the
two countries. As such, the inclusion criteria entailed only literature related to Turkey and
the UK in the past 10 years. Data from previous years was perceived to be old and
overtaken by events, thus, unsuitable for analysis. A simple random sampling technique
was used to select the appropriate information for this research.

2.2.3.2 Search criteria

The search for flood insurance literature, documents, and data involved the use of both
physical books (from the university library and documents obtained from state agencies
responsible for flood emergency management in Turkey and in the UK) and electronic
databases. Search engines such as Google Scholar, JSTOR, Springerlink, ProQuest,
Agricultural Online Access (AGRICOLA), EBSCO, Science Direct, GeoScienceWorld, GeoRef,
Spatial Hazard, EKUAL Veritabanları, ULAKBİM Keşif, TR Dizin, and DergiPark, as well as
including the COPAC catalogue, the British Library, institutional library, newspaper reports,

85
non-governmental, and interest group reports, and other online authentic sources in both
English and Turkish languages were used to search the documents. The search process
involved searching for keywords such as "flood insurance policies", "flood insurance in
Turkey" and "flood insurance in the UK" among many more. The results generated many
outcomes but the selection criteria followed the inclusion criteria indicated in the sample
population section above. Although many studies were found relevant, only those that
were less than ten years were selected for analysis.

The review involved a thematic analysis of relevant literature and data highlighting specific
flood insurance policies together with agencies providing them. The specific themes that
guided the analysis were: Flood insurance mechanisms guiding insurance providers to
generate relevant policies; flood insurance policies in the UK; Flood insurance policies in
Turkey; Comparison of flood insurance policies of Turkey and the UK (Kirby, 2017). The
documents highlighted the specific types of insurance products that are related to flooding
and the agencies that offer such insurance services. The thematic analysis sought to answer
the questions: What are the flood insurance mechanisms that guide insurance policies in
Turkey and in the UK? How does Turkey compare with the UK in terms of flood insurance?
The collected data was collected in the form of an annotated bibliography that provides
details about the content of each source. The annotated bibliography was stored in a
database.

2.2.4 Results
2.2.4.1 Flood insurance in the UK
In the UK, the roles and responsibilities of both the insurance and government have been
always clearly defined as the FRM was managed by the government whereas the flood
insurances were solely provided through the insurance industries. In the 1960s, this was
addressed by both entities and agreements were made in an informal manner to guarantee
the affordability and availability of flood insurance (Surminski and Thieken, 2017). The first
agreement was in 1961 and it was initiated after severe 1950s flooding, notably the
devastating 1953 North Sea storm surge, as such events revealed that there was a very
limited number of homes that had flood insurance (Suykens et al., 2016; Surminski et al.,
2020). In this agreement, the insurance companies agreed upon including the flood

86
insurance in the standard coverage of a house. Several Statements of Principles were made
replacing this agreement, after the flooding that occurred in 2000 where more than 10,000
properties were flooded, with damage of approximated £1bn (Environment Agency, 2010).
Indeed, the insurance industry responded positively to this event which reinforced their
position to demand for an increase of investments in flood reduction. Following this event,
a number of alterations were made to the Statement of Principles through the years of
2002, 2005, and 2008 (Christophers, 2019). They were mainly based on discussions to
assure that the insurers will keep on providing flood insurance and that the government
will proceed and increase its investments in flood reduction (Surminski and Thieken, 2017).
For instance, the 2007 serious flooding, which resulted in insured losses of about £3.2
billion, had triggered the 2008 Statement of Principles (EnvironmentAgency, 2010). This
involved providing coverage reaching 1 in 75 an annual probability of flood events and this
does not account for properties constructed after 2009 (Surminski and Thieken, 2017;
Beltrán et al., 2019). Ever since, the Statements of Principles agreements appeared to be a
temporary settlement between the insurance industry and the government that is always
susceptible to further negotiations and replacements. In 2010, Flood Re was launched
which replaced the previous Statements of Principles and its objective is to form a transitive
measure to allow for reflecting risk prices by 2039. Flood Re has the same concept of
reinsurance pool, which is managed and owned by the insurance industry, it provides the
insurers the opportunity to reinsure high-risk policies with a subsidiary price. Flood Re
allows the passage of cost-savings from insurers to policy-holders; thus leading to
affordable flood insurance. The government imposes on insurers a levy of approximately
£10.50 per policy to collect the subsidy and the final subsidized price offered by the
government will be measured by the property’s council tax band. This concept was
approved by almost 85% of the organisations in the insurance industry (Surminski and
Thieken, 2017; Surminski, 2018; Sayers et al., 2020).

Every insurer in the UK has to pay some levy into the Flood Re scheme in addition to a £250
excess charge on every policy that goes to Flood Re (Christophers, 2019). Christophers
(2019) further notes that Flood Re covers flood risks in home insurance policies whereby it
reimburses insurers on claims made in the event of the insured risk occurring. For instance,
when an insurer pays claims to clients after a flood, Flood Re reimburses the insurer using

87
funds from the Flood Re-fund (Flood Re, 2019). Consequently, the UK government, through
Flood Re acts as a regulator that mobilizes and facilitates flood insurance in the country
(Crick et al., 2018).

The provision of flood insurance in the UK is anchored on a partnership between the

government and the Association of British Insurers (Collier, 2014). Initially, the British
insurers provided flood insurance in high-risk areas while the government built
infrastructure to mitigate the risk of floods and reduce the vulnerability of high-risk
households (Collier, 2014). With the establishment of Flood Re, the involvement of the
government has changed to be more direct. According to Surminski and Eldridge (2015),
the UK government offers state-backed reinsurance on flood insurance through Flood Re.
The private sector enjoys reimbursements from Flood Re after paying claims for exposure
to flood. First, they structure policies to include excesses and coinsurance such that there
is individual risk mitigation (Surminski and Eldridge, 2015; Jenkins et al., 2017). The
excesses on policies go to Flood Re, which then compensates insurers when they meet
claims from victims of floods (Flood Re, 2019). They also transfer risk to the international
reinsurance market through reinsurance. Lastly, they try to ensure they insure high-risk
properties in areas that are likely to enjoy investment in infrastructure by the government
(Lamond and Penning-Rowsell, 2014; Surminski et al., 2020).

Data from Flood Re and National Flood Resilience Review indicates that the flood insurance
take-up rates among homeowners in the UK are very high. Flood Re estimates take-up rates
to be as high as 98% while the National Flood Resilience Review estimates it at 95%
(Surminski, 2018). There is insignificantly little difference between take-up rates for homes
in low and high flood risk areas. The take-up rates for flood insurance among renters is
however lower than that for homeowners. Flood Re estimates the rate for renters to be
55% in high-risk areas (Surminski, 2018). Surminski (2018) further reports ABI statistics
which indicate that about 35% of the low-income households do not have any insurance.
Regulations require that homes purchased through mortgage finance should have buildings
cover (UK Government, 2015). These conditions explain why take-up rates of flood
insurance are very high in the UK. Palmer (2015) further argues that the UK government’s
involvement in flood insurance is also to provide measures to prevent flood.

88
The premiums of flood insurance vary with the area, high-risk areas would call for higher
rates than low-risk areas. Since the premiums are dependent on the amount of risk,
mitigating risk would lead to lower rates (Edmonds, 2017). For example, flood proofing a
building minimizes the level of loss or damage in case of a flood. It would, therefore, attract
lower premiums. Property owners can also adopt resistance measures such as air brick
covers that keep water out of the properties or resilience measures such as water-proof
wall plaster that reduces damage due to water entering the property. Homeowners can
take advantage of reduced premiums from insurers by putting the measures in place.
However, there is no guarantee of such incentives by insurers, so homeowners have to
liaise with their insurers (Edmonds, 2017; Surminski, 2018). Risk reflective pricing is also
just developing in the industry, though risk reduction by policyholders is not compulsory
when acquiring flood insurance.

Floods also devastatingly affect businesses in the UK. For instance, two thirds of Small and
Mid-Size Business Enterprises (SMEs) that were interviewed by FSB in the year 2015 were
affected by extreme weather conditions. Businesses such as transport firms, catering
businesses, bars, bars and restaurants have been vulnerable to flooding (FSB, 2018). FSB
(2018) reveals that while homeowners that live in areas that are flood prone have greatly
benefited from the Floods Re scheme that are backed by the government, a joint initiative
that seeks to make flood insurance for businesses more affordable does not exist for most
businesses. Most SMEs struggle when it comes to reviewing their insurance policies
because the cost sometimes increases. According to FSB (2018) many small businesses
totalling up to 75,000 are bound to struggle to receive affordable insurance.

It is, however, essential to note that businesses in the UK have embraced Business
Continuity Planning and Practice for flood resilience (Mehryar and Surminski, 2020). As part
of their risk management initiatives many organizations specify in their business continuity
plans the list of hazards that are bound to instigate disruption in their services. Many
organizations indicate that flooding is a key hazard that is likely to cause significant
disruption in their service. The guidelines of business continuity management are set out
in the relevant British Standards (Jha et al., 2012).

89
2.2.4.2 Flood insurance in Turkey
As stated by Anilan and Yuksek (2017), under the Disaster Law No 7296, Turkey’s Ministry
of Environment and Urbanization (Ministry of Public Works and Settlement previously)
took care of financing the reconstruction of property that encountered any damages due
to a disaster. Victims of such disasters or any person facing the risk did not take any action
to mitigate the risk as the government bore the entire burden. However, after the Marmara
earthquake in 1999, the government set out to introduce disaster insurance (Basbug-Erkan
and Yilmaz, 2015). The creation of the Turkish Catastrophe Insurance Pool (TCIP) was the
first step towards disaster insurance in Turkey. It aimed at shifting part of the burden of
property destruction due to disasters, from the government to owners and insurers
(Insurance Australia Group, 2012). Under Government Decree Law No 587, earthquake
insurance became compulsory in Turkey with TCIP being the sole-source provider to the
limit of $25,000. In 2012, the Catastrophe Insurance Law No 6305 superseded the
Government Decree Law 587 with TCIP becoming the sole provider of Compulsory
Earthquake Insurance (Bek et al., 2013; Baykal et al., 2019; Umut, 2019).

Basbug-Erkan and Yilmaz (2015) reported that TCIP does not use a flat rate for the cover
provided. Rather, it uses a differential risk-based pricing. The premium varies between
0.44% and 5.50%, based on the type of building and the area it is located. The rates make
it affordable for house owners in low-risk areas as well as those in high-risk areas. The policy
was designed to only provide cover for an earthquake disaster (Temocin and Selcuk-Kestel,
2016). The Catastrophe Insurance Law No 6305 only covers urban dwellings subject to
private ownership. Those buildings that belong to public establishments as well as
households within the villages do not fall within the law. The law does not stop individuals
from getting disaster insurance from private insurance companies (Basbug-Erkan and
Yilmaz, 2015). However, where a homeowner wishes to register property or complete a
real estate transaction, they have to present a valid Compulsory Earthquake Insurance
policy (Basbug-Erkan and Yilmaz, 2015). A bank has the responsibility to procure the
Compulsory Earthquake Insurance for a client’s property before concluding a mortgage
agreement. Besides, Bek et al. (2013) noted that the policy is renewable by the bank for as
long as the mortgage is in place. Like Flood Re in the UK, TCIP in Turkey is a partnership
between the government and the private insurance sector, with several stakeholders.

90
However, TCIP focuses only on earthquakes as a natural disaster and leaves out other
disasters such as flooding. That may be attributable to the fact that Turkey has a low
penetration rate for insurance and historically most damage and fatalities have been
primarily due to earthquakes (Basbug-Erkan and Yilmaz, 2015; Artemis, 2017).

Insurance against flood risk alone is not provided by public and private insurance
companies. Flood risks are provided to fire insurances as additional coverage. One needs
to apply for a housing package policy or a workplace policy, and the flood coverage will be
incorporated in either of the packages (Turkiye Sigorta Birligi, 2021). However, to
discourage people from taking unnecessary risks, insurance companies may refuse to cover
flood risks or stipulate additional requirements for building owners in flood-prone areas
(OECD, 2016). Insurance premiums for houses vary based on the house's region or location,
the house and property's value, and the risk level. The average premium of the housing
package policy also varies between 400-500 Turkish Lira per year, and the amount includes
guarantees like flood risks, among others (Dogan, 2020). The insurance premium paid by
workplaces varies depending on the workplace location and workplace size. Workplaces
are expected to pay an average of 1.000 Lira annually (Dogan, 2020). However, SMEs and
tradespeople require a comprehensive workplace package that includes flooding, which is
obtained by paying a premium of 1000 Lira or 1,200 Lira annually (Dogan, 2020). Regardless
of the availability of flooding packages, insurance firms do not provide coverage in flood-
prone areas because of the losses associated with extreme flooding. For instance, In 2017,
insurance companies had to part with 200 million Turkish Liras in compensation after flash
floods hit Istanbul (Doğan, 2017). However, insurance firms' reluctance to cover flood-
prone regions is not discussed openly due to insurance principles.

It can be stated that business continuity Planning and Practice for flood resilience Turkey
has progressively improved. If businesses are able to recover floods, they then develop
some level of resilience. Bayazit Hayta and Gürbüzer (2020) state many businesses in
Turkey were lagging behind in terms of preparing effective Business Continuity Plans that
would help them to recover after flooding incidents. Tavmen (2014) takes note of the fact
that without effective business continuity planning, most businesses in the country are
greatly susceptible to loss of business, prestige and customers. Based on a survey

91
undertaken by EMC in the year 2012, the process of disaster recovery planning in Turkey
was generally in a poor state. The research revealed that 82% of businesses in the country
were not confident enough that they would recover in the event of a flooding incident. 64%
also revealed that they had lost significant data and that they did not have any backup
tapes in the event of a disaster (Tavmen, 2014). Improvements have, however, been
witnessed in recent years. The MasterCard foundation has been proactive in enabling and
supporting business continuity in Turkey. The organization discovered the problems of
business continuity and recovery in many organizations (DataCenter, 2016). The
MasterCard foundation is now assisting most businesses to put their data to work in the
event of an emergency. The firm offers Cloud disaster recovery solutions that are in
demand as businesses are experiencing the advantages of faster disaster recovery of their
significant IT systems.

2.2.4.2.1 Micro-Insurance in Turkey

Micro-insurance involves the provision of indemnity to low income persons who have
limited access to other insurance options (Churchill, 2011). Most of the micro-insurance
products focus on protecting individuals and small businesses from catastrophes such as
floods, earthquakes or even famine and drought. There is growing demand for micro-
insurance especially in developing countries (Yildirim, 2018). The introduction of micro-
insurance in Turkey occurred in 2011. The Turkish Foundation for Waste Reduction
collaborated with Gunes Insurance to create a micro-insurance package for low-income
women (Yildirim, 2018). The package covered about 55,000 low-income women at the time
of introduction. While the growth of micro-insurance in Turkey is low, disturbances and
disasters have seen more people buy into micro-insurance. For instance, the immigration
and refugee situation in Turkey has led to the expansion of the micro-insurance domain in
Turkey. That is contrary to the previous attitudes where few people preferred micro-
insurance. The Turkish Grameen Microfinance Program (TGMP) continues to provide its
members, who are women living in poverty, with micro-finance at low premiums (Yildirim,
2018). The products cover the members from risks such as death due to accident,
permanent disability, as well as damages due to natural disasters. From the initial
participants in the micro-insurance project by TGMP, the number grew as others saw the
benefits to the initial members. More women started to insure their businesses as well as

92
those of their husbands. With 30% of the population in Turkey being poor, there is a great
need for Micro-insurance (Yildirim, 2018; Asgary et al., 2020).

2.2.4.3 Comparison of the insurance coverage

Flood insurance in the UK provides coverage for flood related costs, such as removing
debris, drying out the property, restoring fittings and fixtures, as well as fees for services
after a flood such as fees for a surveyor, architect and legal representation (UK
Government, 2015). The TCIP in Turkey covers losses to property due to earthquakes and
fire, explosion, tsunami or landslide following earthquakes. It covers residential buildings
that fall within municipal boundaries. Under Law no. 6305, TCIP covers residential buildings
that are in the land registry as private property. TCIP also covers independent sections as
per Property Ownership Law no. 634. It also covers dwellings that the state builds or those
built from a loan as a result of natural disasters (Basbug-Erkan and Yilmaz, 2015). Table 2.3
shows the comparison of the flood insurance coverage in the UK and TCIP coverage in
Turkey.

Table 2.3: Comparison of UK and Turkey insurance coverage

Flood Insurance coverage in the UK TCIP coverage in Turkey

- Flood related costs - Earthquake related losses
● Debris removal costs ● Moveable property and
● Drying out of property goods
● Restoring fittings and ● Main walls,
fixtures ● Common walls separating the
● Surveyor’s fees independent sections
● Legal fees ● Garden walls
● Architect’s fees ● Ceilings and basements
● Corridors
● Roofs
● Chimneys

2.3 Overall summary and recommendations

Based on this review, it is evident that the flood management systems for both the UK and
Turkey reveal inefficiencies and problems. Turkey has numerous inefficiencies in its flood
management system such as implementing the first response and effective coordination.
At that point, it can admittedly be stated that Turkey has a lot to learn from the UK. On the

93
other hand, the UK system reveals inefficiencies like budget cuts on flood resilience and
protection, despite the commitment of the government to reduce the loss of lives and
destruction of property resulting from floods. Despite the UK’s flood management system
being relatively stronger compared to Turkey and having been cited as one of the best
practices, it has inefficiencies that need to be holistically addressed through practical
policies that finance and equip emergency response bodies in order to reduce the effects
of floods on communities. Therefore, it is essential that both systems should implement
flood management processes across technological, social, economic, and ecological
systems, while adopting a comprehensive approach to mitigating flood risks.

In the context of insurance mechanisms, this section underscores that flood insurance is an
essential element in enhancing the resilience of communities and the capability of both
businesses and homeowners to recover from flooding events. Once the victims receive
compensation from the effects of floods, they will continue with their normal operations
after the disaster is over. In fact, they will cease any form of migration or neglect of
floodplain and instead increase its use. It also takes note of the fact that flood insurance in
both jurisdictions exists because in both scenarios insurance for flooding is implemented.
A comparison of flood management practices in the UK and Turkey indicates that in the
context of the UK, insurance is more focused on flood related costs, while in the context of
Turkey, the insurance is more grounded on earthquake related losses. Essentially, a key
proposal is that there is a need for TCIP to expand its insurance products to cover floods.
Although flooding insurance in the UK is widely available, it was noted that it is not
compulsory. It is essential to acknowledge that with climate change, flooding is definitely
one of the eminent challenges that society is bound to experience. As a result, it is essential
to make flooding insurance compulsory especially in areas that are highly exposed to
floods.

Although the management systems differ, following the socio-economic situations of the
countries as well as the type of administrative and political cultures, some of the
recommendations that have been proposed to improve the effectiveness of flood
management practices are pinpointed on the segment below:

94
 I. The lead agencies should develop systems that sustain the creation of awareness
and train people and emergency responders about the exposure of the built
environment and the population to the flood risk to enable effective management
of the flood risk as part of flood management;
II. Regular training and exercising for flooding emergencies are essential to test
planning, procedures and communication systems, as well as raising community
awareness of flood risks;
III. The lead agencies should sustain the efforts to minimize the costs incurred in the
repair and recovery operations as well as the time taken to respond to flood
emergencies;
IV. Ensuring that local responders have greater access to essential resources required
in managing flooding is important since the absence of the resources would thwart
local response efforts;
V. It is also necessary for the governance structures to be flexible to allow local
emergency responders and private individuals to participate in managing flood
emergencies;
VI. For the community to be fully prepared for flood emergencies, there is a need for
reliable communication of the risks of floods and adaptation to such a situation;
VII. Improving emergency response and preparation and improving the access to
resources by local responders are some of the measures that would be effective in
achieving the milestones;
VIII. Even though the insurance is more grounded on earthquake related losses in
Turkey, there is a need for TCIP to expand its insurance products to cover floods;
IX. Although flooding insurance in the UK is widely available, it is not compulsory.
Consequently, it is vital to make flooding insurance obligatory especially in areas
that are highly exposed to floods.

95
 Chapter 3 – Developing Flood Management Efficiency Indicators
(FMEIs)
3.1 Introduction
Flood-related emergencies continue to be a thorny occurrence to combat for many
countries across the globe an aspect that has resulted in severe social and economic
impacts (Priest, 2019; Lumbroso, 2020). For instance, the 2011 floods that occurred in
Brisbane, Australia highlighted the problem that engineers have to solve in balancing flood
management and the supply of water resources. The main intricacy involved an inflow of
water in the dams with high volumes and a double peak. This made it difficult to implement
mitigation operations at the dams and in other parts of the city (van den Honert and
McAneney, 2011; Keoduangsine et al., 2014). Thailand’s prolonged floods in 2011 caused
damage to property that exceeded 45 billion dollars thus proving to be one of the costliest
flooding calamities in history (Jonkman and Dawson, 2012; Hagiwara et al., 2016). On a
global scale, flood-related losses have continued to increase because of the rise in the
population of individuals as well as the economic values in areas that are prone to floods
(Jongman, 2018). A new research disclosed that the entire urban area exposed to flooding
in Europe has risen by 1000% over the previous 150 years (Paprotny et al., 2018). On a
worldwide scale, inclination to flood zone urbanization continues to increase especially in
Asia and Africa (Winsemius et al., 2015).

The different flood management strategies employed by different frameworks across the
globe endeavour to use the limited available resources to attain four primary objectives: (i)
reducing the risk posed by the emergency to individuals and communities (Ahmed et al.,
2020), (ii) reducing the risk of the inundations to economies (Kron et al., 2019), (iii) using
floods to promote goods and services in the ecosystem (Tembata et al., 2020) and (iv)
ensuring that the strategies promote the social wellbeing of the communities (Sayers et al.,
2013).

Measuring flood management efficiency is a vital requirement for all flood management
frameworks and systems because it ensures the robustness of the transparency and
accountability aspects associated with the practice (WMO, 2015). Measuring the efficiency
of flood management systems also ensures that the individual, organizations, and agencies

96
tasked with the responsibility of managing the flooding risk utilise the allocated resources
effectively and efficiently. Measuring the efficiency of the flood management systems
involves monitoring and evaluating the flood management process to ensure that the
systems of operational performance, governance, financial control, and risk management
are working according to plan (Morrison et al., 2017). Therefore, the assessment and audit
of the flood management system determines whether the system safeguards assets and
whether the decisions and actions comply with the contracts, regulations, and laws.
Measuring the flood management systems also looks at the effectiveness and efficiency of
the flood management operations adopted by the stakeholders, as well as ensuring that
the available operational and financial information is credible and reliable for use, both
internally and externally (Lendering et al., 2015).

3.2 Rationale for this chapter

Flood management is needed; however, it has to be efficient in order to have beneficial
impacts. In order to improve efficiency, we have to be able to assess where the strengths
and weaknesses within current systems lie – so that we can make necessary changes. To
assess these strengths and weaknesses we need to develop a set of indicators with which
we can examine the system. Developing indicators of efficiency for flood management is
vital for a number of reasons. For instance, emergency management has turned out to be
a necessary endeavour for all emergency management frameworks following the increase
in the magnitude and frequency of occurrence of natural emergencies such as floods (Shah
et al., 2015; Giordano et al., 2017). Therefore, identifying the indicators would be a
significant step towards ensuring that the emergency management stakeholders and the
society is ready to face the risk and its consequences without suffering its dire
consequences as it has been the case before. In regards to floods, it is evident that new
threats have continued to emerge as the existing threats in flood prone regions continue
to evolve (Gilissen et al., 2016).

A number of indicators already exist. Some of the indicators include accurate scheduling of
activities, the provision of adequate funds, continuous coordination among stakeholders,
and the establishment of adoptive management initiatives that can respond to the
emerging changes in flood management (Sayers et al., 2013). Developing new indicators is

97
necessary based on the fact that they will be different and they will provide a new
perspective in managing flooding incidences (Hegger et al., 2020).

The emphasis on indicators also reiterates the need for mechanisms that enhance
collaboration, coordination, and communication between the different stakeholders and
stakeholder groups that take part in the emergency preparedness, response and recovery
operations (Shah et al., 2015; Al-Amin et al., 2019). Therefore, developing the indicators of
efficiency for flood management would result in an operational framework that would be
appropriate in evaluating emergency management systems as observed by Gilissen et al.
(2016). The framework could monitor the progress of the existing systems to identify their
weaknesses and strengths, thereby recommending possible areas of improvement. This
study intends to carry out comparative research of other studies on the indicators of flood
management efficiency to develop a holistic system that includes all the possible indicators.

3.3 Objectives of this chapter

The objectives of this part of the research are:
i. To investigate indicators for the efficiency of flood management;
ii. To develop indicators of efficiency for flood management;
iii. To compare different indicators used to measure the efficiency of different flood
management strategies;
iv. To use the Flood Management Efficiency Indicators (FMEIs) to examine strengths
and weaknesses of flood management systems in Turkey and the UK.

3.4 Methodology
This section presents the details of the procedures, methods, techniques that were used to
answer the research question. The methodology section is always very crucial in any
research process since it provides the basis for validity and reliability in research (Fleming
and Zegwaard, 2018). Depending on the design and approach used, the methodology
provides the procedures which can be followed by a different researcher under a different
circumstance to verify or reject the claims of a given study (Kivunja and Kuyini, 2017).
Through the methodology developed herein, another researcher somewhere else may
examine the flood management methods in Turkey, and the UK and confirm if the findings

98
presented in this study were correct, or disputable. Based on such corroboration, the
reliability and validity of the findings are properly established. Because of the importance
of the methodology section in research, it is always crucial that it is clearly developed so
that it is easily understood, and can be replicated by another researcher for purposes of
verification. A typical methodology includes information regarding the study design, which
includes the philosophical underpinnings of the study, the research approach, participants,
data source, data collection, data collection instrument and also ethical considerations
when collecting data (Jackson, 2013).

3.4.1 Study Design

3.4.1.1 Philosophical underpinnings
Philosophy in research is indeed crucial since it determines the nature of the research
design, the data, analysis technique, and even interpretation. Typically, there are two main
research philosophies: interpretivist and positivist (Hussain et al., 2013; Mohajan, 2018).
The main distinction between these two research philosophies is the perception of how
knowledge is created, understood, as well as the relationship between the researcher and
social phenomenon. The major assumption of the interpretivist philosophy is that
knowledge, or truth about a given research philosophy is subjective (Hussain et al., 2013;
Kivunja and Kuyini, 2017). Another major assumption of the philosophy is that the social or
natural phenomena in the world exist in connection or interdependence, and as such, they
can be perceived as a whole. The subjectivity, and interdependence of the phenomena
provide the foundation to various interpretations, and use of the interpretivist philosophy.
Based on the subjective nature of the philosophy, people are assumed to be at liberty to
understand, interpret, and perceive knowledge according to their own knowledge,
understanding, intuition, and rationale (Pham, 2018; Renz et al., 2018). The interpretivist
philosophy assumes that the researcher or any person seeking knowledge should use his
or her knowledge and understanding since he or she is part of the whole social
phenomenon. Because of the liberty of the researcher, the way one person understands
and interprets a social phenomenon is different from another (Baltaci, 2019).

The researcher under the interpretivist philosophy, therefore, takes an active role in the
gathering of data, collection, and interpretation (Çelik et al., 2020). The positivist

99
philosophy is the exact opposite of the interpretivist. Its main assumption is that social
phenomena exist independently. As a result, their knowledge and understanding should be
pursued independently (Hussain et al., 2013). Also, the positivist philosophy holds that
knowledge is rather subjective and should thus be examined using logical aspects of the
phenomenon. The positivist philosophy, therefore, insists on using features that can be
measured or observed and logically expressed for the purposes of understanding (Ryan,
2018). Since the philosophy holds that social phenomenon exists independently, the
researcher does not take an active role in the research process. Data is therefore gathered
without the interference of the researcher, and so is the analysis and interpretation (Akarsu
and Akarsu, 2019).

Between the two philosophies, positivist is the most commonly used because of the
independent role of the researcher, which is always assumed to reduce the chances of bias
in the study process (Ryan, 2018). On the other hand, interpretivist philosophy and the
associated research methods are always assumed to be vulnerable to bias because of the
active role played by the researcher in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of the
data (Karataş, 2017). Despite the shortcomings of the interpretivist philosophy, it often
provides a unique opportunity for studying research phenomena which are otherwise
difficult to quantify or those that cannot be logically measured or quantified, which is
indeed common in social research (Kivunja and Kuyini, 2017). The current study is primarily
based on interpretivist philosophy, although positivist philosophy is also used partially. The
two philosophies are the foundation for the two most commonly used research
approaches, which are: qualitative and quantitative.

The qualitative research approach uses non-numerical data to answer a research question,
while the quantitative approach uses numerical data (Marshall and Rossman, 2014).
Common types of qualitative research include phenomenological design, case studies,
exploratory research, and grounded theory (Silverman, 2016). Most experimental designs,
such as correlational, causal-comparative, and surveys, belong to the quantitative research
design. The choice of a specific approach is dependent on the nature of the study (Ertugay,
2019). The current study is primarily based on the qualitative research approach.

100
The selection of the research design is based on the nature of the current study. The
purpose of the current research is to examine the effectiveness of flood management
systems in the United Kingdom and Turkey. The study is informed by the increasing number
of flood-related emergencies in the two countries and other parts of the world, despite the
existence of flood management strategies. Essentially different countries have various
flood management systems (Mohanty et al., 2020). The United Kingdom is one of the most
developed countries in the world. It presumably has a very elaborate flood management
system, yet it has lately experienced significant flood events. Turkey is not as developed as
the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, it also has flood management strategies, but it has also
experienced significant flood events that have resulted in the loss of lives and property. It
is, therefore, difficult to comprehend why a developed country, with the resources at its
disposal, is vulnerable to flood hazard. The question is how to determine whether the flood
management strategies by these two countries are effective. In other words, the major
challenge is measuring the effectiveness of the prevailing flood management in the two
countries.

The effectiveness of flood management programs in both the United Kingdom and Turkey
may be considered effective or ineffective based on the social and economic losses
associated with flood events in the two countries; or the frequency of flood occurrence
during rainy seasons. It is evident, therefore, that understanding flood management in this
scenario is ambiguous and, as such, does not suit a quantitative research approach. Instead,
a qualitative research approach is the most appropriate, and the associated research
strategy is described in the section below.

3.4.1.2 Research strategy

Based on the positivist and interpretivist philosophy; and quantitative and qualitative
approaches, respectively, there are two commonly used research strategies: the deductive
and inductive research strategy. A deductive strategy involves the answering of the
research question through the confirmation or rejection strategy (Pandey, 2019). In other
words, the deductive research strategy, which is the foundation of most experimental
quantitative design, involves the development of a research hypothesis, or questions,
setting out the data collection, and analysis strategy to confirm, or refute the

101
predetermined hypothesis, or postulation (Keskin, 2019). Most correlational, and causal-
comparative quantitative research studies are often based on the deductive research
strategy (Gorat and Prijambodo, 2013). The foundation of the quantitative studies as
already mentioned is the use of numerical values to express various attributes of research
subjects. The numerical nature of the quantitative data also makes it possible to easily
manipulate the data through various statistical procedures to explore the relationships of
patterns of a given set of data (Baltaci, 2019). For example, a study exploring the
relationship between flood and economic losses can use a deductive research approach to
answer the research question by setting a hypothesis. A researcher could postulate that
economic losses caused by floods in the United Kingdom are significantly different from
those of Turkey. To confirm such a postulation, the researcher only needs to determine the
financial losses associated with the flood emergency in the two countries, and determine
their significant difference using statistical analysis such as the t-test.

In this study, an inductive research strategy is used. The inductive strategy is the opposite
of the deductive approach (Mohajan, 2018). It assumes that the study area exists in such a
manner that the information occurs in disarray; and that there is no specific conclusive way
of determining the truth about a given research subject or even exploring a potential
relationship with a given data set (Gioia et al., 2013; Brink, 2018). The inductive research
approach is often considered as exploring the data through the funnel approach; that is
from the larger area to the narrower, or the smaller area. According to Gioia et al. (2013),
inductive research seeks to establish the known, from the unknown, which is the opposite
of deductive research, which explores knowledge from the known to the unknown.

As already mentioned, the choice of the inductive research strategy is based on the nature
of the study (Liu, 2016). The study seeks to establish the flood management indicators for
the United Kingdom, and Turkey, and compare them in terms of effectiveness of their
systems. The only problem is that there is little literature that compares the two countries
in terms of flood management. Besides, the flood management field is quite wide. Each of
the countries has flood management systems, which function in various ways. It is,
therefore, the purpose of the current research to determine, from the larger perspective
of flood management in the two countries, specific and easily verifiable flood management

102
strategies of the two countries. Thereafter, a comparison will be made of the management
strategies explored by the two countries.

3.4.1.3 Systematic literature review

As already mentioned, the main research approach is qualitative. However, there are
various research designs within the qualitative approach; most of which are determined by
the nature of the study, and also by the type of data (Mohajan, 2018). Research designs
can be distinguished on the basis of secondary or primary data. In this case, a systematic
research review was used as the main study design. It is important to note the often-
common confusion between the systematic literature review, literature review, meta-
analysis and ethnography.

A literature review is a typical examination of the related studies to a study that is currently
underway, which is typically the second chapter of a research dissertation. The purpose of
the literature review in research is to determine the knowledge that already exists in a
given field of study (Boell and Cecez-Kecmanovic, 2014). This is always important since it i)
prevents the researcher from duplicating studies, or merely repeating what has already
been exhaustively done, and ii) identifies an existing gap in the field of area, which may be
filled by the current study. Gap identification is particularly important in doctoral studies
since the researcher is always required to at least develop, or contribute new knowledge
in the existing field of study (Sternberg, 2014). The literature review involves examining
specific studies in terms of what they examined, how the study was conducted, the
findings, and how they relate to the study in question. Also, the literature review involves
the examination of the concurrence, and convergence of findings within the given field of
study (Ponelis, 2015). A summary of the findings of the literature review often sets the
stage for the remaining part of the dissertation. In some institutions, the research questions
and objectives are often set after completion of the literature review with the aim of filling
the gap that has already been identified. Also, the literature review helps the researcher to
familiarize with the common methods that have been used in the field of interest, and how
that suits the current study, of how the current study method can be improved (Snyder,
2019).

103
A meta-analysis is a quantitative research design that uses empirical quantitative studies
within a given study area to collect, analyse, and synthesize studies with regards to a given
research question (Wood, 2008). It is important to note that meta-analysis only uses
quantitative data for the analysis. It is an effective method of exploring the existing findings
within a given field, especially where there is a less conclusive and general consensus
among many researchers. The design involves the selection of the major and most
fundamental empirical studies that have been done in a given field to explore the research
question. As indicated by Crowther et al. (2010), it is always vulnerable to errors, especially
when the researcher fails to find the most appropriate study within the given area, or when
there is significant disarray of studies within the area. Nevertheless, there are always
strategic methods that can be used to ensure that the most suitable studies, especially in
terms of data, are included in the research. Such strategies include the use of funnel plots
(Üstün and Eryilmaz, 2014).

According to Shelby and Vaske (2008), there is no single, agreed-upon definition of meta-
analysis since different researchers consider the technique differently. In most cases, meta-
analysis is considered both a methodology or an analytical technique. The methodology
definition considers meta-analysis as a whole; that is, the entire process of data collection,
synthesizing, and analysis of results from various studies in a systematic manner. Other
researchers consider meta-analysis as a collective analytical technique of results of various
studies. Despite the variation in the definition of meta-analysis, a common feature of the
technique is the use of effect size to determine the relationship between variables
(Bakioğlu and Göktaş, 2018). Essentially, meta-analysis is often considered for studies that
are otherwise exploring the relationship between two or more variables. Instead of using
one study to examine the relationship, the meta-analysis approach uses multiple studies
that have previously been done to determine the overall effect (Shelby and Vaske, 2008).
For instance, if the researcher was interested in determining the relationship between
flood risk and the perception of social loss, the study could either be done independently.
Alternatively, the researcher may decide to use a meta-analysis to explore several studies
that have been done in relation to the topic.

104
Using the example of flood risk, and social loss, an effect size in meta-analysis is the
relationship between the variables of interest for both individual and overall studies. In the
given example, effect size would be the statistical relationship between flood risk and social
loss for an individual study, and the overall, or a combined average of the effect size of all
the effect sizes of the studies identified. According to Shelby and Vaske (2008), the effect
size can either be in terms of standard deviation, which is often known as the d-family
effect size, or the correlation, which is also referred to as the -r-family. Evidently, the meta-
analysis technique is not used in the current study since there is barely any study that has
directly and quantitatively examined the differences, or similarity between flood
management strategies in the United Kingdom, or Turkey. A meta-analysis only works
when there are several similar or almost exact studies that have been done in the past in
connection to the current topic under study (Kılıçkap, 2018).

Another possible means to conduct this research is through an ethnographic study.

Ethnographic studies are a form of qualitative research that involves the researcher’s
interaction with people in a real-life experience. They are used to explore certain
phenomena through the perspectives of people who are directly involved or related to the
case under investigation (Huot, 2014; Ayala and Koch, 2019). It allows the researcher to
have an insider view of the phenomenon and requires them to learn from the gathered
information, instead of starting with a preconceived idea, and so to be able to accurately
analyse the data and draw conclusions (Sangasubana, 2011). Thus, they could be used while
studying culture and norms, investigating certain behaviours, and examining social
interactions and experiences (Huot, 2014; Ayala and Koch, 2019).

The main advantage of ethnographic research is that it provides the researcher with a wide
database of knowledge from which to draw conclusions (Sangasubana, 2011). This is
because they are field-based studies that could be conducted using surveys,
questionnaires, interviews and direct observations (Huot, 2014; Ayala and Koch, 2019).
Such data collection techniques are forms of dialogic studies where interpretations are
made through the given feedback from participants (Sangasubana, 2011). However,
Ethnography requires highly skilled researchers who are unbiased, unprejudiced,
interactional, sensitive and ethical (Huot, 2014; Ayala and Koch, 2019).

105
Ethnographic studies would have been beneficial to this research for the following reasons.
Firstly, it would have allowed the conducting of comprehensive research where the views
of locals, as direct beneficiaries of flood management systems, would be incorporated into
the assessment technique. Furthermore, the data obtained from locals would have
revealed the qualities of their real experience which might give better insight into the
effectiveness of both management systems. Also, it would have allowed the investigation
of interrelationships between the community and the legal authorities of the flood
management systems in both Turkey and the UK to examine the extent to which the
community is involved in both systems.

However, ethnographic research was not feasible in this study due to the following reason.
Although it would have been easy to gather people’s opinions with regards to the flood
management system in the UK, this is not the case when it comes to Turkey due to the
ongoing crisis of the freedom of expression within the country (Tangen, 2019). As this
research had to be done at the individual and household level, people hesitated to speak
out because of political sensitivity. Due to the aforementioned discussion, and given that
this study is a comparative study that is based on comparing the flood management
systems in both the UK and Turkey, the lack of access to trustworthy, and unbiased
information about people’s perceptions on the flood management system in Turkey would
be extremely difficult. People will be unwilling to participate in this research in the first
place, and even if they did, there is a high probability that their reported answers are
untrue, biased and distorted out of anxiety. This could have distorted the results obtained
in this research, defying its main aims and objectives. Therefore, the researcher opted for
conducting an extensive review of the literature along with the conduction of interviews
from experts within the system itself.

Having distinguished between the ordinary literature review, meta-analysis and

ethnography, the systematic literature review, which is the main method adopted in the
current study, is hereby explained. The distinguishing term for a systematic literature
review that makes it different from the ordinary literature review is the “systematic”
component. According to Okoli (2015), SLR is a stand-alone literature review in which
rigorous scientific procedure is used in a systematic manner in the process of data

106
collection, analysis, and synthesis. The term scientific implies that the method used in the
systematic literature review should be reproducible by others to increase the validity and
reliability of the research. The concept of reproducibility is indeed crucial in this context.
As already mentioned, a research finding may be reliable based on the methods used and
lack of bias. However, validity is determined by the extent to which the findings mirror
reality (Okoli, 2015; Snyder, 2019). It is, therefore, always difficult to establish the validity
of research unless the results can be reproduced by another researcher, which implies that
the methodology used must be reproducible regardless of the location, background, and
experience of the researcher. If a study through the systematic literature review establishes
that flood risks are associated with high social loss, a different researcher should be able to
follow the same procedure to select relevant study, analyse, and come to the same
conclusion, or sometimes differ in finding. In other words, the “systematic” context is
crucial in the systematic literature review (Yavuz et al., 2020).

Gough et al. (2012), defines a systematic literature review as a method of collecting and
critically analysing several research studies using a systematic approach in order to answer
a given research question or objectives. Usually, the purpose of a systematic literature
review is to provide a comprehensive literature perspective regarding a specific research
problem or question (Xiao and Watson, 2017; Snyder, 2019). In the subsequent sub-
section, the specific procedures or methodology used in the systematic literature review
for the current study will be outlined.

3.4.2 Sampling
The idea of a research study is often to understand the larger picture, or the targeted
population; which is often constraining. The United Kingdom and Turkey have considerably
a big population considering the nature of the study. The purpose of the study was to
determine the flood management practices and effectiveness in each country and compare
the same. As already described in the section above, the type of research design was a
systematic literature review, which implies that only secondary studies that had previously
been done in relation to the current topic were used as the data source. Over the years, it
is likely that several studies have been done in the past regarding flood management in
either the United Kingdom or Turkey (Öztürk and Uzuntaş, 2019; Surminski et al., 2020).

107
The objectives and appropriateness of the studies in relation to the present topic may be
different. As a result, it is not logical to identify and include all these studies for the
purposes of the current analysis. As such, a sample representation of relevant studies is
necessary.

In quantitative research, the sample is the population size that is selected from the
otherwise larger population that the study is interested in but cannot access completely
for various reasons, including time and resource complaints (Taherdoost, 2016). If, for
instance, a study seeks to determine the predominant risk factor of cardiovascular heart
disease in the United States of America, it would be time and resource constraint to collect
data from every patient with CHD, whose prevalence is significantly high in the United
States. Instead, sampling will be done such that the number of patients finally examined in
the study are assumed to be a representation of the larger United States population
regarding CHD.

The sampling principle used in ordinary quantitative research using primary data is applied
to the current case except for the selection and inclusion criteria. In ordinary research, the
normal sampling procedure often includes a random selection of respondents from the
larger population such that every member of the population has an equal chance of either
being included or not in the study (Valerio et al., 2016). Random sampling is always
preferred because it significantly reduces the chances of bias in the research process. If
only specific members of the population were to be selected and included in a study, it is
very likely that the results would be skewed towards a specific direction; and reflect more
on the particular sample population and less on the larger population (Karataş, 2017).

The sampling procedure used in a systematic literature review is, however, different. Other
than probability and random sampling, the procedure used in SLR is purposive, although it
is more or less probabilistic since any study has the chance of being included for analysis as
long as it meets specific requirements. A purposive sampling procedure is one that uses
predetermined factors to determine which samples are selected and included in a study
(Etikan et al, 2016). Note that the data source herein is secondary, and articles are the main
source of data. The purposive sampling procedure in this regard, therefore, ensured that

108
only studies with specific characteristics were selected and included for analysis. Usually,
the inclusion and exclusion criteria are the terms used to refer to the process of selection
and inclusion of studies in an SLR.

3.4.2.1 Inclusion criteria

The inclusion criteria are basically the specific factors that a given study must possess for it
to be included for analysis in the research. There are no specific or commonly agreed upon
categories for inclusion. The specific nature of the research determines the factors that the
study must meet. In this study, the inclusion criteria are described below in section 3.4.3.1
Search criteria. Defining the inclusion and exclusion criteria is an important step towards
building the reproducibility of research. As already mentioned, the extent to which an
original study can be reproduced is a crucial determinant of reliability, especially if the
findings are consistent in the subsequent studies (Carminati, 2018). Furthermore, the
inclusion criteria enhance the uniformity of the articles that are included in the study, which
is important for effective analysis. If diverse studies were included, the chances are high
that the findings would be varied as well, which complicates the interpretation, and hence,
the chances of finding an effective study.

3.4.2.2 Language
Language is always the most common and crucial factor in defining inclusion criteria in a
systematic review. It is imperative that all the studies included in the analysis are done in a
uniform language. This is particularly important considering that language structures across
different nations differ significantly, including the difference in meaning. Mandarin and
English, for example, are two languages with such a significant lexical difference. Lexical
similarity is the extent to which two languages have similar words (Thijis et al., 2017).
English and Spanish, or French, share several words that have a similar meaning. In such
cases, translating one language to another may not significantly change the meaning. The
translation, however, is a potential avenue in which the original meaning of the primary
language may be lost. It is, therefore, important to avoid such potential shortcomings while
conducting a systematic review.

109
The primary languages in this study are English and Turkish. The choice of languages is
dependent on the two countries in which the study focuses: the UK uses English, while
Turkey uses Turkish. The Turkish language is nevertheless not a priority since the study
itself is written in English. The assumption, however, is that the Turkish government’s flood
management policies have been translated into English, as required by Turkey’s associate
status with the European Union (European Commission, 2015, 2021).

Sometimes, it is necessary to include studies in other languages to get a better perspective

of the research question. This is, however, only necessary when the research topic explores
phenomena that are not restricted by geographic factors. The current study is only focused
on Turkey, and the United Kingdom. As such, all the studies must be restricted within the
official languages of the two countries. As such, in the current study, no study in another
language other than Turkish and English was included in the analysis.

3.4.2.3 Nature of the study

Another crucial inclusion criterion was the nature of the study. Only empirical studies that
had been done under rigorous scientific procedures using either primary or secondary data
were given the priority for inclusion. Considering that relevant information regarding flood
management was also contained in government documents, they were considered as the
primary source of data. Other sources that were also considered important and could be
included in the study were publications by non-governmental organizations such as the
United Nations, and any other relevant organization that has done and published research
on effective, or efficient flood management strategy.

3.4.2.4 Year of publication

The year in which a study was published is a critical consideration in conducting a
systematic literature review. This is because knowledge is dynamic; it changes
continuously. What was known as the truth, or fact ten years ago, may not necessarily be
the same presently. In the context of flood management, a crucial assumption is made that
Turkey and the UK have developed their flood management strategies according to the
international standards recommendations since they are both member countries of the
United Nations. As it was revealed in the introduction, the international flood management

110
practices have changed over time from Yokohama, Kobe to Sendai, all of which have had
changes regarding flood management. Also, technology is a key player in the design of flood
management strategies. Moreover, the climatic changes that have occurred over the years
have significantly influenced rainfall patterns, durations, and frequency (Karagiannis et al.,
2017). This explains why significant floods have been experienced more frequently in
recent times than in the past (Blösch et al., 2018). Because of such changes, the flood
management strategies in various countries may have changed. As such, it is imperative to
examine studies on flood management for the two countries for a considerably longer
period. The period between which the articles were searched is 2000 – 2019.

3.4.3 Data collection procedure

Since the current research is based on the Systematic Literature Review methodology, the
data used were secondary. Secondary data are those collected from a source other than
the primary (Bell et al., 2018). The studies from which the analysis is done are assumed to
have obtained their data from primary sources. Since the main data sources were an article,
the procedure discussed herein involved the strategies that were used to search and select
data for the study.

3.4.3.1 Search criteria

According to Okoli (2015), the search strategy used in a systematic review depends on the
topic of the study since the words, or the key terms are derived from the topic. It is,
therefore, important to determine the appropriate search terms or words that are likely to
yield the desired results. The main search terms used in the study were:
i. Flood management;
ii. Efficiency;
iii. Strategies;
iv. Methods;
v. Turkey;
vi. United Kingdom.

The search terms are not always used independently. Instead, they are used in conjunction
with each other to reveal the necessary results. For example, the main search term was

111
“flood management efficiency.” To narrow down the search in the context of the two
countries, the search terms were extended to include the name of the country. As such,
the main search term was “flood management efficiency in Turkey,” or in the United
Kingdom where appropriate. There was no guarantee that the specified search term
aforementioned would yield the appropriate results in terms of related studies. As such,
the researcher manipulated the search strategy using the various keywords to ensure that
the most relevant studies were selected.

Note that the inclusion criteria were strictly examined while searching for the relevant
articles. A common strategy that is always used in determining the suitability of a study for
given research is reading the abstract. To get suitable studies for the research, it was
prudent that a large pool of articles was generated. As such, several online databases were
searched, including Google Scholar, DergiPark, ULAKBİM Keşif, EKUAL Veritabanları,
ProQuest, EBSCO, Science Direct, GeoScienceWorld, GeoRef and Spatial Hazard. In total, 10
databases were used to search for the articles. Initial search results from databases were
300 related articles, of which only 40 were found to be related to flood management. Each
article among the 40 was selected, and the abstract read. In total, 17 articles were selected
after reading the abstract to determine their suitability for the study. Full article reading
was done for the remaining 17 articles. After careful reading and considering the relevance
and suitability of an article to the study, a total of 10 articles were selected and included in
the study.

3.4.4 Pilot study

Pilot studies are associated with both qualitative and quantitative research. In the case of
qualitative research, they are often conducted while having case studies that involve semi-
structured interviews (Malmqvist et al., 2019). The main objective of conducting a pilot
study is to test the protocol of a study along with the sample size, recruitment strategy,
research instruments and other technicalities to identify potential issues and deficiencies
before embarking on the main study (Hassan et al., 2006). Thus, the study provides
guidance and gives an indication of the effectiveness and efficiency of the adopted research
strategy, preparing the researcher for the challenges that may arise during the main study

112
(Malmqvist et al., 2019). However, the quality of the study should be closely observed as
its results will directly affect the outcomes of the main study (Malmqvist et al., 2019).

One of the main objectives of conducting pilot studies in comparative analysis is to assess
whether the same set of interview questions would be applicable to the two aspects under
investigation (Malmqvist et al., 2019). The rationale for doing so arises from the proven
fact that the second set of interviews often yield better results due to the experience
gained by the researcher while conducting the pilot study (Ismail et al., 2018).

The pilot study for this project involved having detailed discussions with emergency
management experts from flood management organisations in both Turkey and the UK,
ahead of conducting the survey interviews. Such discussions confirmed the applicability
and relevance of the research questions without affecting the sample size, risking
participants’ interest in the research, or having meaningless data due to duplication of
results. Furthermore, the applicability and relevance of the research strategy along with
the research instruments were further evident throughout the main study as the
researchers did not feel the urge to modify any of the predetermined research protocol.

3.5 Results
With regard to the research questions, the systematic literature review focused on
research studies that identified indicators of efficiency in flood management. The review
also looked at research studies that compared different indicators used by various
countries in the management of the flood event.

3.5.1 A strategic approach to managing the flood risk (Sayers et al., 2013)
Their study identified a strategic approach to managing the flood risk, Sayers et al., (2013)
identified the enablers of an effective flood management system. The authors identified
six indicators or enablers that were critical to the success of a flood management system.
The first activity concerns the proper scheduling of activities and the availability of funds to
implement the activities. The authors also identified the need for continuous coordination
among key stakeholders as necessary for the success of the flood management system.

113
Thirdly, Sayers et al. noted that a good flood management system should have an already
established adaptive management programme to enable it to respond to changes in the
scope or magnitude of the emergency. Furthermore, the authors identified the need for
effective risk communication to the vulnerable individuals and communities as crucial to
the flood management endeavour. The authors also noted the relevance of stakeholder
outreach and partnership working in coordinating the efforts of all partners and
stakeholders in the flood management exercise. Finally, Sayers et al. observed that a proper
institutional and legal framework that guides the operations and activities of the system is
also essential to the effectiveness of a flood management system.

3.5.2 Stakeholder involvement (Sheikhbardsiri et al., 2018)

This review also examined the findings of Sheikhbardsiri et al., (2018) on exercises
associated with health disaster preparedness. The study was relevant to this research
because of the association between flood hazards and health-related emergencies such as
the spread of waterborne diseases (Davies, 2014). The authors identified the need for
discussion-based exercises and operations-based exercises to train vulnerable groups on
the handling of health emergencies associated with flood hazards. The authors identified
four discussion-based exercises: workshops, seminars, table tops, and games that serve
specific objectives in the health emergency preparedness. For instance, workshops enable
emergency responders to understand new and current plans, strategies, ideas, concepts,
and resources associated with handling the emergency. Workshops are essential in
subjecting the stakeholders to lengthy training on the health aspects of flood hazards.

Finally, games and table tops are essential in assessing the plans, procedures, and policies
that the system would use in addressing health-related aspects of the emergency. The
operational based exercises identified by the authors include drills and field exercises. Drills
are important since they entail the use of repetition to convey or communicate through
instruction. Therefore, they enable emergency planners to carry out tests on the response
time, personnel training, interagency cooperation, as well as the capabilities of the
equipment, workforce, and resources. From their study, it is apparent that a food
management system should incorporate exercise training to enhance its effectiveness in
dealing with health-related aspects of the emergency.

114
3.5.3 Effectiveness of flood management measures (WMO, 2015)
The analysis also examined the findings of the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO)
on the effectiveness of measures associated with flood management. According to the
authors, indicators in the preparedness phase include the linear feet of the constructed
dykes, hectares of land that are already secured from the flood hazard, wetland areas
created as flood buffers among other indicators (WMO, 2015). The organization also
identifies the need to evaluate the flood management programme on the basis of the
system’s flood warning capability, reductions or savings in the damage of the hazard to
businesses and dwellings, as well as the availability of a flood response and recovery plan.
According to the organization, it is necessary for the indicators to be Specific, Measurable,
Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound, as required by all indicators and objectives in the
modern practice of program management. Therefore, the indicators should focus on flood
prevention, flood preparedness, and flood recovery with flood recovery depending on the
first two aspects.

3.5.4 Flood preparedness (Lo and Chan, 2017)

Planning for floods is critical in mitigating their impacts on people's livelihood and
properties. Various factors influence individuals and community preparedness for such
natural severe contingencies. In this study, Lo and Chan (2017) examine how individuals'
risk perceptions and cultural characteristics influence preparedness for potential flood
hazards. They base their investigation on a social survey on people's household
arrangements that directly impact the community's resilience and the extent of economic
loss after floods. The study finds that while adequate preparation for potential floods is
essential in mitigating the impacts, some people do not have the motivation to take the
necessary steps. Those who take action are motivated by social considerations and their
subjective assessment of the potential impacts.

In flood preparedness, most people do not make rational decisions regarding the net
benefits of engaging in risk-mitigating behaviors. Instead, social considerations and
individuals' assessment of potential outcomes determine the intention to act. Individuals
were more likely to prepare for potential flood hazards if there was a significant social
expectation by friends and family, if they had a close engagement with the community, and

115
if there was a reliable social network to help in times of need. This social capital can
increase the likelihood of people acting in their unique capacities, and engaging other
community members in disaster-risk preparedness in response to climate change.
Regarding individuals' risk perception, it is not the likelihood of floods happening that
predicted risk-mitigating behavior but rather the perceived extent of potential impacts.

3.5.5 Assessing integration in flood management (Cumiskey et al., 2019)

In flood management, the concept of integration is considered crucial in aligning policy
domains and ensuring synergy across practices. In this paper, Cumiskey et al. (2019)
propose a framework to assess integration and determine the different degrees of
integration to minimize the issue's complexity. The framework is based on evidence on
flood management, and its key feature is how the capacity for governance and the
realization of integration are interconnected. This governance capacity for integration
shows the significance of bonding risk management actors, building bridges among sector-
specific actors, linking communities, and understanding the influence of mechanisms,
including resources, rules, or actors.

According to the framework, it is essential first to identify the integration challenge, which
varies across governance contexts. For example, multiple sectors and actors are concerned
with managing flood risk in England and whose scope the UK's Flood and Water
Management Act specifies. At the same time, there are multi-sector policies and strategies
for managing flood risk. After identifying the integration challenge, Cumiskey et al. (2019)
propose assessing the governance capacity for integration by considering the strength of
actor relationships and influencing mechanisms. The framework suggests assessing the
strength of the available policies, interventions, and knowledge to support and realise
integration. Most importantly, the framework includes a table that can help to evaluate the
degree of integration and the specific elements together with their relationships with
others. The table comprises ranges from high, intermediate, low, and minimal.

3.5.6 The effectiveness of non-structural flood management measures (Dawson et al., 2011)
Various structural and non-structural interventions of flood management undeniably have
the potential to reduce flood risks significantly. However, how non-structural measures,

116
which include development policy or land use planning and insurance, can be effective,
depends on a wide range of conditions. In assessing how effective these measures are, a
long-term framework of analysis is necessary to analyze the possible changes in the
flooding patterns. Dawson et al. (2011) present a method that quantifies the benefits of
risk reduction from the non-structural measures while utilising an integrated approach
involving various scenarios of socioeconomic conditions, climate change with long-term
land use, and an analysis of flood risk. By employing a long-term approach utilising different
possible future climate change and socioeconomic scenarios, the authors seek to identify
risk and potential flood management policies.

From the authors' analysis, it was evident that new developments and climate change
mediate the future risk of flood hazards. In the context of stakeholder-generated scenarios,
changes to insurance and policies for planning controls demonstrated that market and
regulatory incentives could have far-reaching impacts on flood management. The authors
also considered flood measures in complex global environmental change scenarios by
calculating the impact of local land-use policies and development. Commercial and
domestic buildings' growth was considered a significant factor in the rising risk of flood
hazards. In all the various scenarios, development was responsible for half of the increase
in risk, which showed that spatial planning strategies, socioeconomic conditions, and
development approaches are critical in flood management. Dawson et al. (2011) noted that
society could adapt and mitigate the risk of floods with measures at its disposal in all the
described scenarios, such as insurance.

3.5.7 Effective response and Flood Planning (Gilissen et al., 2016)

This study also examined the findings of Gilissen et al. (2016) on the framework for
evaluating the efficiency of flood emergency management systems. Gilissen et al. (2016)’s
study was more relevant and specific to the study as it provided a framework for managing
the flood hazard in Europe. The authors identified seven indicators. In the first indicator,
the authors identified the need for the flood management system to plan for the response.
The existence of a flood-specific plan at the local and national level is an indicator of an
effective flood emergency planning system according to the authors. In regards to the
second indicator, arrangements for institutional learning, Gillisen et al. (2016) noted that

117
the system should have already established procedures that promote institutional learning
such as frequent meetings. The authors also identified the need for exercising emergency
arrangements as the other indicator. Regarding the indicator, it is necessary for the flood
management system to initiate training and exercising periodically to test operational
procedures and planning for the flood hazard.

The authors mentioned the distribution and sharing of responsibilities within and between
the actors or emergency responders as the other indicator. The system should create
opportunities and put in place arrangements that facilitate inter-organizational
collaboration and working. Gilissen et al. (2016) identified community preparedness as the
fifth indicator. They observed that in a good flood emergency management system,
emergency professionals should play an active role in efforts that enhance the
preparedness of citizens for the hazard at the household and community levels. The
authors also identified the provision of human resources, financial resources, decision
support tools, and equipment among the indicators of a good flood management system.
The flood incidence management should have adequate resources that support the
preparation, response, and recovery activities. Finally, the system should put in place
arrangements that support recovery-based activities from the flood event.

3.5.8 Flood planning and preparedness (Ogunlana, 2010)

Even though the study carried out by Ogunlana (2010) is not specific to flood hazards, it
identifies the key performance indicators for large-scale development projects in the public
sector. The fact that flood planning and preparedness entails the communication of
warnings and the constructions of dykes among other activities on a massive scale imply
that flood management systems are large-scale projects. The timely completion of the
project or the mere fact that the project is on time is the first indicator identified by the
author. In regards to the management of flood hazards, the timely construction of dykes
to protect key areas coupled with the timely communication of warnings to individuals and
communities is crucial to reduction of the negative impacts of the hazard on people,
communities, dwellings, business premises, and the critical infrastructure.

118
According to Ogunlana (2010), a good project should not exceed the allocated budget.
Flood emergency planning makes use of past and current weather information and
statistics to inform future decision-making. As a result, an effective flood management
system should operate within the allocated budget. The author also identifies the need for
the system to guarantee the safety of individuals, communities and emergency responders
first. This reduces or eliminates incidences where emergency responders fall victims to the
emergency response process.

Ogunlana also reiterates the need for any project to meet its specifications. In regards to
flood management projects, it is apparent that meeting specifications is essential to the
success of the project. The flood management system should also use its resources
efficiently to ensure that it operates under the allocated budget and prevent instances
where other areas receive excess resources while others receive inadequate resources.
This identifies the need for effective resource planning in the management of floods. The
author also reiterates the need for the project implementers to do the right thing. In the
context of floods, this is equivalent to the effectiveness of the emergency responders in
carrying out the assigned tasks according to plan. In addition, Ogunlana (2010) states that
projects should be free from defects. This implies that the flood management system
should ensure that the flood management process from the planning to the recovery phase
is free from defects to ensure that it achieves the set objectives.

Next, the author identifies the need for the project to conform to the expectations of
stakeholders. In regards to flood management systems, conforming to stakeholder
expectations entails designing a system that would protect people and property from
flood-induced injury and damage. The author identifies the need for the project to
minimize construction disputes and aggravation as one of the key performance indicators.
In the context of flood management systems, the construction of dykes and other
structures aimed at protecting households and other premises should not create disputes
and conflicts with the individuals and communities that live in the area.

119
3.5.9 Recovery (Litman, 2007)
This study also explored the findings of Litman (2007) on the indicators for sustainable and
comprehensive planning of the transport sector. Even though the findings of the author do
not cover all aspects associated with the management of flood hazard, the findings provide
a valuable reference in the restoration of the transport systems in the aftermath of flood
events. In the restoration of transport infrastructure following the occurrence of a flood,
the author recommends the consideration of sustainable forms or modes of transport that
would also prevent environmental pollution that is the greatest cause of climate change
that is largely responsible for adverse weather events. A sustainable transport system
should be able to meet the basic access needs of individuals and the society in a manner
that concurs with the health of individuals and the ecosystem.

It should also concur with generational equity. The transport system destroyed by the
hazard should also allow the government through the flood management system to
reconstruct the transport system in a manner that ensures its efficient operation besides
paving way for the emergence of a vibrant economy. Most importantly, the new transport
system should limit waste and emissions that exceed the ability of the planet to absorb
them. Therefore, the author provides a guideline or guiding framework for the
reconstruction of the transport system by the emergency responders.

3.5.10 Preparedness policies, response policies, and recovery policies (Henstra, 2010)
The systematic review also considered the study of Henstra (2010) on the frameworks that
public managers should adopt in handling emergency management programs. The author
identifies three policies: preparedness policies, response policies, and recovery policies as
necessary in handling emergency programs. In the preparedness phase, the author
identifies the role that the emergency manager should play in coordinating the activities of
all stakeholders in the emergency response. In the case of flood emergencies, the lead
agency plays the role of the emergency manager that coordinates the activities of other
stakeholders. The other indicators identified by the author in the preparedness phase
include the establishment of the emergency management programme committee, risk
assessment and the identification of hazards, a solid emergency response plan, existence

120
of a law or laws that support emergency management, training and exercises, and the
seeking of mutual aid from neighbouring communities to replenish depleted resources.

Henstra (2010) also identifies the need for the system to protect critical infrastructure, and
the consideration of people with special needs in the management process. According to
the author, it is also necessary for the local government to engage with the business
community in ensuring that they offer safe products to the market. Engagement with the
business community is also essential since floods affect critical infrastructure such as
transport and power that could prevent businesses from manufacturing or offering services
as observed by Sodhi and Tang (2014). The existence of mitigation policies is the other
indicator of an effective flood management system. The essential components of the policy
include the mitigation plan, the warning system, public education, routing of dangerous
goods, and risk-based planning of land use.

Henstra also identified a number of indicators under the response policies. These include
the establishment of an emergency operations centre, an incident management system, an
evacuation plan, construction of emergency shelter arrangements, and the volunteer
management plan. Other indicators under the response phase include the availability of
response teams that foster community engagement, the initiation of search and rescue
missions, and dissemination of public information to the public. Finally, Henstra identified
recovery indicators such as the recovery plan, a plan for the continuity of operations,
damage assessment, debris management, and rehabilitation (Henstra, 2010).

Table 3.1 shows the differences in the efficiency items or indicators for flood management
systems between the sources used in the review.

121
 Table 3.1: The differences in the efficiency indicators between the sources
Indicator Items/Sources Gilissen Dawson Sayers Lo and Sheikhbardsiri Cumiskey WMO Ogunlana Litman Henstra
et al. et al. et al. Chan et al. (2018) et al. (2015) (2010) (2007) (2010)
(2016) (2011) (2013) (2017) (2019)
Preparedness Mitigation plan ✔ ✔ ✔
and Planning Hazard identification and risk ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
assessment
Response plan ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Plans review (regularly) ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Lessons learned from incident ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
management
Institutional learning ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
(Knowledge exchange, sharing
experiences)
Training ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Exercise (regularly) ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Public education ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Business Engagement ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Mutual aid agreement with ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
neighbouring authorities for
resources
Provision of funding ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Provision of human resources ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Provision of equipment ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Warning system ✔ ✔ ✔
Response Inter-organizational working ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
system
Evacuation Plan ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Volunteer management ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Community response team ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

122
 Indicator Items/Sources Gilissen Dawson Sayers Lo and Sheikhbardsiri Cumiskey WMO Ogunlana Litman Henstra
et al. et al. et al. Chan et al. (2018) et al. (2015) (2010) (2007) (2010)
(2016) (2011) (2013) (2017) (2019)
Recovery Recovery Plan ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Continuity planning ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Emergency shelter ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
arrangement
Damage assessment ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Debris management ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Environmental assessment ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Rehabilitation of victims ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

123
Table 3.1 illustrates and concludes the findings of the reviewed papers regarding Flood
Management Efficiency Indicators (FMEIs). Firstly, all the possible indicators that were
gathered from the reviewed papers were categorised in a manner that develops a better
understanding of the contribution of each of them. The table represents three categories
that encompasses the 26 identified indicators from the papers reviewed. Sorting the
indicators under a wide umbrella will aid in prioritising the indicators according to the
perspectives of examined papers. To illustrate, the tick mark in front of each category
identifies whether it was mentioned in that specific paper or not. For instance, considering
the public education, the tick mark indicates that all/few indicators which falls under this
category was stated in Gilissen et al. (2016), Dawson et al. (2011), Sayers et al. (2013),
Sheikhbardsiri et al. (2018), Litman (2007), WMO (2015) and Henstra (2010). In fact, from
the above table, it is clear that training, public education, mutual aid agreement with
neighbouring authorities for resources and recovery plan scored 7/10 which means that
they were mentioned in seven papers. Thus, indicating their importance in assessing the
flood management system and evaluating whether such a system is effective or not.
Moreover, this summary-table of the findings of the reviewed papers aids in selecting the
most fundamental indicators for assessing flood management systems. Consequently,
assisting the formulation of key indicators tables under which the interview questions will
be based on.

It is also worth mentioning that the review did not find studies that made direct
comparisons of the flood management indicators adopted by different systems in various
countries to manage the flood event. The absence of such studies implied the insufficient
level of research on the frameworks or indicators of a good flood management system.
Therefore, the study was unable to identify a study that compared the series of indicators
applied by flood management systems in the United Kingdom and Turkey.

3.6 Indicators of efficiency for flood management

The main research question in this chapter involved identifying efficiency indicators that
can be used for effective flood management. The objective was to use the Flood
Management Efficiency Indicators (FMEIs) to examine strengths and weaknesses of flood
management systems in Turkey and the UK. Some of the key findings that can be

124
summarized are that from the frameworks identified by the authors, it is evident that the
indicators of efficiency for flood management revolve around the preparedness or planning
phase, response phase, and recovery phase (Mohamad Yusoff et al., 2018; Fan and Huang,
2020).

Besides the selected studies used for the review, other studies also identify indicators
associated with the planning, response, and recovery aspects of the flood management
system. For instance, Du Plessis (2002) identifies ten elements of a flood warning system
that are essential for the effective management of flood hazards. The elements include
weather forecasting by the meteorological department, flood detections, flood warnings,
emergency organizations, use of the warnings to prepare for floods, responses to the
warnings, and outcomes. The other elements include response to predictions, users of the
predictions, planning organizations, and hazard delimitations (Du Plessis, 2002). From the
study, it is evident that the indicators revolve around the ability of the system to relay
warning information on time, train emergency professionals and at-risk communities on
managing the hazard including the escape routes and mitigation measures, adequate
provision of resources that ensure the wellbeing of the affected communities, and the
restoration of critical infrastructure (Jongman, 2018; Genovese and Thaler, 2020).

The findings are similar to a similar study carried out by Fan and Davlasheridze (2014) on
the effectiveness of flood management systems in the United States. According to the
study, retirees are more sensitive to the flood risk as compared to the younger population.
College graduates were also less averse to the risk of floods as compared to their
counterparts without a college degree. The study attributed the difference to the fact that
college graduates have many job opportunities that allow them to move to different places.
The most important thing is the need for the availability of warning information to instruct
individuals on the expected date when the hazard would strike, possible evacuation routes,
areas to seek shelter and obtain basic resources, among other factors (Bukvic et al., 2018).

Close understanding and cooperation between and within the emergency professionals
and at-risk individuals is one of the indicators that is vital for the success of any flood
management program. In their study on the effectiveness of the flood delivery system in

125
Malaysia, Khalid and Shafiai (2015) identified the need for close understanding and
cooperation among the parties that take part in the flood response. The lead agency should
be at the centre stage in coordinating the response of the stakeholders thus ensuring the
successful rescuing of victims and property from the flood plains. Lack of coordination
would create confusion and chaos in the exercises thereby having a negative effect on the
objectives of the response initiative. Most importantly, there is a need for the lead agency
to coordinate the efforts of the volunteers and victims to ensure that the affected
individuals followed a planned action plan when the emergency strikes (Albris et al., 2020).

Regardless of the planning, response, and recovery measures implemented by the

emergency actors, the efficiency of the flood management system depends on the ability
of the system to mitigate the risk by preventing the damage and injury that the hazard
inflicts on property and humans. Consequently, damage mitigation measures play a crucial
role in any flood management mission as observed by Hudson et al. (2014). Therefore,
disaster mitigation measures such as the construction of dykes and other structural
developments to prevent floodwaters from accessing flood plains, including the evacuation
of at-risk individuals and the construction of resilient structures are crucial efficiency
indicators for flood management. Finally, an efficient flood management system should
also carry out recovery activities such as the restoration of critical infrastructure like water,
electricity, and transport networks (Pant et al., 2017). Okaka and Odhiambo (2018) further
argues that the system should also put in place a plan that deals with health-related aspects
of the emergency such as the spread of waterborne diseases by offering clean water and
emergency healthcare facilities at specific sites.

3.7 How FMEIs can be used to examine the strengths and weaknesses of flood
management
The FMEIs were constructed based on the finding of the reviewed papers that was
summarised in Table 3.1. The FMEIs include the main key elements, which are
preparedness and planning phase, response phase, and recovery phase, that contribute to
the assessment of flood management systems. The 26 indicators presented in the table
were identified and selected based on the finding of the reviewed papers. Some of these –
volunteer management, community response team, and continuity planning - can be

126
operationalised as dichotomous indicators (0 indicates the policy has not been applied; 1
indicates applied). Other items are relatively more complicated. A flood management
system that includes a flood specific mitigation plan is arguably of higher quality than one
that does not. Likewise, publishing general preparedness information on the internet
website is one form of public education, however, it is arguably of lower quality than, for
instance, a workshop that precisely teaches participants how they can prepare for flooding.
As such, 5 of the 26 indicators can be subdivided into four benchmarks, whereby 0 indicates
low quality, 1 indicates medium quality, 2 indicates high quality and 3 indicates optimum
quality. The table is designed to be a flexible tool for assessing the effectiveness of a flood
management system. Scores assigned to the indicator items display the current scope and
content of the flood management program, and emphasise areas in which further effort is
required. As regards to measuring the effectiveness of the flood management system, the
maximum score that could be taken from the FMEIs is found as 54. This value has been
equitably divided into 4 intervals corresponding to the benchmarks, which are;
 0-13, considered as low;
 14-27, considered as medium;
 28-41, considered as high;
 42-54, considered as optimum as indicated in Table 3.2.

In addition, the FMEIs have been divided into three separate tables as preparedness and
planning, response, and recovery in order to use in the following chapters. The maximum
scores that could be taken from the tables have been separately calculated. These
calculated values have been equitably divided into 4 intervals corresponding to the
benchmarks, which are;
 0-8, considered as low;
 9-17, considered as medium;
 18-26, considered as high;
 27-34, considered as optimum for preparedness and planning;

 0-1, considered as low;

 2-3, considered as medium;
 4-5, considered as high;

127
  6-7, considered as optimum for response;
and,
 0-2, considered as low;
 3-6, considered as medium;
 7-10, considered as high;
 11-13, considered as optimum for recovery, as indicated in the tables 3.3, 3.4, and
3.5 respectively.

Flood management professionals interviewed from both countries verified that the
FMEIs/framework were appropriate and reliable in identifying the strengths and
weaknesses of flood management systems. When the interviewees had been asked for
their comments on the FMEIs, they declared that they were satisfied with the table. This
table will be used as the base for assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the Flood
management system in the UK and Turkey. Besides, it will also be involved in the interview
questions to gather more information about the perspective of each interviewee regarding
these indicators. In addition, the framework identified the need for the stakeholders to
understand the behaviour of the entire system together with the objectives of the society.
The understanding is vital in determining the capability of the management framework to
incorporate societal goals in the flood management practices. Consequently, a good flood
management system should deliberate on the proposed elements. If these elements exist
in the flood management system, it can be stated that they are categorized as effective.

3.8 Recommendations
In using the items or indicators in the UK and Turkey, the researcher would interview
respondents that took place in the management of the most recent flood emergencies in
the two coastal case study locations, Southampton/Hampshire in the UK and Izmit/Kocaeli
in Turkey. The respondents would be composed of experts on flood management from the
government institutions and NGOs. In essence, the study will target respondents that
played a direct role or had a direct experience with the latest flood event. The study intends
to collect data on the efficiency indicators for flood management before providing the
overall rating on the efficiency of both systems in managing the flood emergencies. Table

128
3.2 shows the indicators and their corresponding benchmarks that the study targeted in
the SLR.

3.9 Summary
From the review, it is evident that the efficiency indicators in the management of flood
emergencies span the three areas of flood management: preparedness and planning,
response, and recovery. For instance, there is a need for flood-specific planning that builds
the capacity of the actors to respond to flood events. The system should establish
procedures that promote institutional learning such as frequent meetings of the
emergency actors. The system should also initiate training and exercising to test its
operations in regards to the management of the flood hazard. The system should also
create opportunities and put in place arrangements that facilitate inter-organizational
collaboration. Moreover, the system should allow emergency professionals to engage in
community preparedness. The provision of adequate resources to the emergency
management team is also necessary for an efficient flood management system. Finally, the
system should put in place arrangements that support recovery-based activities. The
selected indicators are the most appropriate in measuring flood management efficiency in
the United Kingdom and Turkey because they provide a comprehensive coverage of the
three phases of flood management.

129
 Table 3.2: Flood Management Efficiency Indicators (FMEIs) and their corresponding
benchmarks
Indicator Items Benchmarks Score
Low (0) Medium (1) High (2) Optimum (3) UK TR
Preparedness Mitigation No action Generic plan Flood specific -
and Planning plan plan
Hazard No action Hazard Flood specific -
identification identification vulnerability/risk
and risk analyses
assessment
Response plan No action Generic Plan Flood specific -
plan
Plans review Nothing Generic plan Flood specific -
(regularly) reviewed reviewed plan reviewed
Lessons No action Debriefing Public scrutiny -
learned from practices and review
incident
management
Institutional No action Arrangements Arrangements -
learning within the between
(Knowledge administrative administrative
exchange, district districts
sharing
experiences)
Training No action Training for Training includes Training
key decision responders and includes
makers volunteers communities,
private sector
and media
Exercise No action Table-top Functional Full-scale
(regularly) exercise exercise exercise
Public No action Website info Seminars or -
education or brochure Workshops
Business No action Educational Engaged in -
Engagement material planning
Mutual aid No action Restricted Emergency -
agreement agreement agreement
with
neighbouring
authorities for
resources
Provision of No funding Lack of Only basic Adequately
funding funding supply resourced to
support
management
activities
Provision of Understaffed Limited Adequately -
human staffed staffed
resources
Provision of Lack of Only basic Adequately -
equipment equipment supply resourced to
support
management
activities
Warning No action Loudspeakers Radio or Phone
system television messages

130
Indicator Items Benchmarks Score
Low (0) Medium (1) High (2) Optimum (3) UK TR
Response Inter- Basic Legislation Up and System
organizational system downscaling includes
working described in response system critical
system plan established infrastructur
between e provides,
emergency NGOs and
actors volunteers
Evacuation No action Decision Detailed -
Plan Guidelines procedures
established
Volunteer No action Coordination - -
management established
Community No action Team - -
response established
team
Recovery Recovery Plan No action Generic plan Flood specific -
established plan
Continuity No action Plan for - -
planning critical
services
Emergency No action Shelters Shelter -
shelter designated agreement with
arrangement community
agencies for
welfare needs
Damage No action Briefly noted Planned in detail -
assessment in planning
Debris No action Briefly noted Planned in detail -
management in planning
Environmental No action Briefly noted Planned in detail -
assessment in planning
Rehabilitation No action Briefly noted Planned in detail -
of victims planning
TOTAL SCORE
Measurement Legend Low [0-13] Medium [14-27] High [28-41] Optimum [42-54]

131
 Table 3.3: FMEIs for Preparedness Phase and their corresponding benchmarks

Indicator Items Benchmarks Score

Low (0) Medium (1) High (2) Optimum (3) UK TR
Preparedness Mitigation plan No action Generic plan Flood specific -
and Planning plan
Hazard No action Hazard Flood specific -
identification identification vulnerability/
and risk risk analyses
assessment
Response plan No action Generic Plan Flood specific -
plan
Plans review Nothing Generic plan Flood specific -
(regularly) reviewed reviewed plan reviewed
Lessons learned No action Debriefing Public -
from incident practices scrutiny and
management review
Institutional No action Arrangements Arrangements -
learning within the between
(Knowledge administrative administrative
exchange, district districts
sharing
experiences)
Training No action Training for Training Training
key decision includes includes
makers responders communities,
and private sector
volunteers and media
Exercise No action Table-top Functional Full-scale
(regularly) exercise exercise exercise
Public education No action Website info Seminars or -
or brochure Workshops
Business No action Educational Engaged in -
Engagement material planning
Mutual aid No action Restricted Emergency -
agreement with agreement agreement
neighbouring
authorities for
resources
Provision of No funding Lack of Only basic Adequately
funding funding supply resourced to
support
management
activities
Provision of Understaffed Limited Adequately -
human staffed staffed
resources
Provision of Lack of Only basic Adequately -
equipment equipment supply resourced to
support
management
activities
Warning system No action Loudspeakers Radio or Phone
television messages
TOTAL PREPAREDNESS SCORE
Measurement Low (0-8) Medium (9-17) High (18-26) Optimum (27-34)
Legend

132
 Table 3.4: FMEIs for Response Phase and their corresponding benchmarks

Indicator Items Benchmarks Score

Low (0) Medium (1) High (2) Optimum (3) UK TR
Response Inter- Basic Legislation Up and System
organizational system downscaling includes critical
working system described response infrastructure
in plan system provides, NGOs
established and volunteers
between
emergency
actors
Evacuation No action Decision Detailed -
Plan Guidelines procedures
established
Volunteer No action Coordination - -
management established
Community No action Team - -
response team established
TOTAL RESPONSE SCORE
Measurement Low (0-1) Medium (2-3) High (4-5) Optimum (6-7)
Legend

Table 3.5: FMEIs for Recovery Phase and their corresponding benchmarks

Indicator Items Benchmarks Score

Low (0) Medium (1) High (2) Optimum (3) UK TR
Recovery Recovery Plan No Generic plan Flood specific plan -
action established
Continuity No Plan for - -
planning action critical
services
Emergency No Shelters Shelter agreement -
shelter action designated with community
arrangement agencies for
welfare needs

Damage No Briefly noted Planned in detail -

assessment action in planning
Debris No Briefly noted Planned in detail -
management action in planning
Environmental No Briefly noted Planned in detail -
assessment action in planning
Rehabilitation of No Briefly noted Planned in detail -
victims action planning
TOTAL RECOVERY SCORE
Measurement Low (0-2) Medium (3-6) High (7-10) Optimum (11-13)
Legend

133
 Chapter 4 – Practitioners viewpoints: strengths and weaknesses of
flood management in Turkey and the UK
4.1 Introduction
Flood management policies including insurance are critical to enhancing socio-economic
development of floodplains (Crick et al., 2018; Surianto et al., 2019; Walkling and Haworth,
2020). It is evident that both Turkey and the UK have flood management practices.
However, they do exhibit some slight differences that culminate in strengths and
weaknesses. It is essential that these disparities are examined to determine future flood
policy improvements in both countries. The section of the study examines the strengths
and weaknesses of flood management practices both in Turkey and in the UK. The study
utilizes interviews to find reliable data. Understanding both aspects can help improve the
policies for future management of floods. The rationale of the study is to interview various
stakeholders involved in flood management in both countries to establish similarities and
differences.

4.2 Objectives of this study

The chapter has a general objective of finding out the effectiveness of flood management
practices in Turkey and in the UK with the practitioners’ viewpoints. Specifically, the study
will:
i. Investigate the strengths and weaknesses of flood management practices in Turkey;
ii. Investigate the strengths and weaknesses of flood management practices in the UK;
iii. Differentiate flood management systems in Turkey with those in the UK.

4.3 Background to Izmit/Kocaeli and Southampton/Hampshire

Southampton/Hampshire in the UK and Izmit/Kocaeli in Turkey have been chosen as
representative case study locations in order to assess the effectiveness of flood
management in both countries. The rationale behind the selection of
Southampton/Hampshire and Izmit/Kocaeli for this research, as representative case study
locations in two countries, is influenced by a number of factors. One of the reasons is
because the two locations are of comparable sizes in terms of their geography and
population. Both the UK and Turkey used standardized approaches of flood management
in both rural and urban areas. The study areas, which are coastal and riverine cities, have

134
inland and coastal communities and are at risk from coastal, river, flash-flood and
combined flood hazards. Additionally, the lead researcher is familiar with flood
management in both Turkey (1,5 years of working in the emergency management sector)
and the UK (4 years of studying emergency management).

Based on the fact that Turkey and the UK follow nationwide structures and procedures for
flood management, the study settled for Southampton/Hampshire and Izmit/Kocaeli as
representative samples for how flooding is managed in the rest of England and Turkey. In
terms of hazard-vulnerability, both locations are vulnerable to extensive rainfall that have
significantly affected the two regions.

4.3.1 Flood risk in Izmit/Kocaeli

Kocaeli is an important industrial settlement in the Marmara region in Turkey. According
to the flood statistics in the spatial distribution map of the flooded settlements, as seen in
Figure 4.1, Kocaeli is in the third group with 8-9 flooding events per year (Kocaeli Valiligi,
2020).

Figure 4.1: The spatial distribution of the flooded settlements in Turkey (Figure adapted
from Kocaeli Valiligi, 2020)

135
The region is known for its manufacturing and industrial activity that generate about 69.9%
of the country’s GDP. The region has a limited history of flooding, although warnings about
extreme weather conditions exist. However, the region is well known to be at risk of
earthquakes (Kocaeli Valiligi, 2020).

4.3.2 Flood risk in Southampton/Hampshire

Southampton is a city in Hampshire in England, which is located in South East England. The
city has had a history of flooding for a long time. It has a coastline that measures about
35km that include Redbridge, the docks, Northam, and St. Denys among other features
(Southampton City Council, 2014). The greatest flooding risk arises from tides, which
amounts to about 10% of the city being identified as a risk. The city does not have any
formally raised structures to act as defence against tidal floods, the council is in the process
of developing a new flood defence scheme to minimize flooding in Northam, St. Marys, and
Chapel. Southampton also suffers from the risk of fluvial flooding arising from a number of
major rivers such as River Test, River Itchen, River Tanners Brook, Holly Brook, Rolles Brook,
and Monks Brook (Southampton City Council, 2014). Figure 4.2 displays areas likely to be
at risk of tidal and fluvial flooding.

136
Figure 4.2: Tidal and fluvial (main river) flood risk in Southampton (Figure adapted from
Southampton City Council, 2014)

Surface water flooding is another flood risk to the city. The risk arises from the urban nature
of the city. The flooding is often difficult to manage since it occurs at any place after heavy
precipitation. To reduce involved risk, the city has an extensive drainage network instituted
to manage surface water. However, intense and prolonged rainfall overwhelms the
drainage network thereby resulting in localized surface water floods (Southampton City
Council, 2014).

4.4 Their flood management systems

4.4.1 Flood management system in Izmit/Kocaeli
The flood management system in Izmit/Kocaeli is under the management of the national
body in Turkey. The Turkish disaster management system has often established various
strategies to overcome flood risks in Kocaeli among other regions among others. For

137
instance, the Integrated Urban Development Strategy and Action Plan (KENTGES 2010-
2023) was established by the Ministry of Environment and Urban Planning to enhance
disaster preparedness after the 1999 Marmara earthquake that caused intense flooding in
the country (Dobrucali and Demir, 2016). The flood management strategies entail
establishing the necessary legislation, determination of disaster hazards, and supporting
emergency communication infrastructure necessary for an effective intervention against
the disaster (Ugur and Isik, 2020).

4.4.2 Flood management system in Southampton/Hampshire

Southampton has established flood risk management at the local level. The risk
management comprises several state agencies such as the Environment Agency, Lead Local
Flood Authority (LLFA), Water Company (South Water), and Highway Authority
(SCC/Balfour Beatty). Southampton City Council (SCC) has several functions that vary from
daily activities. They include flood risk management, emergency flooding, highway
management/planning, planning and policy development, development of bridges and
structures among others. The Environment Agency provides a strategic overview of all
sources of flood risk. According to Southampton City Council (2014), the action of
overcome flood risk is clearly defined and follows a given approach. It begins with
identification of the drivers of flooding, followed by pathways (overlapping or
overwashing), receptors, and the consequences of floods. The actions of SCC rank flood
risks on a hierarchy thereby prioritizing the action plan as indicated in Figure 4.3.

Figure 4.3: Measurement of flood risk by hierarchy (SCC, 2014, p. 31)

138
Figure 4.3 clarifies the hierarchy of different measures and the scale of application of each
one along with the authority that is responsible for their implementation. It illustrates
several physical actions that can be presented in various forms of actions which could aid
in flood risk management. The first form of action is basically the action of doing nothing.
Firstly, the risk is identified and an analysis is conducted regarding the most effective
responses that could be taken to such risk. Secondly, the proposed responses are to be
evaluated considering several aspects such as the costs of implementation and the
outcomes that can be achieved from each response. Accordingly, if the costs of chosen
response outweigh its outcomes, which means that the costs of accepting the risk is lower
than that of responding to it, then doing nothing would be the most appropriate decision
in this case. For this measure, due to its sensitivity, risk management authorities are the
ones responsible for deciding and monitoring the action. Moving upwards, the second is
the action of introducing sandbags which decrease the entrance of water to properties in
pressing flooding. This emergency step is implemented by residents or owners of a certain
property as a measure of defence or protection to their own assets. The third action is
mainly implemented by the owner of the property, where specific generalised measures
are defined for a group of properties depending on their type, size and location. Based on
the identified measures, the owner protects his property by fulfilling these precautions.
The fourth measure includes creating temporary flood barrier schemes such as individual
road schemes and this approach is implemented by the communities or citizens of the area.
Finally, the last measure is the permanent flood defence which is a larger scale to the
individual scheme; thus the risk management authorities are the ones responsible for the
implementation of such defences. As noticed, moving up the hierarchy, the standard of
protection and the scheme cost increases while also increasing its associated benefits.

4.5 Methodology
Considering the various flood management programs or strategies pursued by the two
countries, it is evident that they both have comprehensive, and standardized methods of
flood management, which is an important determinant of the choice of their selection. The
standardization and comprehensive nature of the flood management systems for the two
regions is important in enhancing validity and reliability of data for the study. The
assumption is that since the two regions all have standardized flood management

139
programmes, they are likely to experience similar challenges, and successes. As a result,
uniformity in response from the participants could be achieved by exploring the
standardized similarities of the two regions.

Standardization of responses is indeed crucial in qualitative research studies. Usually, data

in qualitative research is obtained using an open-ended questionnaire. The open-ended
questions often give the respondents liberty to provide as little, or as much data as
possible. As a result, it is common to obtain a high degree of varied response in a qualitative
research study (Ghotbi and Nasrollahi, 2017; Gonzalez-Franco and Peck, 2018); which is the
fundamental reason why the sample size is always kept significantly smaller. For instance,
five respondents can give quite varied answers to a similar question; even if the underlying
answer or meaning is the same. This may be due to several reasons including the comfort
of the respondents at the time of the interview (Silverman, 2016; Oberink et al., 2017).

By selecting the two regions therefore reduces the degree or extent to which the
contextual responses could vary. This however, does not mean that the flood management
programmes for the two regions are similar. Standardization in this regard is with regards
to the Flood Management Efficiency Indicators (FMEIs), which are the foundation on which
the interview questions were established.

4.5.1 Design
The section presents the results obtained from the primary data collection via interviews.
The inquiry targeted flood emergency professionals at the local level in the United Kingdom
and Turkey. The participants consisted of 24 employees; 12 from Hampshire and the other
12 from Kocaeli. The interviewees were emergency managers, planners, and responders.
The researcher met with the interviewees and explored their opinions and experiences
concerning key research questions of this study. Certain interview questions were semi-
structured, while others were structured. The objective of the researcher was to get replies
that were non-judgmental and open-ended. The goal was to encourage the staff to present
their viewpoints and experiences (Charmaz, 2006; Kuang and Liao, 2020).

140
A qualitative research approach was used in this study. The qualitative approach is based
on interpretivist philosophy. According to Putnam and Banghart (2017), the interpretivist
philosophy holds that knowledge, or truth is subjective. As such, an individual’s perception
of what he or she thinks is true, may not necessarily be the same for a different person. In
the context of research, the interpretivist philosophy holds that knowledge the researcher
plays an active role in the whole process, and is therefore, at liberty to make analysis and
interpretation based on his or her own knowledge, understanding, perception, intuition,
and experience among other subjective attributes (Babones, 2016). The subjective nature
of the qualitative research study is the foundation for its major shortcoming of vulnerability
to bias. Despite the shortcomings of a research study, there are several research scenarios
that are best explored by the qualitative research approach (Çelik et al., 2020).

The study utilised a case study design in which the flood management phenomenon was
investigated in its real life context in Izmit/Kocaeli in Turkey and Southampton/Hampshire
in the UK. It was based on an in-depth investigation of the flood-specific emergency
planning, inter-agency working, community involvement, professional training, applied
flooding risk mitigation strategies, as well as understanding the underlying principles. The
use of a case study was the most appropriate for this study since it allowed the research of
the research phenomenon in its natural context.

The research collected primary data about flood management from the two locations using
interviews. The use of interviews was the most appropriate since it allowed for a one-on-
one interaction with the respondents thereby reducing biases in collected data. As such,
face to face interviews were arranged with the selected respondents. A semi-structured
interview questionnaire was developed to collect the data. The questionnaire contained
open-ended and closed ended questions about flood management strategies and practices
in both Izmit/Kocaeli and Southampton/Hampshire. The interviews aimed at obtaining first
hand data in its natural context without any bias. Furthermore, face-to-face interviews
allow for further probing of the subjects for more insights about flood management. It was
deemed the best approach to collect the data since it allows for collection of unbiased
information from the respondents (Hamilton and Finley, 2019).

141
The interview questions were developed based on the Flood Management Effectiveness
Indicators (FMEIs), which were outlined in chapter three. The relevance of the flood
management indicators in the current study is that they aid in the process of understanding
how an effective flood management should be, regardless of the geographic, or
organizational differences. These indicators encompass the provision of the international
flood management proposition such as the Sendai Framework. According to McLaughlin
(2019), effective flood management should have adequate arrangements for dealing with
emergencies. In the current study therefore, an effective flood management is considered
as one that is comprehensive enough to incorporate all the effective flood management
indicators. To assess the challenges and success of flood management in both Turkey and
the United Kingdom, the questionnaires explored directly, the extent to which the
respective management strategies meet the indicators.

As climate change continues to intensify, it is crucial to examine whether the existing

frameworks have the capacity to deal with floods, especially in the coastal and riverine
areas, which are in most cases adversely affected by the problem of flooding (IPCC, 2018).
The study made use of case studies of Izmit/Kocaeli (Turkey) and Southampton/Hampshire
(the UK), which are the coastal and riverine places. The locations were selected from many
other regions in the two countries due to their exclusive geographic areas that were
comparable, their probability of flooding, and the national significance of the region. For
instance, Kocaeli is a region in Turkey known for its industrial production in the country and
any form of foods would have significant impacts on the country. On its part, Southampton
has a high probability of flooding with common types being tidal, fluvial flooding and
surface runoff.

4.5.2 Sample size

Flick (2011) put emphasis on the need for researchers to practice informed consent and
voluntary participation. Taherdoost (2016) further describes a sample size as a finite
portion of a statistical population whose perspectives are studied to gain facts about the
whole. By conducting a brief census with the state agencies responsible for flood
management both in Turkey and in the UK, the researcher identified a total of 17 staff
members in Izmit/Kocaeli from core governmental and non-governmental organisations as

142
potential individuals who can represent the views of the entire organizations and be helpful
participants for the study. In the context of Southampton/Hampshire 20 staff members
were selected through census as probable interviewees. Out of the sampled individuals,
the researcher settled on 24 employees after the number gave consent to take part in the
study. 12 from Southampton/Hampshire and the other 12 from Izmit/Kocaeli because they
were willing to take part in the study. The willingness was assessed after they gave their
verbal consent to fill the consent forms and participate in the study. In Kocaeli 5 employees
opted out due to other work commitments. On the other hand, 8 people opted out in
Hampshire due to unavailability and tight work schedules. The researcher did not make an
attempt to contact the individuals that opted out due to lack of informed consent. A follow-
up was made through phone calls to those who were willing to take part in the study. It can
therefore be stated that the interview process was able to comply with the requirement
proposed by Flick (2011) and Arifin (2018) which propose that researchers have to
implement voluntary participation and informed consent.

4.5.3 Response rate

The study targeted 37 respondents out of which only 24 gave consent to participate in the
study. All the 24 respondents out of the 37 targeted staff sat down with the researcher to
answer the questions in their specific locations that were convenient to them. The study
attained a response rate of 64.9%. The rate was achieved because the researcher made
personal calls and physical visits to the sampled organizations before conducting the
interviews. The information collected in the Turkish language was coded and interpreted
in the English language (Saunders et al., 2016).

4.5.4 The interview process

Once the subjects gave consent to take part in the study, the researcher contacted them
to make arrangements for the interview. A date was set for the interviews. The first thing
after arriving for the interview after introduction was signing consent forms to ensure that
the subject willingly accepted to take part in the study. Thereafter, the researcher assured
them of anonymity in the findings and that their details would not be used in any other
study or be given to third parties without their consent. The interview started with an
expectation to last for 45 minutes.

143
4.5.4.1 Ethical Considerations
Ethical considerations during the interview included assurance for anonymity,
confidentiality of personal details, and provision of consent forms for an informed consent.
The research adhered to all these ethical considerations. A consent form was given to the
subject and signed to ensure that they were participating willingly without coercion. They
were told that participation was voluntary and that they could withdraw from the research
during any stage and were entitled to have their data given back to them without giving a
reason for their withdrawal (Terrell, 2012). The respondents were allowed to read,
understand and accept through signing, before they agreed to participate in the research
(Arifin, 2018).

Also, the researcher ensured that all the legal, ethical and contractual requirements in
conducting the research were observed (Mohajan, 2018). For instance, ethical approval of
the research was provided by the University of Portsmouth after all of the ethical
requirements had been fulfilled. This allowed the researcher to gather data and to recruit
participants for the face to face interviews. A copy of the ethical approval letter is provided
in Appendix A.

In practice, there are a number of ethical issues that were encountered in the study.
According to the ethical form, the researcher is to report the research findings accurately,
honestly, and within a reasonable time frame. To a great extent, most of these
requirements were met. The researcher has used a systematic approach in collecting,
analysing, and interpreting the data to ensure that the findings are reported accurately and
honestly (Baltaci, 2019). Another ethical issue that was encountered in the field was about
confidentiality of the results provided by the respondents. This was particularly an issue
because of the nature of the data collection procedure where face-to-face interview with
the researcher was used (Ponelis, 2015). Since some participants were directly involved in
the management of flood programs in their areas, some of the data they provided were
rather sensitive, and not necessarily positive in the context of the organization. Certainly,
such participants were concerned whether disclosing such information could have any
adverse implication on the project, and even themselves. To mitigate such concerns, the
participants were assured that the data would be kept private and confidential. Within the

144
questionnaire, the respondents neither were asked to disclose their real identity, nor were
these information reported in the questionnaires (Fleming and Zegwaard, 2018). At the end
of the research, the transcripts were converted into digital format which was stored in a
password secured file by the researcher. The researcher will remain the custodian of the
data until the completion of the research study. Two years after completion and submission
of the study, the data will be permanently deleted.

4.5.5 Data analysis

Thematic analysis was used as the main approach of analysing the response derived from
the interviews (Castleberry and Nolen, 2018). The implementation of thematic analysis
involved the identification of themes that are significant for the study. The researcher
selected standard themes that were geared towards answering two main research
objectives: (a) the effectiveness of flood management in the UK and Turkey; and (b) what
the two nations can learn from each other when it comes to effective flood management
practices. The study adopted the semantic level of theme identification which involves the
use of the surface or explicit meaning of data as opposed looking deeply at the
conceptualisations, assumptions and underlying ideas that were stated by the interview
respondents (Braun and Clearke 2006; Lamond et al., 2019). The thematic analysis process
applicable in this research involved going back and forth between the entire interview data
to obtain search themes related to flood management in the UK and Turkey and emerging
lessons for each country.

Thematic analysis is the most commonly used data analysis technique in qualitative
research (Baltaci, 2019). This is because of its ability to identify the major and minor themes
that manifests in a given set of data. However, an effective thematic analysis requires
adequate understanding of the research area by the researcher. Often, the preliminary or
potential themes are identified by the researcher during the literature review, and
additional reading (Terry et al., 2017). However, the purpose of thematic analysis is to
either generate an original theme for the given set of data, or confirm or refute the already
determined themes from a set of qualitative data; that is an inductive, or deductive
approach (Hamilton and Finley, 2019). The choice between the two approaches is often
dependent on the nature of the objectives of the research (Ertugay, 2019).

145
According to Terry et al. (2017), the common approach of conducting a thematic analysis
involves the familiarization with the data, through reading the transcripts first. The second
stage involves the identification of the potential codes; which is often achieved through
line-by-line reading. The third stage is the generation of a broader range of themes from
the identified codes. At this stage, there are a lot of themes, some of which may belong, or
classified into other themes. It therefore follows that the fourth stage involves the
reclassification of the themes to identify the minor and major themes. The fifth stage
involves the confirmation of the themes, and lastly, writing up the themes, or the research
results.

Either an inductive, or deductive approach can be used in qualitative research (Vaismoradi

et al., 2016). In this case, a deductive approach was used. Note that a typical thematic
analysis involves the manual examination of the data transcripts while generating the codes
and themes; which is highly subjective, and this could lead to potential bias. As
aforementioned, the qualitative research assumes that the researcher exists in interaction
with the social phenomena, hence the liberty to actively participate in interpretation of the
results. To improve the validity and reliability of the data in this study, NVIVO 12 Plus
software was used. This is a data analysis technique that is used for the analysis of various
qualitative data including texts, audio, images among others (Bazeley and Jackson, 2013).
Instead of manually coding the interview transcripts, NVIVO software was used to generate
the codes; which were used to verify the already identified themes, as well as develop new
ones (Castleberry and Nolen, 2018).

The advantage of using NVIVO software is that it enables the researcher to clearly visualize
the major trends in the data at forehand, even before starting the analysis (Çelik et al.,
2020). For example, NVIVO helps the researcher to predetermine the themes and codes by
running word frequency for a given set of interview transcripts. From the word frequency
generated, the software allows the researcher to identify the relevant words that could be
used as either codes, or themes, and eliminate those that are merely filler words, and may
not necessarily be important to the analysis. In the current study for instance, the
transcripts from both Turkey and the United Kingdom were run for word frequency and the
following results were obtained as shown in the images.

146
 Figure 4.4: Word frequency results from NVIVO for the UK

Figure 4.5: Word frequency results from NVIVO for Turkey

Figure 4.4 and 4.5 indicate the original word count from the interview transcripts. Note
that the possible word count frequency is quite high. However, NVIVO allows the
researcher to filter the results and ensure that only the important word count are
displayed, and also, the irrelevant ones are suppressed from being run in the analysis. As
the figures indicated, the main words that appeared frequently in the various interview
transcripts were recovery, training, response, emergency, community, planning, resource,

147
support, exercise, and learning. These initial results of the word count were significant in
developing the potential themes of the study even before further exploration of the study.
From the results, one could postulate that an effective flood management program should
have aspects that include training, recovery, emergency planning, resource allocation, and
engaging the community, which is indeed not different from the factors identified as the
effective flood management indicators. The identified themes were recorded.

The second stage of the NVIVO analysis included the generation of codes through word-by-
word reading of the interview transcripts. The words, or sentences that conform to an
already identified node, or theme were highlighted and automatically reported to the
corresponding node. The researcher then used a 5 point Likert scale in some of the
questions to analyse data. A likert scale was essential since it measured the attitude of
subjects toward various aspects of the study in order to outline their views (Saunders et
al., 2016). The scale was rated as follows: a 5 point scale: ++ = strongly agree, + = agree,
n.a. = no answer, 0 = neutral, -- = strongly disagree, - = disagree).

4.5.6 Translation protocols

The researcher began by using the form-oriented translation which involved transferring
the Turkish language texts by focusing on the language forms that exist in English which is
the target language. The researcher was, however, quick to acknowledge that the
information from the TL (English) were produced in a manner that is not equivalent to the
respective meanings in the SL (Turkish language). To avoid such a scenario, sense-oriented
procedures of translation from the Turkish language to the English language were also
used. The approach involved trying to check on the sense of the texts that were produced
in the English language. The translation protocol used to translate the Turkish language to
the English language validated the findings by Lorscher (1991) and Koçer Güldal and İşisağ
(2019) which state that subjects do not proceed to sense-oriented translation before sign-
oriented procedures have turned out to be unsatisfactory or unsuccessful. Some of the
words include Floods in English and Taşkınlar in the Turkish language, Taşkın yönetimi to
mean flood management, and etkili to mean effective.

148
4.5.7 Research biases and control

A number of issues arose that affected the ability to conduct the interviews effectively.
Foremost, based on the fact that the researcher had worked in the same field of emergency
management as an information officer, some of the individuals selected as part of the
sample group were acquainted with the researcher. As a result, in order to eliminate bias,
the researcher ensured that the interview was conducted in a setting that was purely
professional, mainly in office buildings rather in their homesteads (Saunders et al. 2016).
Also, the researcher attempted to sieve predisposition by urging the interview participants
to keep their views on the guidelines and standard procedures of flood management in
their respective organizations.

4.6 Results obtained from the interviews on the effectiveness of the flood
management systems in the UK and Turkey
4.6.1 General demographic information of the employees
The researcher considered it essential to get the demographic facts about the interviewees.
The data was essential in evaluating the reliability of the information they provided. The
interviewer, therefore, asked the respondents to disclose their highest educational
qualifications, their profession in the company and the period in which the employee had
worked for the organization.

Table 4.1: Gender of the subjects

Turkey UK
Male 11 9
Female 1 3
Total 12 12

Table 4.1 shows the gender split between the two countries of the respondents. It is
evident that although women were included in the study, the majority were men. Among
the participants, the highest level of education was a postgraduate degree possessed by
25% of the respondents. The remaining 75% were graduates in different fields with a
subject having bachelor's degrees. All participants with postgraduate degrees were coming
from Southampton/Hampshire alone. The results indicate that the majority of the
employees had a reasonably high level of education, consequently, they could effectively

149
understand the questions presented by the interviewer (Saunders et al., 2016).
Furthermore, their level of education indicated that the participants were presumed to
have the ability to offer dependable and proficient responses since they were informed
about flood management policies (Diakakis, 2020).

12
10
10
8
6
4
4 3 3
2
2 1 1
0
Below One 1-2 Years 2-4 Years 4-6 Years 6-10 Years 10-15 Years Above 15
Year Years

Figure 4.6: Period the respondents had worked in their organisation

As shown by the findings in Figure 4.6, within their respective organisations, most of the
respondents (42%) had worked for 4-6 years, while 16% had worked for 6-10 years. 3% had
worked for 2-4 years, another 13% had worked for 1-2 years. 8% worked for more than 15
years, with 4% working for 10-15 years. The findings indicate that the majority of the
interviewees had worked in the organization long enough to comprehend what makes an
effective flood management system according to Karataş (2017). Additionally, the
employees' work experience indicates that they would offer reliable responses as noted by
Baltaci (2019) due to their extensive knowledge of how the organizations operate.

150
Table 4.2: Organisations and professions of the respondents

Organizations Professions Organizations Professions

(UK) (Turkey)
Environment Emergency Planning Metropolitan Civil Defence
Agency and Resilience Municipality
Fire and Rescue Emergency Response Provincial AFAD Planning and Risk
Service Reduction
Fire and Rescue Training Water and Sewerage Technical Investment
Service Administration and Projects
Local Resilience Resilience Provincial AFAD Disaster and
Forum Emergency Response
Borough Council Emergency Planning Provincial AFAD Recovery
and Resilience
County Council Emergency Response State Hydraulic Projects and
Works Constructional
Engineering
Ordnance Survey Operation Metropolitan Fire Station
Management Municipality
County Council Emergency Planning City Municipality Public Works
and Resilience
City Council Emergency Planning Provincial AFAD Management
and Resilience Services
Environment Emergency Response Health Authority Healthcare Services
Agency in Disasters
National Flood Flood Recovery and AKUT Search and Search and Rescue
Forum (NGO) Technical Support Rescue Association
(NGO)
Serve On (NGO) Search and Rescue MAG Neighbourhood Search and Rescue
Disaster Volunteers
(NGO)

Table 4.2 shows the organizations in which the interviewees work and the professional
expertise of the employees. The interview participants from the UK were mainly from
organisations that are directly involved in managing floods, with the Environment Agency
at the centre of emergency planning and resilience. In the context of Turkey, the twelve
interview participants are also in organizations that are directly involved in flood
management activities. The Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency of Turkey
(AFAD) takes a leading role in the planning and response activities in the country (Memiş
and Babaoğlu, 2020a). The researcher sought to conduct interviews with staff from diverse
flood management organizations in order to get comprehensive perspectives of flood

151
management in the two regions. The study did not have any participants from agencies
that are not involved in flood management in any of the countries.

4.6.2 What makes an effective flood management system, based on daily work experience?
One of the objectives of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of flood management
in the UK and Turkey. Q1 asked the respondents to state what they think forms an effective
flood management system, the following findings were derived.

To answer the research question; what constitutes an effective flood management system?
The findings in Table 4.3 present the views of the respondents. To indicate the responses,
four major constructs were used: (i) preparedness, (ii) effective flood response, (iii) effective
flood recovery and (iv) multiple factors which included all the other factors, such as flood
defences, communication and funding.

Table 4.3: The perception about what makes an effective flood management

Scale*
Country Statement ++ + 0 -
UK What makes an effective flood management system, 6 1 3 2
based on daily work experience?
Turkey What makes an effective flood management system, 4 3 0 5
based on daily work experience?
* ++ = Preparedness, + = Effective response - = Effective recovery, - = A multiple of factors

The findings indicate that the participants from both regions perceived an effective flood
management difference. For instance, 75% of the subjects from Southampton/Hampshire
believed that the system should be made up of preparedness (6) and effective flood
recovery (3). In fact, one of the interviewees in the UK argued that “an effective flood
management system cannot be complete without an effective recovery plan that drastically
reduces losses.” On the contrary, the findings from Izmit/Kocaeli indicated that 33.33% of
the respondents preferred a flood management system that is made up of preparedness
(4) including an effective recovery plan (0).

In the context of the UK, the majority of the respondents (6) directed their answers to the
idea that an effective flood management system can be associated with the element of

152
preparedness. One person had the view that an effective flood management system should
encompass an efficient flood response. He noted, "…..a flood response defines an effective
flood management system since it can help reduce the flood risks." On the other hand, 3
respondents stated that it should incorporate effective recovery and 2 stated that effective
flood management involves multiple factors. For instance, one of the respondents argued
that “preparedness through mechanisms such as flood prediction and warning systems are
critical to the effectiveness of the system.”

One of the UK respondents stated that what is needed for effective flood management is
communication: "You need effective communication with the communities, and you need
effective communication between responders. A lot of issues have come about where one
service knows that a house is flooded and the other service doesn’t, or you have multiple
roles at the same property, and communication." Another respondent indicated the aspect
of an effective system by stating "I’d say flood defenses would be good. …then I’d say flood
warnings..."

In the context of the Turkish respondents from Izmit city (Kocaeli), the majority of the
interviewees (5) indicated that an effective flood management system involves a mixture
of factors. 4 respondents stated that an effective flood management system was linked to
preparedness, while 3 respondents linked effective flood management to effective flood
response.

Among Turkish respondents, one stated that "Flood management involves identifying flood
areas. The areas have to be identified effectively in advance. Besides, after the flood areas
have been recognized, it is necessary to establish commissions to monitor them. These
commissions should be assigned from different organisations." On her part, another argued
that "The priority is to quickly organize the balance of power within the municipality and
transfer it to the scene of an incident and to manage the crisis environment in a coordinated
way."

153
4.6.3 Types of flood mitigation plan used by sampled organisations, based on daily work
experience
To tackle the research question of whether the sampled organizations prepared mitigation
plans, the interviews yielded four main types of answer: (i) existence of a flood mitigation
plan, (ii) partnership in developing the plan and whether the plan was (iii) reviewed and (iv)
enacted. The findings of Table 4.4 show that the majority of the UK respondents (10)
affirmed that their organizations prepared mitigation plans for floods. The majority of the
staff also divulged that there is a partnership in the development of the plans, the plans
are also reviewed and enacted in the event of flooding emergencies. Only one respondent
acknowledged that he was not very sure whether the organization prepared mitigation
plans based on the fact that it is usually prepared within a broader jurisdiction which is the
parish level. Only one respondent stated that their organization did not prepare a flood
mitigation plan.

Table 4.4: Types of flood mitigation approaches

Scale*
Country Statement ++ + n.a. 0 -- -
UK 1. Is there a flood mitigation plan? 10 1 0 1 0 0
2. Are there Partnerships in developing the 10 1 0 1 0 0
plan?
3. Are the plans reviewed? 10 1 0 1 0 0
4. Are the plans enacted? 10 1 0 1 0 0
Turkey 1. Is there a flood mitigation plan? 0 0 0 3 0 9
2. Are there Partnerships in developing the 0 0 0 3 0 9
plan?
3. Are the plans reviewed? 0 0 0 3 0 9
4. Are the plans enacted? 0 0 0 3 0 9
* ++ = strongly agree, + = agree, n.a. = no answer, 0 = neutral, -- = strongly disagree, - = disagree

One of the staff members in the UK agency stated that, "Yes, we do have plans.... We send
the barrier out. We help and encourage businesses and households to buy special products
so they can better protect their property. So a useful website.... called the Blue Pages." A
second respondent who works as an emergency planner, noted, "We planned along with
the Environment Agency for infrequent flooding events, but it’s quite obvious that over the
last 20 years flooding events are getting more and more common."

154
In the context of Turkey, it was noted that the majority of the respondents (9) declared that
flood mitigation plans did not exist in their organization. When the researcher asked why
the mitigation plans were non-existent, the staff affirmed that there is no flood mitigation
plan in Kocaeli because flood hazard maps have not been produced, however, there are
plans to map the flood hazard zones by 2022 (MFWA, 2017). Importantly, there is no
partnership in developing plans, nor are plans reviewed or enacted during emergencies:
such plans do not exist. On the other hand, 3 members of staff provided neutral answers
based on the fact that they were not sure whether their organizations prepared the plans
or used programs that have been used in previous years to manage flooding.

Regarding flood management plans, one of the Turkish staff argued that; "No, we don’t
have such a plan." When the researcher asked why, he stated "I don’t know, it hasn’t been
prepared." Another Turkish interviewee in Izmit city (Kocaeli) stated that; "No, we don’t
have." When the researcher asked why, he stated; "I cannot make any plans without
receiving risk maps from State Hydraulic Works (DSI) and without knowing the data related
to the areas with the risks of flooding. So, for me to prepare this plan, the relevant
institutions should provide the necessary data. The relevant institutions have not given this
data, yet."

4.6.4 The existence of an early warning system, based on daily work experience
Early warning systems are communicated through media alerts, social media, and mobile
handsets. As noted, both nations have established early warning systems which encompass
the use of media platforms such as TV and radio to inform people about impending floods.
Also, a majority of the interviewees, 12 in both the UK and Turkey stated that they often
use social media such as Twitter or Facebook to inform people when flooding emergencies
are about to occur or when they have occurred.

155
Table 4.5: The existence of an early warning system

Scale*
Country Statement ++ + n.a 0 -- -
UK 1. Early flood warnings communicated through 12 0 0 0 0 0
Media alerts
2. Early flood warnings communicated through 12 0 0 0 0 0
Social media alerts
3. Early flood warnings communicated through 12 0 0 0 0 0
Phone alerts
Turkey 1. Early flood warnings communicated through 12 0 0 0 0 0
Media alerts
2. Early flood warnings communicated through 12 0 0 0 0 0
Social media alerts
3. Early flood warnings communicated through 0 0 0 12 0 0
Phone Alerts
* ++ = strongly agree, + = agree, n.a. = no answer, 0 = neutral, -- = strongly disagree, - = disagree

A variation was, however, noted when it comes to the use of phone alerts to inform people
about impending floods. There were no respondents in Turkey who stated that phone alert
systems were used to inform people about flooding emergencies.

4.6.5 The existence of flood response plan in the sampled organisations, based on daily work
experience
To determine if organizations prepared response plans, four major constructs were used:
(i) the existence of the flood response plans, (ii) partnership in developing the plan and
whether the plans are (iii) reviewed and (iv) enacted. Table 4.6 shows that in the context
of the UK, the majority of the stakeholders (10) stated that their organization usually
develops response plans. Furthermore, there is partnership in the development of the
plans. The majority of the UK respondents also stated that the plans are often reviewed
and enacted during an emergency. Only one UK participant stated that their organization
did not prepare response plans.

156
Table 4.6: Existence of a flood response plan

Scale*
Country Statement ++ + n.a 0 -- -
UK 1. Existence of a flood response plan? 10 1 0 1 0 0
2. Partnership in developing the flood 10 1 0 1 0 0
response plans?
3. Are the response plans reviewed? 10 1 0 1 0 0
4. Are the plans enacted? 10 1 0 1 0 0
Turkey 1. Existence of a flood response plan? 0 6 0 0 0 6
2. Partnership in developing the flood 0 0 0 0 0 12
response plans?
3. Are the response plans reviewed? 0 2 0 2 0 8
4. Are the plans enacted? 0 2 0 2 0 8
* ++ = strongly agree, + = agree, n.a. = no answer, 0 = neutral, -- = strongly disagree, - = disagree

A UK emergency planner stated: "…I’m in charge of risk and strategies, so, yes, I plan our
response, I prepare, I am in charge of the training for our personnel, and in the event of a
major flood I’d be in the command role, in charge of those orders." A second respondent
stated that response plans were constantly prepared and enacted. He discloses; "We said
we rewrote the recovery part because we did a very big recovery effort after 2014. And so
we learned lots of lessons around recovery specifically from flooding. So some of the issues,
physical collection of the sandbags being put out."

Relative to the UK responses, the Turkish respondents presented a different picture. The
majority of the Turkish staff (6) stated that their organisation did not prepare response
plans. Because there are no flood management plans, there is no partnership for
developing such plans, with no plans to review or enact. Six Turkish respondents indicated
that their organizations prepared generic response plans but the plans were not effective.
They further specified that the plans were not used in previous years to manage the
flooding and although plans existed, there was no partnership in developing them, nor
were they reviewed or enacted.

157
4.6.6 The existence of a volunteer team that works with the flood management organisation,
based on daily work experience
To determine if the organizations incorporated volunteer teams in flood management
operations, three constructs were used. They include (i) the existence of a volunteer team,
(ii) partnership with the volunteers and (iii) whether the volunteers trained. From Table 4.7,
the existence of a volunteer team was examined and the findings show that all of the
respondents (12 in UK and 12 in Turkey) agreed that volunteers are incorporated in their
flood management operations; they also acknowledged that they usually partner with
volunteers. Furthermore, the respondents in both jurisdictions also stated that training is
also usually provided to the volunteers.

Table 4.7: Existence of a volunteer team that works with the flood management
organisation

Scale*
Country Statement ++ + n.a 0 -- -
UK 1. Does a volunteer team exist? 12 0 0 0 0 0
2. Does the organization partner with the 12 0 0 0 0 0
volunteers?
3. Are the volunteers trained? 12 0 0 0 0 0
Turkey 1. Does a volunteer team exist? 12 0 0 0 0 0
2. Does the organization partner with the 12 0 0 0 0 0
volunteers?
3. Are the volunteers trained? 12 0 0 0 0 0
* ++ = strongly agree, + = agree, n.a. = no answer, 0 = neutral, -- = strongly disagree, - = disagree

4.6.7 The existence of a flood recovery plan, based on daily work experience
To determine if the organizations prepared recovery plans, four major constructs were
used: (i) the existence of flood recovery plans, (ii) partnership in developing recovery plans,
and (iii) whether the plans are reviewed and (iv) enacted. Table 4.8 shows that the majority
of UK responders (11) disclosed that their organizations usually developed recovery plans.
Furthermore, there is partnership in the development of the plans. The majority of the UK
respondents (11) also stated that the plans are often reviewed and enacted. One
respondent stated that (s)he was not very sure whether their organization prepared any
recovery plan.

158
Table 4.8: Existence of a flood recovery plan, based on daily work experience

Scale*
Country Statement ++ + n.a. 0 -- -
UK 1. Does a flood recovery plan exist? 11 0 0 1 0 0
2. Does the agency partner with other 11 0 0 1 0 0
stakeholders in developing the plan?
3. Are the plans reviewed? 11 0 0 1 0 0
4. Are the plans enacted? 11 0 0 1 0 0
Turkey 1. Does a flood recovery plan exist? 0 0 3 3 0 6
2. Does the agency partner with other 0 0 3 3 0 6
stakeholders in developing the plan?
3. Are the plans reviewed? 0 0 3 3 0 6
4. Are the plans enacted? 0 0 3 3 0 6
* ++ = strongly agree, + = agree, n.a. = no answer, 0 = neutral, -- = strongly disagree, - = disagree

The Turkish respondents presented a different picture when it comes to the preparation of
recovery plans. The majority of the respondents (6) disclosed that their organisations did
not prepare recovery plans. There is no partnership in developing plans, nor are plans
reviewed or enacted during emergencies: such plans do not exist. On the other hand, 3
members of staff gave neutral answers based on the fact that they were not certain
whether their organizations prepared the plans or used programs that have been used in
previous years to manage flooding. The question was not answered by 3 members of staff.

4.6.8 Community involvement and preparedness, based on their daily work experience
The majority of the UK respondents (12) reported that community involvement and
preparedness was highly prioritized by the organizations. The agencies were highly
involved in community preparedness, offering training programs to the community, and
engaging the community in all the stages of flood management.

Table 4.9: Community involvement and preparedness

Scale*
Country Statement ++ + n.a 0 -- -
UK 1. Is Community Preparedness undertaken in 12 0 0 0 0 0
time?
2. Are Community Training Programs used? 12 0 0 0 0 0
3. Is Community Engagement involved? 12 0 0 0 0 0

159
 Scale*
Country Statement ++ + n.a 0 -- -
Turkey 1. Is Community Preparedness undertaken in 0 0 2 10 0 0
time?
2. Are Community Training Programs used? 10 0 2 0 0 0
3. Is Community Engagement involved? 0 0 2 10 0 0
* ++ = strongly agree, + = agree, n.a. = no answer, 0 = neutral, -- = strongly disagree, - = disagree

The majority of the Turkish respondents (10) gave a neutral answer concerning community
preparedness, asserting that community training programs were organized by their
organizations. They also stated that community engagement was not undertaken by their
organizations, while 2 interviewees did not provide an answer for this section.

4.6.9 Existence of room for institutional learning, based on daily work experience
Institutional learning is prioritized by flood management organizations in both countries.
In the case of the UK, the majority of the respondents (12) reported that institutional
learning did take place in their organization. Additionally, 11 UK members of staff
acknowledged that institutional learning was formally organized in their organizations, and
also stated that improvements usually take place in improving institutional learning. 1
respondent only slightly agreed that institutional learning did take place in the organization
and that it was well-organized.

Table 4.10: Existence of room for institutional learning

Scale*
Country Statement ++ + n.a 0 -- -
UK 1. Institutional learning occurs 12 0 0 0 0 0
2. Institutional learning is formally organized 11 1 0 0 0 0
3. Are there improvements in institutional 11 1 0 0 0 0
learning?
Turkey 1. Institutional learning occurs 10 0 0 2 0 0
2. Institutional learning is formally organized 0 0 0 2 0 10
3. Are there improvements in institutional 0 0 0 2 0 10
learning?
* ++ = strongly agree, + = agree, n.a. = no answer, 0 = neutral, -- = strongly disagree, - = disagree

160
In the context of Turkey, the majority of the respondents (10) stated that institutional
learning is implemented within the organizations. On the other hand, none of the
respondents specified the fact that institutional learning was formally organized within the
organizations. Also, no Turkish respondent agreed that institutional learning was formally
programmed within their organizations, although two interviewees gave neutral answers.

4.6.10 Distribution of the responsibilities between emergency actors, based on daily work
experience
The distribution of responsibility between emergency actors is an element that is affected
among flood management organizations in both jurisdictions. A majority of respondents in
the UK (11) stated that they are involved in the preparedness stage of managing floods. All
12 UK respondents stated that they were involved in the response stage, while 10 stated
that they are involved in the recovery stage.

Table 4.11: Distribution of the responsibilities between emergency actors

Scale*
Country Statement ++ + n.a 0 -- -
UK 1. The organization takes part in flood planning 11 0 1 0 0 0
and preparedness initiatives
2. The organization takes part in response 12 0 0 0 0 0
3. The organization takes part in recovery stage 10 0 2 0 0 0
Turkey 1. The organization takes part in flood planning 10 0 2 0 0 0
and preparedness initiatives
2. The organization takes part in response 12 0 0 0 0 0
3. The organization takes part in recovery stage 10 0 2 0 0 0
* ++ = strongly agree, + = agree, n.a. = no answer, 0 = neutral, -- = strongly disagree, - = disagree

In the context of flood preparedness in Turkey, 10 respondents stated that they were
involved in the preparedness and planning stages. The majority of the staff members who
stated that they were involved in the preparedness and planning stage worked in the
Provincial Disaster and Emergency Management Directorate (Provincial AFAD) which the
main body charged with the role of emergency planning and preparedness. A majority of
the Turkish respondents (12) indicated that they are involved in flood response, while 10
stated that their organization takes part in the recovery stage.

161
4.7 Discussion: Practitioner viewpoints on effective flood management
4.7.1 What makes an effective flood management system?
The study sought to find out flood management systems used in Izmit/Kocaeli, Turkey and
in Southampton/Hampshire, UK. Comparisons have revealed differences regarding the
existence of flood management systems, early warning systems, modes of communication
undertaken to relay the messages to the affected people, and partnership of the agencies
with other stakeholders in mitigating the effects of flooding. This section examines the key
findings of the study and relates them to previous studies to find out whether they are
consistent.

The findings have shown that the local city councils of Southampton/Hampshire are
involved in flood management contrary to Izmit/Kocaeli in Turkey whereby flood
management involves the national body. Furthermore, the UK system is more developed
with early warning systems being used and information displayed to respondents or
affected victims using all types of media platforms (Media, social media, and phone text
messages). On the contrary, the Turkey system uses the mainstream media to
communicate warnings about flooding. In both countries, the agencies work with other
organizations to enhance efficiency in management of floods. In the UK, the SCC works
closely with the national agency to plan and execute recovery plans as well as communicate
relevant information about early warnings.

An understanding of what makes an effective flood management system is vital. In recent

years, flooding events in many countries have indicated just how difficult it is to manage
flood hazards and flood vulnerability to reduce the risk of disaster (Murali et al., 2019;
Jhong et al., 2020). As a result, it is significant for personnel working in flood management
agencies to comprehend what constitutes an effective flood management system. The
findings are closely related to those of Mens (2008) and Hegger et al. (2016) whose studies
that involved developing frameworks for flood event management proposed that the
process of flood management only occurs in half of the disaster sequence which includes
preparation and response phases. Consequently, the activities that are undertaken after
the flooding incident should not be perceived as part of the flood management process.

162
According to the findings by Mohamad Yusoff et al. (2018), effective flood management is
centred on the preparedness which leads to an effective response phase. Additionally,
Evans (2011) and Sayers et al. (2020) propose that flood management entails pre-event
actions such as warning, forecasting, flood planning, and collective actions that aim at
reducing the impact of the floods. Furthermore, studies by Yuksel et al. (2011), Caymaz et
al. (2013) and Aygün and Torlak (2020) reveal that elements of preparedness such as flood-
resilient design and construction, training, education, awareness campaigns, insurance,
and the use of early warning systems are essential aspects that make up an effective flood
management system. It can be stated that the findings of the studies correlate with what
the researcher found out from the interview with the majority of the UK respondents who
held the view that an effective flood management system is grounded on good
preparedness.

The study established that Turkey has over the years directed its emergency management
towards earthquakes. This is because the nation has numerous earthquakes as opposed to
different forms of flooding. For instance, devastating earthquakes have historically affected
the country in the years 1509, 1766, 1965, and 1999 (Ambraseys and Jackson, 2000;
Püskülcü et al., 2017). The year 2009 was, however, different in the sense that the floods
were prompted by extreme rain storms that befell the area (Komuscu and Celik, 2013;
Bodur, 2018; Gülbaz et al., 2019). From interviews, it was noted that Turkish respondents
considered an effective flood management system to mainly consist of multiple factors or
initiatives that involve preparedness, response, and recovery.

The variations that exist among UK and Turkish emergency workers concerning what an
effective flood management system indicates is that there is a need for one of the agencies
to embrace a new perspective in flood management. Flood emergency workers in Turkey
should, therefore, metamorphose the system to incorporate the element of preparedness
as a key pillar of flood management as adopted by the UK. Additionally, the views of the
Turkish flood emergency workers concerning an effective flood management system,
should be keenly examined to evaluate whether their perspectives might influence how
they handle flood emergencies.

163
4.7.2 Flood mitigation and emergency response planning
According to Yang and Liu (2020), the adoption of an action plan for flood defence and
mitigation is an important achievement in the process of flood control. It is imperative for
flood management agencies to grasp the effectiveness of planning as a measure of
reducing the impact of flooding (United Nations, 2003; Yang and Liu, 2020).

The Netherlands is a nation that has strived to develop an effective flood management
system (Salva et al., 2014). One of the key pillars used by flood management organizations
in the Netherlands is planning. The country has adopted the 2007 European Floods
Directive that requires the development of flood risk management plans and the Water Act
of 2009 that emphasises effective planning across the country (Werken, 2012). The basis
of success in the process of flood management in inundation prone areas, such as the
Netherlands, has been grounded on land use planning (Malecha et al., 2018).

The findings of the interviews in Turkey highlight differences with the literature review of
what occurs in the Netherlands. There is a planning gap in Turkey which highlights the
ineffectiveness of its flood management system. Turkey has a National Disaster Response
Plan that is often used to respond to various types of disasters, mostly earthquakes and
floods. As noted from the interviews, respondents stated that they relied on the Turkey
Disaster Response Plan (TAMP) and the provincial Kocaeli Disaster Response Plan (KAMP).
To attain effectiveness in its flood management operations, the staff working in various
flood management organisations should develop independent local response plans
working in partnerships with relevant organisations, both governmental and non-
governmental or volunteer-based.

Kovats and Osborn (2016) and Howarth et al. (2020) state that in recent years, flood
response planning in the United Kingdom has made a significant move forward after the
introduction of the Civil Contingencies Act in 2004. The Act established the legal grounds
for emergency preparedness at the local level in the United Kingdom, therefore creating
local and regional resilience plans and forums. It can be stated that the existing policies and
regulations in the United Kingdom have promoted the development of flood response
plans within the local and regional levels (Alexander et al., 2017). Such attempts make flood

164
response initiatives more effective. Flood management agencies in Turkey should also
embrace the same initiatives in order to make their flood response initiatives more
effective. In addition, the adoption of the 2008 Pitt review has also been useful to the
United Kingdom. For instance, the government established a cabinet sub-committee that
has looked into how the nation can improve its resilience towards flooding.

4.7.3 Recovery plans and early warning systems

On the preparation of a recovery plan, the majority of the UK interviewees reported that
their organisations had flood recovery plans and that they were produced in partnerships.
The majority of Turkish emergency responders, planners, and managers stated that their
organisations did not prepare flood recovery plans. It is apparent from the findings that
there is a need for Turkish flood management organizations to develop recovery plans to
clearly specify how to lead the community to recovery. Implementable recovery plans
specify objectives, tasks, decisions, priorities, and goals that will offer a roadmap for the
recovery process (Medd et al., 2014). Just as important as the recovery process, developing
the plan offers and gives an opportunity for the staff to involve the community in
identifying recovery priorities and goals. The plan also specifies budgetary requirements
that will effectively support the community towards recovery (Slavíková et al., 2019).

According to Fan and Huang (2020), the response element of the flood warning service
chain is vital in reducing the effects of a flood. The findings of the interviews indicated that
the United Kingdom and Turkey have adopted a number of strategies as part of their early
warning systems. The use of the media and loud speakers were widely used by both
jurisdictions. From the interviews, it was also noted that Turkey has not yet established the
phone alert systems that can be used to warn people about flooding. The respondents
stated that due to lack of flood hazard maps in the country, it was difficult to send out
phone alerts to people especially those living in remote areas. Turkey should quickly
develop the maps in order to inform the public effectively about impending floods. The
findings of the interviews are in sharp contrast to the literature review of what happens in
the United States. One of the best practice benchmarks of flood mapping exists in the
United States. Roy (2017) highlights that National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) has
attained the objective of lowering the risks associated to flooding by agitating for the

165
collaboration of the local community with FEMA in the development and adoption of the
flood maps that are referred to as the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). The initiative
has improved response to flooding incidents (Roy, 2017; Frazier et al., 2020).

4.7.4 Community preparedness and involvement

The interview findings indicate that community involvement and preparedness is highly
prioritized by flood management organizations in the United Kingdom, while Turkey is
lagging behind. In the case of the UK, the majority of the respondents reported that
community involvement was highly prioritized by their organization. The Environment
Agency was highly involved in community preparedness, offering training programs to the
community, and engaging the community in all the stages of flood management. In the
context of Turkey, the majority of the respondents gave a neutral answer concerning
community preparedness. The answers from the responders in Turkey further show that
the flood management organizations were not sure whether or not community
preparedness was prioritized by their organizations. 10 respondents asserted that
community training programs were organized by their organizations. Additionally, the
majority of the staff stated that community engagement was not undertaken by their
organizations.

Blaikie et al. (2014) and Shariff and Hamidi (2019) showed that the approach of managing
emergencies has progressively become community-based. The US has introduced the term
‘community approach’ that expresses the significance of improving organisational and
group level participation in crisis response and preparedness. This term is now being
adopted in many developing countries, including Turkey and India (Tuğaç, 2019). As
mentioned by Caymaz et al. (2013) and Tuğaç (2019), crucial factors in the survival of
people during the emergency phase depend heavily on efficient and effective preparation
of the emergency staff and communities. As a result, more energy should be directed
towards integrating elements of disasters management that incorporate the community
holistically.

According to Stewart (2007), community-based approaches to emergency management

have turned out to be more and more important within the society, especially in areas

166
facing uncertain and complex change. Stewart (2007) further emphasises that the bottom-
up activity could help in filling the gaps of the preceding centralised and top-down forms
of management and decrease over relying on expert-driven solutions as well as short-term
technological fixes. In view of this, an Emergency Management Cycle (EMC) can be used
since it offers the framework for what the community should do in terms of preparing
themselves for emergencies such as flooding. The objective of the EMC, according to Henry
(2010) is reducing potential losses attributed to hazards, making sure victims get rapid and
appropriate assistance and realising effective and rapid recovery. Therefore, EMC connotes
the continuous process which is carried out by various communities, civil society,
organisations, businesses and government officials to reduce the effect of the emergency.

Heath et al. (2009) argue that experts advise the members of a society to develop and
maintain a well-crafted infrastructure in order to increase public safety by formulating
advice and messages on actions, creating emergency plans and identifying risks. It can be
observed that preparation is increasingly being recognised as an integral phase of the
process of wider crisis communication discussion, which normally occurs in association
with other actors. Coombs (2009) observes that the significance of communication in
emergency preparation has developed over the past few years. Still, there are barriers to
flood management; incapacity to adapt plans; budget overruns and fiscal deviations;
political leadership changes; changes in national priorities; lack of resources; and failure to
understand who is in charge of the on-going maintenance (Sayers et al., 2013).

Educative interaction within the community can help in resilience with respect to
preparedness activities. As per the ISDR (2009), it was observed in the first biennial global
assessment of the UN that policies needed to emphasise disaster risk reduction. Websites
have been established by various agencies, including the UN, for improvement of the
resilience of communities. Following this, extensive research has emphasised the possible
impact of climate change (e.g. Field, 2012; Smith, 2013; Adger et al., 2018), urbanization
and industrialisation (e.g. Sengezer and Koc, 2005; Demirbaş and Aydın, 2020) on the
occurrence and impact of natural emergencies. As mentioned by de Koning et al. (2019),
people could change the flood response to flood risk management by espousing measures
that enhance the resilience of the flood management system. The resilience strategies of

167
flood management can improve the system capability to recover from impacts of a flood
event. Without these strategies, flood events could disrupt critical infrastructures; thus,
resulting in cascading failure across various infrastructure systems. In 2007, for instance,
floods in the UK left 350,000 people without water supply for nearly 17 days while
approximately 42,000 were left without electricity for 24 hours (Jonkman and Dawson,
2012; Mendoza-Tinoco et al., 2017).

Diakakis (2020) observed that public warning agencies must pay attention to education
efforts so as to ensure that the public understand warnings, the value of taking warnings
seriously, and the risks associated with driving on flooded roads. Furthermore, it is
significant to strengthen resilience and promote awareness in the community as well as
making sure the needs of people in the flood risk areas are addressed (Perwaiz, 2008; Faure
and De Smedt, 2019). In most countries, the existing hazard mitigation policy system in
urban areas is inadequate since it is weakened by unplanned development strategies,
consequences and loopholes (Chatterjee, 2010). Community engagement in the UK is
considered to be a standard practice, but Gilissen et al. (2016) established that emergency
professions were actually reluctant to allow the public to help them in a local flood
response. This was attributed mainly to the notion that the public has no proper training
and could be at risk, thus becoming a liability to the emergency response effort. Kasapoglu
and Ecevit (2003) and Toprak Karaman (2019) reported that enhancing public education
and knowledge has helped facilitate preparedness in Turkey. However, Turkey has much to
learn from the UK when it comes to community involvement and preparedness.

Flood management cannot be implemented effectively if the community is not fully

involved. Sobelson et al. (2015) state that emergency management should not be perceived
as a single aspect but rather it should be assimilated into the socioeconomic actions of local
individuals. Turkey should, therefore, implement a comprehensive approach of community
involvement and participation which combines community preparedness, offering training
programs to the community, and engaging the community in all the stages of flood
management just like the UK.

168
4.7.5 Institutional learning
According to Pahl-Wostl (2019), social learning is among the commonest ideologies
suggested for dealing with the issues of limited resources, challenges in communication,
complicated responsibility arrangements, and limited thinking. Maskrey et al. (2020)
further argue that it enables sharing of best practice, experience and knowledge to better
inform subsequent decisions. It is a learning process that leverages social interactions,
where the actors create alternative perspectives with the capacity to inform decision
making collectively. Since social learning is multidimensional, it creates different individual
experiences of participation based on the reflective skills of participants, engagement, the
degree of commitment, and the value placed on knowledge negotiated and co-produced
through interactions (Bryson et al., 2015).

Institutional learning in flood management presents a mechanism that can enable

stakeholders to deal with complicated environmental challenges like those linked to water
and management of flooding (Ashley et al., 2011). They create a transparent and open
environment for stakeholders in various organizations, and often harbour conflicting
perspectives (O’Donnell et al., 2018). This enables them to cooperate, and to create a
mutual vision on the basis of their shared objectives. Mutual interest in the issues enables
development of a joint appreciation through practical discussion and criticism. The socio-
technical characteristics of water systems, which includes social, organizational and
physical systems, along with the rising number of stakeholders, make it effective for
utilisation of multi agency instruments such as institutional learning. The views of various
shareholders from varying settings can enable creation of multifunctional measures
addressing a variety of broader environmental and social issues along with dealing with
water system challenges (Pahl-Wostl, 2019).

The organizational framework of institutional learning in flood management breaks down

numerous traditional obstacles to horizontal and vertical information sharing and increases
the rate of uptake of new information. Usually, institutional learning is initiated by
stakeholders, through identification of a complicated issue. Porter and Birdi (2018)
describe how they subsequently invite other pertinent stakeholders to assist in creation of
solutions. It encourages stakeholders to explore past existing institutional environments

169
and engage in discussions without input of established professionals. According to Maskrey
et al. (2020) the institutional learning emanates from learning alliances described as an
organization or individuals with mutual interests in innovative practices and improvement
on a subject of common interest. The inclusion of action widens the role of institutional
learning to integrate the development of practical outcomes, to bring out changes in
institutional and stakeholder behaviour, while influencing broader regulation and policies.

Gilissen et al. (2016) sought to establish a framework of effective flood management. The
researchers specified that in the context of England, arrangements and cultures for
institutional learning are typical of the Flood Management System (FMS). Additionally, the
findings of the study further revealed that the score for the UK in terms of institutional
learning was exceptional. For example, online instruments exist to assist emergency
responders to evaluate and monitor how they perform. Additionally, training is vigorously
encouraged. The interviews conducted by this study confirmed the findings of the study
conducted by Gilissen et al. (2016). From the interviews, it was noted that the majority of
the respondents stated that institutional learning is undertaken, furthermore, most of the
interviewees stated that it is formally organized and improvements are often made.
Significantly, the present study affirms the results of previous studies by indicating the level
of efficiency and pro-activeness in the implementation of institutional learning.

Institutional learning can facilitate social learning, and through ensuring stakeholders are
brought together, it can motivate them to learn from each other in a manner that is
impossible through isolation. If institutional learning seeks to produce change and action,
the social learning processes should aim to build capacity to attain mutual solutions and
increase effectiveness of stakeholder participation in regards to achievement of water and
flood management goals (Pahl-Wostl, 2019). The ideas of social learning and capacity
building are complicated, difficult to separate and interconnected. van der Molen, (2018)
explores how they occur together, and irrespective of whether the action is attained,
capacity will be built automatically. The inseparable association between social learning
and capacity building is implied in institutional learning. There is a need to build the
stakeholder capability to eliminate established siloes and nurture an appreciation of the
views of other shareholders. Institutional learning must emphasize on building capacity

170
through active learning to become instruments for addressing complicated issues like
management of flooding risks (O’Donnell et al., 2018).

In the context of Turkey, institutional learning exists as noted from the interviews, majority
of the respondents, 10 stated that it is implemented. However, formal structures and
organization of institutional learning are not present. In general, institutional learning
within flood management and emergency organizations in Turkey is low. As outlined by the
Civil Protection Law No. 7126, when emergency incidents occur, short reports are written
down. Interestingly, after the reports are jotted down, records are not kept effectively and
the reports are only discussed verbally. The implication is that no areas of institutional
learning are identified effectively which leads to lack of formal reviews and training in order
to facilitate effective institutional learning.

4.7.6 Distribution of the responsibilities between emergency actors

This research is guided by the assumption that the distribution of responsibilities between
emergency actors is not an issue that should be enacted only within the organization,
instead emergency preparedness, risk reduction, response are the responsibilities that
should be undertaken by all actors (Hegger et al., 2016). The capability of different kinds of
actors to cooperate normally can be equated as the groundwork of effective management
of emergencies (Gilissen et al., 2016).

The results of this study indicate that different perceptions of responsibilities exist among
emergency actors in both jurisdictions. However, in both scenarios the researcher takes
note of the fact that the role planning is not delegated to all the stakeholders. In the UK,
the City or County Council and the Environment Agency are the main agencies involved in
the planning process. However, in Turkey, the Disaster and Emergency Management
Presidency of Turkey (AFAD) is the main body charged with the role of emergency planning
and preparedness for flooding and all other emergencies. It can be stated that it is essential
for both nations to embrace the involvement of all the stakeholders in the emergency
planning process. For flood management to be effective in both countries, it is important
for all the actors to be involved in all the stages as emphasised by the study conducted by
Gilissen et al. (2016) which involved developing a framework for evaluating the

171
effectiveness of flood emergency management systems in Europe. According to Mees et
al. (2016), all the emergency actors should cooperate and work together during all stages
of flood management. The engagements for the distribution of responsibilities and roles
should support an integrated working among various actors by transferring responsibilities
to all of them (Tyler et al., 2019). This study, therefore, recommends that flood
management organizations in Turkey should embrace the approach adopted by the UK, to
enhance their ability to handle future flood incidents.

It was also noted from the interview findings that response undertaken by government
staff and non-governmental volunteers greatly varies and it may influence emergency
response. Although the volunteers offer a great deal of support to the work of emergency
management, it is significant to provide them with adequate training concerning the
process of flood management.

4.7.7 Decision making in flooding events and scoring; FMS effectiveness

There is variation in the governance of flood management in the UK and Turkey. It was
noted from the interviews through the study locations (Kocaeli and Hampshire) that Turkey
has adopted a centralised system while the UK has embraced a decentralised system to
govern flood management. However, in regions such as Scotland, a centralized approach
where the Scotland Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) takes a leading role in flood
management is a sign that a centralised system of flood management also works. SEPA
coordinates the activities of the local authorities, also offers warning and forecasting
services, the agency is also in charge of developing the National Flood Risk Plan (Scottish
Government Flood Risk Management Team, 2019). In Scotland, the local authorities
supplement the nationwide strategies developed by SEPA and also lead the preparation of
flood risk management plans at the local level (Scottish Government Flood Risk
Management Team, 2019). The implications of these findings are that in a well-coordinated
centralised system, the flood response time can be faster and well-coordinated than in a
decentralised system where decision making is intricate.

172
Figure 4.7: Structures of centralisation and decentralisation systems (Surbhi, 2017)

As noted from Figure 4.7, the centralised system provides room for homogeneous decision
making which leads to a faster response time when compared to a decentralised system
where deliberations have to be made by various emergency workers. Significantly, the lack
of effective planning can affect the response time. According to the Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2019), if proper planning measures are not put in
place, then responding to flooding can be sluggish.

173
 Table 4.12: Measurement table to assess the effectiveness of flood management
practices, based on the Interview findings
Indicator Items Benchmarks Score
Low (0) Medium (1) High (2) Optimum (3) UK TR
Preparedness Mitigation No action Generic plan Flood specific - 2 0
and Planning plan plan
Hazard No action Hazard Flood specific - 2 0
identification identification vulnerability/risk
and risk analyses
assessment
Response plan No action Generic Plan Flood specific - 2 1
plan
Plans review Nothing Generic plan Flood specific - 2 0
(regularly) reviewed reviewed plan reviewed
Lessons No action Debriefing Public scrutiny - 2 1
learned from practices and review
incident
management
Institutional No action Arrangements Arrangements - 2 1
learning within the between
(Knowledge administrative administrative
exchange, district districts
sharing
experiences)
Training No action Training for Training includes Training 3 2
key decision responders and includes
makers volunteers communities,
private sector
and media
Exercise No action Table-top Functional Full-scale 3 2
(regularly) exercise exercise exercise
Public No action Website info Seminars or - 2 2
education or brochure Workshops
Business No action Educational Engaged in - 2 1
Engagement material planning
Mutual aid No action Restricted Emergency - 2 2
agreement agreement agreement
with
neighbouring
authorities for
resources
Provision of No funding Lack of Only basic Adequately 3 2
funding funding supply resourced to
support
management
activities
Provision of Understaffed Limited Adequately - 1 1
human staffed staffed
resources
Provision of Lack of Only basic Adequately - 3 2
equipment equipment supply resourced to
support
management
activities
Warning No action Loudspeakers Radio or Phone 3 2
system television messages

174
 Indicator Items Benchmarks Score
Low (0) Medium (1) High (2) Optimum (3) UK TR
Response Inter- Basic system Legislation Up and System 3 1
organizational described in downscaling includes
working plan response system critical
system established infrastructure
between provides,
emergency NGOs and
actors volunteers
Evacuation No action Decision Detailed - 2 1
Plan Guidelines procedures
established
Volunteer No action Coordination - - 1 1
management established
Community No action Team - - 1 1
response established
team
Recovery Recovery Plan No action Generic plan Flood specific - 1 0
established plan
Continuity No action Plan for - - 1 0
planning critical
services
Emergency No action Shelters Shelter - 2 1
shelter designated agreement with
arrangement community
agencies for
welfare needs
Damage No action Briefly noted Planned in detail - 1 1
assessment in planning
Debris No action Briefly noted Planned in detail - 1 1
management in planning
Environmental No action Briefly noted Planned in detail - 1 1
assessment in planning
Rehabilitation No action Briefly noted Planned in detail - 1 1
of victims planning
TOTAL SCORE 28 48
Measurement Legend Low [0-13] Medium [14-27] High [28-41] Optimum [42-
54]

Table 4.12 provides scores for indicators of flood management effectiveness that were
developed by this study, based on interview responses. Although Turkey gained a relatively
high score of 28 that is still low in comparison with the UK achieved a score of 48, which
indicates that the UK has effective flood management plans and strategies. The findings
indicate that Turkish flood management organisations need to improve and reorganise
their flood management practices in order to be more effective - much can be learnt from
the UK approach to flood management.

175
4.8 Why does the bulk of Turkish DRR funding go to earthquakes?
According to Bjerrum and Atakan (2008), the geography, topography and climate of Turkey
make it vulnerable to natural hazards. In the 20th century, approximately 87,000 people
have been affected by natural disasters, with over 700,000 houses being affected in the
country. More than 95% of the land mass in the country is exposed to earthquakes and
landslides. Additionally, technological disasters, avalanches, and deforestation exacerbate
floods and landslides making the country more vulnerable (Okay, 2005; Ocal, 2019).

The North Anatolian fault line which runs through the country can generate 7.2 Richter
scale level earthquakes. Kutluca and Ozdemir (2006) and Ozturk and Tekin, (2019) also
report that over 95% of the land surface of Turkey lies in high risk regions, with 98% of its
population living in those regions. Göktürk and Yilmaz (2017) identified that earthquakes
caused 61% of the total damage as a result of natural calamities. Furthermore, Ocal (2019)
also argues that over the last century, 1% of the overall GDP was negatively impacted as a
result of earthquakes.

Three independent main fault systems control Anatolia tectonically from the east of the
country through to the west. Uzun and Balyemez (2020) report that the presence of
northern movements in the African and Arabian plates causes convergence as part of the
Bitlis-Zagros fold and the thrust belt. This results in increasing problems linked to
topographic and high seismic activity in the region (i.e. in Caucasus and Eastern Turkey).
McClusky et al. (2000) and Emre et al. (2016) used GPS measurements and concluded that
the vectors were found to increase in length and move in a counterclockwise direction
when moving from east to west in Turkey. Barka (1997) also contends that such a rotational
movement, which began in the Pliocene era, in addition to the north movement in the
African plates, caused the formation of the Hellenic arc and subduction (Dewey and Sengor,
1979; Duman et al., 2016). Finally, Aktug and Kilicoglu (2006) also report that such a
subduction caused the NS extension in the Anatolian block. The authors conclude that given
such complexities linked to interactive plates and crustal deformation, these have caused
the multiple earthquakes which are characteristic of the region.

176
Istanbul for instance, is the commercial, industrial, and administrative capital
accommodating 15 million people yet scientists predict a likely occurrence of an
earthquake weighing in excess of 7.5 on the Richter scale anytime in future as indicated in
Figure 4.8 below (Bjerrum and Atakan, 2008). The high probability of occurrence of
earthquakes is the main reason why a large pool of insurance funding is directed to
earthquakes. As indicated by the map, Turkey has many seismic hazard zones. The seismic
hazard map of Turkey separates the country into 5 risk zones that have potential hazards
that range from 1-5. Zone 1 has the highest risks as displayed by the map, which comprises
majority regions in Turkey (Gurenko et al., 2006).

Figure 4.8: Seismic hazard zones of Turkey (Figure adapted from Aygili, 2014)

According to Kutluca and Ozdemir (2006), disaster risk reduction (DRR) priority funding in
Turkey goes to Earthquake’s first, then flooding second. The explanation is simple and
basic. Floods pass as the second-most destructive form of natural calamity in Turkey after
earthquakes (Kutluca and Ozdemir, 2006; Taştan and Aydınoğlu, 2015). Flood activities
account for at least 30% of all natural calamities in the country (Ocal, 2019). Between 1948
and 2019, the country experienced 42 flood events resulting in more than 1300 fatalities
with another 1.7 million displaced or affected (EM-DAT, 2019). Temporal trends show
unpredictability as flood events fluctuate instead of either decreasing or increasing.
However, they are on the trajectory since the last five years of the 20th century (Ocal,
2019). Continually, earthquakes wreak havoc with enhanced speed and agility in Turkey.

177
The earthquake that took place in the Marmara Sea region in 1999 weighing 7.4 on the
Richter scale remains the most destructive (Okay, 2005; Altun, 2018). It was a successful
culmination of several earthquakes with one leading to the next. It caused more than
20,000 fatalities, 50,000 casualties, and destroyed more than 350,000 commercials as well
as residential units (Ocal, 2019). Economically, the earthquake destroyed 35% of
contributors to the Turkish GDP. The government estimated the loss to be $20 billion (Okay,
2005; Eyidoğan, 2019). The flash floods in the Marmara region in 2009 resulted in $ 100
million losses claiming 31 lives; significant, but far less devastating than the impacts of the
1999 earthquake (Ocal, 2019). Therefore, there has been a focus on earthquakes.

Furthermore, most funding is redirected towards earthquakes because of the vulnerability

of many buildings or infrastructure to earthquakes. The destruction is most directly
attributed to the effects of ground shaking induced by the passage of seismic waves
(Gurenko et al., 2006; Altun, 2018). In most cases, the ground movements displace the
foundation structures of most buildings, therefore making them vulnerable. For instance,
during the Marmara earthquake, the maximum intensity of ground shaking was
significantly lower than that recorded in the Northridge earthquake in California in 1994.
However, the loss of life in Turkey was high and the damage to buildings was extensive
(Gurenko et al., 2006; Gunes, 2015). Imperatively, the government of Turkey has put more
emphasis on earthquake-related Disaster Risk Reduction as opposed to flooding.

4.9 Summary and recommendations

This study has highlighted a number of issues concerning flood management practices in
the UK and Turkey. The researcher sought to answer two research questions which include
what an effective flood management system encompasses and what the two nations can
learn from each other when it comes to implementing effective flood management. The
findings of the interviews disclose a number of critical facts which can be used to improve
the effectiveness of flood management.

4.9.1 The effectiveness of flood management in the UK and Turkey

From the findings of the interviews, the UK and Turkey have differing views regarding
effective flood management systems. The UK respondents stated that preparedness was

178
the most important element, while the Turkish respondents identified multiple factors that
involve preparedness, response, and recovery. Interestingly, from the interviews, the
researcher noted that Turkey had numerous inefficiencies in its flood management system.
Although most of the respondents stated that they believed that an effective flood
management system should be comprehensive by involving a wide range of issues that
encompass effective preparedness, response, and recovery, the inadequacies in the flood
management system in Turkey were numerous.

4.9.2 Lessons the two nations can learn from each other
From the findings of the interviews the following actions are recommended;
i. An initial step should be taken by Turkish flood management organisations to
develop mitigation plans; Turkey can learn from the United Kingdom, which has
established planning and preparedness as a pillar of its flood management
initiatives;
ii. Turkey should also embrace new technology in flood management such as
Smartphone application;
iii. Turkish flood management organizations should develop response plans that
should be frequently reviewed, as happens in the UK;
iv. Turkey should work towards enforcing and developing institutional learning
initiatives that are formally organized, as opposed to writing reports after which the
findings are discussed verbally;
v. Both the UK and Turkey should enforce business engagement. Business
organizations should not only be involved in training programs, but they should also
be engaged in the process of business continuity planning for a range of flood
scenarios;
vi. Turkey has implemented infrastructural measures to deal with floods, however,
flood hazard maps should also be developed in Turkey before taking any
infrastructural measures. Those maps should cover all flood zones in Turkey;
vii. Turkey should improve its flood early warning systems (European Union, 2018). The
UK has implemented phone (SMS) warning systems, a technology that should also
be embraced by Turkey. If flood hazard maps are developed and updated with

179
 satellites, it will be easier to connect people living in diverse locations with the
networks;
viii. The early warning systems should evaluate the spatial and temporal distribution of
rainfall, and assist emergency managers to act punctually by evacuating people in
regions that are predisposed to flooding;
ix. Turkey should develop and implement plans for flood response, recovery and
business continuity in partnership with communities and stakeholders. For
instance, Turkey should embrace the SimEx initiative which occurs in the UK where
drills on flood management and Hurricanes are practiced by various stakeholders in
the community;
x. In terms of the distribution of roles among emergency actors, it is imperative for
both the UK and Turkey to involve all actors in every step of flood management,
particularly at the preparedness and planning levels.

180
Chapter 5 – Case studies of flood disasters in Turkey and the UK

5.1 Introduction
Analysing real life disasters of flooding events is evidently one of the most factual
approaches of evaluating the effectiveness of flood management practices in the UK and
Turkey. Based on this backdrop, the case studies of floods in the UK and Turkey, which
include the 2009 Marmara Flooding and the 2015 Kendal flooding will provide practical
information that can be used to answer the research questions. Although the case studies
are not derived from the main study locations of the research which include
Southampton/Hampshire and Izmit/Kocaeli, it can be stated that through the case studies,
the researcher was able to establish whether the flood management initiatives of both
countries were effective in real case scenarios (Kiral, 2020). Yin (2009) defines case study
as an empirical investigation that seeks to analyse contemporary phenomena using real-
life situations. Additionally, Denscombe (2008) argues that the case study usually focuses
on certain key subjects in order to delineate certain interactive procedures that are
essential to a large-scale survey. It can be stated that the case study approach is suitable
because it offers a more in-depth outlook of events, in addition it can answer critical
questions such as how, why, and who (Heale and Twycross, 2017).

5.2 Methodology
The study selected two main case studies of flooding events to represent Turkey and the
UK. The two selected case studies include the 2009 Marmara flooding and the 2015 Kendal
flooding. The selection was grounded on the fact that the incidences are the most recent
and their effects were grave. For instance, the Marmara flooding was characterised by
extreme rainstorms (Komuscu and Celik, 2013; Gülbaz et al., 2019). In the context of
Turkey, the number of events that fitted the selection did not exist because the Marmara
flooding is one of the main flooding occurrences instigated by extensive rainfall. In
conducting a case study analysis of the 2009 Marmara flooding and the 2015 Kendal
flooding, the approach examines the patterns of the disaster, loss, and damage by working
backward, therefore it can offer an in-depth historical background of the events (Elliott et
al., 2017).

181
A case study research analysis is effective since it enables the researcher to have an in-
depth analysis and insight of the research subject (Yin, 2017). Essentially, a case study
involves the selection of a specific case and explores it comprehensively. According to Duff
(2018), a case study is the examination of an individual, group, events, cases, situations
either in the present, or from the past. In most cases however, researchers often use case
studies in real-life scenarios; which is the major difference in the current study where the
events under study are from the past (Lucas et al., 2018). The approach is founded in the
interpretivist philosophy, which holds that the researcher exists interdependently with the
social phenomenon (Putnam and Banghart, 2017). As a result, the researcher has a lot of
leverage to influence the outcome of the study, based on the expected outcome, and the
findings, or the data.

Flood management efficiency indicators (FMEIs) had been generated in chapter 3 and they
have been utilised to measure the effectiveness of flood management. In addition, FMEIs
have been separated into 3 categories with three tables - preparedness and planning,
response and recovery – and the case studies accordingly have been evaluated. The
methodology evaluates the environmental and social processes and conditions that
instigate the risk of flooding in the Kendal and the Marmara area using the case study
analysis. The role of the underlying institutions and organizational forms that condition
decisions and choices concerning flood management will be evaluated. In this context, the
approach offers a historical account of risk construction using both quantitative and
qualitative data (Akarsu and Akarsu, 2019). The main patterns of loss and destruction are
outlined to critical causal factors. The methodology will assist in identifying the
preventative, response, and recovery measures that should have been taken by flood
management agencies to lower the level of risk and damage caused by the flooding. The
study will also use the interview findings from flood management professionals in order to
examine the effectiveness of flood management during the flooding incidences.

182
 5.3 Case study 1 – the 2009 Marmara floods in Turkey

Figure 5.1: Image of the Marmara Flooding 2009 (Usta, 2009)

5.3.1 Background
Turkey is prone to destructive natural calamities. Flooding incidents are categorised as the
second most damaging type of natural calamities, after earthquakes (Komuscu and Celik,
2013; Memiş and Babaoglu, 2020b). According to EM-DAT (2019), a total of 41 floods have
ensued in the country between 1948 - 2015. The events have affected a total of 1.7 million
people and 1,359 have lost their lives. A study undertaken by UNDP (2004) divulges that
close to 2 million individuals are affected by floods each year. It can be stated that
occurrences of flooding in Turkey do not display a rising or decreasing trend, however, since
the 1990s they have been on the increase (Komuscu and Ceylan, 2007; Bahadır and Uçku,
2018). The 2009 Marmara flooding incident is one of the explicit examples of how the
flooding menace affects Turkey (Gülbaz et al., 2019).

The Marmara region is located in the north-western part of the country (Sensoy et al.,
2010). It is bordered by the Aegean Sea and Greece to the west, Bulgaria and the Black Sea
to the north, and Central Anatolia region to the southeast. At the centre of the region is
the Sea of Marmara (Figure 5.2), which gives the region its name (Sensoy et al., 2010).
Interestingly, the eminent city of Istanbul that is known for its natural beauty, historical
glory, and grandeur is also located in the Marmara area.

183
In terms of climate, the area is characterised by the Mediterranean weather with mild
winters, hot summers, and maritime climatic conditions. Precipitation varies between 400-
1000 mm with an average of 550 mm per year. The long-term mean temperatures differ
between 12-16°C. The region is quite humid with an average of 73% (Sensoy et al., 2010).

5.3.2 Inventory
At this point, it is essential to examine what causes flooding in the Marmara area. An
inventory will be useful in providing a justification of whether the flood management
agencies in the region are prepared to deal with the type of flooding that frequently occurs
in the region.

A useful source that can be used to conduct the inventory emanates from the Environment
Agency. According to the Environment Agency (2013), the types of flooding are defined on
the basis of their source. The flooding history of the Marmara region is demonstrated in
Table 5.1.

Table 5.1: History of flooding in the Marmara Region (Gorur, et al., 2002; Koc and Thieken,
2018)

Year Source Type Deaths Property

damage
1509 Earthquake Coastal: 5,000 Not recorded
tsunami
1766 Earthquake Coastal: 4,000 Extensive
tsunami damage
1963 Earthquake Coastal: 1 Noted
tsunami recorded
1999 Earthquake Coastal: 18,373 $6.5 billion
tsunami
2009 Extreme Pluvial: 31 $70 million
rainstorms flash -
flooding

184
Figure 5.2: The location of Marmara Region (Figure adapted from OpenStreetMap, 2019a). The floods affect the northern part of the sea along
the Istanbul area.

185
When earthquakes occur in the sea, such as the Sea of Marmara, horizontal ground
displacements or motions occur (strike-slip kind of faulting), landslides and slumping trigger
tsunami waves which are predominantly damaging. The process can lead to a rise in the
water sea level which instigates flooding in the Marmara area (Pararas-Carayannis, 1999;
Kandilli Rasathanesi, 2020). Based on the findings of Table 5.1, what grabs the researcher’s
attention is that the area has been mired by devastating earthquakes that have instigated
coastal flooding via tsunamis in the years 1509-1766-1965-1999 (Ambraseys and Jackson,
2000; Kandilli Rasathanesi, 2020). The year 2009 was, however, different in the sense that
the floods were instigated by extreme rain storms that befell the area (Komuscu and Celik,
2013; Gülbaz et al., 2019).

Taking the above facts into consideration, it is apparent that earthquakes that emanate
from the North Anatolian Fault Zone are the major cause of flooding in the region via
tsunamis (Eyidoğan, 2019). Nevertheless, severe flooding that originates from excessive
amounts of rain has the propensity of happening in the Marmara region. A big question
that lingers is whether the trend will continue and if so, how should flood management
agencies develop their flood preparedness plans, response and recovery initiatives (Dinç,
2019).

One of the implications of the findings above for flood management agencies in the area is
that it is essential to be aware that the area is susceptible to different types of flooding
(Özcan, 2017). An additional implication of these findings is that flood management
agencies in the area have to develop and implement measures that can deal with tsunamis
that may occur in the future as a result of earthquakes from the seas. For instance,
technology to detect the earthquakes should be utilised and early warning signs given in
order to prepare for the incoming repercussions (Memiş and Babaoglu, 2020b).
Additionally, the risk of flooding that originates from excessive rainfall should also be
keenly looked into. For instance, the flood management agencies should answer questions
such as where can the City of Istanbul drain its excessive flooding water from the rain yet
the sea is also mired by water.

186
5.3.3 Causes of flooding in the Marmara Region
5.3.3.1 The geographical positioning of the Marmara area
It is evident that every area has its exclusive metrological environment which is influenced
by its orography, local and regional atmospheric circulations, land water distribution, and
geographic position (Meteoroloji Genel Müdürlüğü, 2019). As noted earlier, the Marmara
area is boarded by the Aegean Sea to the west, the Black Sea to the north, and the Sea of
Marmara (Sensoy et al., 2011). The implication is that the area is susceptible to flooding
due to the geological processes that occur at sea.

5.3.3.2 Climatic factors

Chappell (1986) and Schumacher (2009) argue that most destructive flash floods emanate
from quasi-stationary convective structures. A similar viewpoint is also reinforced by
Doswell et al. (1996) who stated that the proportion of rainfall linked to convective
activities seems to be greater than other rain-producing climates. del Moral et al. (2020)
further reveal that certain constituents must be present for flash floods and heavy rain to
occur (Zanchetta and Coulibaly, 2020).

A study of synoptic maps before the flooding revealed the existence of two major
meteorological patterns. The first element was the presence of the Iceland low-pressure
system which relocated from Northern Europe and moved to the western regions of
Turkey. An additional weather pattern emanated from northern Africa and instigated the
occurrence of a warm edge over the central Mediterranean Sea (Gilabert and Llasat, 2017).
Regions around the west of Turkey, when equated to Central Europe had extra warmth,
and consequently, the temperature gradient between Europe and Turkey significantly
heightened volatility in northwestern parts of Turkey. Beginning 7 September, a system of
low-pressure arose from Europe which moved to parts of Turkey. The surface chart for 7
September illustrates the existence of a 1,004 hPa low pressure in central parts of Turkey.
On the other hand, the Marmara region and Central Europe witnessed reasonably higher
pressure values, 1,013 and 1,026 hPa respectively (Komuscu and Celik, 2013; Gülbaz et al.,
2019).

187
5.3.3.3 Inadequate land use planning and uncontrolled building
Flooding incidents in Turkey are sometimes precarious due to the effects of urbanization
especially in major cities and heavily populated coastal metropolises (Yilmaz and Kaya,
2020). The research conducted by the European Environment Agency (2001) and Dankers
and Feyen (2009) validated this fact by revealing that the region which includes Marmara
is predisposed to frequent floods due to the existence of potential flood zones that are
characterized by inadequate planning of land use and uncontrolled buildings. To absorb the
rising population in cities, more buildings are frequently established. The constructions are
in most cases illegal in the sense that a large proportion of the population occupied the
flooding plains in order to create new settlement spaces (Bodur, 2018). It is apparent that
the natural hydrologic arrangement of the city has been altered, a factor that instigates
flooding and the inability to manage the flooding incidents effectively (Komuscu and Celik,
2013).

One of the factors that had a serious impact on the flood situation in Istanbul was the
changes in land use. Recently, urbanization along with the significant increase in the
population of the metropolitan Istanbul area has led to a tremendous transformation in
land use. The city is considered the most densely populated one in Turkey; thus resulting
in many settlements that were constructed in and around Istanbul to accommodate the
growing population (Bodur, 2018; Dinç, 2019). However, the infrastructure in the new
settlement areas did not significantly increase alongside the population leading to having
an inadequate infrastructure capacity that could not even tolerate a moderate rainfall.
Moreover, the changes that happened regarding the land use was to provide spaces for
industrial operations, developments, and for increasing the occupying capacity of the city
(Komuscu and Celik, 2013). Another factor that surged the changes in land cover is the
construction of new transportation systems and the concentrated activities in both
industrial and commercial sectors in high flood risk areas. To illustrate this, the expansion
of urban spaces in areas that are highly susceptible to flooding had pressured the idea of
opening up spaces for commercial and residential settlements; in fact without having an
awareness of the risks associated with such action. Additionally, uncontrolled urbanization
in Istanbul along with inadequate infrastructure systems resulted in forest degradation and
infertile lands in nearby areas of the city (Özcan, 2017). Besides, the region’s hydrological

188
natural conditions were not considered while designing the new infrastructures and other
structural projects, thus facilitating the flooding in Istanbul (Komuscu and Celik, 2013).
Furthermore, a study conducted by Kaya (2018) revealed the deficiency in the highway
transportation system of the city that is in the east-west direction as it was incompatible
with the patterns of the natural drainage where flow direction and accumulation expands
in a north-south direction. Hence, this network system serves as a barrier to preventing a
quick water flow discharge in the flooding events.

5.3.4 The Marmara floods, 7–10 September 2009

A sequence of flash floods emerged in Marmara between 7th and 10th September 2009. The
floods were instigated by extreme rain storms that befell the area (Gülbaz et al., 2019).
According to the Turkish State Meteorological Service (2013), the 2009, 7th and 10th
September rainfall was recorded as the heaviest in decades. The quantity of precipitation
varied from 100 and 253 mm throughout the flooding days.

The intensity was, however, high during the first two days (7th and 8th September) after
which the intensity progressively declined in the last days (Özcan, 2017). Table 5.2 provides
an overview of the rainfall intensity during the three days. Tekirdag and Istanbul provinces
were harshly affected by the floods (Komuscu and Celik, 2013).

Table 5.2: Rainfall intensity between 7th and 10th September

5.3.5 Measuring the effectiveness of flood management during the Marmara floods
Estimating the effectiveness of the flood management initiatives of the Marmara flooding
is essential. This is because it provided facts to verify whether flood management
organizations in Turkey have working systems or whether deficiencies exist especially in

189
real life scenarios. The computation was, therefore, undertaken using the Flood
Management Efficiency Indicators (FMEIs) which had been developed in the third chapter
of the thesis.

In order to measure the effectiveness of flood management during the Marmara flooding,
the data collected from the interviews were compared in a tabular format with the flood
management initiatives undertaken during the Marmara flooding. Later, the estimation of
the quality of each process was calculated using the FMEIs.

5.3.5.1 Preparedness
From the interviews conducted in chapter four on flood management agencies in Turkey
concerning the precautionary measures undertaken prior to the flooding event a number
of factors were noted concerning the effectiveness of the organizations in dealing with the
flooding menace. The findings of the interview can be compared to the Marmara flooding.
The following Table 5.3 indicates the comparison of the interview findings and Marmara
flooding based on FMEIs for preparedness.

190
Table 5.3: Comparison of the interview findings (IF) and Marmara flooding (MF) based on
preparedness indicators of the FMEIs
Indicator Items Benchmarks Score
Low (0) Medium (1) High (2) Optimum (3) IF MF
Preparedness Mitigation plan No action Generic plan Flood specific - 0 0
and Planning plan
Hazard No action Hazard Flood specific - 0 0
identification identification vulnerability/risk
and risk analyses
assessment
Response plan No action Generic Plan Flood specific - 1 1
plan
Plans review Nothing Generic plan Flood specific - 0 0
(regularly) reviewed reviewed plan reviewed
Lessons learned No action Debriefing Public scrutiny - 1 1
from incident practices and review
management
Institutional No action Arrangements Arrangements - 1 1
learning within the between
(Knowledge administrative administrative
exchange, district districts
sharing
experiences)
Training No action Training for Training includes Training 2 2
key decision responders and includes
makers volunteers communities,
private sector
and media
Exercise No action Table-top Functional Full-scale 2 2
(regularly) exercise exercise exercise
Public education No action Website info Seminars or - 2 2
or brochure Workshops
Business No action Educational Engaged in - 1 1
Engagement material planning
Mutual aid No action Restricted Emergency - 2 2
agreement with agreement agreement
neighbouring
authorities for
resources
Provision of No Lack of Only basic Adequately 2 2
funding funding funding supply resourced to
support
management
activities
Provision of Understa Limited Adequately - 1 1
human ffed staffed staffed
resources
Provision of Lack of Only basic Adequately - 2 2
equipment equipme supply resourced to
nt support
management
activities
Warning system No action Loudspeakers Radio or Phone 2 2
television messages
TOTAL PREPAREDNESS SCORE 19 19
Measurement Low (0-8) Medium (9-17) High (18-26) Optimum (27-34)
Legend

191
It is evident from Table 5.3 that the flood preparedness measures during Marmara flooding
had deficiencies. However, there were certain elements in the preparedness of the
Marmara floods that were efficiently executed and they validated the findings of the
interview.

From the findings of the interview, it was noted that the flood preparedness initiatives do
not involve the preparation of flood mitigation plans. The flood management agencies in
Turkey are more reactive as opposed to proactive (Interview). The flood management
agencies in the Marmara region undertook pre-planning activities. Koc and Thieken (2018)
stated that after the 1999 earthquake in Marmara, research on flood and risk management
became significant in Marmara. Also, as noted by Kapucu and Ozerdem (2011) and Memiş
and Babaoglu (2020b) after the 1999 earthquake, the flood management authorities
initiated more aerial surveillance that targets floods that originate from earthquakes. It can,
therefore, be stated that the Turkish authorities have attempted to implement strategies
of identifying the risk of flooding in the area through research and surveillance. However,
a shortcoming of the preparedness initiatives in Marmara is that the agencies did not have
a specific flood management plan to deal with the 2009 flooding. The study by Komuscu
and Celik (2013) titled: Analysis of the Marmara flood in Turkey, 7–10 September 2009: an
assessment from a hydrometeorological perspective, does not present any findings
concerning the existence of a flood preparedness plan.

Due to the fact that a flood preparedness plan did not exist, the process of enacting the
plans was not undertaken. The researcher took note of the fact the mitigation plan is not
always referred to when responding to floods (Interview). An aspect that was also noted
during the Marmara flooding the mitigation plans were not enacted because they do not
exist. This illustrates why as Yucel, (2015) divulges, it was quite difficult for the Marmara
flood management agencies to deal with the emergency (Yucel, 2015). Similarly, the high
amount of flooding in buildings, roads, and other infrastructure indicated that the flood
management plans were not in use. Figure 5.3 adopted from a report by AKOM (2010)
discloses that the extent of flood waters during the September 7th to 10th 2009 was more
devastating than the 500 years return period.

192
Figure 5.3: Comparison between section of the area after the flood incident and the flood
map drawn based on the 500-year flood value (Yucel, 2015)

Figure 5.3 displays a segment of the flood area after the 7 September 2009 flood incident,
the lower section illustrates a contrast between the area under flood water and the flood
map retrieved from the 500-year flood value (AKOM Report, 2010). The red line
demonstrates the zones underwater, while the blue line displays the flood map of the 500-
year flood value.

It can be stated that in terms of giving early warning signs, the agencies were on top of the
game. Timely flood warnings were given based on the fact that the region is predisposed
to flooding incidences. For instance, the Turkish State Meteorological Service issued a
warning concerning the floods (Sezer, 2009). Also, the State Hydraulic Authority (DSI)
introduced a number of measures to deal with the hazard (Komuscu and Celik, 2013). Some

193
of the methods include building protective infrastructure, increasing the water storage
capacity, and cautioning different stakeholders concerning the emergency (State Hydraulic
Works, 2014). Additionally, to prevent intense flooding, the flood management agencies
constructed diverse infrastructure to avert flooding incidences. Some of the infrastructural
developments include channel improvements and structures in creeks to provide
accommodation to the rising urban population. Moreover, flood detention structures and
storm sewers were also built with the objective of preventing and in some cases allowing
the easy flow of the flood water (Komuscu and Celik, 2013).

From the findings, the effectiveness of the preparedness of the Marmara flooding when
compared to what was disclosed by the interview participants can be scored as 19 that also
corresponds to high quality according to the measurement legend.

5.3.5.2 Response
From the interviews conducted on flood management agencies in Turkey concerning the
response initiatives undertaken during the flooding event, a number of factors were noted
concerning the effectiveness of the organizations in dealing with the flooding. The findings
of the interview can be compared to the Marmara flooding. The following Table 5.4
demonstrates the comparison of the interview findings and Marmara flooding based on
FMEIs for response.

Table 5.4: Comparison of the interview findings (IF) and Marmara flooding (MF) based on
response indicators of the FMEIs
Indicator Items Benchmarks Score
Low (0) Medium (1) High (2) Optimum (3) IF MF
Response Inter- Basic Legislation Up and downscaling System includes 1 1
organizational system response system critical
working described established between infrastructure
system in plan emergency actors provides, NGOs
and volunteers
Evacuation No action Decision Detailed procedures - 1 1
Plan Guidelines established
Volunteer No action Coordination - - 1 1
management established
Community No action Team - - 1 1
response established
team
TOTAL RESPONSE SCORE 4 4
Measurement Low (0-1) Medium High (4-5) Optimum (6-7)
Legend (2-3)

194
Based on the findings of Table 5.4, it can be stated that the response initiatives undertaken
during the Marmara flooding were effective in different ways which verified the findings of
the interviews. Responding to the Marmara flood involved teamwork between various
agencies. Immediately the extreme rainstorms began, rescue workers and over nine
hundred firefighters moved into the affected regions. The Red Crescent Society was also
very proactive in offering medical aid and supplies to the affected people. Evacuation
activities were undertaken by the rescuers and firefighters who undertook a well-
coordinated rescue mission (Usta, 2009). As pointed out by Hashitera et al. (1999), the use
of DMSP-OLS images were introduced for early identification of impacted areas during the
flooding.

The evacuation of the affected people was also efficiently done based on the fact that many
were rescued and transferred to safe areas. Only 31 people lost their lives.

International assistance was also offered by other nations such as Greece. The country
provided supplies to the victims and rescue workers. Regular citizens also worked in
collaboration with the rescue workers to assist the affected victims. A technical team was
charged with the role of pumping out water from the interior area of the city, essentially
the western segment that was adversely impacted by the flooding. The electric circuits in
the city were turned off to ensure that the flooding water does not come into contact with
the power system. The affected areas and the injured people were evacuated and saved as
soon as possible and were taken to safer grounds where they were supplied with proper
medication and treatment. Getting rid of the flooding water required time and resources
and rescue missions continued for several days even after the rains subsided (Usta, 2009).
Komuscu and Celik (2013) stated that the infrastructures developed by the various flood
management agencies were not effective enough to handle the flooding incident. The
channel improvements and control structures in creeks did not have the capability to
accommodate the rising urban population (Marım, 2009). Furthermore, the capacity of the
flood detention structures and storm sewers in the city were incapable of handling the
widespread flooding and the effects were very devastating. Also, the infrastructure
developed in the city was insufficient to even handle runoff that emanated from a
reasonable amount of rainfall (Centre for Climate Adaptation, 2019).

195
From the findings, the effectiveness of the response of the Marmara flooding when
compared to what was disclosed by the interview participants can be calculated as 4 that
also corresponds to high quality according to the measurement legend.

5.3.5.3 Recovery
From the interviews conducted on flood management agencies in Turkey concerning the
recovery initiatives undertaken during the flooding event, a number of factors were noted
concerning the effectiveness of the organizations in dealing with the flooding. The findings
of the interview can be compared to the Marmara flooding.

Table 5.5: Comparison of the interview findings (IF) and Marmara flooding (MF) based
on recovery indicators of the FMEIs
Indicator Items Benchmarks Score
Low (0) Medium (1) High (2) Optimum (3) IF MF
Recovery Recovery Plan No Generic plan Flood specific - 0 0
action established plan
Continuity No Plan for - - 0 0
planning action critical
services
Emergency shelter No Shelters Shelter - 1 1
arrangement action designated agreement
with
community
agencies for
welfare needs
Damage No Briefly noted Planned in - 1 1
assessment action in planning detail
Debris No Briefly noted Planned in - 1 1
management action in planning detail
Environmental No Briefly noted Planned in - 1 1
assessment action in planning detail
Rehabilitation of No Briefly noted Planned in - 1 1
victims action planning detail
TOTAL RECOVERY SCORE 5 5
Measurement Low (0-2) Medium (3-6) High (7-10) Optimum (11-13)
Legend

The recovery phase of emergency management involves getting the community back to a
state of normalcy (Baird, 2010; Alexander, 2015). According to Slavíková et al. (2019), many
sources consent to the fact that this is the most intricate stage of emergency management
based on the fact that it involves the involvement of various stakeholders who may
sometimes hold conflicting views.

196
Recovering from the 2009 Marmara flooding involved a number of stakeholders. Both
government and non-governmental organizations were involved in rebuilding the
destroyed infrastructure, restoring businesses, assisting people to get back to work, and
rebuilding homes for the affected victims (Ersoy, 2009). Based on the fact that the recovery
process is a long-term process the Turkish government and local authorities initiated long-
term plans to deal with the perennial flooding that affects the Marmara region.

One of the effects of the flooding catastrophe is that 31 people lost their lives. The damages
amounted to $70 million. The Turkish government, however, received assistance from non-
governmental organizations and emergency management organizations to manage the
losses (Özcan, 2017).

From the findings, the effectiveness of the recovery of the Marmara flooding when
compared to what was disclosed by the interview participants can be scored as 5 that also
corresponds to medium quality in accordance with the measurement legend.

5.3.6 Summary and recommendations

Several critical factors can be concluded from the 2009 Marmara floods. Foremost, the
flooding was extensive and had devastating effects on the Marmara region. Additionally,
the case reveals that flood management agencies in the country were to some extent
successful in handling the emergency. However, a number of weaknesses were noted.
Essentially, the following recommendations can be made:
i. A preliminary step should be taken to develop a broad flood mitigation plan within
a framework of an integrated flood management plan. Also, flood backlog maps
should be developed afore taking any infrastructural measures;
ii. Flood preparedness plans should be developed in partnership with the community
and all the involved stakeholders. Also, the preparedness plan should be enacted;
iii. The response and recovery plans should be developed and enacted;
iv. Flood management agencies should also identify areas that are more prone to
flooding. After the identification, it is essential to change the building codes in
zones. For instance, construction initiatives should not be permitted in regions close
to rivers that are highly predisposed to the problem of flooding;

197
 v. Structural measures should be adopted to control the movements in main rivers of
the city, particularly the Kagithane and Ayamama Rivers which regularly overflow
subsequently to intense rainfalls;
vi. Another significant measure would involve establishing early warning systems for
flash floods in order to observe water levels in the central creeks within and around
Istanbul;
vii. The early warning systems should also evaluate the temporal and spatial
distribution of rainfall, and give warnings during critical times and assist emergency
managers to act punctually by evacuating people in regions that are highly
predisposed to flooding.

The proposals above will not be fruitful unless they are reinforced by legislative measures
such as precise building codes for areas that are flood-prone. Additionally, public
awareness and political support will back the effectiveness of recommendations.

5.4 Case Study 2 – The 2015 Kendal flooding in the UK

Figure 5.4: Photo of the Kendal Flooding 2015 (Humphreys, 2015)

198
5.4.1 Background
Kendal is situated directly downstream of the convergence of three main rivers that all
drain in the upland rural catchments. Consequently, the region is highly prone to flooding.
The rivers include river Kent, Mint, and Sprint (Environment Agency, 2016b).

Figure 5.5: The Kendal Region (Figure adapted from OpenStreetMap, 2019b)

199
5.4.2 Inventory
As noted by the Comparative Case Study Review, the patterns of the disaster, loss, and
damage are evaluated. In this context, the researcher examines the existing patterns of
flooding, the loss, and damage that have occurred in Kendal over the years.

Table 5.6: History of flooding in the Kendal Region. In all of the cited cases fluvial flooding
occurred when rivers burst their banks due to intense or sustained rainfall (Environment
Agency, 2016b)

Year Source Type Deaths Property damage

1898 Extreme rainstorms Fluvial Flooding Not recorded Not recorded

1954 Extreme rainstorms Fluvial flooding Not recorded 370
1964 Extreme rainstorms Fluvial flooding Not recorded 100
1968 Extreme rainstorms Not recorded Not recorded
1985 Extreme rainstorms Fluvial flooding Not recorded Not recorded
2004 Extreme rainstorms Fluvial flooding Not recorded 80
2005 Extreme rainstorms Fluvial flooding Not recorded 100
2009 Groundwater and Fluvial flooding 1 25
surface water
2015 Storm Desmond Fluvial flooding 3 2, 150

From the data of Table 5.6, a number of facts can be deduced concerning the history and
risk of flooding in Kendal. From the above history, it can be stated that fluvial flooding is
one of the incessant causes of flooding in the region. Significantly, flood management
agencies in the Kendal region should be aware of this fact by now. However, it is essential
to examine if the flood management practices in terms of preparedness, response and
recovery have been effective in managing fluvial flooding. According to the Ambiental
Environmental Assessment (2018), fluvial flooding occurs when rivers burst their banks due
to intense or sustained rainfall. It is apparent that due to the location of Kendal, the three
existing rivers in the region incessantly cause flooding when excessive intense rainfall
happens (Cumbria County Council, 2018). One of the key questions that flood management
organizations in the region should look into is whether the agencies update and review
their flood management practices in a manner that responds to fluvial flooding.

5.4.3 The flooding incident

In December 2015 between 5th and 6th, a storm referred to as Storm Desmond instigated
an epoch of intense and prolonged rainfall. The rain fell on catchments that were previously

200
saturated. This led to elevated river levels and flooding throughout Cumbria and closer
areas (Spencer et al., 2017). The flow of rainwater in the River Kent and its tributaries
through Kendal on the 5th of December was the greatest ever documented and the various
flooding mechanisms that happened triggered widespread flooding all over the town
(Environment Agency, 2016b).

Table 5.7: Rainfall intensity between 5th and 6th December

Rainfall Storm Desmond

period Date Location Total rainfall (mm)
24 hour rainfall December 2015 Honister Pass 341.4
48 hour rainfall December 2015 Thirlmere 405.0

The cost of the damage and destruction was huge with over 43,000 homes suffering from
power cuts and roads as well as schools submerged or blocked altogether (BBC News,
2015). A report by the Environment Agency in partnership with Cumbria County divulges
that the inundating event affected over 2,100 properties directly. The majority of those
affected were from the Mintsfeet and Sandylands areas of the town (Glover, 2015). One of
the most affected towns by the floods was Kendal, a township of about 30,000 people built
on river Kent (BBC News, 2015).

Overtopping of defenses in the Mintsfeet area happened when the water level was
exceeded resulting in the flowing over of the embankment structures (Environment Agency
2016b). In Sandylands, initial flooding began when the underground culverted watercourse
system went beyond capacity after the overtopping of the Stock Beck Flood Storage Basin.
The flooding was caused by storm Desmond that directed a plume of moist air called
atmospheric river that brought record-breaking amounts of rainfall in the upland areas of
the United Kingdom and the eventual destruction in three major areas of the Cumbria
region that include the river systems of Eden, the Derwent and the Kent (Environment
Agency, 2016b). These river systems flooded simultaneously leading to the Kendal flooding
experience.

In Kentrigg and Carus Green, flooding was caused mainly by the fluvial event on the Kent
River. In addition, flooding on the Westmorland Business Park was caused by groundwater

201
while investigation revealed that obstruction on the culvert in Kent Lea led to flooding that
affected many properties in this area (Environment Agency, 2016b). In Mintsfeet, the
principal cause of the flooding was the fluvial event on the two rivers; Mint and Kent
(Environment Agency, 2016b). The flooding affected commercial as well as residential
properties on and around the Mintsfeet road. This area was the most affected during the
flooding event. In Shap Road and Appleby Road, flooding occurred mainly due to the
overflow from Rivers Mint and Kent (BBC News, 2015).

In Sandyland, investigations reveal that flooding occurred due to several factors that
included flood flows from both River Mint and Kent, overflows from the Stock Beck system,
and the culvert system that runs in the area. Further, flooding also occurred due to several
manholes linked to the culvert system on the Sandylands Road. On Wildman Street, Ann
Street and Castle Street, flooding was caused by flood water from the drainage systems as
well as groundwater and fluvial flooding from Kent and Mint Rivers and Stock Beck
(Environment Agency, 2016b). The effects of the flood in Kendal were horrendous as over
1,500 homes were flooded and left people homeless. Further, many business premises and
industrial parks were affected. In addition, roads and schools were submerged leading to
their closure and evacuation to allow the flood water to subside (Environment Agency,
2016c). However, no fatalities were recorded during the flooding experience in the town
but two people lost their lives in Cumbria and in the Republic of Ireland (Cumbria County
Council, 2018).

Management of floods and other natural, as well as man-made disasters, is a critical

component of emergency management that entails three main processes which include
preparedness, response, and recovery (Gilissen et al., 2016). The record breaking rainfall
and river levels led to the overtopping of flood defences that led to the flooding and the
subsequent destruction (Environment Agency, 2016b; Hunter, 2018). Therefore,
stakeholders must assess the strengths of the system and its weak areas based on what
worked and what failed to work during this emergency situation. The existence of a flood
risk mapping has been useful in managing flood incidents in the UK.

202
Figure 5.6: The Kendal Flood Map (Open Flood Risk by Postcode, adapted from
Getthedata.com, 2019)

5.4.4 Strengths and weaknesses of flood management in the Kendal flood

Flood management entails having effective preparedness, response and recovery
mechanisms to mitigate the effects of these events and ensure that fatalities are reduced
(Gralepois, 2020). To examine the strength and weaknesses of the Flood Management
practices in the Kendal flooding, the findings of the interviews can be compared to the
recorded flood management activities.

5.4.5 Testing the effectiveness of flood management during the Kendal floods
5.4.5.1 Preparedness
From the interviews conducted on flood management agencies in the UK concerning the
precautionary measures undertaken prior to the flooding event, a number of factors were
identified concerning the effectiveness of the organizations in dealing with the flooding
menace. The findings of the interview can be equated to the Kendal flooding. The following
Table 5.8 indicates the comparison of the interview findings and Kendal flooding based on
FMEIs for preparedness.

203
Table 5.8: Comparison of the interview findings (IF) and Kendal flooding (KF) based on
preparedness indicators of the FMEIs
Indicator Items Benchmarks Score
Low (0) Medium (1) High (2) Optimum (3) IF KF
Preparedness Mitigation plan No action Generic plan Flood specific - 2 1
and Planning plan
Hazard No action Hazard Flood specific - 2 2
identification and identification vulnerability/
risk assessment risk analyses
Response plan No action Generic Plan Flood specific - 2 1
plan
Plans review Nothing Generic plan Flood specific - 2 2
(regularly) reviewed reviewed plan reviewed
Lessons learned No action Debriefing Public scrutiny - 2 2
from incident practices and review
management
Institutional No action Arrangements Arrangements - 2 2
learning within the between
(Knowledge administrative administrative
exchange, sharing district districts
experiences)
Training No action Training for Training Training 3 3
key decision includes includes
makers responders communities,
and volunteers private
sector and
media
Exercise No action Table-top Functional Full-scale 3 3
(regularly) exercise exercise exercise
Public education No action Website info or Seminars or - 2 2
brochure Workshops
Business No action Educational Engaged in - 2 2
Engagement material planning
Mutual aid No action Restricted Emergency - 2 2
agreement with agreement agreement
neighbouring
authorities for
resources
Provision of No Lack of funding Only basic Adequately 3 3
funding funding supply resourced to
support
management
activities
Provision of Understaf Limited staffed Adequately - 1 1
human resources fed staffed
Provision of Lack of Only basic Adequately - 2 2
equipment equipme supply resourced to
nt support
management
activities
Warning system No action Loudspeakers Radio or Phone 3 0
television messages
TOTAL PREPAREDNESS SCORE 33 28
Measurement Low (0-8) Medium (9-17) High (18-26) Optimum (27-34)
Legend

204
The findings in Table 5.8 indicate that flood preparedness during Kendal flooding had
deficiencies and success. As noted from the interviews preparation of mitigation plans was
undertaken by UK flood management organizations. The flood management agencies in
the Kendal region consider pre-planning as essential (Marsh et al., 2016). As a result, the
agencies developed flood mitigation plans early enough. In addition, there was a
partnership in coming up with the mitigation plans.

The Kendal Flood Risk Management Scheme is often prepared and reviewed. Furthermore,
the views of various stakeholders and the community are constantly incorporated
(Environment Agency, 2016c). According to the Environment Agency (2016c) Kendal was
prepared with a flood management plan that was well funded before Storm Desmond.
Already £72 million was allocated to deal with flood defence across Cumbria. Similarly, in
preparing the plans the Environment Agency worked in partnership with various
stakeholders (Environment Agency, 2016c).

Other strengths of flood preparedness include infrastructural development and community

awareness as depicted by Table 5.8. The facts are backed by the Environment Agency
(2016b) which discloses that there is a formal wall for flood defence that runs along the
right bank of the River Kent for roughly 220m adjacent to the A65 New Road. Also, in the
year 2006, South Lakeland District Council built the Stock Beck Flood Storage Basin (FSB).
The FSB was aimed at decreasing the risk of flooding to properties located downstream and
upstream of the basin, largely in the Sandylands estate (Environment Agency, 2016b).

A number of weaknesses existed in the management of the Kendal floods. The weaknesses
include the inability to enact the mitigation plans. The involvement of the community in
flood preparedness was also poorly undertaken. According to the local government report,
the authorities gave a flood alert for the River Kent catchment area a day before the
flooding (Marsh et al. 2016). Further, flood warnings were given to the flood warning parts
in Kendal on the day of the event between nine in the morning and three in the afternoon.
In addition, severe flood warnings were given again on the same day. However, most of the
affected areas during the flooding were not in the current flood warning areas (Marsh et
al. 2016). Subsequently, a majority of the residents did not get direct warnings from the

205
Environment Agency within Kendal. Furthermore, most residents did not get the warning
on time so as to take necessary action to protect their properties (Environment Agency,
2016c). Again, many residents did not take these warnings seriously because previous
warnings had not led to flooding as issued by the Environment Agency. Therefore, the
prevention strategies by the authorities through warnings were not strong and appropriate
to help the residents prepare well for the floods.

Another fault in the flood management system of Kendal is its inability to provide an
advance warning from other sources apart from the main rivers. Therefore, residents never
received adequate information that flooding may also result from other sources alongside
the river system. Secondly, reports suggested that the existing flood warning framework
was not effective in implementing particular flood mechanisms to mitigate adverse effects
from flooding in the future. Significantly, while the system worked in some parts of Kendal,
its inability to offer near accurate and predictable flooding patterns led to widespread
destruction of properties (Zurich Insurance and JBA Trust, 2016). Further, the inability to
predict such events with near-precision created doubts among the residents since the
warnings that had been given in November on flooding in the area never came to pass.

206
Figure 5.7: Combination of the Sandilands area after the flood incident and the Kendal flood
map (Figure adapted from Environment Agency, 2016b)

Figure 5.7 illustrates comparison between sections of the area after the flood incident and
the Kendal flood map. The yellow line demonstrates the zones that were fully underwater,
while the purple line displays areas that were relatively affected by the floodwater.

From the findings, the effectiveness of the preparedness of the Kendal flooding when
equated to what was revealed by the interview participants can be calculated as 28 that
also corresponds to optimum quality with respect to the measurement legend.

207
5.4.5.2 Response
From the interview responses conducted on UK flood management agencies, concerning
the response practices undertaken during the flooding event, a number of issues were
noted concerning the effectiveness of the organizations in handling the flooding incidents.
The findings of the interview can be compared to the Kendal flooding.

Table 5.9: Comparison of the interview findings (IF) and Kendal flooding (KF) based on
response indicators of the FMEIs
Indicator Items Benchmarks Score
Low (0) Medium (1) High (2) Optimum (3) IF KF
Response Inter- Basic system Legislation Up and System 3 3
organizational described in downscaling includes
working plan response critical
system system infrastructure
established provides,
between NGOs and
emergency volunteers
actors
Evacuation No action Decision Detailed - 2 2
Plan Guidelines procedures
established
Volunteer No action Coordination - - 1 1
management established
Community No action Team - - 1 1
response team established
TOTAL RESPONSE SCORE 7 7
Measurement Low (0-1) Medium (2-3) High (4-5) Optimum (6-7)
Legend

Based on the findings of Table 5.9, it can be stated that the response initiatives undertaken
during the Kendal flooding were effective in different ways which verified the findings of
the interviews. Responding to the Kendal flood involved teamwork between various
agencies. Immediately the extreme rainstorms began, rescue workers, the Cumbria County
Council, firefighters, and the Environment Agency worked in collaboration to deal with the
flooding (Environment Agency, 2016b).

As a result of the river environment that exists in the Kendal area, gravel depositions
occurred on both River Mint and Kent. Subsequent to the flood event in December 2015,
substantial volumes of gravel were dumped in the river channel. Consequently, the
Environment Agency was actively involved removing accrued gravel from the main
locations throughout Kendal (Environment Agency, 2016b). The evacuation of the affected

208
community was also efficiently done based on the fact that many were rescued and
transferred to safe areas. A few fatalities were recorded.

From the findings, the effectiveness of the response of the Kendal flooding when compared
to what was disclosed by the interview participants can be scored as 7 that also
corresponds to optimum quality in accordance with the measurement legend.

5.4.5.3 Recovery
Based on the interviews conducted by flood management agencies in the UK about the
recovery initiatives undertaken during the flooding event, a number of factors were noted
concerning the effectiveness of the organizations in dealing with the flooding. The findings
of the interview can be compared to the Kendal flooding.

Table 5.10: Comparison of the interview findings (IF) and Kendal flooding (MF) based on
recovery indicators of the FMEIs
Indicator Items Benchmarks Score
Low (0) Medium (1) High (2) Optimum (3) IF KF
Recovery Recovery Plan No Generic plan Flood specific - 1 1
action established plan
Continuity No Plan for - - 1 1
planning action critical
services
Emergency shelter No Shelters Shelter - 2 2
arrangement action designated agreement with
community
agencies for
welfare needs

Damage No Briefly noted Planned in detail - 1 1

assessment action in planning
Debris No Briefly noted Planned in detail - 1 1
management action in planning
Environmental No Briefly noted Planned in detail - 1 1
assessment action in planning
Rehabilitation of No Briefly noted Planned in detail - 1 1
victims action planning
TOTAL RECOVERY SCORE 8 8
Measurement Low (0-2) Medium (3-6) High (7-10) Optimum (11-13)
Legend

According to Slavíková et al. (2019), the recovery stage of emergency management involves
getting the community back to a state of normalcy. It is widely acknowledged that this is

209
the most intricate stage of emergency management based on the fact that it includes the
views of various stakeholders who may sometimes hold conflicting views (Henstra et al.,
2018).

Recovering from the Kendal flooding involved a number of stakeholders. Both government
and non-governmental organizations were involved in rebuilding the destroyed
infrastructure, restoring businesses, assisting people to get back to work, and rebuilding
homes for the affected victims. One of the effects of the flooding event was that only three
people lost their lives. The damaged properties were 2,150. It can be stated that the
recovery process was successful because most of the damaged infrastructure was restored
in no time (Environment Agency, 2016b).

From the findings, the effectiveness of the recovery of the Kendal flooding when compared
to what was disclosed by the interview participants can be scored as 8 that also
corresponds to optimum quality in accordance with the measurement legend.

5.4.6 Summary and recommendations

Based on the devastating events that occurred during the flooding experience in Kendal, it
is important that stakeholders seek better and practical ways to mitigate the effects of
flooding in the area. As such, this report makes recommendations that the authorities and
the environment agencies in their town can use to manage the flooding in the future.
Firstly, maintenance programmes are an essential component that should be conducted
regularly to monitor gravel and fluvial deposition in major parts of the river and its system
(Environment Agency, 2018). The agency should ensure that it monitors and assesses key
locations so that gravel does not build to block the channels.

Secondly, the removal of debris caused by the event requires effective steps so that it does
not impact other efforts meant to prevent future occurrences. Thirdly, an effective and
data-based warning system should be developed in collaboration with all stakeholders to
minimize effects in the future (Watson et al., 2015). For example, the Environment Agency
proposed to use forecast rainfall data and flood forecasting models so that it enhances its
predictions of flooding along the river system with the aim of preventing future

210
occurrences and reducing casualties (Environment Agency, 2016c). The utilisation of these
models would allow people to get adequate time and accurate flood warning so that they
can protect both their lives and properties when floods occur because the town is built on
the river waterway.

The flooding of Kendal and the larger Cumbria region led to devastating effects on
properties and lives as a result of the magnitude of the disaster. This case study shows that
effective flood management strategies were not used well to give residents flood warning
and time to protect their properties. Consequently, the flooding event led to the
destruction of properties as well as leaving many homeless and submergence of schools
and roads alongside other infrastructure. Therefore, this report recommends some of the
strategies that can be used to mitigate the effects of flooding and enable the local
authorities to have ample time to offer warnings.

5.5 Lessons learned from the case studies and the interviews
The case of 2009 Marmara and the 2015 Kendal flooding provide a number of key
conclusions concerning flood management practices in both the UK and Turkey. A big
question that arises from the scenarios is how effective were the agencies in managing the
flooding incidences. From the findings above a number of lessons were learned.

5.5.1 Lessons from the 2015 Kendal Flooding

A key lesson learned from the case is that flood management is a holistic process. The
Kendal flooding fully demonstrated that it is significant for the flood management process
to be holistic. de Bruijn (2005) and Mohamad Yusoff et al. (2018) argue that flood
management should be systematic and holistic and that every step of managing the flood
should be well organized using a holistic framework. At the beginning of the study,
efficiency indicators for flood management were developed. Based on the findings, it was
noted that emergency response for flooding involves having a mitigation plan, a response
plan, location of critical infrastructure, and the identification of population characteristics
and the concentration of vulnerable groups. Kendal flooding was able to integrate the
framework effectively, therefore, increasing the effectiveness of the process.

211
Another significant lesson learned is that proper organization and strategy is essential in
flood management. The 2015 Kendal flooding indicates that the UK flooding management
initiatives are well-organized. It can be stated that the agencies have a well-outlined
strategy that is often used to manage flooding. This is explained by the existence of flood
mitigation plans which are often looked into and enacted as an aspect that was backed by
both the interviews and the Kendal flooding incident.

It was also noted that a number of weaknesses of ineffectiveness occurred in the case of
managing the Kendal flooding. The areas of weaknesses in the inability to enact the
mitigation plans. The involvement of the community in flood preparedness was also poorly
undertaken. According to the local government report, the authorities gave a flood alert
for the River Kent catchment area a day before the flooding at about (Marsh et al., 2016).
Further, flood warnings were given to the flood warning parts in Kendal on the day of the
event between nine in the morning and three in the afternoon. In addition, severe flood
warnings were given again on the same day. However, most of the affected areas during
the flooding were not in the current flood warning areas (Marsh et al., 2016).

It is important to acknowledge that the UK has established useful systems and strategies
that are aimed at managing flooding events. However, when an actual case such as the
Kendal flooding highlights significant inefficiencies as outlined above, the human element
of flood management should countercheck its operations. For instance, the idea that flood
warnings were not given in certain areas indicates that the human resource who managed
the systems failed in their roles. Significantly, there is a need for improvement in the part
of human resources who manage the floods.

5.5.2 Lessons from the 2009 Marmara Flooding

The 2009 Marmara flooding provides a number of lessons. Foremost, from the longitudinal
study, it was noted that flooding that occurs from the sea also referred to as coastal
flooding has for a long period occurred in Turkey essentially in the Marmara region (Gülbaz
et al., 2019). Nevertheless, the 2009 Marmara flooding emanated from intense or
sustained rainfall which caused rivers to burst their banks also termed as fluvial or river
flooding (Ambiental Environmental Assessment, 2018). An interesting yet positive aspect

212
is that flood management organizations in the region were able to deal with the fluvial type
of flooding and the number of fatalities recorded was minimal when compared to the
previous years (Kadıoğlu, 2019). Consequently, a key lesson from the incident is that flood
management agencies should be resilient and ready to deal with any type of flooding
essentially in the era of climate change.

It is apparent that there are major deficiencies in the flood management process used due
to the lack of a well-organized system that follows the holistic approach of flood
management (Marım, 2009). For instance, the absence of a well-outlined flood mitigation
plan, flood response plan, and a recovery plan clearly indicates that the flood management
initiatives used during the incident are not holistic.

Another key inefficiency that arose from the Marmara case study involves the absence of
a flood map in the Marmara region. As the flood warning approaches used cannot be
personalised to individuals living in certain regions. To improve the early warning systems
that exist in the region it is essential to have the flood maps. Also, the flood warning
systems should be more specific by integrating a wide range of warning systems such as
mapping, texting, and the internet.

5.5.3 Lessons from the Interviews

The responses obtained from the interviews disclosed that sometimes systems and plans
are established, however, in the actual sense when it comes to implementing them in real
scenarios, deficiencies or inefficiencies occur. The interview respondents both in Turkey
and the United Kingdom provided an explicit picture of the initiatives undertaken by their
organizations in terms of preparedness, response, and recovery. After conducting a
systematic analysis of the two case studies, it can be noted that the human factor takes a
leading role when it comes to implementing the steps of flood management.

For instance, in the case of Turkey, the organizations and the management of the agencies
have not put into consideration the significance of having flood mapping, however, it is
during the current period that flood mapping is underway and it should be completed by
2021. Also, the staff do not prepare plans for managing floods, an aspect that should be

213
keenly re-examined by the agencies if they want to manage flooding incidents in Marmara
effectively.

5.5.4 Comparison of the 2015 Kendal Flooding and the 2009 Marmara Flooding
The two case studies can be compared to identify the most effective system in flood
management. The benchmark to be used includes the key areas of flood management.

Table 5.11: Overall scoring the management of Kendal flooding (KF) and Marmara flooding
(MF) based on FMEIs

Indicator Items Benchmarks Score

Low (0) Medium (1) High (2) Optimum (3) KF MF
Preparedne Mitigation plan No action Generic plan Flood specific plan - 1 0
ss and Hazard No action Hazard Flood specific - 2 0
Planning identification identification vulnerability/risk
and risk analyses
assessment
Response plan No action Generic Plan Flood specific plan - 1 1
Plans review Nothing Generic plan Flood specific plan - 2 0
(regularly) reviewed reviewed reviewed
Lessons No action Debriefing Public scrutiny and - 2 1
learned from practices review
incident
management
Institutional No action Arrangements Arrangements - 2 1
learning within the between
(Knowledge administrative administrative
exchange, district districts
sharing
experiences)
Training No action Training for Training includes Training 3 2
key decision responders and includes
makers volunteers communities,
private
sector and
media
Exercise No action Table-top Functional exercise Full-scale 3 2
(regularly) exercise exercise
Public No action Website info or Seminars or - 2 2
education brochure Workshops
Business No action Educational Engaged in - 2 1
Engagement material planning
Mutual aid No action Restricted Emergency - 2 2
agreement agreement agreement
with
neighbouring
authorities for
resources

214
 Indicator Items Benchmarks Score
Low (0) Medium (1) High (2) Optimum (3) KF MF
Preparedne Provision of No funding Lack of funding Only basic supply Adequately 3 2
ss and funding resourced to
Planning support
management
activities
Provision of Understaff Limited staffed Adequately staffed - 1 1
human ed
resources
Provision of Lack of Only basic Adequately - 2 2
equipment equipment supply resourced to
support
management
activities
Warning No action Loudspeakers Radio or television Phone 0 2
system messages
Response Inter- Basic Legislation Up and System 3 1
organizational system downscaling includes
working described response system critical
system in plan established infrastructur
between e provides,
emergency actors NGOs and
volunteers
Evacuation No action Decision Detailed - 2 1
Plan Guidelines procedures
established
Volunteer No action Coordination - - 1 1
management established
Community No action Team - - 1 1
response team established
Recovery Recovery Plan No action Generic plan Flood specific plan - 1 0
established
Continuity No action Plan for critical - - 1 0
planning services
Emergency No action Shelters Shelter agreement - 2 1
shelter designated with community
arrangement agencies for
welfare needs
Damage No action Briefly noted in Planned in detail - 1 1
assessment planning
Debris No action Briefly noted in Planned in detail - 1 1
management planning
Environmental No action Briefly noted in Planned in detail - 1 1
assessment planning
Rehabilitation No action Briefly noted Planned in detail - 1 1
of victims planning
TOTAL SCORE 43 28
Measurement Legend Low [0-13] Medium [14-27] High [28-41] Optimum [42-54]

From the findings, the effectiveness of the management of Kendal flooding can be scored
as 43 that corresponds to optimum quality, while the effectiveness of the management of

215
Marmara flooding can be assessed as 28 that corresponds to high quality as regards to the
measurement legend. It was also noted that the UK has an effective preparedness
approach due to the existence of mitigation plans, flood hazard mapping, Turkey, on the
other hand, lacked all plans including the mitigation and recovery plans which were not
prepared nor enacted. The UK has also adopted a comprehensive warning system where
flood mapping has assisted the organisations to clearly outline flood areas and
communicate warnings in a more personalised way. This makes the warning process easy
and other steps such as response and recovery stages more effective.

216
 Chapter 6 – Results and Discussion

6.1 Review of the main research findings

This chapter starts by reviewing the major results of this thesis in the context of the current
literature and later discusses these results and the international context, all in relation to
each of the research questions that were posed at the start of this study:
i. How do the flood management systems in the UK and Turkey compare?
ii. How effective is flood management in the UK and Turkey?
iii. What are the strengths and weaknesses of flood management practices?
iv. How could flood management in the UK and Turkey be improved?

6.1.1 Research question 1: How do the flood management systems in the UK and Turkey
compare?
6.1.1.1 Similarities between the Turkey and UK flood management systems
(a) Multi-agency hierarchical approach
It is apparent that both countries implement multi-agency hierarchical approaches, along
with the multiple stakeholder strategies (Kilicaslan, 2016; Ugur and Isik, 2020). In the
former approach, a central ministry in both countries governs the departmental and agency
roles and activities for flood management. Based on that hierarchical approach, the
departments monitor the decisions of lower-ranked entities such as agencies, boards, and
committees that are in charge of implementing the preparedness, response, and recovery
strategies for emergency events (Chen et al., 2011; Ntontis et al., 2018; Cumiskey et al.,
2019; Gralepois, 2019). This approach can be further illustrated in the following diagrams:

Regional County Level District Level Community

Level Level

Figure 6.1: Coordination of flood management at different levels in the UK

National Regional Basin Level Provincial

Level Level Level

Figure 6.2: Coordination of flood management at different levels in Turkey

217
As demonstrated in Section 6.1.4.1 and Table 6.1, this is the most frequently adopted
approach internationally and the one that produces the best results, and hence the most
appropriate one.

(b) Multiple stakeholder approach

Both countries also implement a multiple stakeholder approach in their flood management
systems (Kilicaslan, 2016; Ugur and Isik, 2020), with several stakeholders assigned to
different tasks in the flood management system (DEFRA, 2014; MFWA, 2017). Indeed, the
majority of the UK interview respondents said that they were involved in all flood
management stages. In the context of Turkey, although most of the interviewees stated
that they were engaged in the preparedness and planning stages, the majority worked in
the Provincial Disaster and Emergency Management Directorate (Provincial AFAD), which
is the main body in charge of emergency planning and preparedness. Therefore, the
researcher could not find out, through the interviews, whether other organisations apart
from the Provincial AFAD are involved in all the flood management stages. However, more
than half of the Turkish participants indicated that their organisations take part in the
recovery stage.

This is again an internationally adopted approach and as discussed in later sections, it is

deemed the most efficient for the management of flood risks. As will be discussed later,
the UK and Turkey differ in the number and variety of stakeholders involved.

(c) Stakeholder Preparedness and Institutional Learning

From the conducted interviews, it was found that the majority of the respondents claimed
that institutional learning is carried out in both the UK and Turkey. The only difference is
that, in the UK, such learning is formally organised and enhancements are often made,
which is not the case in Turkey. From the responses of Turkish interviewees, this might be
due to Civil Protection Law No. 7126 which encourages undetailed and short reports to be
noted when an emergency event occurs. Subsequently, records of the event are not
recorded effectively leaving no space for institutional learning to be addressed effectively,
which further leads to the absence of formal reviews and organisation.

218
Gilissen et al. (2016) affirm the results obtained from the UK respondents about the level
of efficiency of the implementation of institutional learning in the UK: that research found
the UK was one of the best-performing countries, due to the implementation of several
innovative approaches, such as mobile phone apps (Werritty, 2019). Such apps also assist
emergency responders in evaluating and monitoring their performance (van Buuren et al.,
2018; Sharp and Carter, 2020).

Furthermore, it has been argued that stakeholder preparedness and institutional learning
enhance the preparedness of a flood management system (Gao, 2018; O’Donnell et al.,
2018). This is achieved through the development of a social learning process which
augments the information-sharing within a system where different perspectives are
integrated, leading to a cohesive decision-making process that promotes collective actions
(Gao, 2018; Hemmati et al., 2020).

6.1.1.2 Differences between the two flood management systems

(a) Localised vs Centralised approaches
Given what is practically implemented in the flood management systems of both Turkey
and the UK, a core difference emerges from the centralised approach utilised by Turkey,
versus the localised approach of the UK (Kuterdem, 2010; Yuksel et al., 2011; Hermansson,
2018). The shift towards considering the views of local entities was recognized in the UK
flood management system, based on recent flood responses (McNulty, 2013; Forrest et al.,
2017), highlighting a major difference between Turkey and the UK. The UK approach in
managing flood emergencies reveals a strategy that is not yet adopted by the Turkish
government. Such a difference might also give insights into the reason for the success of
the UK in managing its flood risks. After the many flood incidents that impacted Britain in
2007, the Pitt Review (2008) recommended that the UK government placed local responses
at the forefront of its emergency response strategy (Surminski et al., 2020) - which was duly
implemented across the UK.

In contrast, Turkey has adopted a centralised approach that requires the intervention of
the central government, via the Provincial Disaster and Emergency Directorate, in
managing flood emergencies (MFWA, 2017). The limited participation and involvement of

219
local entities and authorities crucially affected the success of flood management strategies
implemented by the Turkish government, leading to several deficiencies regarding their
first response strategy to flood emergencies (Şahin, 2019). These problems are discussed
in detail in section 6.1.2.2 (b).

(b) Flood mitigation plans

The survey respondents of this study were asked whether there is a flood mitigation plan
in their organisations and if this plan was reviewed and enacted, as well as whether there
is a strategy of involving partners while developing the plan. The majority of the UK
respondents declared that there is a flood mitigation plan and that partnership is
incorporated in the development of such plans. They also declared that in the event of
flood emergencies, the mitigation plans are reviewed and enacted as well.

The significance of having partnerships and training programmes was acknowledged by the
UK-focused research of Cumiskey (2020). Her results clearly demonstrated that such
partnerships, if maintained and adopted, besides having sustained resources and joint
funding, were capable of enhancing stakeholders’ integration within the flood
management system - maximising synergies across the system to augment the outcome of
FRM.

In this study, the Turkish participants claimed to have neither flood mitigation plans or
partnerships, nor were flood management plans reviewed or enacted. The Turkish
interviewees believed that the absence of mitigation plans is attributed to the lack of the
data needed upon which plans could be developed and implemented. More specifically,
they believed that the main reason for the absence of mitigation plans in Kocaeli is the lack
of accurate and up-to-date flood hazard maps which should be issued by the State
Hydraulic Works (DSI). Öztürk and Uzuntaş (2019), remark that in Turkey flood hazard maps
would aid in having data about risk-prone areas; thereby, facilitating the planning process.

6.1.1.3 Summary of the similarities & differences

Considering the similarities, both the UK and Turkey use multiple agencies and multiple
stakeholders in managing their flood events. Both countries have top-down institutional

220
learning schemes through which information is communicated and
knowledge/experiences are recorded. However, unlike the UK, Turkey lacks a local level of
of flood management activity and community involvement (Goodchild et al., 2018; Tercan,
2018). The UK also develops and implements flood mitigation plans, whereas in Turkey
such plans are neither designed nor implemented.

6.1.2 Research question 2: How effective is flood management in the UK and Turkey?
6.1.2.1 Determinants of the effectiveness of a flood management system
On the question of what constitutes an effective flood management system, the
interviewees were asked to select between effective preparedness, flood response, flood
recovery, or other factors including flood defences, funding, and communication. The
results revealed that the UK’s respondents emphasise the importance of having effective
preparedness practices, such as early warning systems, awareness campaigns and
insurance, as well as flood-resilient building design and construction. On the other hand,
the Turkish interviewees believed that an effective flood management system consists of
multiple factors that involve preparedness, response, and recovery. Despite this
acknowledgement and understanding, Turkey is yet to develop these factors and a flood
management system.

Based on the findings of Mens (2008), Yuksel et al. (2011), Caymaz et al. (2013), Arrighi et
al. (2019) and Hossain (2020) preparedness is the key aspect that leads to an effective flood
management system because the level of preparedness is what shapes the effectiveness
of the response practices. Actions that are taken pre-event are seen as crucial because they
aim at minimising the impact of the flood events (Mohamad Yusoff et al., 2018; Chen et al.,
2019). The findings from the aforementioned research papers - that the effectiveness of a
flood management system is based on good preparedness - coincide with the responses of
UK respondents.

Regardless of having effective community preparedness and engagement, in general, there

are many other barriers that might prevent a country from having an effective flood
management system. These include incapacity to adopt plans; budget overruns and fiscal
deviations; political leadership changes; changes in national priorities; lack of resources;

221
and failure to understand who is in charge of the on-going maintenance (Sayers et al., 2013;
Salman and Li, 2018; Niipare et al., 2020).

6.1.2.2 Management approach

(a) Effectiveness of understanding system behaviour
Another indicator for an effective flood management system, which concerns the response
phase, is the understanding level of different stakeholders to the system’s behaviour and
practices (Snel et al., 2020). Considering all the relevant sources, receptors, and pathways
within a system, along with their susceptibility for changes in the future, is a critical aspect
that indicates an effective flood management system. Hence, understanding the
distribution and sharing of responsibilities, within and between different entities or
emergency responders, will facilitate inter-organisational collaboration (Benson et al.,
2016; Gilissen et al., 2016).

This feature of understanding the system’s behaviour is observed in the flood management
systems of both Turkey and the UK. This is because they utilise the approaches of multi-
agency and multiple stakeholders, which aid them in defining the liabilities and roles of
each institution, thus clarifying the system’s behaviour and practices to different
stakeholders. These approaches enhance the effectiveness of the response phase as they
increase stakeholder understanding levels by enabling them to track the timely behaviour
(from hours to days) and the spatial scales which encompasses local, regional, and national
behaviour levels (DEFRA, 2014; Kilicaslan, 2016; MFWA, 2017; Memiş and Babaoglu, 2020b;
National Audit Office, 2020).

(b) Effectiveness of localised versus centralised management approaches

The distribution of responsibilities between emergency actors is a crucial aspect that
affects the effectiveness of the flood management system. With regard to managing flood
disasters, many researchers, including MFWA (2017) and Hermansson (2018), emphasised
the need for decentralisation that would encourage local interventions, such as the Local
Municipalities and Emergency Responders, Basin Management Committees, and people
living in the affected areas.

222
Gilissen et al. (2016) and Cumiskey et al. (2019) emphasised the importance of engaging
different emergency actors through all stages of flood management practices. Such
engagements allow for the distribution of responsibilities, which further supports a
cooperative and integrated approach among all actors as roles are transferred to them.
Therefore, all the aforementioned localised stakeholders guarantee a more effective
approach to the management of flood emergencies in the UK, compared to the Turkish
centralised approach (Forrest et al., 2017; Gralepois, 2019).

This is further proved by a study conducted by Gao (2018) who surveyed a few individuals
from the northern UK town of Pickering. Those surveyed had participated in the policy
implementation process for managing floods in the UK, particularly in the “Slowing the
flow” project. The results of that study revealed that the pilot project had significantly
contributed to raising awareness of the local community with regards to flood
management. Ironically, the study further revealed that the majority of participants viewed
flood management as a responsibility of the national government. It was inferred that
participants did not regard floods as a local issue on which they had to take ownership,
raising doubts with regards to the extent the local community would be engaged as
partners, rather than as an interest group.

On the other hand, Maskrey et al. (2016) proved that small-scale interventions that could
be enacted by the local community could in fact be considered as crucial interventions in
the localised flood management approach. The authors developed a conceptual
participatory model that would aid in the identification of intervention options, a main
component of the decision-making process in the localised flood management system, in
an attempt to further support the shift towards active stakeholder participation. This
model assists in the participation of different stakeholders in four main processes namely,
defining problems, setting objectives, benchmark development, and the identification of
different intervention options. Their results revealed that the model has huge potential in
the sharing of tacit and situated knowledge, which is vital for the effective mitigation of the
consequences of flood events. Through their evaluation of the model, it was concluded that
it acted as a basis for consensus-building and is an effective complementary tool to the
already established flood management practices.

223
On that basis, it could be inferred that Turkey’s centralised approach is ineffective in
managing its flood events. What further worsened the situation in Turkey is that the
enhancements to the flood management system were introduced based on its previous
experiences of the centralised approach, where several deficiencies have already been
indicated. Such interventions further resulted in a weak system in Turkey at the local level
(Hermansson, 2018; Yaman et al., 2020).

On the other hand, local response is at the forefront of the UK’s emergency response
management and this was established after the implementation of Pitt Review (2008), with
key recommendations which emphasised the need for local responsiveness. Having the
Strategic Coordinating Group (SCG) for managing flood emergencies in the UK, enhanced
the coordination of the work of different stakeholders in the response and recovery phases,
along with an EA regional flood manager who has adequate authentic information of the
circumstances associated with the flood event (Hegger et al., 2020; National Audit Office,
2020).

6.1.2.3 Preparedness phase

Many studies, notably Price and Vojinovic (2008), Yuksel et al. (2011), McNulty (2013),
Mohammad-pajooh and Aziz (2014), Bergsma (2019) and Ao et al. (2020) claimed that the
preparedness in several countries, including the UK and Turkey is insufficient, even though
these countries have massive investments to ensure sufficient infrastructural defences for
the management of flood risks, highlighting that engineering solutions on their own are not
enough for an appropriate flood management. Key aspects that influence preparedness in
both flood management systems include:

(a) Effectiveness of planning

Baan and Klijn (2004), Werken (2012), Salva et al. (2014) and Hasan et al. (2019) stated that
the reason for the Netherlands’ success in flood management is because it has adopted the
2007 European Floods Directive and the Water Act of 2009, which emphasised the
importance of developing flood risk management plans and overall effective planning
respectively (de Wrachien et al., 2011; Gralepois, 2019). Such planning is done using the
localised flood management approach where states and territories take control of the

224
planning process (Dufty et al., 2020) with the aid of different stakeholders such as local
councils, catchment management authorities and technical stakeholders (McLoughlin et
al., 2020).

As stated by Jha et al. (2012), Sayers (2017) and Raikes et al. (2019), the planning aspect, a
major component of the preparedness phase, is the core of having an effective flood
management system in the UK. Legal aspects of UK flood response planning were
strengthened after implementation of the Civil Contingencies Act in 2004. That Act paved
the way for the establishment of emergency preparedness at the local level allowing for
the creation of local resilience plans. Therefore, it can be noted that the existing regulations
and policies did not only promote the development of flood response plans but also
increased its effectiveness on a local and regional level (Gralepois, 2019).

However, serious deficiencies were revealed in the Kendal flood incident that indicate the
low effectiveness in the UK flood management system, notably: even though Kendal
already had flood mitigation plans, they were not enacted during the incident (Zurich
Insurance and JBA Trust, 2016; Hunter, 2018). Moreover, it has been argued that the lack
of a definite and precise definition of the term “resilience”, as a tool to plan for and
evaluate social systems, is a major barrier to enacting efficient policies and preparedness
plans within the UK (Lo and Chan, 2017; Gao, 2018; Rumson et al., 2020). As stated by Gao
(2018), “This most likely means that resilience would need to shift from being defined as a
general system property, to one that refers to specific issues, such as for example flooding.”
(p. 148). Thus, better defining “resilience” could aid in the identification of informative
parameters capable of reducing or preventing the negative impacts of floods.

(b) Effectiveness of institutional learning

With regards to the stakeholders’ preparedness, institutional learning is another factor that
forms an effective flood management system (Ashley et al. (2011), O’Donnell et al. (2018),
Porter and Birdi (2018), and Maskrey et al. (2020)). It enables stakeholders to manage
different environmental challenges, including flooding, by providing room for distinct
organisations to solve conflicting perspectives. Consequently, enhancing the level of
cooperation between parties which further facilitates the process of reaching a mutual

225
vision based on their shared objectives. According to Pahl-Wostl (2019), the socio-technical
water systems’ characteristics which encompass multiple organisations and stakeholders
could be more effective if a multi-agency instrument is well utilised, such as institutional
learning.

Maskrey et al. (2020) also added that the inclusion of action widens the role of institutional
learning to integrate the development of practical outcomes, to bring out changes in
institutional and stakeholder behaviour, while influencing broader regulation and policies.
However, it should be noted that the new policies targeting social systems, including flood
management systems, are affected by two factors; namely, the multiplicity of
interpretations and the transformational nature of institutional practices (Lafinhan, 2016;
Abebe et al., 2019; Bustillos Ardaya et al., 2019). This was confirmed through a study
conducted by Lafinhan (2016) which revealed that multiple interpretations emerging from
interactions between local and national policies, where institutions’ practices evolve and
change, could lead to conflicting local governance approaches. Although the proactive
approach in setting legislation and new policies was acknowledged as being beneficial for
the introduction of new ideas, the findings of Lafinhan (2016) indicate that local authorities
have an important role in mediating changes to national policies and reshaping them to
suit local governance. Thus, given that some institutional learning was evident in both
countries, the UK and Turkey, this adds to the effectiveness of both systems, because the
transmission of knowledge and experience is facilitated; thereby, leading to continuous
improvements and development to seek perfection.

(c) Effectiveness of the engagement of local entities

The studies of UN/ECE (2004), Shah et al. (2015), Fielding (2017) and Martinez et al. (2020)
emphasised the need to modify traditional land usages and promote public awareness. The
importance of effective planning, the involvement of all stakeholders and the incorporation
of the local community is crucial for having an effective flood management system. The
effectiveness and the level of preparation of both the emergency staff and communities
shape a country’s ability to survive during the emergency phase (Coombs, 2009; Heath et
al., 2009; Caymaz et al., 2013; Aslam, 2018; Hossain, 2020). Stewart (2007) and Genovese
and Thaler (2020) added that allowing for a bottom-up approach could aid in filling the gaps

226
of the centralised forms of management and would reduce the absolute reliance on expert-
driven solutions during the emergency event, leading to a more effective management
system.

Theories on promoting public awareness and the involvement of all stakeholders, have
been considered to ascertain how communication can help flood-impacted people develop
flood mitigation strategies (Salman and Li, 2018; Seebauer et al., 2018). That is apparent
from the more effective flood management at community level after Hurricane Katrina in
the USA (Ballard-Reisch et al. 2008; Sadiq et al., 2019). Researchers such as Ballard-Reisch
et al. (2008), Sayers et al. (2013), Sperry (2013), Shariff and Hamidi (2019) and Platt et al.
(2020) claimed that enhancing citizens’ involvement in emergency planning can aid in
reducing the gap of expectations as the more they are engaged in emergency management
activities, the better they develop ways of becoming prepared for emergencies. Local
people’s understanding of the value of being prepared will enable them to more easily
overcome emergency response limitations.

This was further evidenced by the results of studies conducted by Gao (2018) and Atanga
(2020) which showed that the participatory approach is capable of empowering local
communities, leading to a greater resilience of the system. This is because such an
approach enhances self-reliance, reducing their dependence on the government. Simm
(2015) investigated the involvement of the local community in Flood and Coastal Risk
Management (FCRM) through Direct Action Self-Help (DASH) groups within the UK. DASH
groups are unorganised groups who contribute through the creation, management and
maintenance of flood assets. It was noted by his study that the emergence of such groups
in the UK was a direct result of the decreased public flood funding, rather than being due
to the increase in risks associated with an apparent increase in the frequency and severity
of UK flood events (Simm, 2015; Famuditi et al., 2018; Surminski et al., 2020). The results
showed that the efforts exerted by such groups are effective in mitigating flood risks. As
stated by Simm (2015): “Economic analysis of case study data indicates that the reduced
out-of-pocket costs of DASH group work can deliver flood risk reduction associated with
rivers efficiently and to an acceptable benefit-to-cost ratio in comparison with
conventionally funded work.” (p. 261). Nevertheless, it was noticed that such groups lacked

227
a clear understanding of the key processes involved, so the development of a guidance
manual by the government was recommended (Simm, 2015).

Local response is at the forefront of the UK’s emergency response management (Bark and
Acreman, 2020). This was established after the implementation of Pitt Review (2008), with
key recommendations which emphasised the need for local responsiveness. The results of
the interviews indicate that partnerships are evident. This partnership emphasises the
aspect of involving perspectives of different stakeholders and incorporates the community
as well (Environment Agency, 2016c).

Having a specific agency for managing flood emergencies in the UK, the Strategic
Coordinating Group (SCG), enhanced the coordination of the work of different stakeholders
in the response and recovery phases, along with an EA regional flood manager who has
adequate authentic information of the circumstances associated with the flood event
(Zurich Insurance and JBA Trust, 2016). Thus, indicating that the UK’s practice of engaging
and involving multiple stakeholders, including the local community, adds to the overall
effectiveness of the system relative to Turkey. The results of the interviews with
Turkishflood management organisations revealed that they depend on the Turkey Disaster
Response Plan (TAMP) and the provincial Kocaeli Disaster Response Plan (KAMP). This
confirms Öztürk and Tekin (2019) observation that the lack of independent local response
plans limits developing partnerships with relevant stakeholders including non-
governmental and volunteer-based ones.

6.1.2.4 Response phase

Results from different research papers such as Jha et al. (2012) and Roy (2017) highlighted
the vital role of the response element in the flood management chain in minimising the
impacts of a flood event. They used the United States as an example to demonstrate the
critical role of flood mapping along with the local community’s collaboration and
partnership in developing an effective flood management system. The US is considered a
benchmark regarding flood mapping practices due to the initiatives made by the National
Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) in involving the local community in the adoption of maps.
Such practices enabled them to lower the risk associated with flooding events and to

228
improve their responses to these events as well (Roy, 2017; Tyler et al., 2019). Such
practices have been applied by the UK and Turkey with different levels of effectiveness,
specifically in infrastructure defences and social inclusiveness.

(a) Effectiveness of infrastructural defences

To decrease flood risks the UK has adopted several strategies, such as implementing an
enhanced early warning system, constructing structural defences, and improving flood
forecasts. Despite these efforts, the costs associated with flood events remain high, adding
an extensive burden on the economic and financial systems of the country (McNulty, 2013;
Surminski et al., 2020), an issue that may impact the efficiency of the system; thereby,
affecting its effectiveness. On the other hand, Turkey had implemented several measures
(e.g. warnings and structural) but appear to be ineffective based on the records examined
from past flood events (Yuksel et al. 2011; Altun, 2019; Kerim and Süme, 2019).

The need for better flood defences in Turkey was further evident from the results obtained
using the case studies; compared to the Kendal flood, that had effective flood preparedness
structures along with flood storage basins such as Stock Beck which intend to reduce the
risk to properties that are located downstream and upstream the basin (Environment
Agency, 2016b), Turkey lacked such measures (Bayraktar and Sahtiyanci, 2020).

(b) Effectiveness of considering the opinions of local communities

According to studies conducted by Baan and Klijn (2004), McNulty (2013), Mukhopadhyay
(2017), and Lechowska (2018), people’s perceptions towards flooding and flood
management is crucial in having an enhanced and appropriate interpretation of the
response strategies to be implemented to emergencies. Ozerdem and Jacoby (2006),
Stewart (2007), Caymaz et al. (2013), Blaikie et al. (2014) and Rahman (2018) believe that
the emergency management strategy has become community-based. The establishment of
the term “community approach” in the US expresses the vital role that the community
could play in improving the organisational and group level participation in crisis response
and preparedness (Blaikie et al., 2014; Tyler et al., 2019).

229
For example, when people have adequate knowledge and understanding of the
effectiveness of the local and current strategies that are being applied, better response
strategies will be implemented. This is because people who are practically involved in the
emergency event have a clearer, more insightful, and factual vision about the actual
circumstances; thus, they are more knowledgeable and well-informed, as compared to
entities that are not directly engaged in a flood incident. This further emphasises the
importance of considering local entities and communities’ perception while managing
flood risks (Baan and Klijn, 2004; Dittrich et al., 2016; Lechowska, 2018; Peng et al., 2019).

Baruch (2018) had investigated the role of crowdsourcing in generating information for
flood risk management based on the fact that such a technique is capable of augmenting
FRM as members of the public are able to deliver insightful information with regards to the
flood events. These could include data relating to the flood depth, timeframes of the event
and even photos documenting the incidents. His research identified five key types of flood
crowdsourcing namely, reporting incidents, engaging in public media, collaborative
mapping, online volunteering and passive volunteered geographic information (VGI).
Among such types, collaborative mapping was found to be the most effective as
participants had helped uncover many uncertainties such as exact timings and locations
associated with flood events. Furthermore, his study showed that providing feedback to
participants on the quality of the provided information was a key driver to maintaining
community engagement The success shown by these techniques are promising results and
should be considered as options by the UK and Turkey.

6.1.2.5 Recovery phase

(a) Insurance schemes
Researchers such as Temocin and Selcuk-Kestel (2016) and Hudson et al. (2019) stated that
it is important for any given country to diversify its flood management undertakings and its
insurance coverage towards flooding because it is an emergency that has affected virtually
all countries in the past. Therefore, according to Insurance Australia Group (2012),
Surminski and Thieken, (2017) and Rumson and Hallett (2019), shifting part of the burden
of property destruction due to disasters, from the government to owners and insurers is
necessary for managing disasters. Based on such recommendations, in the two countries

230
considered, flood insurance schemes are not fit for purpose: it is non-existent in the case
of Turkey and seem only partly effective in the UK, as it is not mandatory. As a result, it is
essential to make flood insurance compulsory, especially in areas that are highly exposed
to floods in the UK (Crick et al., 2018; Rumson and Hallett, 2019).

In the UK, the insurance schemes and formal agreements do not consider the affordability
and availability of flood insurance (Surminski and Thieken, 2017). Nevertheless, the UK’s
government has launched a joint initiative with insurance companies under the name of
“Flood-Re” in 2016. This initiative aims to make the flood household insurance policies
more affordable (Flood Re, 2019). In short, Flood Re levies £180m every year from flood
insurers; in return, the government covers the flood risks that aim at reimbursing insurers
in the case of flood events. Flood Re reimburses the insurer using funds from the Flood Re-
fund. As a result, decreasing insurance costs to households and decreasing the burden on
flood insurers (Flood Re, 2019).

In Turkey, flooding is considered a secondary threat to the country, with earthquakes being
the primary threat. Perhaps as a consequence of that, no specific flood insurance schemes
are available in Turkey (Tavmen, 2014) which negatively affects the effectiveness of the
recovery phase. Thus, the implementation of flood insurance is important especially with
the noticeable increase in flooding events (Tavmen, 2014; Altun, 2018; Bayazit Hayta and
Gürbüzer, 2020). However, given the fact that Turkey’s structural defences were already
identified as ineffective, this implies that household flood insurance schemes would be
highly expensive and unaffordable. This may be considered as a possible interpretation for
the lack of flood insurance schemes in Turkey due to the fact that insurers are discouraged
from offering them due to the high risks that exist in comparison to the possible prices that
could be offered. On that basis, a government’s initiative is necessary with regards to flood
protection and insurance to enhance the effectiveness of Turkey’s recovery phase.

(b) Effectiveness of available resources

The noticeable decrease in the funds allocated for overall flood resilience, including
recovery measures, might derive into an ineffective flood management system in the UK
based on the aforementioned indicator (Surminski and Thieken, 2017; Hunter, 2018;

231
National Audit Office, 2020). On the other hand, nothing was revealed by the participants
of the interviews with regards to the adequacy of resources allocated to flood management
in Turkey.

6.1.2.6. Summary of the effectiveness of UK’s system

The results of this study revealed that, while not perfect, overall, the UK’s flood
management system is effective. The foremost reason for such effectiveness is attributed
to its localised approach that not only engages different local entities and stakeholders but
also involves and engages the local community. This is further enhanced by multiple
training programs and institutional learning schemes. Secondly, another major contributor
to the UK’s system, that adds to its effectiveness and efficacy, is the preparedness phase
that incorporates efficient and effective planning. However, the focus on non-structural
measures have led the UK to have ineffective structural defences; this was evident as the
findings revealed that the costs associated with flood events are significantly high. Also, the
UK lacks affordable mandatory flood insurance schemes, which affects the effectiveness of
its recovery phase.

6.1.2.7. Summary of the effectiveness of Turkey’s system

Despite having multiple strengths and weaknesses, Turkey’s system is somehow
considered on the borderline between an effective and ineffective system. This was
revealed from the results of this study along with the international comparison conducted.
Turkey still implements a centralised approach which contradicts the findings of the
literature, that support a localised approach. This was also evident in several of the
interviews, which again favoured a localised over a centralised approach. However, given
the size of Turkey, and its population, it could not be stated that the approach is ineffective
but rather, a more unbiased conclusion is that the adoption of a localised system would
have caused the system to be more effective.

The ineffectiveness of Turkey’s system is determined by other factors. Firstly, Turkey lacks
the development of flood hazard maps and hence mitigation plans. This affects the
effectiveness of any flood management system as it was revealed that the efficiency of the
preparedness phase is a main determinant of the effectiveness of the overall flood

232
management system. Also, Turkey lacks effective structural flood defences, which was
evident from the amount of destruction caused in the multiple flood events that were
reviewed. Finally, Turkey lacks insurance schemes that target flood events, a major reason
for having an ineffective recovery phase. As will be highlighted in the improvements
section, Turkey ‘s flood management would benefit from the implementation of any of
these measures.

6.1.3 Research question 3: What are the strengths and weaknesses of flood management
practices?
Despite having multiple strengths, the flood management systems of both countries have
been severely criticized for several flaws and deficiencies. Many researchers had critiqued
the flood management system in the UK and Turkey independently, pointing out several
defects that are present in each country’s approach. The following sections shed some light
on the strengths and weaknesses of both systems in a comparative form.

6.1.3.1 Management approach

The multiple stakeholder approach constitutes a major strength in the flood management
systems of both countries. This is because such an approach aids in the distribution of roles
and responsibilities for each stakeholder. Having multiple stakeholders assists in having
efficient management and enforcement of effective response strategies, in terms of quality
and time, as well as guaranteeing better communication between different stakeholders.
This is primarily because such an approach identifies and assigns roles and responsibilities
which in return eliminates the development of contradicting decisions (McCawley, 2010;
Chen et al., 2011; Eiser et al., 2012; Khalid and Shafiai, 2015; Rubinato et al., 2019; Chereni
et al., 2020).

In the UK, the multiple stakeholder approach is further supported by its localised approach,
adding to its strength as different viewpoints are considered; thus, causing the UK to
address the flood management issues comprehensively; furthermore, it positively
contributes to the community’s preparedness level (Surminski et al., 2020). In contrast, the
centralised approach implemented by Turkey has led to the weakening of, and restrictions
to, localised interventions which consequently not only affected the response time but

233
also, deprived the system of having consistent real-life information and reporting factual
and authentic on-ground information (MFWA, 2017); thereby, constituting a major flaw in
the system (Guven et al., 2017; Hermansson, 2018).

6.1.3.2 Preparedness phase

From an extensive review of the literature, it was apparent that paying more attention to
non-structural measures is still not successfully adopted by both the UK and Turkey
(UN/ECE, 2004; Özcan, 2017; Surminski and Thieken, 2017; Surminski et al., 2020); thereby,
revealing a major flaw in the flood management systems of both countries. Decreasing the
risks of floods and the associated damages is still challenging and countries cannot
overcome such consequences while barely using structural measures. Therefore,
researchers have been calling for non-structural measures with regards to the design
standards and the guidelines of codes of practice (Garrote et al., 2019). The following
paragraphs discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the preparedness phase.

(a) Flood management planning

Flood preparedness plans, as stated by the majority of interviewees, do not exist in Turkey
but they do exist in the UK, which is a main strength in the UK flood management system
while constitutes a weakness in the Turkish flood management system. Some Turkish
respondents revealed that there are already existing plans but they were not used to
manage floods in the previous years. They also added that there was no partnership neither
at the time they were developing the plans nor after the plans were reviewed and enacted.

Pre-planning is a crucial aspect to the flood management agencies in the Kendal region;
thus mitigation plans were already prepared and there was a partnership while developing
such plans, representing a strength in the UK flood management system. This partnership
emphasises the aspect of involving perspectives of different stakeholders and incorporates
the community as well (Environment Agency, 2016c). For such reasons, Kendal Flood Risk
Management Scheme is often reviewed, updated and revised.

Based on FMEIs for preparedness, researchers such as Kapucu and Ozerdem (2011) and
Koc and Thieken (2018) claimed that after the 1999 Kocaeli earthquake event, there were

234
significant pre-planning activities that took place in the Marmara region. The flood
management system initiated more aerial surveillance targeting floods that originate from
earthquakes; thus, attempts have been made by the authorities to identify flood-prone
areas through research and surveillance. Despite this, the system did not have a specific
flood management plan to deal with the 2009 flooding event. According to Komuscu and
Celik (2013) and Yucel, (2015), the event assessment did not include any findings that
support the existence of either a flood preparedness plan or flood mitigation plans. Due to
the absence of such plans, the process of enacting them was certainly not performed,
which prevented the authorities from dealing with the emergency (Caymaz et al., 2013).
Another aspect that indicates that these plans were not in use is the high amount of
flooding in roads, infrastructures, and buildings as well (AKOM Report, 2010; Curebal et al.,
2015; Özcan, 2017). Many research papers including Ceylan et al. (2007), Tas et al. (2013),
Sahin (2013), Şenol Balaban (2016) highlighted that the main reasons for an increased rate
of flood events include mismanaged urban developments, excessive urbanization, land
erosion and high rates of deforestations. This was further supported by a study conducted
by Memiş and Düzgün (2020) which indicated that massive changes in land use and land
cover in the Eastern Black Sea Region in Turkey had exacerbated the effects of the 2016
major flooding event; thereby, consitting a major weakness in the flood management
system of Turkey. Consequently, the development of accurate and updated flood maps that
inform land planning should be a priority for appropriate flood management planning.

(b) Awareness & participation of the local community

Moving towards the community’s preparedness and involvement, the interviews revealed
that the UK highly prioritises these two aspects, another strength in the UK's system;
therefore, agencies offer training programs to improve the level of preparedness of the
community. They also make sure to involve the people in every stage of the flood
management process.

The case in Turkey is somewhat different, although organisations do offer training

programs to the community, the idea of their engagement still did not gain significance.
Kasapoglu and Ecevit (2003) stated that training programs are still effective in Turkey as a
means of improving public knowledge and education, while dealing with emergencies; they

235
also proved to facilitate preparedness strategies. However, in Turkey, the level of
awareness of emergency preparedness along with public resilience is considered to be
relatively low as stated by Ovgun (2013) and Dobrucali and Demir (2016). This is because
both local and national governments have limited their efforts in taking essential steps to
increase the public awareness level for emergency management. This highlights another
flaw in the Turkish flood management system which might indicate that the system’s
practices are not effective.

6.1.3.3 Response phase

Besides the preparedness phase, the results of the research also highlighted several flaws
in the response phase of the flood management systems of both countries. The following
paragraphs discuss the strengths and deficiencies in the response phase of the flood
management systems of both countries.

(a) First response strategies

The 2009 flood that occurred in Istanbul unveiled several aspects, indicating Turkey having
problems regarding its first response to emergency events. As reported by Turoğlu (2011),
Komuscu and Celik (2013) and Özcan (2017), several destructions in the city’s
transportation system were reported. This is because such systems were not compatible
with the natural drainage system. As a result, they contributed to flooding by acting as a
barrier that prevented the discharge of water in flood events. Besides, in the Marmara
region infrastructure planning, design issues, such as the size and capacity of the drainage
system, had magnified the damages.

In the UK, the emergency response plan appears to be one of the major flaws in the flood
management system, even though the country had heavily invested in employing
necessary measures following the 2007 flood incidents (Muchan et al., 2015). Thorne
(2014), Bennett and Hartwell-Naguib (2014), Muchan et al. (2015) believed that the 2013-
14 UK floods acted as a national “alarm-call” that emphasized the need for a more resilient
flood management system: the decrease in funds allocated for flood resilience (from an
austerity-focused government), was one of the reasons behind the devastating impacts of
the 2013-2014 floods.

236
(b) Flood maps
Apart from strategies, another crucial aspect that reveals a major deficiency in the system
is the inaccuracy of flood maps. The case study of the Marmara flood reveals that there is
a contrast between the originally flooded area and the one in the maps (AKOM Report,
2010; Yucel, 2015; Özcan, 2017). Therefore, it can be concluded that the results obtained
from analysing the Marmara flood event, regarding the absence of flood mitigation and
preparedness plans along with flood hazard maps, coincide with those stated in the
interviews and the literature review of this study.

In the case study of the Kendal flood, the fact that the flooding areas were not part of the
current flood warning areas, reveals a weakness in the UK’s system, which is represented
by the inconclusiveness of the developed flood maps (Zurich Insurance and JBA Trust, 2016;
Forrest et al., 2017).

With climate change increasing the intensity and frequency of flood events (IPCC,2018),
the regular updating of maps and plans to reflect the current and future extent of floods
and the incorporation of this information in any land planning should be made a priority.

(c) Warning systems

Considering early warning systems, with the Marmara flood incident, the Turkish State
Meteorological Service issued a warning concerning the flooding and the State Hydraulic
Authority (DSI) introduced a number of measures (Sezer, 2009; Komuscu and Celik, 2013).
Those measures included implementing protective defences and infrastructure systems,
increasing the water storage capacity as well as warning different stakeholders about the
emergency event (Weather, 2006; State Hydraulic Works, 2014). However, although a
phone alert approach is still not utilised in Turkey (as mentioned by the Turkish survey
respondents), the authorities were able to inform people of the emergency event via radio
and TV messaging. This is because the area was already identified and predisposed to
flooding incidents (Sezer, 2009; Caymaz et al., 2013; Özcan, 2017).

With the Kendal flood incident, the flood alarms did not give people enough time to
evacuate their homes- another major flaw identified in the event (Environment Agency,

237
2016b; Cumbria County Council, 2018). The flood management system in Kendal was not
capable of providing a warning about other flood water sources, apart from the main river.
As a result, inadequate information was delivered to residents that flooding might occur
from other sources beyond the main river floodplain (Zurich Insurance and JBA Trust,
2016). Thus, the mitigation strategies through warnings were ineffective and were not
implemented effectively enough to prepare residents for the flooding event.

6.1.3.4 Recovery phase

An efficient flood management system should also be able to implement recovery
activities, such as the restoration of critical infrastructures (ie., water, electricity, and
transport networks). Such a recovery process requires major funding from national or
international institutions and this is one of the challenges that the UK is facing after the
2013-14 floods (Thorne, 2014; Pant et al., 2017). Besides governmental funds, insurance
and insurers play a significant role in the country’s ability to restore the functionality of its
main systems after a crisis. Thus, the strengths and weaknesses identified in the insurance
schemes of both countries are discussed hereunder.

(a) Insurance
Insurance is considered as one of the key aspects that could enhance the capabilities of
community, businesses, and government to resilience from flooding events. As through
compensation, people in the affected areas could continue with their normal activities after
the disaster is over (Edmonds, 2017; FSB, 2018). In the jurisdictions of both the UK and
Turkey, flood insurance does exist albeit with some differences.

In the UK, insurance is more focused on flood-related costs such as removing debris, drying
out the property, restoring fittings and fixtures, as well as fees for services after a flood
such as fees for a surveyor, architect, and legal representation (UK Government, 2015).
However, as declared by Lamond and Penning-Rowsell et al. (2014), Surminski and Thieken
(2017) and Ngenyam Bang and Church Burton (2021), flood insurance in the UK is not
compulsory which is a weakness that may impose several challenges on the community. It
is essential to acknowledge that with climate change, flooding is one of the imminent
challenges that society is bound to experience (Haigh and Nicholls, 2017)

238
For Turkey, the insurance is more grounded on earthquake-related losses, another
deficiency in Turkey’s system. “The TCIP” covers losses to property due to earthquakes and
fire, explosion, tsunami, or landslide following earthquakes. It covers residential buildings
that fall within municipal boundaries (Collier, 2014). Thus, researchers such as Collier
(2014) emphasised the importance of expanding insurance to cover floods in Turkey. It
could be argued that Turkey’s prioritising earthquake insurance is crucial given the larger
potential extent and impact of an earthquake vs the more localised nature of flood damage.
Besides, having a compulsory earthquake insurance acts as a way of strengthening its
capability of dealing with a major natural catastrophe that affects the majority of its
population (Bek et al., 2013; Basbug-Erkan and Yilmaz, 2015; Artemis, 2017).

6.1.3.5 Summary of UK’s strengths and weaknesses

Among the strengths of the UK’s system is its multiple-hierarchy and multiple stakeholders
approach which are further strengthened by its localised management approach. Besides,
the focus on the community’s preparedness and involvement is also a strength in the UK’s
system that adds to its resilience and effectiveness. Also, the UK has strong and diversified
structural defences that assist in mitigating the negative impacts of flood events. When it
comes to planning, it is a major strength in the UK’s flood management system. What
further adds to this strength is the UK’s dependency on partnerships in the formation and
development of the required plans; yet, concerns remain with regards to how effectively
they are implemented and adhered to, which may turn such strengths into weaknesses.
Finally, the UK has flood insurance schemes which strengthen its recovery phase.

The UK suffers from a weak first response strategy, due to the decreased central
government funding for flood resilience, as the current focus is on structural defences
(Surminski et al., 2020). However, in recognition of the significance of augmenting the UK’s
flood response strategy, the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs has recently
announced plans that aim to support flood resilience measures. The plans primarily focus
on the installation of property flood resilience measures. Furthermore, the plan acted as a
call for evidence to introduce changes to the flood funding formulas in areas that are
affected the most by flood events (UK Government, 2021). Although the UK has diversided
warning systems, there seems to be a weakness in the implementation of these systems as

239
delays in providing warnings were revealed. Lastly, the UK’s insurance schemes are not
mandatory; thus, exhibiting a weakness of the system that may negatively impact the
effectiveness of its recovery phase.

6.1.3.6 Summary of Turkey’s strengths and weaknesses

Turkey utilised a multiple-hierarchy and stakeholder management strategy as well, which
is a strength due to the sharing of roles and responsibilities. It has structural measures, as
well, that aids in the mitigation of impacts as a result of flood events. It also has warning
systems to ensure that the community is informed and aware. Training programs to the
community are also conducted which is a plus to the system as they increase public’s
knowledge and awareness.

Yet, the local community is not engaged in the management system due to its centralised
approach, which is one of its major weaknesses. Despite the existence of flood structural
defences, they appear to lack diversification and adequate planning, causing a major
weakness in the flood management system that exacerbates the impacts of flood events.
These were represented by the lack of flood planning and inaccuracy of urban planning.
This is all underpinned by Turkey’s lack of the necessary support tools such as flood hazard
and risk maps. Also, Turkey lacks flood insurance schemes which weakens its recovery
phase.

6.1.4 Research question 4: How could flood management in the UK and Turkey be
improved?
6.1.4.1 International comparison
In order to evaluate the most appropriate improvements to the UK and Turkey’s systems,
which represent the centralised and localised approaches, first, an international
comparison was conducted to compare and contrast the flood management practices
across different nations and cultures. The comparison is made against four countries
namely, the US, Germany, Australia, and Malaysia. Each country is summarised in the
following tables, subdivided into the preparedness, response and recovery phases of flood
management, as well as including the management approaches. The rationale of selecting
these countries is varied. Concerning the US, it is recognised as one of the best prepared

240
countries, and yet has witnessed a few of the worst flood events and disasters in history
over the past decades. Flood management is so significant in the US that it had decided to
use the 1% exceedance probability in its national flood insurance program. Its flood
management system is known to be very effective as it incorporates different support
tools, such as regional and local flood alerts, streamflow information, Flood Inundation
Mapping, USGS Storm-Tide Monitoring, etc. (Loftis et al., 2019; Sadiq et al., 2019; USGS,
2021).

Similarly, Australia is also well-known for the efficacy of its flood management system. In
recent years it has encountered several flood events, the effects of which were devastating
to the government and the local community (FMA, 2021). Nevertheless, it was successfully
capable of mitigating the impacts of such adverse events using a resilient flood
management system (Dufty et al., 2020; Sheehan and Brown, 2021).

Germany has implemented strong and effective flood management measures after the
“wakeup call” of severe floods in 2002, the country’s most economically damaging hazard
event (European Commission, 2016). Since then, it has been characterised by effective
preparedness, response and recovery phases (Surminski et al., 2020).

Finally, Malaysia is a developing country with a management system broadly comparable

with Turkey. Malaysia is heavily dependent on structural measures, as is Turkey (Ministry
of Environment and Water, 2021). However, it has been taking several steps towards
improving its flood management practices, with the adoption and implementation of some
non-structural measures. These include the introduction of the Saliran Mesra Alam
guideline, Integrated River Basin Development and Integrated Flood Management
approaches for its flood management (Chan et al., 2020; Ministry of Environment and
Water, 2021).

241
(a) Management approach

Table 6.1: International comparison with key findings in general approach of flood management

Country / UK Turkey USA Germany Australia Malaysia

Key Findings
General approach
Hierarchical Localised Centralised Localised: Localised FM approach Localised approach Centralised approach:
Approach approach and approach with community -flood and multi-agency where states and focused on flood
multi-agency a central risk management strategies (Surminski et territories have the control technologies
strategies ministry approach (Sadiq et al., 2020) primary responsibility by structural
al., 2019) for FM (Dufty et al., measures (Chan et al.,
2020) 2020)
Stakeholders Multi-agency- Multi-agency- Multi-stakeholders Multi-stakeholder Multi-stakeholder Multi-stakeholder
involved multiple multiple approach including approach: federal, state engagement where approach, including
stakeholder stakeholder federal agencies, and municipal entities. local councils, federal agencies, the
strategies with strategies with all-level Limited cross-government catchment private sector and
multiple limited governments, the collaboration or cross- management NGOs, with limited
departments interventions private sector and sectoral involvement, authorities and their interventions (Omar
and agencies NGOs (Kousky and except for insurance technical stakeholders Chong and
Golnaraghi, 2020) companies (Witting et al., (McLoughlin et al., Kamarudin, 2018)
2021) 2020)

242
It was found out that Turkey’s centralised flood management approach is similar to that
employed by Malaysia where flood risks are managed at a state level. In contrast, the UK’s
localised approach is similar to the approaches implemented by the US, Germany and
Australia. A possible interpretation for the adoption of such strategies is due to the history
of governmental styles in each country. Also, it was evident from the comparison that
although they have different approaches in their flood management as centralised and
localised, all countries employ a multi-stakeholder approach where the flood management
practices are performed by multiple entities. This approach has been proved to be one of
the efficient and effective management strategies.

243
(b) Preparedness phase
Table 6.2: International comparison of the preparedness phase in flood management
Country / UK Turkey USA Germany Australia Malaysia
Key Findings
Preparedness
Practices Effective flood Lack of accurate Flood risk rate maps are Flood risk maps use a Flood risk maps exist, Flood hazard
hazard maps flood hazard maps. developed (Bergsma, flood hazard zoning flood risk reduction mapping and
through research, Mapping process 2019); National flood system; however, the guidelines, e.g. the zonation in still
aerial is still in progress. risk estimation local community has no Australian Disaster progress (Liew et al.,
surveillance and Research and softwares such as Hazus access to it. Lack of data Resilience Handbook 2021)
other techniques. surveillance are by the FEMA and modelling and mapping and flood risk reduction
Early warnings primarily directed decision-making tools for specific flood types frameworks. There is a
are conducted to earthquakes. such as New Jersey's GIS e.g. surface water lack of assessment to
Early warnings are tool (Sadiq et al., 2019) (Mahdavian et al., 2020) inform decision making
conducted (Dufty et al., 2020)

Engagement of Communities are Lack of Communities having Local communities are Communities are rarely Lack of engagement
local engaged; community active role in flood rarely engaged in the engaged in FM. of communities in
communities however, with engagement in the management of (Blaikie FM system (Surminski et Although individual FM system
limited flood management et al., 2014) al., 2020) flood emergency plans (Mohamad Yusoff et
understanding of process are promoted, al., 2018)
the processes preparedness levels of
involved. More the community and
evidently, as businesses are still low
interest groups (Dufty et al., 2020)
rather than
partners

244
 Country / UK Turkey USA Germany Australia Malaysia
Key Findings
Mitigation Flood mitigation Lack of flood Flood risk mitigation Lack of property level Mitigation, emergency Lack of flood control
plans plans exist; mitigation plans due plans are developed mitigation plans; management plans and and mitigation plans;
however, not fully to the absence of both by the mitigation plans are risk management plans however, projects to
enacted during flood hazard maps community and the being developed with are developed by local build up the plans
flood events government (Sadiq et the main focus on councils (Sheehan and are still in progress
al., 2019) protection rather than Brown, 2021) (Mohamad Yusoff et
system-wide resilience al., 2018)
(Surminski et al., 2020)

Planning Although flood Lack of flood Effective planning that Extensive planning to Effective planning with Lack of planning in
planning is planning systems for uses land-based reduce flood risks; New regards to modelling and disaster management
conducted, it is all stages planning instruments Acts enforced, land-use with planning between top-down
ineffective as the represented which is evident from regulations are laws enacted by each of and bottom-up
developed plans primarily through the FEMA's 100-year developed and the state and approaches (Omar
are not enacted weak urban planning floodplain (Bergsma, amendments in design implemented by local Chong and
during events 2019) codes (Surminski et al., councils (McLoughlin et Kamarudin, 2018)
2020) al., 2020)
Training Training is offered Training is offered to The NOAA’s National Limited number of Training programs are Lack of fund for
programmes to local local communities; Weather Service training programs are developed and training to conduct
communities both however, not with (NWS) conducts being conducted by conducted by the state disaster
to inform and the intention of outreach and training academic and trade and other private preparedness and
engage them engaging them in the programs that target group entities organisations to educate readiness for the
management process both communities and (Surminski et al., 2020) local communities of FM local community
emergency managers and engage them; but, (Omar Chong &
(Kousky and low levels of community Kamarudin, 2018)
Golnaraghi, 2020) interest in FM was
disclosed (Dufty, 2020)

245
 Country / UK Turkey USA Germany Australia Malaysia
Key Findings
Awareness Relatively high Low levels of Data communicated Awareness campaigns Flood risk mapping Low awareness of
levels of public public awareness effectively, e.g. through are mostly driven by details are not available dangers on flood
awareness which is and resilience the CRS program which insurers. Data with to the public but rather among society
evidenced from provides incentives to regards to flood risks flood-related controls are (Mohamad Yusoff et
pilot projects local community for are available; however, only available. However, al., 2018)
conducted adoption of flood not tailored to be there is an information
mitigation measures understood by portal that hosts historic
(Sadiq et al., 2019), flood different end-users flood data. The data is
disclosure laws & risk (Mahdavian et al., rarely used for raising
communication programs 2020) awareness (Dufty et al.,
by FEMA (Kousky and 2020)
Golnaraghi, 2020)
Evaluation Lack of assessment Lack of FM evaluation and Evaluation and Monitoring and Lack of assessment
and framework to assessment assessment program exist; assessments, (mostly evaluation frameworks systems and
assessment evaluate the systems in however, they lack post-event) exist. However, due to frameworks;
strength of general which coordination (Kousky and conducted by local limited funding available emphasis given on
collaborative proves Turkey's Golnaraghi, 2020) authorities, non-profit to FM in most local managing post-
efforts focus on the groups, and academic councils, evaluation and disaster situations,
recovery and institutes (Surminski et assessments are not such as needs and
emergency relief al., 2020) conducted appropriately health of a
stages nor on a regular basis population (Liew et
(Dufty et al., 2020) al., 2021)
Institutional Formally organised Lack of Institutional learning Limited framework for Institutional learning is Lack of institutional
Learning institutional institutional frameworks are being institutional learning, conducted with the aid of learning and
learning schemes learning schemes adopted and promoted to mainly in the State Flood Program effective data
that are reviewed due to the lack of academic, businesses, governmental where specialist technical collection (Omar
and enhanced effective data local governments and authorities, with local support is provided to Chong and
collection and communities (Kousky and authorities learning local councils (Dufty et Kamarudin, 2018)
reporting Golnaraghi, 2020) from the performance al., 2020)
mechanisms of their peers (Witting
et al., 2021)

246
Regarding the preparedness phase, it was evident that all of the countries examined in this
section implement similar flood management practices represented in flood hazard maps,
zoning, aerial surveillance, etc. Indeed, the countries that adopt a centralised approach
namely, Turkey and Malaysia lacked the engagement of local communities. The same
countries lacked a fundamental aspect of the preparedness phase, which is the focus on
non-structural measures such as flood mitigation plans, institutional learning and training
programs.

Germany and Malaysia seemed to be still lagging in terms of the training programs offered
to raise awareness of the community. Although the findings revealed that Turkey offers
such programs, they are ineffective as compared to the programs offered by the UK, US
and Australia, leading to low levels of public awareness. With regards to Germany, despite
the absence of training programs, public awareness levels were found to be high; this was
attributed to other communication means such as incentive programs, laws and
regulations. Ironically, unlike the US and Australia, the results revealed that the UK lacks
effective evaluation and assessment schemes to the measures conducted with regards to
its flood management system.

247
(c) Response phase
Table 6.3: International comparison of the response phase in flood management

Country / UK Turkey USA Germany Australia Malaysia

Key Findings
Response
Structural Structural Inflexible structural Strong resilience with Extensive Strong structural In spite of the huge
defences defences exist defences, due to focus on non- structural flood defences exist such as amount of funds
such as Stock the lack of structural measures defenses are levees, invested on mega
Becks; although accounting for (Kousky and being deployed; detention/retarding structural measures,
some time may multiple factors Golnaraghi, 2020). solely managed basins and temporary flood disasters
be inadequate simultaneously and Structural defenses by the federal barriers with regular continue to escalate
design issues exist such as flood states (Surminski and on-going (Chan et al., 2020)
walls and drains; et al., 2020) maintenance.
shifting towards green Property-level
infrastructure to protection measures
mitigate flood risk also exist (Dufty et al.,
(Yildirim and Demir, 2020)
2021)
Stakeholders' Are considered Are considered due Stakeholders' Lack of Stakeholders' Are considered due
perceptions due to the to the multi-agency perceptions are engagement of perceptions are to the multi-agency
multi-agency approach; considered via the expert considered in FM; approach; however,
approach. however, there is a cooperation with community; however, stakeholders there is a lack of
Several lack of partnerships technical partners, a partnerships are are mainly coordination
partnerships with non- mapping advisory limited to governmental and between
with private governmental council & partnerships insurance public entities, except government
entities agencies and with local and companies insurance companies agencies and
volunteer-based cooperators (Kousky (Bubeck and (McLoughlin et al., volunteer-based
organisations and Golnaraghi, 2020) Thieken, 2017) 2020) organisations Chan
et al., 2020)
248
 Country / UK Turkey USA Germany Australia Malaysia
Key Findings
People's Are considered Are not considered Are considered due to Lack of Property-level Are not considered
perceptions extensively due in the flood the decentralised consideration of schemes are rarely in the flood
to the localised management approach and public people's tracked leading to low management
management process due to the outreach (Ballard- perceptions due levels of consideration process owing to the
approach, via centralised Reisch et al., 2008) to their limited to people's top-down approach
Local Resilience approach engagement in perceptions with (Mohamad Yusoff et
Forums and the FM (Surminski regards to FM (Dufty al., 2018)
strategic et al., 2020) et al., 2020)
coordinating
groups

249
In the response phase, all countries appear to be still heavily dependent on structural
defences. Also, stakeholders’ perceptions are being considered by all countries; however,
the main differences emerge from the type of stakeholders that are considered, being
public or private entities. Apart from stakeholders, the perceptions of local communities
are considered primarily by the UK and the US. Ironically, the six countries have relatively
low resilience levels due to the fact that they either solely focus on structural defences or
non-structural measures, indicating the urge to equally balance efforts for maintaining
both structural and non-structural measures to enhance the resilience of flood
management systems. Finally, all countries that were investigated have effective insurance
schemes for flood risks, with the exception of Turkey and Malaysia. These developing
countries should learn from those developed ones the value of insurance on the recovery
phase.

250
(d) Recovery phase
Table 6.4: International comparison of the recovery phase in flood management

Country / UK Turkey USA Germany Australia Malaysia

Key Findings
Recovery
Resilience Low relevance More resilient Efforts are being Relatively low A focus on recovery Lack of long-term
due to the system that is exerted towards FM resilience with instead of risk planning (especially for
decreased focus capable to and the mitigation of the major focus reduction and recovery) that resulted
on the recovery recover rapidly risks, via many on "Building back management. Thus, in low community and
phase which is due to the programs, e.g. grants better" in the the main focus in to stakeholders' resilience
apparent from increased focus for hazard mitigation recovery stage rebuilt stronger, to disasters (Omar
the decrease in on emergency and the flood mitigation (Bubeck and flood-resilient assets Chong and Kamarudin,
the allocated relief program (Yildirim and Thieken, 2017) (McLoughlin et al., 2018)
funds Demir, 2021) 2020)
Insurance Non-mandatory; No flood Insurance is provided to Insurance is Voluntary flood Low uptake of flood
Focused on insurance; flood risks based on afforded by the insurance that is insurance policies as
flood related rather, risk-based rates that private market; it provided by the awareness of insurance
costs insurance is encourages the is not mandatory private market products is still low
grounded on community to take risk- (Surminski et al., (Dufty et al., 2020) (Liew et al., 2021)
earthquake reduction measures 2020)
losses (Bergsma, 2019)

251
Concerning the recovery phase, it was apparent that the countries with centralised
management approaches have resilient recovery phases, i.e. Turkey and Malaysia. This is
due to the increased focus on structural defences. With regards to insurance, Turkey is
similar to Malaysia, where no insurance schemes for flood recovery are offered. The UK is
similar to the US, Germany and Australia where flood insurance schemes are voluntary.

6.1.4.2 Improvements to some aspects of flood management

(a) Assessment frameworks
In a research conducted by Cumiskey (2020), it was apparent that the UK lacks an
assessment framework through which the collaboration and integration of multiple
stakeholders within flood management systems could be evaluated in terms of the strength
of the relationships between the government and various stakeholders. The results further
revealed a need to develop a culture of collaboration in flood management to jointly create
and share knowledge. The case was also similar with Turkey, as no relevant evaluation and
assessment frameworks were identified, neither through the literature review, the
interviews, nor the case study.

In the international comparison, evaluation frameworks were identified in the US, Germany
and Australia, although they had multiple flaws and deficiencies, indicating that the
development of an evaluation scheme is a complex process. However, evaluation
frameworks are necessary because they aid the flood management systems in identifying
flaws, on which corrective actions could then be designed (National Audit Office, 2020).
Therefore, both the UK and Turkey should consider designing comprehensive and efficient
evaluation frameworks.

(b) Increasing the system’s flexibility and adaptability

The capacity for change must also exceed the arrival of the new information which means
that systems should have infrastructures, practices, and strategies that could adapt to
changes based on the emergency level of the situation (Sayers et al., 2013). In this context,
Clarke (2018) has investigated the role of transformative changes in influencing the
adaptations to flood risk management in Ireland. The results revealed that transformative
changes are not only capable of developing flood policies that preserve tangible assets but

252
also, are capable of considering intangible assets such as cultural values (Hegger et al.,
2020). Moreover, they aid in attaining a broader societal understanding and
transformations which in return assist in reducing associated flood risks. Nevertheless, it
was identified that social values, governmental and institutional processes were the main
barriers to an effective implementation of transformative changes in the context of flood
management (Clarke, 2018).

Unfortunately, both Turkey and the UK lack such aspects and that was vivid in the 2009
flash floods in Marmara and 2015-16 UK floods respectively. For instance, the 2009 floods
in Turkey showed that the region’s infrastructure planning was based on hydrological
factors. This means that these infrastructures have no room for adapting to changes and
modifications regarding the emergency flood incidents (Turoğlu, 2011; Özcan, 2017; Çelik
et al., 2018). Hence, the flood management needs an extra set of contingency plans for
failures of infrastructure, such as bridges or flood walls.

In the UK, the 2015-16 flood incidents gave solid evidence that the response plan
developed by the Environment Agency and other local responders had not been prepared
to deal with an emergency of such magnitude (Environment Agency, 2016b; Cumbria
County Council, 2018). Although both countries have efficient defences, none of them had
implemented strategies that are subject to modifications based on the emergency level of
the situation (Yuksel et al., 2011; Haigh and Nicholls, 2017; Gülbaz et al., 2019). Therefore,
both management systems should focus on enhancing the adaptability and flexibility of
their flood management systems.

(c) Access to information for flood management

There are other barriers that could obstruct the effectiveness of community participation
in flood risk mitigation and management. As outlined by the research of Clarke (2018),
public authorities ought to embrace new technologies as a means of communication
through which a community could be encouraged to play an active role in local flood
management.

253
The UK and Turkey both involve volunteer teams in their flood management practices. They
also include the use of different media platforms, such as TV, social media, and radio as
part of their early warning systems to inform people about impending floods. However,
respondents in Turkey did not mention the use of phone alerts as a preparedness tool to
flood emergencies, while in the UK, phone alerts are frequently used (Surminski et al.,
2020). The reason behind not using phone alerts in Turkey is the lack of flood hazard maps
that hinders the process of utilising such tools to inform people, especially those living in
remote areas (Kerim and Süme, 2019). Therefore, both countries should ensure the use of
diversified means of communication to be able to communicate the risks of flooding to
local residents.

(d) Understanding society’s goals

Apart from the flood management system’s behaviour, the parties responsible for flood
management should understand society’s goals, while establishing a response plan for
flood emergencies. Such understanding could enable the management framework to
incorporate societal goals into the flood management practices. For this to happen, it is
believed that people’s participation in the setting of goals and describing short-term needs
is necessary for a good flood management system (Kilicaslan, 2016).

Such a strategy had been implemented in the UK’s emergency response approach by
establishing the localised response which involves Local Resilience Forums and Strategic
Coordinating Groups. LRFs and SCGs manage local inundations with the help of private
organizations, neighbours, and other local responders (Cabinet Office, 2013; Surminski et
al., 2020). In contrast, Turkey’s centralised system has limited the involvement of local
communities. The Turkish flood management system might be considered to have flaws in
terms of considering societal goals and interpreting them in emergency response planning
(Kuterdem, 2010; Çakı and Gültekin Özbayram, 2020). Therefore, governments should take
into account the views and opinions of local communities when designing flood response
strategies.

254
6.1.4.3 Recommendations to improve flood management
(a) Turkey
The Turkish flood management system should consider the following:
i. Shifting from its centralised approach to a more localised approach. The
decentralised approach has been adopted by most developed countries including
the UK and provides a clear vision on the state of events, enabling a more effective
allocation of emergency resources to the affected individuals;
ii. Producing digital, online and publicly accessible flood hazard maps that assist
identifying the flood-prone areas, preparing several mitigation plans as well as
improving the responses to flood events;
iii. Developing all essential plans, which includes flood mitigation, flood preparedness,
and flood recovery plans, to augment and enhance its flood management system
and to be able to mitigate and minimise the impacts of flood events;
iv. Embracing new technology in the preparedness level of flood management, such as
Smartphone applications (e.g. SMS emergency warning texts; access to a flood
warning website) to improve its mitigation strategies and to prepare residents for a
flooding event.

(b) The UK
The flood management system in the UK should consider the following:
i. Utilising advanced instruments and technology in a better means to elevate their
overall implementation of the different preparedness, mitigation, and response
plans;
ii. Tackling the issue of the decrease in central government funding related to the
flood recovery phase. The increase in funds allocated to this phase would positively
affect the country’s ability to rebuild and strengthen the deteriorated flood defence
structures after a flood event.

(c) Both Turkey and the UK

Flood managers in Turkey and the UK should consider:
i. Implementing flood insurance policies that enable the government to share the
flood risks with other businesses and organisations, thus decreasing the social and

255
 financial burden on all governmental agencies and allowing for augmented flood
management systems;
ii. Focusing on institutional learning and the conduction of formal organisations to
further improve the knowledge and skills of different emergency actors, volunteers,
and the community. Subsequently, the overall performance and effectiveness of
the flood management system in both countries would be enhanced.

6.2 Summary
Based on the efficiency indicators that were identified regarding preparedness, response,
and recovery practices, both the UK and Turkey have defects in certain areas that indicate
its flood management system is ineffective, partially effective and needing improvements.
This assessment was reinforced by a comparison with flood management systems of four
other countries: the USA, Australia, Germany and Malaysia. The comparison has
highlighted that it is more effective to deal with flood risk with the support of the central
government, local administrators, stakeholders and the community involvement.

It is clear from the findings that the flood management system in Turkey might be
considered ineffective, primarily due to its centralised approach and the lack of many tools,
notably preparedness and recovery plans, flood hazard and risk maps, community
partnerships, effective structural measures and flood insurance schemes.
Recommendations have been provided here to improve the effectiveness of the Turkish
flood management system, notably: shifting to a localised approach; consideration of non-
structural measures, such as planning; engagement with local communities, taking into
account their opinions; and the introduction of flood insurance schemes.

The UK’s flood management system appears to be more effective, relative to Turkey. That
said, relative to the USA and Australia, the UK flood management system appears to be less
effective. Among the factors that contributed to the effectiveness of the UK’s management
system are its localised approach, the effective planning activities, the engagement of local
communities, and the conduction of training programs to raise awareness. However, some
factors that may have affected the overall effectiveness of the UK’s system, notably: a lack

256
of assessment frameworks; improper implementation and adherence to developed plans;
and voluntary-based flood insurance schemes.

257
 Chapter 7 – Conclusions
7.1 Introduction
This research aimed to assess the effectiveness of flood management in Turkey and the
United Kingdom, providing recommendations for improving effectiveness. The
methodology involved a literature review that compared flood management in the UK and
Turkey, with a case study from each country; analysis of flood management efficiency
indicators for each country, and the results of semi structured interviews with flood
management professionals in each country. This chapter provides a synthesis of the core
findings of the research through which conclusions on the flood management systems in
the UK and Turkey will be drawn.

7.1.1 The identification of indicators from the literature

To assess the effectiveness of the flood management system in Turkey and the UK, there
should be standardised measures already identified. The implementation of these specific
measures would have aided in determining the effectiveness level of the flood emergency
operations in Turkey and the UK, besides the conduction of an extensive review of the
literature. Due to the lack of specific and standardised indicators, this research has
identified 26 effectiveness indicators which are shown in Table 3.1, based on the results of
the data gathered from research papers.

Specific indicators were identified to assess each flood management phase: 15 indicators
for preparedness, 4 indicators for response, and 7 indicators for recovery. In the
preparedness phase, the importance of having the capacity for change, based on the
severity of the emergency, has been identified. For the response phase, the need for
different stakeholders to understand the behaviour of the entire system as well as the goals
of the society, have been determined. While for the recovery phase, having sufficient
recovery funds was particularly important for effective flood management.

7.1.2 Taking professionals’ perspectives into account

After identifying the efficiency indicators for the assessment of the flood management
system in Turkey and the UK, it was important to investigate the perspectives of different
professionals in both systems for more accurate and appropriate measurement. This was

258
done by conducting interviews with participants from organisations involved in flood
management. To narrow down the selection of participants and for more reliable results,
two cities/provinces (or counties) were selected: Izmit/Kocaeli in Turkey and
Southampton/Hampshire in the UK. This selection was based on several factors, notably
their similar geographical settings and the nature of the major flood events that had
affected them. 24 interview responses from flood management professionals were
analysed 12, split 50:50 between UK and Turkish participants.

7.1.3 Case studies

In an attempt to better assess the effectiveness of the flood management system in Turkey
and the UK, two case studies were analysed: the 2009 Marmara flooding and the 2015
Kendal flooding. These studies enabled the researcher to analyse the flood management in
‘real-life’ examples. After analysing the causes of Marmara and Kendal flooding, the
effectiveness of the UK and Turkish flood management was measured by investigating the
practices implemented in the preparedness, response, and recovery phases.

7.2 Summary of research findings

7.2.1 Addressing the research questions
The main aim of this research was to assess the effectiveness of the adopted flood
management systems in the UK and Turkey in an attempt to provide recommendations
that could assist in enhancing the effectiveness of flood management systems. The
rationale for choosing these countries is their diversity in terms of several factors including
economic status. To recap, the original research questions of this project were:

1) How do the flood management systems in the UK and Turkey compare?

This question attempted to compare the flood management systems of two diverse
countries, with the UK representing developed countries while Turkey representing
developing countries. The comparison was made through an extensive review of the
literature, case studies and interviews with experts from both countries.

Considering the similarities, both systems use multiple-agency and multiple-stakeholders

in managing their flood events and they both have institutional learning schemes through

259
which the transmittance of information, knowledge and experiences are facilitated.
However, the UK’s approach is localised: local government authorities, utilities, NGOS,
businesses and the local community engage in the flood management system. On the other
hand, Turkey’s approach is a centralised approach that lacks the aforementioned local
stakeholders. Also, it was evident that the UK is heavily dependent on flood mitigation
plans, relative to Turkey where such plans do not exist.

2) How effective is flood management in the UK and Turkey?

This question attempted to evaluate the flood management practices implemented in the
UK and Turkey. The evaluation was based on the identification of efficiency indicators.

The results indicate that, overall, the UK’s flood management system is effective. The
foremost reason for such effectiveness is attributed to its localised approach, which not
only engages different local entities and stakeholders, but also involves the local
community. This is enhanced by multiple training programs and institutional learning
schemes. Secondly, another major contributor to the UK’s system, which adds to its
efficacy, is effective flood preparedness planning. However, the UK also has some relatively
old, poorly-maintained and ineffective structural defences. Because of numerous failures
of flood defence infrastructure in UK urban areas, the costs associated with flood events
were very high. Also, the UK lacks affordable mandatory flood insurance schemes which
affects the effectiveness of its recovery phase.

Having multiple strengths and weaknesses, Turkey’s flood management is on the

borderline between an effective system and an ineffective system. This was revealed from
the results of the study along with the international comparison conducted. Similar to
Malaysia, Turkey still implements a centralised approach. Given the much larger size of
Turkey and its population, relative to the UK, and the very limited availability of accurate
detailed (ie, 1:10,000-scale) flood hazard maps, it might be that a more localised flood
management system would currently be difficult for Turkey to implement. Even though
flood hazard maps are partially available for some places, it is planned to map the flood
hazard zones for each province in Turkey by 2022.

260
However, the ineffectiveness of Turkey’s system was determined from other factors.
Firstly, Turkey lacks the development of flood mitigation plans which affects the
effectiveness of any flood management system (as it was revealed that the efficiency of the
preparedness phase is a main determinant of the effectiveness of the overall flood
management system). Also, Turkey lacks effective structural flood defences which was
evident from the amount of destruction caused in the multiple flood events that were
reviewed. Finally, Turkey lacks insurance schemes that target flood events, which is a major
reason for having an ineffective recovery phase.

3) What are the strengths and weaknesses of flood management practices?

This question attempted to highlight the areas of strengths and weaknesses in both flood
management systems which were derived from the comparison of the practices against the
efficiency indicators that were identified.

The results indicate that the UK’s strengths are mainly associated with its localised
approach where communities have an active role in the flood management system. It has
effective planning, response and mitigation plans, forms partnerships and raises awareness
through training programmes. The system’s weaknesses are attributable to its often old
and weak structural defences, the inconclusiveness of the flood maps, delays in the
response phase and the fact that its insurance schemes are not mandatory.

On the other hand, Turkey’s strengths are mostly manifested in its multiple-agency and
multiple-stakeholder approach, and its efforts to raise awareness of the public.
Nevertheless, the lack of local engagement in emergency planning is a major weakness,
due to the general lack of local flood management strategies. Furthermore, Turkey lacks
the planning capacity, a fundamental aspect in any flood management programme.

4) How could flood management in the UK and Turkey be improved?

This question attempted to provide recommendations to the possible means through
which the flood management systems of both countries could be elevated. The
recommendations are based on the synthesis of the results obtained while addressing the
aforementioned questions.

261
Based on the efficiency indicators that were identified, regarding preparedness, response,
and recovery practices, each country has defects in certain areas that categorise its flood
management system as ineffective and needing improvements. This was confirmed by
comparing the findings of this research with the findings of publications about the flood
management systems of the USA, Australia, Germany and Malaysia.

7.3 Contribution to knowledge

This research has developed, for the first time, flood management efficiency indicators
(FMEIs) to compare the UK and Turkey’s flood management systems. Based on the findings
of the literature review, the interviews, and the case studies, it is evident that the UK’s
flood management system is more effective than the Turkish system due to several
reasons. Firstly, regarding the preparedness phase, the advanced early warning systems,
which incorporate phone alerts, along with the effectiveness of structural defences reflect
the high level of preparedness that the country is investing in to limit the risks of flood
events. Indeed, the most crucial aspect for the effectiveness of the preparedness system is
the development of flood risk maps which is one of the major deficiencies in the Turkish
flood management system.

The existence of such maps not only aided the emergency actors in delivering warnings to
flood areas but also contributed to better response approaches. To illustrate, flood hazard
maps allowed for the development of flood mitigation and preparedness plans for each
flood region based on its characteristics. Thus, the existence of these plans enables the
system to respond effectively to flooding events which further minimises the impact of the
flood incident. In fact, the Turkish flood management system lacks the aforementioned
aspects and most importantly the availability of flood hazard maps, flood mitigation plans,
and flood preparedness plans. Hence, indicating that the flood management system in the
UK is way better than that in Turkey which is not the case when incorporating the findings
from the case studies.

The Kendal flood event revealed a fundamental deficiency in the UK’s system of flood
management which turned down all the efforts exerted by the system to prepare for
flooding. To clarify, although plans were already developed, the results revealed that these

262
were not enacted during the Kendal flood incident. Besides, the mitigation strategies
through warnings were ineffective and were not implemented properly to prepare
residents for a flooding event. Therefore, the development of maps and plans, as well as
the utilisation of advanced tools, contributes a lot to achieve an effective flood
management system. However, without proper enactment and implementation of the pre-
developed approaches, there will be no difference between the effectiveness of both
countries’ systems.

Secondly, the results of the research indicate that the non-structural response initiatives in
both Turkey and the UK were effective while managing both the Marmara and the Kendal
flood events. The collaboration between emergency actors and volunteers in rescuing
people, managing the excavation strategies, aiding affected and injured people, and
relocating them to safer places revealed the spirit of partnership in the response initiatives.
Consequently, the number of fatalities and injuries were limited, which further displays the
success of the flood management systems in both countries when responding to
emergencies. However, the structural response initiatives which encompass structural
defences and infrastructure systems were not effective during the Marmara flood incident.
This is because neither the improved channels and control structures were capable of
accommodating the rising urban population nor the defences were designed to handle the
widespread flooding due to its limited capacity. However, this was not the case in the
Kendal flood event and the structural approaches were proven to be effective based on the
findings of the case studies.

The reason for the effectiveness of the flood management initiatives in the UK is the
localised approach adopted, which emphasises the involvement of partnership in all flood
management stages, starting from preparedness and planning and reaching the recovery
and resilience phase. Moreover, enhancing local agencies and authorities’ involvement in
emergency planning can aid in reducing the gap of expectations, as the more they are
engaged in emergency management activities, the better they develop ways of becoming
prepared for emergencies. Indeed, people who are practically involved in the emergency
event have a clearer, more insightful, and factual vision about the actual circumstances;
thus, they are more knowledgeable and well-informed as compared to entities that are not

263
directly engaged in an event. This further emphasises the importance of considering their
perception while managing flood risks which could improve the overall implementation of
defences and infrastructure systems.

There is no doubt that the recovery phase is another important indicator for measuring the
effectiveness of a flood management system. Besides, carrying out recovery activities along
with having sufficient recovery funds are other key measures that aid in the assessment of
the system. Concerning the recovery initiatives in both the UK and Turkey, the findings of
the interviews demonstrate the systems to be effective and this was further evident from
the Marmara and Kendal flood events. The governmental and non-governmental agencies
of both countries collaborated to rebuild and restore the affected areas. Also, long-term
plans were initiated by the Turkish government and local authorities to handle flooded
areas and even assistance from non-governmental organizations and emergency
management organisations were received to manage the losses. While in the UK, most of
the distorted infrastructures were restored in no time indicating successful recovery
initiatives. However, the restoration of critical infrastructures like water, electricity, and
transport networks requires huge funds from different institutions and this is one of the
challenges that the UK is facing. The noticeable decrease in the funds allocated for overall
flood resilience including recovery was vivid after the 2013-2014 flood events. Thus, not
addressing such issues might affect the effectiveness of the flood management system in
the UK.

To sum up, the flood management system in both Turkey and the UK have several flaws
and deficiencies that need to be addressed to have an effective system that is capable of
minimising the risks and impacts associated with flooding events. Even though the results
of the international comparison indicate that flood management practices are quite similar
in terms of some critical aspects, some differences emerge and could be main contributors
to the efficacy and effectiveness of flood management systems.

Based on the findings of this research, a set of key recommendations have been produced,
which are presented at the end of the Results and Discussion chapter.

264
7.4 Limitations of this project
This research project has employed three principal methods: A set of interviews, a case
study (Marmara flooding and Kendal flooding) and an extensive literature review for flood
management in the UK and Turkey. However, time and cost implications meant that it could
only be conducted over a limited area (Southampton/Hampshire vs. Izmit/Kocaeli). Since
the study was a comparative analysis of the flood management system, it was found
appropriate to examine the management system there by selecting the similar settlements.

In the surveys, 37 experts from both countries would be interviewed. Interviews were held
with 24 experts, 12 experts from each country. Similarly, although there is a saturation
factor in repeating the responses from the candidates, the target of 37 interviews was not
achieved. In addition, the data obtained from the interviewees of the 24 experts were
sufficient to identify common themes and provide an overview of the research topic.

Another limitation was that research for this study at the community level was not
available. Turkish society did not want to participate in the study due to political sensitivity.
It would not make sense for the British public to get involved in the research, as it was a
comparative study.

Another limitation was the lack of research on flood insurance. During the pilot study,
Turkish executives talked about earthquake insurance and British executives about flood
insurance. These questions were not included in the main study because this does not fit
the concept of the comparative study. The participation of more experts in this field would
potentially have furnished a clearer view of the topic. However, the interview data did
allow the goals of the research to be addressed. This aim was to highlight the importance
of legislation and its role in flood management, in particular in the promotion of resilience.
Further research is therefore needed into this matter, as discussed in the following section.

7.5 Recommendations for further research

Future research should consider investigating flood incident case studies across more
diverse locations to be able to attain a comprehensive overview of the management
practices. This is particularly important in the case of the UK because flood management

265
practices may slightly differ across the different nations (ie, Scotland., Wales, Northern
Ireland, relative to England). Moreover, future research should consider interviewing a
larger and more diverse sample of stakeholders within the flood management system, i.e.
representatives of both private and public entities, to reduce bias in the findings.

While the research addressed the evaluation of the effectiveness of the flood management
systems of both countries with regards to three main phases namely, preparedness,
response and recovery phases, other factors should be considered due to their influence
on the efficiency of flood management systems. One factor is the process of enacting
policies relating to flood management. This process includes the conflicts that arise from
enacting the same policy within different provinces with different requirements along with
the compliance of such policies to the wider context of flood management, in terms of
international disaster management policies. Thus, the extent to which the enforced policies
are adaptable would greatly contribute to the effectiveness of flood management systems.

Another crucial aspect to be investigated in future is the role of insurance plans in flood
management. The significance of investigating the flood insurance schemes emerges from
the fact that insurance aids in having more effective preparedness, response and recovery
strategies. Thus, aspects that determine how insurance plans could be effectuated, such as
risk-based plans, the associated costs and prices, etc., should be studied to have a
comprehensive understanding of the role of insurance companies. The comparison of
international flood management systems had indicated that insurance companies play a
vital role in raising public awareness levels with regards to flood risks; thus, its inclusion in
future research would give an insight into the preparedness levels of communities as well.

Social vulnerability of the local communities in terms of their citizens, urban infrastructure,
urban assets and institutional capacities is another aspect to be investigated in future. The
assessment of such vulnerabilities and weaknesses would also constitute a major pillar
against which the effectiveness of flood management systems could be assessed and
realistically demonstrated.

266
References

Abebe, Y., Ghorbani, A., Nikolic, I., Vojinovic, Z. and Sanchez, A., 2019. A coupled flood-
agent-institution modelling (CLAIM) framework for urban flood risk management.
Environmental Modelling & Software, 111, pp.483-492.

Adger, W., Brown, I. and Surminski, S., 2018. Advances in risk assessment for climate
change adaptation policy. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical,
Physical and Engineering Sciences, 376(2121), p.20180106.

Ağırbaş, E. and Ersoy, E., 2019. Karadeniz Türkiye Kıyıları Yağış Miktarlarının Uzun Dönemli
Değişimi. Journal of Anatolian Environmental and Animal Sciences, 4(3), pp.513-518.

Ahmed, M., Haynes, K., Tofa, M., Hope, G. and Taylor, M., 2020. Duty or safety? Exploring
emergency service personnel's perceptions of risk and decision-making when driving
through floodwater. Progress in Disaster Science, 5, p.100068.

Aitsi-Selmi, A., Murray, V., Wannous, C., Dickinson, C., Johnston, D., Kawasaki, A., Stevance,
A. and Yeung, T., 2016. Reflections on a Science and Technology Agenda for 21st Century
Disaster Risk Reduction. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 7, pp.1–29.

Akarsu, B. and Akarsu, B., 2019. Bilimsel Araştırma Tasarımı: Nicel, Nitel ve Karma
Araştırma Yaklaşımları. 1st ed. Cinius Yayinlari.

AKOM Report, 2010. Hydraulic model report of flood risk map study of Ayamama River. ALS
Muhendislik Ins. ve Dıs. Tic. San. Tic. Ltd. Sti.

Aktug, B. and Kilicoglu, A., 2006. Recent crustal deformation of Izmir, Western Anatolia and
surrounding regions as deduced from repeated GPS measurements and strain field. Journal
of Geodynamics, 41, pp.471-484.

Al-Amin, A., Nagy, G., Masud, M., Filho, W. and Doberstein, B., 2019. Evaluating the impacts
of climate disasters and the integration of adaptive flood risk management. International
Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 39, p.101241.

Albano, R., Mancusi, L. and Abbate, A., 2017. Improving flood risk analysis for effectively
supporting the implementation of flood risk management plans: The case study of “Serio”
Valley. Environmental Science & Policy, 75, pp.158-172.

267
Albris, K., Lauta, K. and Raju, E., 2020. Strengthening Governance for Disaster Prevention:
The Enhancing Risk Management Capabilities Guidelines. International Journal of Disaster
Risk Reduction, 47, p.101647.

Alexander, D., 2015. Disaster and Emergency Planning for Preparedness, Response, and
Recovery. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Natural Hazard Science.

Alexander, M., Priest, S. and Penning‐Rowsell, E., 2017. The risk of ill‐informed reform: The
future for English flood risk management. Area, 50(3), pp.426-429.

Alipour, A., Ahmadalipour, A. and Moradkhani, H., 2020. Assessing flash flood hazard and
damages in the southeast United States. Journal of Flood Risk Management, 13(2).

Allaire, M., 2018. Socio-economic impacts of flooding: A review of the empirical

literature. Water Security, 3, pp.18-26.

Altun, F., 2018. Afetlerin ekonomik ve sosyal etkileri: Türkiye örneği üzerinden bir
değerlendirme. Sosyal Çalışma Dergisi, 2(1), pp.1-15.

Altun, T., 2018. Doğal Afet Sigortalarında Karar Alma Sorunları: Kamusal Müdahaleler.
Business and Economics Research Journal, 9(2), pp.349-361.

Altun, T., 2019. Doğal Afet Önlemlerinin Politik Ekonomisi. International Journal of Public
Finance, 4(1), pp.75-98.

Amaratunga, D., Malalgoda, C., Haigh, R., Panda, A. and Rahayu, H., 2018. Sound Practices
of Disaster Risk Reduction at Local Level. Procedia Engineering, 212, pp.1163-1170.

Ambiental Environmental Assessment, 2018. Types of flood and flooding impact. [online]
Available at: https://www.ambiental.co.uk/types-of-flood-and-flooding-impact/ [Accessed
19 Apr. 2019].

Ambraseys, N. and Jackson, J., 2000. Seismicity of the Sea of Marmara (Turkey) since
1500. Geophysical Journal International, 141(3), pp.F1-F6.

Andrade, M. and Szlafsztein, C., 2018. Vulnerability assessment including tangible and
intangible components in the index composition: An Amazon case study of flooding and
flash flooding. Science of The Total Environment, 630, pp.903-912.

Anilan, T. and Yuksek, O., 2017. Perception of Flood Risk and Mitigation: Survey Results
from the Eastern Black Sea Basin, Turkey. Natural Hazards Review, 18(2), p.05016006.

268
Ao, Y., Zhou, X., Ji, F., Wang, Y., Yang, L., Wang, Q. and Martek, I., 2020. Flood disaster
preparedness: experience and attitude of rural residents in Sichuan, China. Natural
Hazards, 104(3), pp.2591-2618.

Archer, D., O'donnell, G., Lamb, R., Warren, S. and Fowler, H.J., 2019. Historical flash floods
in England: New regional chronologies and database. Journal of Flood Risk
Management, 12, p.e12526.

Arifin, S., 2018. Ethical Considerations in Qualitative Study. International Journal of Care
Scholars, 1(2), pp.30-33.

Armaroli, C., Duo, E. and Viavattene, C., 2019. From Hazard to Consequences: Evaluation
of Direct and Indirect Impacts of Flooding Along the Emilia-Romagna Coastline,
Italy. Frontiers in Earth Science, 7.

Arrighi, C., Pregnolato, M., Dawson, R. and Castelli, F., 2019. Preparedness against mobility
disruption by floods. Science of The Total Environment, 654, pp.1010-1022.

Artemis, 2017. Turkey hail storms & floods to cost insurers as much as US$200m -
Artemis.bm. [online] Artemis.bm - The Catastrophe Bond, Insurance Linked Securities &
Investment, Reinsurance Capital, Alternative Risk Transfer and Weather Risk Management
site. Available at: https://www.artemis.bm/news/turkey-hail-storms-floods-to-cost-
insurers-as-much-as-us200m [Accessed 20 Jun. 2019].

Asgary, A., Ozdemir, A. and Özyürek, H., 2020. Small and Medium Enterprises and Global
Risks: Evidence from Manufacturing SMEs in Turkey. International Journal of Disaster Risk
Science, 11(1), pp.59-73.

Ashley, R., Blanskby, J., Newman, R., Gersonius, B., Poole, A., Lindley, G., Smith, S., Ogden,
S. and Nowell, R., 2011. Learning and Action Alliances to build capacity for flood
resilience. Journal of Flood Risk Management, 5(1), pp.14-22.

Aslam, M., 2018. Flood Management Current State, Challenges and Prospects in Pakistan:
A Review. Mehran University Research Journal of Engineering and Technology, 37(2),
pp.297-314.

Atanga, R., 2020. The role of local community leaders in flood disaster risk management
strategy making in Accra. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 43, p.101358.

269
Ayala, R. and Koch, T., 2019. The Image of Ethnography—Making Sense of the Social
Through Images: A Structured Method. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18,
p.160940691984301.

Aygili, R., 2014. Turkiye Deprem Bolgeleri Haritasi. [image] Available at:
<http://cografyaharita.com/haritalarim/4iturkiye-deprem-bolgeleri-haritasi.png>
[Accessed 9 April 2020].

Aygün, A. and Torlak, S., 2020. Denizli İli’nin İklim Değişikliğine Karşı Dayanıklılığının
İncelenmesi. Ömer Halisdemir Üniversitesi Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi, 9(1), pp.648-664.

Baan, P. and Klijn, F., 2004. Flood risk perception and implications for flood risk
management in the Netherlands. International Journal of River Basin Management, 2(2),
pp.113-122.

Babones, S., 2016. Interpretive quantitative methods for the social

sciences. Sociology, 50(3), pp.453-469.

Baird, M., 2010. The Recovery Phase of Emergency Management. Intermodal Freight
Transportation Institute (IFTI).

Bakioğlu, A. and Göktaş, E., 2018. Bir Eğitim Politikası Belirleme Yöntemi: Meta
Analiz. Medeniyet Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 1-1(2), pp.35-54.

Ballard-Reisch, D., Clements-Nolle, K., Jenkins, T., Sacks, T., Pruitt, K. and Leathers, K., 2008.
‘Applying the Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication (CERC) Integrative Model to
Bioterrorism Preparedness’, In: Seeger, M. W., Sellnow, T. L., Ulmer, R. and Cresskill, R.
(Eds.) Crisis Communication and the Public Health. NJ: Hampton Press, Inc.

Baltaci, A., 2019. Nitel Araştırma Süreci: Nitel Bir Araştırma Nasıl Yapılır?. Ahi Evran
Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 5(2), pp.426-438.

Bangalore, M., Smith, A. and Veldkamp, T., 2019. Exposure to Floods, Climate Change, and
Poverty in Vietnam. Economics of Disasters and Climate Change, 3, pp.79–99.

Bark, R. and Acreman, M., 2020. Investigating social processes that underpin local flood risk
management action. Environmental Science & Policy, 109, pp.95-102.

Barka, A., 1997. Neotectonics of the Marmara Region, Hochschulverlag AG an der ETH
Zürich, pp.55-89.

270
Barker, L., Hannaford, J., Muchan, K., Turner, S. and Parry, S., 2016. The winter 2015/2016
floods in the UK: a hydrological appraisal. Weather, 71(12), pp.324-333.

Baruch, A., 2018. Crowdsourcing in generating information for flood risk management.
Ph.d. Loughborough University.

Basbug-Erkan, B. and Yilmaz, O., 2015. Successes and failures of compulsory risk mitigation:
re-evaluating the Turkish Catastrophe Insurance Pool. Disasters, 39(4), pp.782-794.

Bayazit Hayta, A. and Gürbüzer, G., 2020. Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma İle Sürdürülebilir
Sigortacilik İlişkisi. Finans Ekonomi ve Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 5(4), pp.609-619.

Baykal, E., Özgül, E., Özdemirci, F. and Yazıcı, T., 2019. Küreselleşmenin Türkiye Sigorta
Sektöründeki Etkileri : Şirketlerin Ortaklık Yapısı ve Pazar Payları. Yönetim Ekonomi Edebiyat
İslami ve Politik Bilimler Dergisi, 4(1), pp.100-130.

Bayraktar, H. and Sahtiyanci, E., 2020. 17-18 Temmuz 2019 Akçakoca ve Cumayeri (Düzce)
Sel Afeti Sonuçları ve Müdahale Çalışmaları. Resilience, 4(2), pp.239-255.

Bazeley, P. and Jackson, K. eds., 2013. Qualitative data analysis with NVivo. SAGE
publications limited.

BBC News, 2015. Storm Desmond: Thousands of people flooded out of homes. [online]
Available at: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-35023558 [Accessed 4 Jun. 2019].

Beddoes, D.W., Booth, C.A., and Lamond, J.E., 2018. Towards complete property–level
flood protection of domestic buildings in the UK. Urban Water Systems & Floods II, 184,
p.1127.

Begg, C., Callsen, I., Kuhlicke, C. and Kelman, I., 2017. The role of local stakeholder
participation in flood defence decisions in the United Kingdom and Germany. Journal of
Flood Risk Management, 11(2), pp.180-190.

Bek, M., Bugra, A., Hjalmarsson, J. and Lista, A., 2013. Future Availability of Flood Insurance
in the UK: A Report on Legal Aspects of the Solutions Adopted in Australia, Iceland, the
Netherlands, New Zealand and Turkey, with Conclusions. Southampton: University of
Southampton.

Bell, E., Bryman, A. and Harley, B., 2018. Business research methods. Oxford university
press.

271
Beltrán, A., Maddison, D. and Elliott, R., 2019. The impact of flooding on property prices: A
repeat-sales approach. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 95, pp.62-
86.

Bennett, O. and Hartwell-Naguib, S., 2014. Flood defence spending in England. Standard
Note SN/SC/5755. House of Commons Library. Available from
http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN05755 [Accessed
10 Jun. 2019].

Benson, D. and Lorenzoni, I., 2016. Climate change adaptation, flood risks and policy
coherence in integrated water resources management in England. Regional Environmental
Change, 17(7), pp.1921-1932.

Benson, D., Fritsch, O. and Langstaff, L., 2016. Local flood risk management strategies in
England: patterns of application. Journal of Flood Risk Management, 11, pp.S827-S837.

Bera, M., 2019. Collective efforts of people to reduce disasters in the Indian Sundarban
islands. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal, 28(5), pp.691-705.

Bergsma, E., 2019. The development of flood risk management in the United States.
Environmental Science & Policy, 101, pp.32-37.

Berndtsson, R., Becker, P., Persson, A., Aspegren, H., Haghighatafshar, S., Jönsson, K.,
Larsson, R., Mobini, S., Mottaghi, M., Nilsson, J., Nordström, J., Pilesjö, P., Scholz, M.,
Sternudd, C., Sörensen, J. and Tussupova, K., 2019. Drivers of changing urban flood risk: A
framework for action. Journal of Environmental Management, 240, pp.47-56.

Bernhofen, M.V., Whyman, C., Trigg, M.A., Sleigh, P.A., Smith, A.M., Sampson, C.C.,
Yamazaki, D., Ward, P.J., Rudari, R., Pappenberger, F. and Dottori, F., 2018. A first collective
validation of global fluvial flood models for major floods in Nigeria and
Mozambique. Environmental Research Letters, 13(10), p.104007.

Bertilsson, L., Wiklund, K., de Moura Tebaldi, I., Rezende, O., Veról, A. and Miguez, M.,
2019. Urban flood resilience – A multi-criteria index to integrate flood resilience into urban
planning. Journal of Hydrology, 573, pp.970-982.

Birnbaum, M., Daily, E., O’Rourke, A. and Loretti, A., 2015. Research and Evaluations of the
Health Aspects of Disasters, Part I: An Overview. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine, 30(5),
pp.512-522.

272
Bjerrum, L. W. and Atakan, K., 2008. Scenario based ground motion simulations for
assessing the seismic hazard in İzmir, Turkey. In Proceeding of the 14th World Conference
on Earthquake Engineering October 12–17, 2008, Beijing, China.

Blaikie, P., Wisner, B. and Cannon, T., 2014. At Risk: Natural Hazards, People’s Vulnerability,
and Disaster. Florence: Taylor and Francis.

Blake, E. and Zelinsky, D., 2018. National Hurricane Center Tropical Cyclone Report.

Bodur, A., 2018. Sel ve İstanbul: Sel Riskine Karşı Yapılan Dere Islah Çalışmaları ile İlgili Bir
Değerlendirme. Resilience, 2(1), pp.57-68.

Boé, J., Somot, S., Corre, L. and Nabat, P., 2020. Large discrepancies in summer climate
change over Europe as projected by global and regional climate models: causes and
consequences. Climate Dynamics, 54(5-6), pp.2981-3002.

Boell, S.K. and Cecez-Kecmanovic, D., 2014. A hermeneutic approach for conducting
literature reviews and literature searches. Communications of the Association for
Information Systems, 34(1), p.12.

Bracken, L., Oughton, E., Donaldson, A., Cook, B., Forrester, J., Spray, C., Cinderby, S.,
Passmore, D. and Bissett, N., 2016. Flood risk management, an approach to managing
cross-border hazards. Natural Hazards, 82(S2), pp.217-240.

Braun, V. and Clarke, V., 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research
in Psychology, 3(2), pp.77-101.

Brink, R., 2018. A multiple case design for the investigation of information management
processes for work-integrated learning. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning
(IJWIL), 19(3), pp.223-235.

Brisibe, W.G., 2020. A comparative review of the implications of flooding on architecture

and planning policies in the UK and Nigeria. J Archit Eng Tech, 9.

Brown, P., Daigneault, A., Tjernström, E. and Zou, W., 2018. Natural disasters, social
protection, and risk perceptions. World Development, 104, pp.310-325.

Bryson, J., Crosby, B. and Stone, M., 2015. Designing and Implementing Cross-Sector
Collaborations: Needed and Challenging. Public Administration Review, 75(5), pp.647-663.

273
Bubeck, P. and Thieken, A., 2017. What helps people recover from floods? Insights from a
survey among flood-affected residents in Germany. Regional Environmental Change, 18(1),
pp.287-296.

Bubeck, P., Dillenardt, L., Alfieri, L., Feyen, L., Thieken, A. and Kellermann, P., 2019. Global
warming to increase flood risk on European railways. Climatic Change, 155(1), pp.19-36.

Bubeck, P., Kreibich, H., Penning‐Rowsell, E.C., Botzen, W.J.W., de Moel, H., and Klijn, F.,
2017. Explaining differences in flood management approaches in Europe and the USA–a
comparative analysis. Journal of Flood Risk Management, 10(4), pp.436-445.

Bubeck, P., Otto, A. and Weichselgartner, J., 2017. Societal Impacts of Flood
Hazards. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Natural Hazard Science.

Bukvic, A., Gohlke, J., Borate, A. and Suggs, J., 2018. Aging in Flood-Prone Coastal Areas:
Discerning the Health and Well-Being Risk for Older Residents. International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(12), p.2900.

Bustillos Ardaya, A., Evers, M. and Ribbe, L., 2019. Participatory approaches for disaster risk
governance? Exploring participatory mechanisms and mapping to close the communication
gap between population living in flood risk areas and authorities in Nova Friburgo
Municipality, RJ, Brazil. Land Use Policy, 88, p.104103.

Cabinet Office, 2013. Responding to Emergencies: The UK Central Government Response

Concept of Operations.

Cafri, R., 2018. Gelişmiş ve Gelişmekte Olan Ülkelerde Bilgi Ekonomisinin Büyüme,
Yoksulluk ve Gelir Dağilimina Etkisi. Bilgi Ekonomisi ve Yönetimi Dergisi, 13(1), pp.21-35.

Çakı, F. and Gültekin Özbayram, G., 2020. Muhtarlar ve Topluluk-Temelli Afet

Yönetişimi. Adam Akademi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 10(2), pp.447-485.

Canpolat, E., Dinc, Y., Usun, C. and Gecen, R., 2020. 25.09.2014 Tarihinde Erzin Ilıcalarda
(Hatay) Meydana Gelen Sel ve Taşkının Oluşumunda Coğrafi Faktörlerin
Değerlendirilmesi. Journal of Geography.

Carminati, L., 2018. Generalizability in qualitative research: a tale of two

traditions. Qualitative health research, 28(13), pp.2094-2101.

274
Carrasco, S. and O’Brien, D., 2018. The Role of Humanitarian Agencies in Reconstruction
and Development of Disaster Affected Communities in Japan and the Philippines. Procedia
Engineering, 212, pp.606-613.

Carrera, L., Standardi, G., Bosello, F. and Mysiak, J., 2015. Assessing direct and indirect
economic impacts of a flood event through the integration of spatial and computable
general equilibrium modelling. Environmental Modelling & Software, 63, pp.109-122.

Cassar, A., Healy, A. and von Kessler, C., 2017. Trust, Risk, and Time Preferences After a
Natural Disaster: Experimental Evidence from Thailand. World Development, 94, pp.90-
105.

Castleberry, A. and Nolen, A., 2018. Thematic analysis of qualitative research data: Is it as
easy as it sounds?. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 10(6), pp.807-815.

Caymaz, E., Akyon, F.V. and Erenel, F., 2013. Model proposal for efficient disaster
management: the Turkish sample. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 99,
pp.609-618.

Çelik, H., Baykal, N. and Memur, H., 2020. Nitel Veri Analizi ve Temel İlkeleri. Eğitimde Nitel
Araştırmalar Dergisi, 8(1), pp.379-406.

Çelik, H., Kurdoğlu, O., İnan, M., Kadıoğlu, M. and Nişancı, İ., 2020. Identifying causes of the
2015 Hopa flash flood in NE Turkey and mitigation strategies. Environmental Monitoring
and Assessment, 192(12).

Çelik, M., Bayram, H. and Özüpekçe, S., 2018. Türkiye’de Son 30 Yılda (1987-2017) Meydana
Gelen Klimatolojik, Meteorolojik ve Hidrolojik Afetler Üzerine Bir
Değerlendirme. lnternational Journal of Geography and Geography Education, (38),
pp.295-310.

Centre for Climate Adaptation, 2019. Flash floods and Urban flooding in Turkey. [online]
Available at: https://www.climatechangepost.com/turkey/flash-floods-and-urban-
flooding/ [Accessed 19 Jun. 2019].

Ceylan, A., Alan, I. and Ugurlu, A., 2007. Causes and effects of flood hazards in Turkey. In
International congress of river basin management (pp. 22-24).

Chacowry, A., McEwen, L. and Lynch, K., 2018. Recovery and resilience of communities in
flood risk zones in a small island developing state: A case study from a suburban settlement
of Port Louis, Mauritius. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 28, pp.826-838.

275
Chaffin, B., Gosnell, H. and Cosens, B., 2014. A decade of adaptive governance scholarship:
synthesis and future directions. Ecology and Society, 19(3).

Challies, E., Newig, J., Thaler, T., Kochskämper, E. and Levin-Keitel, M., 2016. Participatory
and collaborative governance for sustainable flood risk management: An emerging
research agenda. Environmental Science and Policy 55 (2016), 55, pp.275-280.

Chan, N., Ghani, A., Samat, N., Hasan, N. and Tan, M., 2020. Integrating Structural and Non-
structural Flood Management Measures for Greater Effectiveness in Flood Loss Reduction
in the Kelantan River Basin, Malaysia. Proceedings of AICCE'19, pp.1151-1162.

Charmaz, K., 2006. Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative
analysis. Sage Publications Ltd.

Chatterjee, M., 2010. Resilient Flood Loss Response Systems for Vulnerable Populations in
Mumbai: A Neglected Alternative. Thesis. New Brunswick, New Jersey: The State University
of New Jersey.

Chen, C., Xu, W., Dai, Y., Xu, W., Liu, C., Wu, Q., Gao, L., Kang, Z., Hao, Y. and Ning, N., 2019.
Household preparedness for emergency events: a cross-sectional survey on residents in
four regions of China. BMJ Open, 9(11), p.e032462.

Chen, Y., Yeh, C. and Yu, B., 2011. Integrated application of the analytic hierarchy process
and the geographic information system for flood risk assessment and flood plain
management in Taiwan. Natural Hazards, 59(3), pp.1261-1276.

Chereni, S., Sliuzas, R., Flacke, J. and Maarseveen, M., 2020. The influence of governance
rearrangements on flood risk management in Kampala, Uganda. Environmental Policy and
Governance, 30(3), pp.151-163.

Christophers, B., 2019. The allusive market: insurance of flood risk in neoliberal
Britain. Economy and Society, 48(1), pp.1-29.

Churchill, C., 2011. Introduction to Microinsurance: Opportunities and Barriers. Paper

presented at the International Microinsurance Conference-Learning Sessions, London, UK.

Clarke, D., 2018. Challenges of Transformative Adaptation: Insights from Flood Risk
Management. Ph.d. Maynooth University.

276
Coles, D., Yu, D., Wilby, R., Green, D. and Herring, Z., 2017. Beyond ‘flood hotspots’:
Modelling emergency service accessibility during flooding in York, UK. Journal of Hydrology,
546, pp.419-436.

Collier, S., 2014. Neoliberalism and natural disaster: Insurance as political technology of
catastrophe. Journal of Cultural Economy, 7(3), 273–290.

Comer, J., Olbert, A., Nash, S. and Hartnett, M., 2017. Development of high-resolution
multi-scale modelling system for simulation of coastal-fluvial urban flooding. Natural
Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 17(2), pp.205-224.

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), 2000. Floodplain

Management in Australia: Best Practice Guidelines. CSIRO Publishing.

Connelly, A., Snow, A., Carter, J. and Lauwerijssen, R., 2020. What approaches exist to
evaluate the effectiveness of UK-relevant natural flood management measures? A
systematic map protocol. Environmental Evidence, 9(1).

Cook, K.L., Andermann, C., Gimbert, F., Adhikari, B.R. and Hovius, N., 2018. Glacial lake
outburst floods as drivers of fluvial erosion in the Himalaya. Science, 362(6410), pp.53-57.

Coombs, W.T., 2009. Conceptualizing Crisis Communication. In R. Heath, andH.D. O’Hair

(Eds.) Handbook of Risk and Crisis Communication. N.Y.:Routledge Taylor and Francis.

Crick, F., Jenkins, K. and Surminski, S., 2018. Strengthening insurance partnerships in the
face of climate change – Insights from an agent-based model of flood insurance in the
UK. Science of The Total Environment, 636, pp.192-204.

Crowe, L. and Rotherham, I., 2019. Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Relation to the
Management of Storm Water and the Mitigation of Floods. Applied Environmental Science
and Engineering for a Sustainable Future, pp.159-186.

Crowther, M., Lim, W. and Crowther, M., 2010. Systematic review and meta-analysis
methodology. Blood, 116(17), pp.3140-3146.

Cumbria County Council, 2018. Flooding in Cumbria, December 2015: Impact Assessment.
Cumbria County Council; Performance & Intelligence Team, pp.1-66.

Cumiskey, L., 2020. Joining the dots: a framework for assessing integration in flood risk
management, with applications to England and Serbia. Ph.d. Middlesex University.

277
Cumiskey, L., Priest, S., Klijn, F. and Juntti, M., 2019. A framework to assess integration in
flood risk management: implications for governance, policy, and practice. Ecology and
Society, 24(4).

Cumiskey, L., Priest, S., Klijn, F. and Juntti, M., 2019. A framework to assess integration in
flood risk management: implications for governance, policy, and practice. Ecology and
Society, 24(4).

Curebal, I., Efe, R., Ozdemir, H., Soykan, A. and Sönmez, S., 2015. GIS-based approach for
flood analysis: case study of Keçidere flash flood event (Turkey). Geocarto International,
31(4), pp.355-366.

Dadson, S., Hall, J., Murgatroyd, A., Acreman, M., Bates, P., Beven, K., Heathwaite, L.,
Holden, J., Holman, I., Lane, S., O'Connell, E., Penning-Rowsell, E., Reynard, N., Sear, D.,
Thorne, C. and Wilby, R., 2017. A restatement of the natural science evidence concerning
catchment-based ‘natural’ flood management in the UK. Proceedings of the Royal Society
A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 473(2199).

Dankers, R. and Feyen, L., 2009. Flood hazard in Europe in an ensemble of regional climate
scenarios. Journal of Geophysical Research, 114 (D16).

Datacenter, 2016. MasterCard enables business continuity in Turkey. [online] Available at:
https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/news/mastercard-enables-business-continuity-in-
turkey [Accessed 20 May 2019].

Dawson, R., Ball, T., Werritty, J., Werritty, A., Hall, J. and Roche, N., 2011. Assessing the
effectiveness of non-structural flood management measures in the Thames Estuary under
conditions of socio-economic and environmental change. Global Environmental Change,
21(2), pp.628-646.

de Bruijn, K.M., 2005. Resilience and flood risk management: a systems approach applied
to lowland rivers. TU Delft, Delft University of Technology.

de Koning, K., Filatova, T., Need, A. and Bin, O., 2019. Avoiding or mitigating flooding:
Bottom-up drivers of urban resilience to climate change in the USA. Global Environmental
Change, 59, p.101981.

de Wrachien, D., Mambretti, S. and Schultz, B., 2011. Flood management and risk
assessment in flood-prone areas: Measures and solutions. Irrigation and Drainage, 60(2),
pp.229-240.

278
Deeming, H., Fordham, M., Kuhlicke, C., Pedoth, L., Schneiderbauer, S. and Shreve, C.,
2019. Framing community disaster resilience. London: Wiley-Blackwell.

Demir, V. and Kisi, O., 2016. Flood Hazard Mapping by Using Geographic Information
System and Hydraulic Model: Mert River, Samsun, Turkey. Advances in Meteorology, 2016,
pp.1-9.

Demirbaş, M. and Aydın, R., 2020. 21. Yüzyılın En Büyük Tehdidi: Küresel İklim Değişikliği. e-
Journal of New World Sciences Academy, 15(4), pp.163-179.

Denscombe, M., 2008. Communities of Practice. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(3),
pp.270-283.

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), 2014. The National Flood
Emergency Framework for England. DEFRA, pp.1-102.

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, 2019. Government response to the
Multi-Agency Flood Plan Review. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

Deryugina, T., Kawano, L. and Levitt, S., 2018. The Economic Impact of Hurricane Katrina
on Its Victims: Evidence from Individual Tax Returns. American Economic Journal: Applied
Economics, 10(2), pp.202-233.

Dewey, J.F. and Sengor, A.M.C., 1979. Aegean and surrounding regions: Complex multiplate
and continuum tectonics in a convergent zone. The Geological Society of America Bulletin,
90(1), pp.84-92.

Diakakis, M., 2020. Types of Behavior of Flood Victims around Floodwaters. Correlation
with Situational and Demographic Factors. Sustainability, 12(11), p.4409.

Diakakis, M., Deligiannakis, G., Pallikarakis, A. and Skordoulis, M., 2016. Factors controlling
the spatial distribution of flash flooding in the complex environment of a metropolitan
urban area. The case of Athens 2013 flash flood event. International Journal of Disaster Risk
Reduction, 18, pp.171-180.

Dinç, H., 2019. Arazi Kullanım Kararlarının Dere Sistemleri Üzerinde Fiziki Etkisinin Analizi
ve Kentsel Yaşama Yansıması -İstanbul’da su baskını, sel ve taşkın risk değerlendirmesi-
. Journal of Planning, 29(2), pp.147–170.

Dittrich, R., Wreford, A., Butler, A. and Moran, D., 2016. The impact of flood action groups
on the uptake of flood management measures. Climatic Change, 138, pp.471–489.

279
Djalante, R., Thomalla, F., Sinapoy, M. and Carnegie, M., 2012. Building resilience to natural
hazards in Indonesia: Progress and challenges in implementing the Hyogo Framework for
Action. Natural Hazards, 62(3), pp.779–803.

Dobrucali, E. and Demir, I., 2016. Earthquake and Flood Disaster Management Regulations
in Turkey. Disaster Science and Engineering, 2(1), pp.1-6.

Doe, R., 2015. Extreme Weather: Forty Years of the Tornado and Storm Research
Organisation. John Wiley & Sons.

Doğan, N., 2017. Istanbul flood prompts nearly $57 mln flood insurance cost - Latest News.
[online] Hürriyet Daily News. Available at: https://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/istanbul-
flood-prompts-nearly-57-mln-flood-insurance-cost-115705 [Accessed 4 Mar. 2021].

Dogan, N., 2020. 15 soruda sel sigortası. Hurriyet, [online] Available at:
<https://www.hurriyet.com.tr/yazarlar/noyan-dogan/15-soruda-sel-sigortasi-41599270>
[Accessed 3 March 2021].

Dolman, D.I., Brown, I.F., Anderson, L.O., Warner, J.F., Marchezini, V. and Santos, G.L.P.,
2018. Re-thinking socio-economic impact assessments of disasters: The 2015 flood in Rio
Branco, Brazilian Amazon. International journal of disaster risk reduction, 31, pp.212-219.

Dönmez, S. and Tekeli, A., 2017. Comparison of TRMM-based flood indices for Gaziantep,
Turkey. Natural Hazards, 88(2), pp.821-834.

DSI., 2012. General Directorate of State Hydraulic Works. [online] Available at:
http://en.dsi.gov.tr/about-dsi- [Accessed 19 Jul. 2019].

Du Plessis, L.A., 2002. A review of effective flood forecasting, warning and response system
for application in South Africa. Water SA, 28(2), pp.129-138.

Du, S., Cheng, X., Huang, Q., Chen, R., Ward, P. and Aerts, J., 2019. Brief communication:
Rethinking the 1998 China floods to prepare for a nonstationary future. Natural Hazards
and Earth System Sciences, 19(3), pp.715-719.

Dufty, N., Dyer, A. and Golnaraghi, M., 2020. Flood Risk Management in Australia Building
flood resilience in a changing climate. Zurich: the Geneva Association—International
Association for the Study of Insurance Economics.

Duman, T., Çan, T., Emre, Ö., Kadirioğlu, F., Başarır Baştürk, N., Kılıç, T., Arslan, S., Özalp, S.,
Kartal, R., Kalafat, D., Karakaya, F., Eroğlu Azak, T., Özel, N., Ergintav, S., Akkar, S., Altınok,

280
Y., Tekin, S., Cingöz, A. and Kurt, A., 2016. Seismotectonic database of Turkey. Bulletin of
Earthquake Engineering, 16(8), pp.3277-3316.

Duncombe, J., 2019. Brief, Repetitive Floods in Coastal Cities Cause Economic Losses. Eos,
100.

Edmonds, T., 2017. Household Flood Insurance. Briefing Paper Number 06613, London:
House of Commons Library.

Eiser, R.J., Bostrom, A., Burton, I., Johnston, D.M., McClure, J., Paton, D., van der Plight, J.
and White, M.P., 2012. Risk interpretation and action: A conceptual framework for
responses to natural hazards. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 1, pp.5-16.

Ellis, J. and Viavattene, C., 2013. Sustainable Urban Drainage System Modeling for
Managing Urban Surface Water Flood Risk. CLEAN - Soil, Air, Water, 42(2), pp.153-159.

EM-DAT., 2019. The OFDA/CRED international disaster database. Université´ Catholique de

Louvain Brussels Belgium.

EM-DAT., 2020. The OFDA/CRED international disaster database. Université´ Catholique de

Louvain Brussels Belgium.

Emre, Ö., Duman, T., Özalp, S., Şaroğlu, F., Olgun, Ş., Elmacı, H. and Çan, T., 2016. Active
fault database of Turkey. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 16(8), pp.3229-3275.

Enia, J., 2020. Is there an international disaster risk reduction regime? Does it
matter?. Progress in Disaster Science, 7, p.100098.

Environment Agency, 2009. Flooding in England: A National Assessment of Flood Risk.

Environment Agency, United Kingdom.

Environment Agency, 2010. Flood and Coastal Risk Management Risk Mapping Strategy
2010–2015, Environ. Agency.

Environment Agency, 2012. Greater Working with Natural Processes in Flood and Coastal
Erosion Risk Management. Peterborough.

Environment Agency, 2013. Sources of flooding. [online] Available at:

https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140328084816/http://www.environment-
agency.gov.uk/homeandleisure/floods/31652.aspx [Accessed 2 Mar. 2019].

281
Environment Agency, 2016a. Managing flood and coastal erosion risks in England.
Environment Agency.

Environment Agency, 2016b. Kendal: Flood Investigation Report. Environment Agency and
Cumbria County Council. [pdf] Available at:
https://www.cumbria.gov.uk/eLibrary/Content/Internet/536/6181/42557103755.pdf
[Accessed 12 May. 2019].

Environment Agency, 2016c. Reducing flood risk from source to sea. [pdf] Available at:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachme
nt_data/file/533457/cumbria-flood-plan-overview.pdf [Accessed 17 May. 2019].

Environment Agency, 2018. River Kent Catchment Update Future Flood Risk Management.
[pdf] Available at: https://scrt.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/FINAL-Kent-newsletter-pdf.pdf
[Accessed 15 Mar. 2019].

Ersoy, Ş., 2009. 8-9 Eylül 2009 İstanbul Sel Felaketi Üzerine Kamuoyu Açıklaması. [online]
Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi - Doğa Bilimleri Araştırma Merkezi, pp.1-2. Available at:
<https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268462489_8-
9_Eylul_2009_Istanbul_Sel_Felaketi_Uzerine_Kamuoyu_Aciklamasi> [Accessed 19 April
2020].

Ertugay, F., 2019. Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma/Esnek Desen Araştırması: Alana İlişkin
Zorluklar, Sorunlar ve İmkânlar. Nitel Sosyal Bilimler, 1(1), pp.48-68.

Eryılmaz Türkkan, G. and Hırca, T., 2021. The investigation of flood risk perception as a
quantitative analysis from socio-demographic perspective. Natural Hazards, 106(1),
pp.715-733.

Esser, F and Vliegenthart, R., 2017. Comparative Research Methods. John Wiley & Son.

Etikan, I., Musa, S.A. and Alkassim, R.S., 2016. Comparison of convenience sampling and
purposive sampling. American journal of theoretical and applied statistics, 5(1), pp.1-4.

Etinay, N., Egbu, C. and Murray, V., 2018. Building Urban Resilience for Disaster Risk
Management and Disaster Risk Reduction. Procedia Engineering, 212, pp.575-582.

European Commission, 2006. A European Flood Action programme. [online] ec.europa.eu.

Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/dir_asses.htm
[Accessed 25 Jan. 2021].

282
European Commission, 2015. Turkey joins the EU Civil Protection Mechanism - European
Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations - European Commission. [online]
Available at: <https://ec.europa.eu/echo/news/turkey-joins-eu-civil-protection-
mechanism_en> [Accessed 11 June 2021].

European Commission, 2016. "Science for Environment Policy: Flood risk management has
improved in Germany": European Commission DG Environment News Alert Service, edited
by SCU, The University of the West of England, Bristol.

European Commission, 2021. EU Civil Protection Mechanism - European Civil Protection and
Humanitarian Aid Operations - European Commission. [online] Available at:
<https://ec.europa.eu/echo/what/civil-protection/mechanism_en> [Accessed 11 June
2021].

European Environment Agency, 2001. Sustainable water use in Europe, part 3: extreme
hydrological event. Floods and droughts environmental issue Report No. 21 Copenhagen.

European Union, 2018. Assessment of the capacity for flood monitoring and early warning
in Enlargement and Eastern/ Southern Neighbourhood countries of the European Union.
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

Evans, N., 2011. Review of Enhancing Disaster and Emergency Preparedness, Response,
and Recovery through Evaluation. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency
Management, 8(1).

Eyidoğan, H., 2019. 17 Ağustos 1999 depreminin 20. yılında Marmara ve İstanbul’da durum
nedir?. Bilim ve Gelecek, [online] 187. Available at:
<https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343963103_17_Agustos_1999_depreminin_
20_Yilinda_Marmara_ve_Istanbul'da_Durum_Nedir> [Accessed 15 October 2020].

Famuditi, T., Bray, M., Potts, J., Baily, B. and Inkpen, R., 2018. Adaptive management and
community reaction: The activities of Coastal Action Groups (CAGs) within the shoreline
management process in England. Marine Policy, 97, pp.270-277.

Fan, J. and Huang, G., 2020. Evaluation of Flood Risk Management in Japan through a
Recent Case. Sustainability, 12(13), p.5357.

Fan, Q. and Davlasheridze, M., 2014. Evaluating the Effectiveness of Flood Mitigation
Policies in the US. In 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota (No.
169399). Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

283
Faure, M. and De Smedt, K., 2019. Compensation for victims of disasters: a task for
Europe?. The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice, 44(4), pp.732-759.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2010. The Disaster Cycle. Federal
Emergency Management Agency. [online] Available at: http://www.fema.gov [Accessed 9
Aug. 2019].

Fengxiang, Q., 2018. Influencing Factors and Strategies for Sustainable Urban Drainage
System. Civil Engineering Research Journal, 3(4).

Fenner, R., O’Donnell, E., Ahilan, S., Dawson, D., Kapetas, L., Krivtsov, V., Ncube, S. and
Vercruysse, K., 2019. Achieving Urban Flood Resilience in an Uncertain Future. Water,
11(5), p.1082.

Fernández-Montblanc, T., Vousdoukas, M.I., Ciavola, P., Voukouvalas, E., Mentaschi, L.,
Breyiannis, G., Feyen, L. and Salamon, P., 2019. Towards robust pan-European storm surge
forecasting. Ocean Modelling, 133, pp.129-144.

Ferronato, N. and Torretta, V., 2019. Waste Mismanagement in Developing Countries: A

Review of Global Issues. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,
16(6), p.1060.

Field, C.B., 2012. Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate
change adaptation: special report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change.
Cambridge University Press.

Fielding, J., 2017. Flood risk and inequalities between ethnic groups in the floodplains of
England and Wales. Disasters, 42(1), pp.101-123.

Fleming, J., and Zegwaard, K.E., 2018. Methodologies, methods and ethical considerations
for conducting research in work-integrated learning. International Journal of Work-
Integrated Learning, 19(3), pp.205-213.

Flick, U., 2011. Introducing research methodology: A beginner’s guide to doing a research
project. London: Sage.

Flood Re., 2019. How Flood Re works - Flood Re. [online] Available at:
https://www.floodre.co.uk/how-flood-re-works/ [Accessed 7 May 2019].

Floodplain management Australia (FMA). 2021. Flood Management Australia. [online]

Available at: <https://www.floods.org.au/> [Accessed 13 May 2021].

284
Formetta, G. and Feyen, L., 2019. Empirical evidence of declining global vulnerability to
climate-related hazards. Global Environmental Change, 57, p.101920.

Forrest, S., Trell, E. and Woltjer, J., 2017. Flood groups in England. Governing for Resilience
in Vulnerable Places, pp.92-115.

Frazier, T., Boyden, E. and Wood, E., 2020. Socioeconomic implications of national flood
insurance policy reform and flood insurance rate map revisions. Natural Hazards, 103(1),
pp.329-346.

Frigerio, I. and De Amicis, M., 2016. Mapping social vulnerability to natural hazards in Italy:
A suitable tool for risk mitigation strategies. Environmental Science & Policy, 63, pp.187-
196.

Frongia, S., Sechi, G. and Davison, M., 2016. Tangible and Intangible Flood damage
evaluation. E3S Web of Conferences, 7, p.05007.

FSB., 2018. Small businesses and flooding: What are the options?. [online] Available at:
https://www.fsb.org.uk/resources/small-businesses-and-flooding-what-are-the-options
[Accessed 4 May 2019].

Fural, Ş., Cürebal, İ. and İnan, F., 2019. Elmalı'da (Antalya) Yağışın Tetiklediği Sel, Taşkın ve
Çamur Akıntısı Afetlerinin Jeomorfolojik Analizi. Jeomorfolojik Araştırmalar Dergisi, (3),
pp.49 - 61.

Gallien, T., Kalligeris, N., Delisle, M., Tang, B., Lucey, J. and Winters, M., 2018. Coastal Flood
Modeling Challenges in Defended Urban Backshores. Geosciences, 8(12), p.450.

Gao, S., 2018. Does the concept of “resilience” offer new insights for effective policy-
making? An analysis of its feasibility and practicability for flood risk management in the UK.
Ph.d. University of Cambridge.

Garrote, J., Bernal, N., Díez-Herrero, A., Martins, L. and Bodoque, J., 2019. Civil engineering
works versus self-protection measures for the mitigation of floods economic risk. A case
study from a new classification criterion for cost-benefit analysis. International Journal of
Disaster Risk Reduction, 37, p.101157.

General Directorate of Water Management (GDWM), 2016. Flood and Drought

Management Department. Ministry of Forestry and Water Affairs.

285
Genovese, E. and Thaler, T., 2020. The benefits of flood mitigation strategies: effectiveness
of integrated protection measures. AIMS Geosciences, 6(4), pp.459-472.

Getthedata.com, 2019. Kendal Flood Map. [online] Available at:

https://www.getthedata.com/flood-map/kendal [Accessed 4 Jun. 2019].

Ghotbi, N. and Nasrollahi, S., 2017. Development and Standardization of a Questionnaire

for Quality Assessment of Clinical Education Provided by Faculty Members of Rehabilitation
School. Strides in Development of Medical Education, 14(3).

Gibson, C.B., 2017. Elaboration, generalization, triangulation, and interpretation: On

enhancing the value of mixed method research. Organizational Research Methods, 20(2),
pp.193-223.

Gilabert, J. and Llasat, M., 2017. Circulation weather types associated with extreme flood
events in Northwestern Mediterranean. International Journal of Climatology, 38(4),
pp.1864-1876.

Gilissen, H., Alexander, M., Matczak, P., Pettersson, M. and Bruzzone, S., 2016. A
framework for evaluating the effectiveness of flood emergency management systems in
Europe. Ecology and Society, 21(4).

Gimenez-Maranges, M., Breuste, J. and Hof, A., 2020. Sustainable Drainage Systems for
transitioning to sustainable urban flood management in the European Union: A
review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 255, p.120191.

Gioia, D.A., Corley, K.G. and Hamilton, A.L., 2013. Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive
research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational research methods, 16(1), pp.15-
31.

Giordano, R., Pagano, A., Pluchinotta, I., del Amo, R., Hernandez, S. and Lafuente, E., 2017.
Modelling the complexity of the network of interactions in flood emergency management:
The Lorca flash flood case. Environmental Modelling & Software, 95, pp.180-195.

Glover, M., 2015. Chaos in Cumbria: floods turn lives upside down in Lake District. [online]
the Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/dec/07/chaos-
cumbria-floods-lake-district-turn-lives-upside-down [Accessed 5 Mar. 2019].

Göktürk, İ. and Yilmaz, M., 2017. Türkiye'de 2000'li Yillarin Başinda Afet Politikaları ve
Karşılaşılan Sorunlara İlişkin Dönemsel Bir Değerlendirme. International Journal of

286
Disciplines In Economics and Administrative Sciences Studies (IDEAstudies), 3(4), pp.115-
130.

Goldammer, J., 2017. International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction (IDNDR) 2.
[online] Available at: <https://gfmc.online/programmes/un/idndr/idndr2.html> [Accessed
13 October 2020].

Golding, B., Mittermaier, M., Ross, C., Ebert, B., Panchuk, S., Scolobig, A. and Johnston, D.,
2019. A value chain approach to optimising early warning systems. United Nations Office
for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR), pp.1-29.

Gonzalez-Franco, M. and Peck, T., 2018. Avatar Embodiment. Towards a Standardized

Questionnaire. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 5, p.74.

Goodchild, B., Sharpe, R. and Hanson, C., 2018. Between resistance and resilience: a study
of flood risk management in the Don catchment area (UK). Journal of Environmental Policy
& Planning, 20(4), pp.434-449.

Gorat, L. and Prijambodo, V.L., 2013. The effects of using deductive approach and inductive
approach in teaching English to students on their conditional sentence mastery (an
experimental study). Magister scientiae, (33), pp.78-92.

Gorur, N., Papadopoulos, G. and Okay, N., 2002. Integration of Earth Science Research on
the Turkish and Greek 1999 Earthquakes. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.

Gough, D., Oliver, S. and Thomas, J., 2012. An introduction to systematic reviews. 2nd ed.
London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Goytia, S., Pettersson, M., Schellenberger, T., van Doorn-Hoekveld, W. and Priest, S., 2016.
Dealing with change and uncertainty within the regulatory frameworks for flood defense
infrastructure in selected European countries. Ecology and Society, 21(4).

Gralepois, M., 2019. Instruments for Strategies to Face Floods through Prevention,
Mitigation, and Preparation in Europe. In Facing Hydrometeorological Extreme Events; La
Jeunesse, I., Larrue, C., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: Chichester, UK; pp. 71–97.

Gralepois, M., 2020. What Can We Learn from Planning Instruments in Flood Prevention?
Comparative Illustration to Highlight the Challenges of Governance in Europe. Water,
12(6), p.1841.

287
Gülbaz, S., Kazezyılmaz-Alhan, C., Bahçeçi, A. and Boyraz, U., 2019. Flood Modeling of
Ayamama River Watershed in Istanbul, Turkey. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 24(1),
p.05018026.

Gunes, O., 2015. Turkey's grand challenge: Disaster-proof building inventory within 20
years. Case Studies in Construction Materials, 2, pp.18-34.

Gurenko, E., Lester, R., Mahul, O. and Gonulal, S., 2006. Earthquake insurance in Turkey:
history of the Turkish catastrophe insurance pool. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Guven, A., Karkacier, A. and Simsek, T., 2017. Merkezilesme Yerellesme Tartismalari
Kapsaminda Yerel Yonetimlerin Denetimi Sorunu. Bilgi Ekonomisi ve Yonetimi Dergisi,
12(2), pp.189-208.

Hagiwara, Y., Kuribayashi, D. and Sawano, H., 2016. Enhancement of Flood

Countermeasures of Japanese-Affiliated Firms Based on the Lessons Learned from the 2011
Thai Flood. Journal of Disaster Research, 11(6), pp.1176-1189.

Haigh, I. and Nicholls, R., 2017. Coastal Flooding. MCCIP Science Review 2017, pp.98-104.

Hall, J., Arheimer, B., Borga, M., Brázdil, R., Claps, P., Kiss, A., Kjeldsen, T., Kriaučiūnienė, J.,
Kundzewicz, Z., Lang, M., Llasat, M., Macdonald, N., McIntyre, N., Mediero, L., Merz, B.,
Merz, R., Molnar, P., Montanari, A., Neuhold, C., Parajka, J., Perdigão, R., Plavcová, L.,
Rogger, M., Salinas, J., Sauquet, E., Schär, C., Szolgay, J., Viglione, A. and Blöschl, G., 2014.
Understanding flood regime changes in Europe: a state-of-the-art assessment. Hydrology
and Earth System Sciences, 18(7), pp.2735-2772.

Hamilton, A. and Finley, E., 2019. Qualitative methods in implementation research: An

introduction. Psychiatry Research, 280, p.112516.

Hammond, M., Chen, A., Djordjević, S., Butler, D. and Mark, O., 2015. Urban flood impact
assessment: A state-of-the-art review. Urban Water Journal, 12(1), pp.14-29.

Haraguchi, M. and Lall, U., 2015. Flood risks and impacts: A case study of Thailand’s floods
in 2011 and research questions for supply chain decision making. International Journal of
Disaster Risk Reduction, 14(3), pp.256–272.

Hasan, S., Evers, J., Zegwaard, A. and Zwarteveen, M., 2019. Making waves in the Mekong
Delta: recognizing the work and the actors behind the transfer of Dutch delta planning
expertise. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 62(9), pp.1583-1602.

288
Hashitera, S., Kohiyama, M., Maki, N., Hayashi, H., Matsuoka, M. and Fujita, H., 1999. Use
of DMSP-OLS Images for Early Identification of Impacted Areas Due to the 1999 Marmara
Earthquake Disaster. Proceedings of the 20th Asian Conference on Remote Sensing, Vol. 2,
pp. 1291-1296.

Hassan, Z. A., Schattner, P., and Mazza, D., 2006. Doing A Pilot Study: Why Is It
Essential?. Malaysian family physician : the official journal of the Academy of Family
Physicians of Malaysia, 1(2-3), p. 70–73.

He, B., Huang, X., Ma, M., Chang, Q., Tu, Y., Li, Q., Zhang, K. and Hong, Y., 2017. Analysis of
flash flood disaster characteristics in China from 2011 to 2015. Natural Hazards, 90(1),
pp.407-420.

Heale, R. and Twycross, A., 2017. What is a case study?. Evidence Based Nursing, 21(1),
pp.7-8.

Heath, R.L., Palenchar, M.J. and O'Hair H.D., 2009. Community building through risk
communication infrastructure. In R.L. Heath and H.D. O'Hair (eds.) Handbook of Risk and
Crisis Communication. Routledge, New York, NY. pp. 471– 487.

Hegger, D., Alexander, M., Raadgever, T., Priest, S. and Bruzzone, S., 2020. Shaping flood
risk governance through science-policy interfaces: Insights from England, France and the
Netherlands. Environmental Science & Policy, 106, pp.157-165.

Hegger, D., Driessen, P., Wiering, M., van Rijswick, H., Kundzewicz, Z., Matczak, P., Crabbé,
A., Raadgever, G., Bakker, M., Priest, S., Larrue, C. and Ek, K., 2016. Toward more flood
resilience: Is a diversification of flood risk management strategies the way
forward?. Ecology and Society, 21(4).

Hemmati, M., Ellingwood, B. and Mahmoud, H., 2020. The Role of Urban Growth in
Resilience of Communities Under Flood Risk. Earth's Future, 8(3), pp.1-14.

Hennink, M., Hutter, I. and Bailey, A., 2020. Qualitative research methods. SAGE
Publications Limited.

Henry, S.T., 2010. Flash Flood Scenario Modelling for Preparedness and Mitigation: Case
Study of Barcelonnette, France. Thesis. Enschede, Netherlands: ITC Enschede.

Henstra, D., 2010. Evaluating Local Government Emergency Management Programs: What
Framework Should Public Managers Adopt?. Public Administration Review, 70(2), pp.236-
246.

289
Henstra, D., Thistlethwaite, J., Brown, C. and Scott, D., 2018. Flood risk management and
shared responsibility: Exploring Canadian public attitudes and expectations. Journal of
Flood Risk Management, 12(1), p.e12346.

Hermansson, H., 2018. Challenges to Decentralization of Disaster Management in Turkey:

The Role of Political-Administrative Context. International Journal of Public Administration,
42(5), pp.417-431.

Hinkel, J., Lincke, D., Vafeidis, A.T., Perrette, M., Nicholls, R.J., Tol, R.S., Marzeion, B.,
Fettweis, X., Ionescu, C. and Levermann, A., 2014. Coastal flood damage and adaptation
costs under 21st century sea-level rise. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 111(9), pp.3292-3297.

Hoang, L. and Fenner, R.A., 2016. System interactions of stormwater management using
sustainable urban drainage systems and green infrastructure. Urban Water Journal, 13(7),
pp.739-758.

Hoeksema, R., 2007. Three stages in the history of land reclamation in the
Netherlands. Irrigation and Drainage, 56(S1), pp.S113-S126.

Hoss, F., Jonkman, S. and Maaskant, B., 2013. A comprehensive assessment of multilayered
safety in flood risk management – the Dordrecht case study. In: Floods: From risk to
opportunity. IAHS press, pp.57-65.

Hossain, B., 2020. Role of organizations in preparedness and emergency response to flood
disaster in Bangladesh. Geoenvironmental Disasters, 7(1).

Howarth, C., Morse-Jones, S., Kythreotis, A., Brooks, K. and Lane, M., 2020. Informing UK
governance of resilience to climate risks: improving the local evidence-base. Climatic
Change, 163(1), pp.499-520.

Hudson, P., Botzen, W. and Aerts, J., 2019. Flood insurance arrangements in the European
Union for future flood risk under climate and socioeconomic change. Global Environmental
Change, 58, p.101966.

Hudson, P., Botzen, W., Poussin, J. and Aerts, J., 2017. Impacts of Flooding and Flood
Preparedness on Subjective Well-Being: A Monetisation of the Tangible and Intangible
Impacts. Journal of Happiness Studies, 20(2), pp.665-682.

Hudson, P.G.M.B., Botzen, W.J.W., Kreibich, H., Bubeck, P. and Aerts, J.C.J.H., 2014.
Evaluating the effectiveness of flood damage mitigation measures by the application of

290
propensity score matching. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 14(7), pp.1731-
1747.

Hui, Z., Zhang, J., Ma, Z., Li, X., Peng, T., Li, J. and Wang, B., 2018. Global warming and
rainfall: Lessons from an analysis of Mid-Miocene climate data. Palaeogeography,
palaeoclimatology, palaeoecology, 512, pp.106-117.

Humphreys, O., 2015. The flooding has been caused by Storm Desmond. [image] Available
at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-35021746 [Accessed 15 Jun. 2019].

Hunt, K. and Menon, A., 2020. The 2018 Kerala floods: a climate change
perspective. Climate Dynamics, 54(3-4), pp.2433-2446.

Hunter, J., 2018. Natural Assets North: Flooding in the North. [online] IPPR. Available at:
<http://www.ippr.org/research/publications/natural-assets-north-flooding-in-the-north>
[Accessed 19 July 2020].

Huot, S., 2014. Ethnography: understanding occupation through an examination of culture.

In: S. Nayar and M. Stanley, ed., Qualitative Research Methodologies for Occupational
Science and Therapy, 1st ed. London: Routledge.

Hussain, M.A., Elyas, T. and Nasseef, O.A., 2013. Research paradigms: A slippery slope for
fresh researchers. Life Science Journal, 10(4), pp.2374-2381.

Hussain, S., 2015. Flood 2010 - Causes and lessons learned. Oxfam.

IDNDR (International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction), 1994. Yokohama strategy
and plan of action for a safer world: Guidelines for natural disaster prevention,
preparedness and mitigation. Yokohoma, Japan: IDNDR.

Imperiale, A. and Vanclay, F., 2019. Command-and-control, emergency powers, and the
failure to observe United Nations disaster management principles following the 2009
L'Aquila earthquake. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 36, p.101099.

Institute for Water Resources (IWR) Report., 2011. Flood Risk Management Approaches.

Insurance Australia Group, 2012. Reforming Flood Insurance: A Proposal to Improve

Availability and Transparency – Submission to Consultation Paper.Sydney: Insurance
Australia Group.

291
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2018. Working Group II Impacts,
Adaptation and Vulnerability. IPPC.

Internewscast. 2020. Tewkesbury Abbey rises from the muddy waters once more as town is
submerged after brutal deluge - Internewscast. [online] Available at:
<https://internewscast.com/tewkesbury-abbey-rises-from-the-muddy-waters-once-
more-as-town-is-submerged-after-brutal-deluge/> [Accessed 15 April 2020].

Investopedia. 2020. Top 25 Developed and Developing Countries. [online] Available at:
<https://www.investopedia.com/updates/top-developing-countries/> [Accessed 22
December 2020].

Isaranuwatchai, W., Coyte, P., McKenzie, K. and Noh, S., 2017. The 2004 tsunami and
mental health in Thailand: A longitudinal analysis of one-and two-year post-disaster
data. Disasters, 41(1), pp.150-170.

ISDR, 2009. Assessment report on Disaster Risk Reduction. Geneva, Switzerland: United
Nations.

Ishiwatari, M., 2019. Flood risk governance: Establishing collaborative mechanism for
integrated approach. Progress in Disaster Science, 2, p.100014.

Ismail, N., Kinchin, G. and Edwards, J., 2018. Pilot Study, Does It Really Matter? Learning
Lessons from Conducting a Pilot Study for a Qualitative PhD Thesis. International Journal of
Social Science Research, 6(1), pp.1-17.

Izmit.bel.tr. 2021. İzmit Belediyesi. [online] Available at: <https://www.izmit.bel.tr/>

[Accessed 27 May 2021].

Jackson, E., 2013. Choosing a methodology: Philosophical underpinning. Practitioner

Research in Higher Education, 7(1), pp.49-62.

Jalili Pirani, F. and Najafi, M., 2020. Recent Trends in Individual and Multivariate Compound
Flood Drivers in Canada's Coasts. Water Resources Research, 56(8).

Jamrussri, S. and Toda, Y., 2017. Simulating past severe flood events to evaluate the
effectiveness of nonstructural flood countermeasures in the upper Chao Phraya River
Basin, Thailand. Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies, 10, pp.82-94.

Jayasuriya, S. and McCawley, P., 2010. The Asian Tsunami Aid and Reconstruction after A
Disaster. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

292
Jenkins, K., Surminski, S., Hall, J. and Crick, F., 2017. Assessing surface water flood risk and
management strategies under future climate change: Insights from an Agent-Based
Model. Science of The Total Environment, 595, pp.159-168.

Jha, A., Bloch, R. and Lamond, J., 2012. Cities and flooding: A guide to integrated urban
flood risk management for the 21st century. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.

Jhong, B., Tachikawa, Y., Tanaka, T., Udmale, P. and Tung, C., 2020. A Generalized
Framework for Assessing Flood Risk and Suitable Strategies under Various Vulnerability and
Adaptation Scenarios: A Case Study for Residents of Kyoto City in Japan. Water, 12(9),
p.2508.

Jongman, B., 2018. Effective adaptation to rising flood risk. Nature Communications, 9(1).

Jonkman, S. and Dawson, R., 2012. Issues and Challenges in Flood Risk Management —
Editorial for the Special Issue on Flood Risk Management. Water, 4(4), pp.785-792.

Jonkman, S., Godfroy, M., Sebastian, A. and Kolen, B., 2018. Brief communication: Loss of
life due to Hurricane Harvey. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 18(4), pp.1073-
1078.

Jonkman, S., Maaskant, B., Boyd, E. and Levitan, M., 2009. Loss of Life Caused by the
Flooding of New Orleans After Hurricane Katrina: Analysis of the Relationship Between
Flood Characteristics and Mortality. Risk Analysis, 29(5), pp.676-698.

Joshi, P., 2016. Remember the 2005 floods? Can we prevent it happening again?. The
Hindu, [online] Available at:
<https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/mumbai/news/Remember-the-2005-floods-
Can-we-prevent-it-happening-again/article14494244.ece> [Accessed 7 October 2020].

Juarez-Lucas, A., Kibler, K., Sayama, T. and Ohara, M., 2018. Flood risk-benefit assessment
to support management of flood-prone lands. Journal of Flood Risk Management, 12(3),
p.e12476.

Kadıoğlu, M., 2019. Kent Selleri Yönetim ve Kontrol Rehberi. 1st ed. Marmara Belediyeler
Birligi Kultur Yayinlari.

Kadioğlu, Y., Bağcı, H. and Yilmaz, C., 2017. Doğu Karadeniz Kiyi Kusagindaki Doğal Afetlere
Bir Örnek: 21 Eylül 2016 Tarihli Beşikdüzü Seli ve Heyelanları. Marmara Coğrafya Dergisi,
0(36), pp.232 - 242.

293
Kandilli Rasathanesi, 2020. Tsunami Bilgi Notu. [online] İstanbul: Boğaziçi Üniversitesi,
Kandilli Rasathanesi ve Deprem Araştırma Enstitüsü, pp.1-15. Available at:
<http://www.koeri.boun.edu.tr/sismo/2/tsunami/bdtim-kurulus/> [Accessed 3 October
2020].

Kang, S., Im, E. and Eltahir, E., 2018. Future climate change enhances rainfall seasonality in
a regional model of western Maritime Continent. Climate Dynamics, 52(1-2), pp.747-764.

Kapucu, N. and Ozerdem, A., 2011. Managing Emergencies and Crises. Jones & Bartlett
Publishers.

Karaca, M. and Nicholls, R., 2008. Potential Implications of Accelerated Sea-Level Rise for
Turkey. Journal of Coastal Research, 242, pp.288-298.

Karagiannis, G.M., Turksezer, Z.I., Alfieri, L., Feyen, L. and Krausmann, E., 2017. Climate
change and critical infrastructure–floods. EUR-Scientific and Technical Research Reports,
Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.

Karataş, Z., 2017. Sosyal Bilim Araştırmalarında Paradigma Değişimi: Nitel Yaklaşımın
Yükselişi. Türkiye Sosyal Hizmet Araştırmaları Dergisi, 1(1), pp.68 - 86.

Kasapoglu, A. and Ecevit, M., 2003. Impact of the 1999 East Marmara earthquake in Turkey.
Population and Environment, 24(4), pp.339-358.

Kaufmann, M., Lewandowski, J., Choryński, A. and Wiering, M., 2016. Shock events and
flood risk management: a media analysis of the institutional long-term effects of flood
events in the Netherlands and Poland. Ecology and Society, 21(4).

Kaya, Ç., 2018. Taşkın Riskinin Belirlenmesinde Sosyo-Demografik ve Sosyo-Ekonomik

Özelliklerin Önemi. Afet ve Risk Dergisi, 1(1), pp.53-62.

Kaya, Y., 2018. İklim Değişikliğine Karşı Kentsel Kirilganlik: İstanbul İçin Bir
Değerlendirme. International Journal of Social Inquiry, 11(2), pp.219-257.

Keating, A. and Hanger-Kopp, S., 2020. Practitioner perspectives of disaster resilience in

international development. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 42, p.101355.

Kellermann, P., Schöbel, A., Kundela, G. and Thieken, A., 2015. Estimating flood damage to
railway infrastructure – the case study of the March River flood in 2006 at the Austrian
Northern Railway. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 15(11), pp.2485-2496.

294
Keoduangsine, S., Robert, R. and Stephen, P., 2014. A Review of Flood Warning Systems in
Developed and Developing Countries. International Journal of Future Computer and
Communication, 3(3), pp.172-176.

Keogh, D.U., Apan, A., Mushtaq, S., King, D. and Thomas, M., 2011. Resilience, vulnerability
and adaptive capacity of an inland rural town prone to flooding: a climate change
adaptation case study of Charleville, Queensland, Australia. Natural Hazards, 59(2),
pp.699-723.

Kerim, A. and Süme, V., 2019. Taşkinlar, Taşkin Koruma ve Kontrol Yapilari; Rize Ilinde Örnek
Çalişmalar. Türk Hidrolik Dergisi, 3(1), pp.01-13.

Keskin, U., 2019. Bilimsel Çalışma Süreçlerine İlişkin Metaforlar Üzerine Bir
İnceleme. Anadolu Akademi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 1(2), pp.91-112.

Khalid, M.S.B. and Shafiai, S.B., 2015. Flood disaster management in Malaysia: An
evaluation of the effectiveness flood delivery system. International Journal of Social Science
and Humanity, 5(4), p.398.

Kilicaslan, C. H., 2016. Legal and Institutional Basis of the Asi Basin Management
Committee, in Water Resources Management in the Lower Asi-Orontes River Basin: Issues
and Opportunities, Geneva: Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies;
Istanbul: MEF University, pp. 43–55.

Kılıçkap, M., 2018. Meta-analizleri nasıl yorumlayalım: Türkiye’de kardiyovasküler risk

faktörlerine yönelik yapılan meta-analizlerin metodolojik açıdan değerlendirilmesi. Türk
Kardiyoloji Derneği Arşivi, 46(7), pp.624-635.

Kimura, N., Kiri, H. and Kitagawa, I., 2018. The Impact of Multiple Typhoons on Severe
Floods in the Mid-Latitude Region (Hokkaido). Water, 10(7), p.843.

Kiral, B., 2020. Nitel Bir Veri Analizi Yöntemi Olarak Doküman Analizi. Sosyal Bilimler
Enstitüsü Dergisi, 15.

Kirby, D., 2017. Hundreds of homes are built each year despite flood risk objections. [online]
inews.co.uk. Available at: https://inews.co.uk/news/environment/hundreds-homes-built-
year-despite-flood-risk-objections/ [Accessed 19 Mar. 2019].

Kirezci, E., Young, I., Ranasinghe, R., Muis, S., Nicholls, R., Lincke, D. and Hinkel, J., 2020.
Projections of global-scale extreme sea levels and resulting episodic coastal flooding over
the 21st Century. Scientific Reports, 10(1).

295
Kirkpatrick, J. and Olbert, A., 2020. Modelling the effects of climate change on urban
coastal-fluvial flooding. Journal of Water and Climate Change, 11(S1), pp.270-288.

Kivunja, C. and Kuyini, A., 2017. Understanding and Applying Research Paradigms in
Educational Contexts. International Journal of Higher Education, 6(5), p.26.

Klijn, F., Asselman, N. and Wagenaar, D., 2018. Room for Rivers: Risk Reduction by
Enhancing the Flood Conveyance Capacity of The Netherlands’ Large Rivers. Geosciences,
8(6), p.224.

Koc, G. and Thieken, A., 2016. Societal and economic impacts of flood hazards in Turkey –
an overview. E3S Web of Conferences, 7, p.05012.

Koc, G. and Thieken, A.H., 2018. The relevance of flood hazards and impacts in Turkey:
What can be learned from different disaster loss databases? Natural Hazards, 91(1),
pp.375-408.

Kocaeli Valiligi, 2020. Kocaeli İl Afet Müdahale Plani. Kocaeli: İl Afet ve Acil Durum
Mudurlugu, p.28.

Koçer Güldal, B. and İşisağ, K., 2019. Google çeviri üzerine karşılaştırmalı bir çalışma:
Katherina Reiss'in metin tipolojisi açısından Türkçe-İngilizce çevirilerin hata
analizi. RumeliDE Dil ve Edebiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi, pp.367-376.

Koçkan, Ç., 2015. Doğal Afet Risk Yönetim. In: 3. Türkiye Deprem Mühendisliği ve Sismoloji
Konferansı. [online] Izmir, pp.1-8. Available at:
<http://www.tdmd.org.tr/TR/Genel/pdf2015/TDMSK_151.pdf> [Accessed 15 March
2021].

Koks, E. and Thissen, M., 2016. A multiregional impact assessment model for disaster
analysis. Economic Systems Research, 28(4), pp.429–449.

Koks, E., Thissen, M., Alfieri, L., De Moel, H., Feyen, L., Jongman, B. and Aerts, J., 2019. The
macroeconomic impacts of future river flooding in Europe. Environmental Research Letters,
14(8), p.084042.

Komuscu A.U. and Ceylan A., 2007. Determining flood risk areas in Turkey based on the
severe rainfall data. V. National Hydrology Congress Proceedings Ankara, Turkey (in
Turkish).

296
Komuscu, A. and Celik, S., 2013. Analysis of the Marmara flood in Turkey, 7–10 September
2009: an assessment from hydrometeorological perspective. Natural Hazards, 66(2),
pp.781-808.

Koop, S. and van Leeuwen, C., 2016. The challenges of water, waste and climate change in
cities. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 19(2), pp.385-418.

Kousky, C. and Golnaraghi, M., 2020. Flood Risk Management in the United States Building
flood resilience in a changing climate. Zurich: The Geneva Association—International
Association for the Study of Insurance Economics.

Kousky, C., 2014. Informing climate adaptation: A review of the economic costs of natural
disasters. Energy Economics, 46, pp.576-592.

Kovář, P., Pelikán, M., Heřmanovská, D. and Vrana, I., 2014. How to reach a compromise
solution on technical and non-structural flood control measures. Soil and Water Research,
9(No. 4), pp.143-152.

Kovats, R.S., and Osborn, D., 2016. UK Climate Change Risk Assessment Evidence Report:
Chapter 5, People and the Built Environment. Contributing authors: Humphrey, K.,
Thompson, D., Johns. D., Ayres, J., Bates, P., Baylis, M., Bell, S., Church, A., Curtis, S., Davies,
M., Depledge, M., Houston, D., Vardoulakis, S., Reynard, N., Watson, J., Mavrogianni, A.,
Shrubsole, C., Taylor, J., and Whitman, G. Report prepared for the Adaptation Sub-
Committee of the Committee on Climate Change, London.

Kreibich, H., Bubeck, P., Van Vliet, M. and De Moel, H., 2015. A review of damage-reducing
measures to manage fluvial flood risks in a changing climate. Mitigation and Adaptation
Strategies for Global Change, 20(6), pp.967-989.

Krieger, K., 2013. The limits and variety of risk‐based governance: The case of flood
management in Germany and E England. Regulation & Governance, 7(2), pp.236-257.

Kron, W., Eichner, J. and Kundzewicz, Z., 2019. Reduction of flood risk in Europe –
Reflections from a reinsurance perspective. Journal of Hydrology, 576, pp.197-209.

Kuang, D. and Liao, K., 2020. Learning from Floods: Linking flood experience and flood
resilience. Journal of Environmental Management, 271.

Kuhlicke, C., Seebauer, S., Hudson, P., Begg, C., Bubeck, P., Dittmer, C., Grothmann, T.,
Heidenreich, A., Kreibich, H., Lorenz, D., Masson, T., Reiter, J., Thaler, T., Thieken, A. and

297
Bamberg, S., 2020. The behavioral turn in flood risk management, its assumptions and
potential implications. WIREs Water, 7(3).

Kumar, P., Debele, S., Sahani, J., Aragão, L., Barisani, F., Basu, B., Bucchignani, E.,
Charizopoulos, N., Di Sabatino, S., Domeneghetti, A., Edo, A., Finér, L., Gallotti, G., Juch, S.,
Leo, L., Loupis, M., Mickovski, S., Panga, D., Pavlova, I., Pilla, F., Prats, A., Renaud, F.,
Rutzinger, M., Basu, A., Shah, M., Soini, K., Stefanopoulou, M., Toth, E., Ukonmaanaho, L.,
Vranic, S. and Zieher, T., 2020. Towards an operationalisation of nature-based solutions for
natural hazards. Science of The Total Environment, 731, p.138855.

Kumar, R., 2008. Research Methodology. APH Publishing.

Kunreuther, H., Meyer, R. and Michel-Kerjan, E., 2019. The future of risk management.
Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Kuterdem, K. 2010. “A New Disaster Management Structure in Turkey”, PowerPoint

presentation by AFAD at the 1st Meeting of the European Forum for Disaster Risk Reduction
(EFDRR), 6-8 October 2010, Stenungsund, Gothenburg, Sweden.

Kutluca, A. K. and Ozdemir, S., 2006. Landslide, earthquake & flood hazard risks of Izmir
Metropolitan City, a CASE: Altindag landslide areas. World Academy of Science, Engineering
and Technology, 24, pp.163-168.

Kwari, J., Paul, M. and Shekarau, L., 2015. The Impacts of Flooding on Socio-Economic
Development and Agriculture in Northern Nigeria: A Case Study of 2012 Flooding in Yola
and Numan Areas of Adamawa State Nigeria. International Journal of Scientific &
Engineering Research, 6(7), 1433-1442.

Lafinhan, D., 2016. The changing governance of UK flood management policies 1998-2010:
a comparative analysis of local approaches in Scotland and England. Ph.d. University of
Nottingham.

Lamond, J. and Penning-Rowsell, E., 2014. The Robustness of Flood Insurance Regimes
Given Changing Risk Resulting From Climate Change. Climate Risk Management, 2, pp. 1-
10.

Lamond, J., Bhattacharya-Mis, N., Chan, F., Kreibich, H., Montz, B., Proverbs, D. and
Wilkinson, S., 2019. Flood risk insurance, mitigation and commercial property
valuation. Property Management, 37(4), pp.512-528.

298
Lane, S., 2017. Natural flood management. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water, 4(3),
p.e1211.

Lara, A., Garcia, X., Bucci, F. and Ribas, A., 2016. What do people think about the flood risk?
An experience with the residents of Talcahuano city, Chile. Natural Hazards, 85(3),
pp.1557-1575.

Lashford, C., Rubinato, M., Cai, Y., Hou, J., Abolfathi, S., Coupe, S., Charlesworth, S. and Tait,
S., 2019. SuDS & Sponge Cities: A Comparative Analysis of the Implementation of Pluvial
Flood Management in the UK and China. Sustainability, 11(1), p.213.

Lechowska, E., 2018. What determines flood risk perception? A review of factors of flood
risk perception and relations between its basic elements. Natural Hazards, 94(3), pp.1341-
1366.

Lendering, K., Jonkman, S. and Kok, M., 2015. Effectiveness of emergency measures for
flood prevention. Journal of Flood Risk Management, 9(4), pp.320-334.

Li, C., Cheng, X., Li, N., Du, X., Yu, Q., and Kan, G., 2016. A Framework for Flood Risk Analysis
and Benefit Assessment of Flood Control Measures in Urban Areas. International journal of
environmental research and public health, 13(8), 787.

Liew, Y., Mat Desa, S., Md. Noh, M., Tan, M., Zakaria, N. and Chang, C., 2021. Assessing the
Effectiveness of Mitigation Strategies for Flood Risk Reduction in the Segamat River Basin,
Malaysia. Sustainability, 13(6), p.3286.

Litman, T., 2007. Developing Indicators for Comprehensive and Sustainable Transport
Planning. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
2017(1), pp.10-15.

Liu, L., 2016. Using Generic Inductive Approach in Qualitative Educational Research: A Case
Study Analysis. Journal of Education and Learning, 5(2), p.129.

Lo, A. and Chan, F., 2017. Preparing for flooding in England and Wales: the role of risk
perception and the social context in driving individual action. Natural Hazards, 88(1),
pp.367-387.

Loftis, J., Mitchell, M., Schatt, D., Forrest, D., Wang, H., Mayfield, D. and Stiles, W., 2019.
Validating an Operational Flood Forecast Model Using Citizen Science in Hampton Roads,
VA, USA. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 7(8), p.242.

299
Lopez-Marrero, T. and Tschakert, P., 2011. From theory to practice: building more resilient
communities in flood-prone areas. Environment & Urbanization, 23(1), 229-249.

Lorscher, W., 1991. Translation Performance, Translation Process, and Translation

Strategies: A Psycholinguistic Investigation. G. Narr.

Lucas, P., Fleming, J. and Bhosale, J., 2018. The Utility of Case Study as a Methodology for
Work-Integrated Learning Research. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning,
19(3), pp.215-222.

Lumbroso, D., 2020. Flood risk management in Africa. Journal of Flood Risk Management,
13(3).

Lumbroso, D., Stone, K. and Vinet, F., 2010. An assessment of flood emergency plans in
England and Wales, France and the Netherlands. Natural Hazards, 58(1), pp.341-363.

Luo, P., He, B., Takara, K., Xiong, Y., Nover, D., Duan, W. and Fukushi, K., 2015. Historical
assessment of Chinese and Japanese flood management policies and implications for
managing future floods. Environmental Science & Policy, 48, pp.265-277.

Lyu, H., Xu, Y., Cheng, W. and Arulrajah, A., 2018. Flooding Hazards across Southern China
and Prospective Sustainability Measures. Sustainability, 10(5), p.1682.

Mahdavian, F., Wiens, M., Platt, S. and Schultmann, F., 2020. Risk behaviour and people's
attitude towards public authorities – A survey of 2007 UK and 2013 German
floods. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 49, p.101685.

Mal, S., Singh, R., Huggel, C. and Grover, A., 2018. Introducing Linkages Between Climate
Change, Extreme Events, and Disaster Risk Reduction. Climate Change, Extreme Events and
Disaster Risk Reduction, pp.1-14.

Malecha, M., Brand, A. and Berke, P., 2018. Spatially evaluating a network of plans and
flood vulnerability using a Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard: A case study in
Feijenoord District, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Land Use Policy, 78, pp.147-157.

Malmqvist, J., Hellberg, K., Möllås, G., Rose, R. and Shevlin, M., 2019. Conducting the Pilot
Study: A Neglected Part of the Research Process? Methodological Findings Supporting the
Importance of Piloting in Qualitative Research Studies. International Journal of Qualitative
Methods, 18, p.160940691987834.

300
Maly, E. and Suppasri, A., 2020. The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction at Five:
Lessons from the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami. International Journal of
Disaster Risk Science, 11(2), pp.167-178.

Marım, G., 2009. Suyun Yerel Yönetimlerden İntikamı Ağır Oldu. [online] TMH - Türkiye
Mühendislik Haberleri, pp.34-38. Available at:
<https://www.imo.org.tr/resimler/ekutuphane/pdf/16179_15_50.pdf> [Accessed 4
February 2020].

Marsh, T.J., Kirby, C., Muchan, K., Barker, L., Henderson, E. and Hannaford, J., 2016. The
winter floods of 2015/2016 in the UK - a review. Centre for Ecology & Hydrology,
Wallingford, UK. [pdf] Available at: https://www.ceh.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2015-
2016%20Winter%20Floods%20report%20Low%20Res.pdf [Accessed 13 Apr. 2019].

Marshall, C. and Rossman, G., 2014. Designing Qualitative Research. 6th ed. New York:
SAGE Publications.

Martinez, M., Bakheet, R. and Akib, S., 2020. Innovative Techniques in the Context of
Actions for Flood Risk Management: A Review. Eng, 2(1), pp.1-11.

Maskrey, S., Mount, N., Thorne, C. and Dryden, I., 2016. Participatory modelling for
stakeholder involvement in the development of flood risk management intervention
options. Environmental Modelling & Software, 82, pp.275-294.

Maskrey, S., Vilcan, T, O’Donnell, E and Lamond, J., 2020. Using learning and action alliances
to build capacity for local flood risk management, Environmental Science & Policy, vol. 107,
pp. 198-205.

McCallum, I., Liu, W., See, L., Mechler, R., Keating, A., Hochrainer-Stigler, S., Mochizuki, J.,
Fritz, S., Dugar, S., Arestegui, M. and Szoenyi, M., 2016. Technologies to support community
flood disaster risk reduction. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 7(2), pp.198-
204.

McClusky, S., Balassanian, S., Barka, A., Demir, C., Ergintav, S., Georgiev, I., Gurkan, O.,
Hamburger, M., Hurst, K., Kahle, H., Kastens, K., Kekelidze, G., King, R., Kotzev, V., Lenk, O.,
Mahmoud, S., Mishin, A., Nadariya, M., Ouzounis, A., Paradissis, D., Peter, Y., Prilepin, M.,
Reilinger, R., Sanli, I., Seeger, H., Tealeb, A., Toksöz, M. and Veis, G., 2000. Global
Positioning System constraints on plate kinematics and dynamics in the eastern
Mediterranean and Caucasus. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 105(B3),
pp.5695-5719.

301
McGrane, S., 2016. Impacts of urbanization on hydrological and water quality dynamics,
and urban water management: a review. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 61(13), pp.2295-
2311.

McLaughlin, M., 2019. Developments in flood maps for flood risk management in
Scotland. Scottish Geographical Journal, 135(1-2), pp.5-22.

McLoughlin, C., Thoms, M. and Parsons, M., 2020. Reflexive learning in adaptive
management: A case study of environmental water management in the Murray Darling
Basin, Australia. River Research and Applications, 36(4), pp.681-694.

McNulty, A., 2013. The experience of flooding in the UK: A research study. Research Paper.
London: The British Red Cross Society.

Medd, W., Deeming, H., Walker, G., Whittle, R., Mort, M., Twigger-Ross, C., Walker, M.,
Watson, N. and Kashefi, E., 2014. The flood recovery gap: a real-time study of local recovery
following the floods of June 2007 in Hull, North East England. Journal of Flood Risk
Management, 8(4), pp.315-328.

Mees, H., Tempels, B., Crabbé, A. and Boelens, L., 2016. Shifting public-private
responsibilities in Flemish flood risk management. Towards a co-evolutionary
approach. Land Use Policy, 57, pp.23-33.

Mehryar S. and Surminski S., 2020. The role of national laws in managing flood risk and
increasing future flood resilience. Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy Working
Paper 365/Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment Working
Paper 334. London: London School of Economics and Political Science.

Memiş, L. and Babaoğlu, C., 2020a. Acil durum ve afet yönetiminde süreç yaklaşımı ve
teknoloji. Ömer Halisdemir Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 13(4),
pp.776-791.

Memiş, L. and Babaoglu, C., 2020b. Afet Yönetimi ve Teknoloji. In: M. Yaman and E. Cakir,
ed., Farklı Boyutlarıyla Afet Yönetimi, 1st ed. Ankara: Nobel, pp.163-178.

Memiş, L. and Düzgün, S., 2020. İklim Değişikliği Ve Kentsel Alanda Seller: Beşikdüzü Seli
(2016) Örneği. Karadeniz Uluslararası Bilimsel Dergi, 1(45), pp.252-279.

Mendoza-Tinoco, D., Guan, D., Zeng, Z., Xia, Y. and Serrano, A., 2017. Flood footprint of the
2007 floods in the UK: The case of the Yorkshire and The Humber region. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 168, pp.655-667.

302
Mens, M., 2008. Frameworks for flood event management. Deltares.

Met Office. 2020. Flood warning guide. [Online] Available at:

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/guides/flood-warnings. [Accessed March 31,
2020].

Meteoroloji Genel Müdürlüğü, 2019. Meteorolojik Afetler: 2018 Yılı Değerlendirmesi.

Ankara: T.C. Tarim ve Orman Bakanlığı Meteoroloji Genel Müdürlüğü, pp.1-161.

Miao, Q., 2018. Are We Adapting to Floods? Evidence from Global Flooding Fatalities. Risk
Analysis, 39(6), pp.1298-1313.

Mielby, S. and Henriksen, H., 2020. Hydrogeological Studies Integrating the Climate,
Freshwater Cycle, and Catchment Geography for the Benefit of Urban Resilience and
Sustainability. Water, 12(12), p.3324.

Miller, J. and Hutchins, M., 2017. The impacts of urbanization and climate change on urban
flooding and urban water quality: A review of the evidence concerning the United
Kingdom. Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies, 12, pp.345-362.

Ministry of Environment and Water, 2021. Flood Management - Programme and Activities.
[online] Official Portal for Department of Irrigation and Drainage. Available at:
<https://water.gov.my/index.php/pages/view/419> [Accessed 13 May 2021].

Ministry of Forestry and Water Affairs (MFWA), 2017. Flood Management. Ankara: General
Directorate of Water Management (DGWM), pp.47-57.

Mizutori, M., 2020. Reflections on the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction: Five
Years Since Its Adoption. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 11(2), pp.147-151.

Moawad, M., Abdel Aziz, A. and Mamtimin, B., 2014. Flash floods in the Sahara: a case study
for the 28 January 2013 flood in Qena, Egypt. Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk, 7(1),
pp.215-236.

Moftakhari, H., AghaKouchak, A., Sanders, B., Allaire, M. and Matthew, R., 2018. What Is
Nuisance Flooding? Defining and Monitoring an Emerging Challenge. Water Resources
Research, 54(7), pp.4218-4227.

Mohajan, H., 2018. Qualitative Research Methodology in Social Sciences and Related
Subjects. Journal of Economic Development, Environment and People, 7(1), pp.23-48.

303
Mohamad Yusoff, I., Ramli, A., Mhd Alkasirah, N. and Mohd Nasir, N., 2018. Exploring the
managing of flood disaster: A Malaysian perspective. Malaysian Journal of Society and
Space, 14(3), pp.24-36.

Mohammad-pajooh, E. and Aziz, K.A., 2014. Investigating factors for disaster preparedness
among residents of Kuala Lumpur. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, vol. 2,
pp.3683–709.

Mohanty, M., Mudgil, S. and Karmakar, S., 2020. Flood management in India: A focussed
review on the current status and future challenges. International Journal of Disaster Risk
Reduction, 49, p.101660.

Morita, M., 2008. Flood risk analysis for determining optimal flood protection levels in
urban river management. Journal of Flood Risk Management, 1(3), pp.142-149.

Morrison, A., Westbrook, C. and Noble, B., 2017. A review of the flood risk management
governance and resilience literature. Journal of Flood Risk Management, 11(3), pp.291-
304.

Muchan, K., Lewis, M., Hannaford, J. and Parry, S., 2015. The winter storms of 2013/2014
in the UK: hydrological responses and impacts, Weather, Vol. 70, no. 2, pp.55-61.

Mukhopadhyay, S., 2017. Risk perception of flood and its management by the stakeholders
along Mayurakshi Basin: a New Arena in Flood Research Management. In: V. Sati and K.
Lalmalsawmzauva, ed., Natural Resources Management for Sustainable Development and
Rural Livelihoods, 3rd ed. [online] New Delhi, India: Today and Tomorrow’s Printers and
Publishers, pp.861-876. Available at: <https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kc-
Lalmalsawmzauva/publication/327745824_Natural_Resources_Management_for_Sustain
able_Development_and_Rural_Livelihoods_Vol-
3/links/5ba2223545851574f7d5d865/Natural-Resources-Management-for-Sustainable-
Development-and-Rural-Livelihoods-Vol-3.pdf#page=75> [Accessed 15 March 2021].

Munro, A., Kovats, R., Rubin, G., Waite, T., Bone, A. and Armstrong, B., 2017. Effect of
evacuation and displacement on the association between flooding and mental health
outcomes: a cross-sectional analysis of UK survey data. The Lancet Planetary Health, 1(4),
pp.134-141.

Murali, R., Riyas, M., Reshma, K. and Kumar, S., 2019. Climate change impact and
vulnerability assessment of Mumbai city, India. Natural Hazards, 102(2), pp.575-589.

304
Nabangchang, O., Allaire, M., Leangcharoen, P., Jarungrattanapong, R. and Whittington, D.,
2015. Economic costs incurred by households in the 2011 Greater Bangkok flood. Water
Resources Research, 51(1), pp.58-77.

Nace, T., 2017. Fluvial And Flooding Processes: Geomorphology In Boreal Regions. Science
Trends.

Nandy, S., 2005. Floods in India–Disaster and Management. Convenar Moksha. Member
Centre for Built Environment.

National Audit Office, 2020. Managing flood risk. The Comptroller and Auditor General.

National Research Council, 2013. Levees and the National Flood Insurance Program:
Improving Policies and Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Netzel, L., Heldt, S., Engler, S. and Denecke, M., 2021. The importance of public risk
perception for the effective management of pluvial floods in urban areas: A case study from
Germany. Journal of Flood Risk Management.

Nguyen, C., Ubukata, F., Nguyen, Q. and Vo, H., 2021. Long-Term Improvement in
Precautions for Flood Risk Mitigation: A Case Study in the Low-Lying Area of Central
Vietnam. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 12(2), pp.250-266.

Nicholson, W., 2013. Emergency response and emergency management law: cases and
materials (2nd ed.) Charles C Thomas Publisher.

Nicklin, H., Leicher, A., Dieperink, C. and Leeuwen, K., 2019. Understanding the Costs of
Inaction–An Assessment of Pluvial Flood Damages in Two European Cities. Water, 11(4),
p.801.

Niipare, A., Jordaan, A. and Siyambango, N., 2020. Flood Impacts in Oshana Region,
Namibia: A Case Study of Cuvelai River Basin. Journal of Geography and Geology, 12(1), p.8.

Nobel, P., 2015. Why do flood defenses fail? [Online] Available at:
<https://theconversation.com/why-do-flood-defences-fail-52017> [Accessed December 9,
2020].

Noh, S., Lee, J., Lee, S. and Seo, D., 2019. Retrospective Dynamic Inundation Mapping of
Hurricane Harvey Flooding in the Houston Metropolitan Area Using High-Resolution
Modeling and High-Performance Computing. Water, 11(3), p.597.

305
Noy, I., Nguyen, C. and Patel, P., 2017. Floods and Spillovers: Households After the 2011
Great Flood in Thailand. Economic Development and Cultural Change.

Ntontis, E., Drury, J., Amlôt, R., Rubin, G. and Williams, R., 2018. Community resilience and
flooding in UK guidance: A critical review of concepts, definitions, and their
implications. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 27(1), pp.2-13.

Nye, M., Tapsell, S. and Twigger-Ross, C., 2011. New social directions in UK flood risk
management: moving towards flood risk citizenship?. Journal of Flood Risk Management,
4(4), pp.288-297.

O’Donnell, E, Lamond, J and Thorne, C., 2018. Learning and Action Alliance framework to
facilitate stakeholder collaboration and social learning in urban flood risk
management, Environmental Science & Policy, vol. 80, pp. 1-8.

Oberink, R., Boom, S.M., van Dijk, N. and Visser, M.R., 2017. Assessment of motivational
interviewing: a qualitative study of response process validity, content validity and feasibility
of the motivational interviewing target scheme (MITS) in general practice. BMC medical
education, 17(1), p.224.

Ocal, A., 2019. Natural Disasters in Turkey: Social and Economic Perspective. International
Journal of Disaster Risk Management, 1(1), pp.51-61.

OECD, 2016. Financial Management of Flood Risk. [online] Paris: OECD Publishing. Available
at: https://www.oecd.org/daf/fin/insurance/OECD-Financial-Management-of-Flood-
Risk.pdf [Accessed 4 Mar. 2021].

Ogie, R., Adam, C. and Perez, P., 2019. A review of structural approach to flood
management in coastal megacities of developing nations: current research and future
directions. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 63(2), pp.127-147.

Ogunlana, S.O., 2010. Beyond the ‘iron triangle’: Stakeholder perception of key
performance indicators (KPIs) for large-scale public sector development projects.
International journal of project management, 28(3), pp.228-236.

Okaka, F. and Odhiambo, B., 2018. Relationship between Flooding and Out Break of
Infectious Diseases in Kenya: A Review of the Literature. Journal of Environmental and
Public Health, 2018, pp.1-8.

Okay, N., 2005. The Risk Profile and Natural Disaster Management System of Turkey. WBI-
Natural Disaster Risk Management Program–Final Project.

306
Okoli, C., 2015. A Guide to Conducting a Standalone Systematic Literature
Review. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 37(43), pp.879–910.

Oktari, R., Munadi, K., Idroes, R. and Sofyan, H., 2020. Knowledge management practices
in disaster management: Systematic review. International Journal of Disaster Risk
Reduction, 51, p.101881.

Oktay, F., 2015. The preparation and integration of Turkey’s National Disaster Response
Plan. Disaster Management and Human Health Risk IV, 150, pp.1 - 10.

Omar Chong, N. and Kamarudin, K., 2018. Disaster Risk Management In Malaysia: Issues
And Challenges From The Perspective Of Agencies. Planning Malaysia Journal, 16(5),
pp.105-117.

Onuşluel Gül, G., 2013. Estimating flood exposure potentials in Turkish catchments through
index-based flood mapping. Natural Hazards, 69(1), pp.403-423.

Oosterhaven, J. and Bouwmeester, M., 2016. A new Approach to Modeling the Impact of
Disruptive Events. Journal of Regional Science, 56, pp.583–595.

OpenStreetMap., 2019a. marmara denizi | OpenStreetMap. [online] Available at:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=marmara%20denizi#map=9/40.7369/28.
5672 [Accessed 15 Sep. 2019].

OpenStreetMap., 2019b. kendal | OpenStreetMap. [online] Available at:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=kendal#map=9/54.4357/-2.4802
[Accessed 15 Jun. 2019].

Ovgun, A. B., 2013. Disaster Management in Turkish Case: Politics, Institutions and the
Process of (UN) Learning. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 4(7).

Özcan, O., 2017. Taşkın Tespitinin Farklı Yöntemlerle Değerlendirilmesi: Ayamama Deresi
Örneği. Doğal Afetler ve Çevre Dergisi, 3(1), pp.9-9.

Ozerdem, A. and Jacoby, T., 2006. Disaster management and civil society: Earthquake relief
in Japan, Turkey and India. IB Tauris.

Özler, M., 2019. Kamu Yönetimi Paradigmasında Afet Riski Yönetiminden

Yönetişimine. Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 16(1),
pp.139-150.

307
Öztürk, S. and Uzuntaş, Ö., 2019. Türkiye’deki Sel ve Taşkın Yönetmelikleri Üzerine Bir
Değerlendirme: Farklı Ülkeler ile Karşılaştırma ve Yasal Boşluk Analizi. The Journal of
International Scientific Researches, pp.146-159.

Öztürk, Y. and Tekin, U., 2019. Doğal afetlerle mücadelede İstanbul ili Sarıyer ilçesi
örneği. Journal of Politics Economy and Management, 2(1), pp.29-41.

Pahl-Wostl, C., 2019. The role of governance modes and meta-governance in the
transformation towards sustainable water governance, Environmental Science & Policy,
vol. 91, pp. 6-16.

Palmer, K., 2015. Flood Re: a needlessly expensive tax?. [online] Telegraph.co.uk. Available
at:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/insurance/buildingsandcontent/1
1405179/Flood-Re-a-needlessly-expensive-tax.html [Accessed 10 Apr. 2019].

Pandey, J., 2019. Deductive Approach to Content Analysis. In: M. Gupta, M. Shaheen and
K. Reddy, ed., Qualitative Techniques for Workplace Data Analysis. IGI Global, pp.145-169.

Pant, R., Thacker, S., Hall, J., Alderson, D. and Barr, S., 2017. Critical infrastructure impact
assessment due to flood exposure. Journal of Flood Risk Management, 11(1), pp.22-33.

Paprotny, D., Sebastian, A., Morales-Nápoles, O. and Jonkman, S., 2018. Trends in flood
losses in Europe over the past 150 years. Nature Communications, 9(1).

Pararas-Carayannis, G., 1999. Earthquake and Tsunami of August 17, 1999 in the Sea of
Marmara, Turkey - Dr. George Pararas-Carayannis. [online] Drgeorgepc.com. Available at:
http://www.drgeorgepc.com/Tsunami1999Turkey.html [Accessed 19 Apr. 2019].

Parliament. House of Commons., 1877. Great Britain Parliamentary Papers. H.M.

Stationery.

Pearson, L. and Pelling, M., 2015. The UN Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction
2015–2030: Negotiation Process and Prospects for Science and Practice. Journal of Extreme
Events, 2(1), pp.1-12.

Peng, L., Tan, J., Lin, L. and Xu, D., 2019. Understanding sustainable disaster mitigation of
stakeholder engagement: Risk perception, trust in public institutions, and disaster
insurance. Sustainable Development, 27(5), pp.885-897.

308
Perrow, C., 2011. The next catastrophe: reducing our vulnerabilities to Natural, Industrial,
and terrorist disasters. Princeton University Press.

Perwaiz, A., 2008. Flood preparedness and emergency management: people-centred

approach in integrated flood risk management. Annual Flood Report. MRCS.

Peters‐Guarin, G, Michael, K, and Westen, C., 2011. Coping strategies and risk
manageability: using participatory geographical information systems to represent local
knowledge. Disasters Open. 36(1), p1-27.

Pham, L.T.M., 2018. Qualitative approach to research a review of advantages and

disadvantages.

Pitt, M., 2008. Learning lessons from the 2007 floods.

Platt, S., Mahdavian, F., Carpenter, O., Wiens, M. and Schultmann, F., 2020. Were the floods
in the UK 2007 and Germany 2013 game-changers?. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 378(2168), p.20190372.

Podlaha, A., Bowen, S. and Lörinc, M., 2020. Weather, Climate & Catastrophe Insight. 2019
Annual Report. AON Empower Results.

Pommeranz, C. and Steininger, B., 2019. Pluvial, Fluvial, and Groundwater Flooding: The
Case of Cologne. SSRN Electronic Journal.

Ponelis, S., 2015. Using Interpretive Qualitative Case Studies for Exploratory Research in
Doctoral Studies: A Case of Information Systems Research in Small and Medium
Enterprises. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 10, pp.535-550.

Porter, J. and Birdi, K., 2018. 22 reasons why collaborations fail: Lessons from water
innovation research, Environmental Science & Policy, vol. 89, pp. 100-108.

Prama, M., Omran, A., Schröder, D. and Abouelmagd, A., 2020. Vulnerability assessment of
flash floods in Wadi Dahab Basin, Egypt. Environmental Earth Sciences, 79(5).

Pregnolato, M., Ford, A., Wilkinson, S.M. and Dawson, R.J., 2017. The impact of flooding on
road transport: A depth-disruption function. Transportation research part D: transport and
environment, 55, pp.67-81.

Preventionweb.net. 2021. Terminology | PreventionWeb.net. [online] Available at:

<https://www.preventionweb.net/terminology> [Accessed 12 June 2021].

309
Price, R.K. and Vojinovic, Z., 2008. Urban flood disaster management. Urban Water Journal,
5(3), pp.259–76.

Priest, S., 2019. Shared roles and responsibilities in flood risk management. Journal of Flood
Risk Management, 12(1), p.e12528.

Priestley, S., 2016. Winter floods 2015-16. [online] House of Commons Library. Available at:
<https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-
7424#fullreport> [Accessed 5 February 2020].

Prime, T., 2018 Relocatable tide prediction and storm surge forecasting. In: ASME 2018
37th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering, Madrid, Spain,
17–22 June 2018. ASME.

Püskülcü, S., Tanırcan, G., Sakamoto, M., Yazıcı, R., Berberoğlu, A. and Kocaman, R., 2017.
Deprem ve Tsunami Bilinci Eğitimleri Hususunda Kandilli Rasathanesi ve Deprem Araştırma
Enstitüsü’nün Yeni Dönem Çalişmalari. In: 4. Uluslararası Deprem Mühendisliği ve Sismoloji
Konferansı. [online] Eskişehir: 4. UDMSK Eskişehir 2017. Available at:
<http://www.tdmd.org.tr/TR/Genel/4UDMSK/pdf2017/3741.pdf> [Accessed 13 February
2021].

Putnam, L. and Banghart, S., 2017. Interpretive Approaches. The International Encyclopedia
of Organizational Communication, pp.1-17.

Qi, Y., Chan, F., Thorne, C., O’Donnell, E., Quagliolo, C., Comino, E., Pezzoli, A., Li, L.,
Griffiths, J., Sang, Y. and Feng, M., 2020. Addressing Challenges of Urban Water
Management in Chinese Sponge Cities via Nature-Based Solutions. Water, 12(10), p.2788.

Quy, N., 2018. Natural disasters kill 181, cost Vietnam $858 million in 2018. VnExpress
International, [online] Available at: <https://e.vnexpress.net/news/news/natural-
disasters-kill-181-cost-vietnam-858-million-in-2018-3858666.html> [Accessed 20 October
2020].

Rahman, H.A., 2018. Community based approach towards disaster management in

Malaysia. Asian Journal of Environment, History and Heritage, 2(2), pp.55-66.

Raikes, J., Smith, T., Jacobson, C. and Baldwin, C., 2019. Pre-disaster planning and
preparedness for floods and droughts: A systematic review. International Journal of
Disaster Risk Reduction, 38, p.101207.

310
Raška, P., Warachowska, W., Slavíková, L. and Aubrechtová, T., 2020. Expectations,
disappointments, and individual responses: Imbalances in multilevel flood risk governance
revealed by public survey. Journal of Flood Risk Management, 13(3).

RealClimate., 2014. Storm surge: Hurricane Sandy. [online] Available at:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/10/storm-surge-hurricane-sandy/
[Accessed 11 Jan. 2020].

Rehman, J., Sohaib, O., Asif, M. and Pradhan, B., 2019. Applying systems thinking to flood
disaster management for a sustainable development. International Journal of Disaster Risk
Reduction, 36, p.101101.

Renz, S., Carrington, J. and Badger, T., 2018. Two Strategies for Qualitative Content
Analysis: An Intramethod Approach to Triangulation. Qualitative Health Research, 28(5),
pp.824-831.

Ritchie, L. and MacDonald, W., 2010. Enhancing disaster and emergency preparedness,
response, and recovery through evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 2010(126),
pp.3-7.

Rosenzweig, B., McPhillips, L., Chang, H., Cheng, C., Welty, C., Matsler, M., Iwaniec, D. and
Davidson, C., 2018. Pluvial flood risk and opportunities for resilience. Wiley Interdisciplinary
Reviews: Water, 5(6), p.e1302.

Rothkrantz, L. and Fitrianie, S., 2018. Public Awareness and Education for Flooding
Disasters. In: K. Holla, M. Titko and J. Ristvej, ed., Crisis Management - Theory and Practice.
[online] IntechOpen. Available at: https://www.intechopen.com/books/crisis-
management-theory-and-practice/public-awareness-and-education-for-flooding-disasters
[Accessed 12 Aug. 2019].

Roy, E., 2017. Flood Insurance Reform: FEMA’s Perspective, Statement. U.S. Congress,
House Committee on Financial Services.

Rözer, V. and Surminski, S., 2020. New build homes, flood resilience and environmental
justice – current and future trends under climate change across England and Wales. Centre
for Climate Change Economics and Policy Working Paper 381/Grantham Research Institute
on Climate Change and the Environment Working Paper 353. London: London School of
Economics and Political Science.

311
Rözer, V., Müller, M., Bubeck, P., Kienzler, S., Thieken, A., Pech, I., Schröter, K., Buchholz,
O. and Kreibich, H., 2016. Coping with pluvial floods by private households. Water, 8(7),
p.304.

Rubinato, M., Nichols, A., Peng, Y., Zhang, J., Lashford, C., Cai, Y., Lin, P. and Tait, S., 2019.
Urban and river flooding: Comparison of flood risk management approaches in the UK and
China and an assessment of future knowledge needs. Water Science and Engineering,
12(4), pp.274-283.

Rumson, A. and Hallett, S., 2019. Innovations in the use of data facilitating insurance as a
resilience mechanism for coastal flood risk. Science of The Total Environment, 661, pp.598-
612.

Rumson, A., Garcia, A. and Hallett, S., 2020. The role of data within coastal resilience
assessments: an East Anglia, UK, case study. Ocean & Coastal Management, 185, p.105004.

Rutten, G., Cinderby, S. and Barron, J., 2020. Understanding Complexity in Freshwater
Management: Practitioners’ Perspectives in The Netherlands. Water, 12(2), p.593.

Ryan, G., 2018. Introduction to positivism, interpretivism and critical theory. Nurse
researcher, 25(4), pp.41-49.

Sadiq, A., Tyler, J. and Noonan, D., 2019. A review of community flood risk management
studies in the United States. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 41, p.101327.

Sahin, D., 2013. Flood Risk Management in Turkey. AFAD - Disaster and Emergency
Management Presidency, pp.1-67.

Şahin, Ş., 2019. Türkiye’de Afet Yönetimi ve 2023 Hedefleri. Türk Deprem Araştırma Dergisi,
1(2), pp.180-196.

Salman, A. and Li, Y., 2018. Flood Risk Assessment, Future Trend Modeling, and Risk
Communication: A Review of Ongoing Research. Natural Hazards Review, 19(3),
p.04018011.

Salva, M, Dijkman, J, and Loucks, D., 2014. Flood management options for The Netherlands.
International Journal of River Basin Management. 2(2), pp.101-112.

Samantha, G., 2018. The impact of natural disasters on micro, small and medium
enterprises (MSMEs): A case study on 2016 flood event in western Sri Lanka. Procedia
Engineering, 212, pp.744-751.

312
Samuels, P., 2018. Knowledge that underpins flood risk management. Journal of Flood Risk
Management, 11, pp.S3-S4.

Sangasubana, N., 2011. How to Conduct Ethnographic Research. The Qualitative Report,
16(2), pp.567-573.

Sarigul, O. and Turoglu, H., 2020. Kahramanmaraş Şehri Sel ve Taşkınlarının Coğrafi Analizi
ve Öngörüler. Journal of Geography, (40), pp.275-293.

Saulnier, D., Green, H., Ismail, R., Chhorvann, C., Bin Mohamed, N., Waite, T. and Murray,
V., 2019. Disaster risk reduction: Why do we need accurate disaster mortality data to
strengthen policy and practice?. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International
Journal, 28(6), pp.846-861.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A., 2016. Research Methods for Business Students,
Pearson Education Limited.

Sayers, P., 2017. Evolution of Strategic Flood Risk Management in Support of Social Justice,
Ecosystem Health, and Resilience. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Natural Hazard Science.

Sayers, P., Penning-Rowsell, E. and Horritt, M., 2017. Flood vulnerability, risk, and social
disadvantage: current and future patterns in the UK. Regional Environmental Change,
18(2), pp.339-352.

Sayers, P., Yuanyuan, L., Galloway, G., Penning-Rowsell, E., Fuxin, S., Kang, W., Yiwei, C. and
Le Quesne, T., 2013. Flood Risk Management: A Strategic Approach. Paris, UNESCO.

Sayers, P.B., Horritt, M., Penning Rowsell, E., and Fieth, J., 2017. Present and future flood
vulnerability, risk and disadvantage: A UK scale assessment. A report for the Joseph
Rowntree Foundation published by Sayers and Partners LLP.
Sayers, PB., Horritt, M, Carr, S, Kay, A, Mauz, J., Lamb R, and Penning-Rowsell E., 2020. Third
UK Climate Change Risk Assessment (CCRA3): Future flood risk. Research undertaken by
Sayers and Partners for the Committee on Climate Change. Published by Committee on
Climate Change, London.

Schanze, J., 2012. Dealing with future change in flood risk management. Journal of Flood
Risk Management, 5(1), pp.1-2.

Schemper, L., 2019. Science Diplomacy and the Making of the United Nations International
Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction. Diplomatica, 1(2), pp.243-267.

313
Schroter, K., Kreibich, H., Vogel, K., Riggelsen, C., Scherbaum, F. and Merz, B., 2014. How
useful are complex flood damage models?. Water Resources Research, 50(4), pp.3378-
3395.

Schumacher, R., 2009. Mechanisms for Quasi-Stationary Behavior in Simulated Heavy-Rain-

Producing Convective Systems. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 66(6), pp.1543-1568.

Scottish Government Flood Risk Management Team, 2019. Water: Managing flood risk.
[online] Available at: https://www.gov.scot/policies/water/managing-flood-risk [Accessed
2 May 2019].

Seebauer, S., Ortner, S., Babcicky, P. and Thaler, T., 2018. Bottom‐up citizen initiatives as
emergent actors in flood risk management: Mapping roles, relations and
limitations. Journal of Flood Risk Management, 12(3).

Selvaraj, S. and Chandran Sandaran, S., 2019. Discourses of Flood Disaster Preparedness by
NGOs: Humanitarian Aid, Teamwork and Victimization. GEMA Online® Journal of Language
Studies, 19(4), pp.111-127.

Sengezer, B. and Koç, E., 2005. A critical analysis of earthquakes and urban planning in
Turkey. Disasters, 29(2), pp.171-194.

Şenol Balaban, M., 2016. An Assessment Of Flood Risk Factors In Riverine Cities Of Turkey:
Lessons For Resilience And Urban Planning. Metu Journal of The Faculty of Architecture,
33(2), pp.45-71.

Sensoy, S., Demircan, M., Ulupınar, Y., and Balta, İ., 2011. Türkiye İklimi. Devlet Meteoroloji
İsleri Genel Mudurlugu, Ankara, Türkiye. [pdf] Available at:
https://www.mgm.gov.tr/FILES/genel/makale/13_turkiye_iklimi.pdf [Accessed 18 Jul.
2019].

Sezer, M., 2009. ALARO-0 Experience in Turkish State Meteorological Service. [pdf]
Available at: http://www.rclace.eu/File/ALARO/alaro1_wd/alaro1wd-MS-tr-feb10.pdf
[Accessed 15 Apr. 2019].

Shabir, O., 2013. A Summary Case Report on the Health Impacts and Response to the
Pakistan Floods of 2010. PLoS Currents.

Shah, A., Ye, J., Abid, M. and Ullah, R., 2017. Determinants of flood risk mitigation strategies
at household level: a case of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) province, Pakistan. Natural Hazards,
88(1), pp.415-430.

314
Shah, A., Ye, J., Shaw, R., Ullah, R. and Ali, M., 2020. Factors affecting flood-induced
household vulnerability and health risks in Pakistan: The case of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP)
Province. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 42, p.101341.

Shah, M., Rahman, A. and Chowdhury, S., 2015. Challenges for achieving sustainable flood
risk management. Journal of Flood Risk Management, 11, pp.S352-S358.

Shah, M., Rahman, A. and Chowdhury, S., 2017. Sustainability assessment of flood
mitigation projects: An innovative decision support framework. International Journal of
Disaster Risk Reduction, 23, pp.53-61.

Shao, W., Xian, S., Lin, N., Kunreuther, H., Jackson, N. and Goidel, K., 2017. Understanding
the effects of past flood events and perceived and estimated flood risks on individuals'
voluntary flood insurance purchase behavior. Water Research, 108, pp.391-400.

Shariff, N. and Hamidi, Z., 2019. Community-based approach for a flood preparedness plan
in Malaysia. Jàmbá: Journal of Disaster Risk Studies, 11(1), p.598.

Sharp, E. and Carter, H., 2020. Examination of how social media can inform the
management of volunteers during a flood disaster. Journal of Flood Risk Management,
13(4), pp.1-10.

Sheehan, J. and Brown, J., 2021. Flood risk management: Property rights-focussed
instruments in Australia. Environmental Science & Policy, 119, pp.12-17.

Sheikhbardsiri, H., Yarmohammadian, M.H., Khankeh, H.R., Nekoei-Moghadam, M. and

Raeisi, A.R., 2018. Meta-evaluation of published studies on evaluation of health disaster
preparedness exercises through a systematic review. Journal of Education and Health
Promotion, 7(1), p.15.

Shelby, L.B. and Vaske, J.J., 2008. Understanding meta-analysis: A review of the
methodological literature. Leisure Sciences, 30(2), pp.96-110.

Silverman, D. (ed.)., 2016. Qualitative research. London: SAGE.

Simm, J., 2015. Direct action self-help groups in UK flood risk management. Ph.D. University
of Nottingham.

Singkran, N., 2017. Flood risk management in Thailand: Shifting from a passive to a
progressive paradigm. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 25, pp.92-100.

315
Siriwardana, C., Jayasiri, G. and Hettiarachchi, S., 2018. Investigation of efficiency and
effectiveness of the existing disaster management frameworks in Sri Lanka. Procedia
Engineering, 212, pp.1091-1098.

Slavíková, L., Raška, P., Banasik, K., Barta, M., Kis, A., Kohnová, S., Matczak, P. and Szolgay,
J., 2019. Approaches to state flood recovery funding in Visegrad Group
Countries. Environmental Hazards, 19(3), pp.251-267.

Smith, J., and Bond, A., 2018. Delivering more inclusive public participation in coastal flood
management: A case study in Suffolk, UK. Ocean & Coastal Management, 161, pp.147-155.

Smith, K., 2013. Environmental hazards: assessing risk and reducing disaster. Routledge.

Snel, K., Witte, P., Hartmann, T. and Geertman, S., 2020. The shifting position of
homeowners in flood resilience: From recipients to key‐stakeholders. WIREs Water, 7(4),
pp.1-11.

Snyder, H., 2019. Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and

guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, pp.333-339.

Sobel, A., 2014. Storm surge. New York: HarperWave.

Sobelson, R., Wigington, C., Harp, V. and Bronson, B., 2015. A whole community approach
to emergency management: Strategies and best practices of seven community
programs. Journal of Emergency Management, 13(4), p.349.

Southampton City Council (SCC), 2014. Southampton Local Flood Risk Management
Strategy: Main Strategy Report (2014 – 2019), Southampton City Council.

Southampton.gov.uk. 2021. Southampton City Council. [online] Available at:

<https://www.southampton.gov.uk/> [Accessed 27 May 2021].

Spencer, P., Faulkner, D., Perkins, I., Lindsay, D., Dixon, G., Parkes, M., Lowe, A., Asadullah,
A., Hearn, K., Gaffney, L., Parkes, A. and James, R., 2017. The floods of December 2015 in
northern England: description of the events and possible implications for flood hydrology
in the UK. Hydrology Research, 49(2), pp.568-596.

Sperry, P., 2013. Community Participation in Disaster Planning and the Expectation Gap:
Analysis and Recommendations. PhD Thesis. Richmond, VA : Virginia Commonwealth
University.

316
State Hydraulic Works, 2014. Hakkımızda - DSİ Genel Müdürlüğü. [online] Available at:
http://dsi.gov.tr/kurumsal-yapi [Accessed 9 Apr. 2019].

Sternberg, D., 2014. How to complete and survive a doctoral dissertation. St. Martin's
Griffin.

Stewart, R.M., 2007. Community Perspectives of flood risk and social vulnerability
reduction: the case of the Red River Basin. PhD Thesis. Winnipeg, Canada: University of
Manitoba.

Stive, M., Fresco, L., Kabat, P., Parmet, B. and Veerman, C., 2011. How the Dutch plan to
stay dry over the next century. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Civil
Engineering, 164(3), pp.114-121.

Surbhi, S., 2017. Difference Between Centralization and Decentralization (with Comparison
Chart) - Key Differences. [online] Key Differences. Available at:
https://keydifferences.com/difference-between-centralization-and-decentralization.html
[Accessed 17 Apr. 2019].

Surianto, S., Alim, S., Nindrea, R. and Trisnantoro, L., 2019. Regional Policy for Disaster Risk
Management in Developing Countries Within the Sendai Framework: A Systematic
Review. Open Access Macedonian Journal of Medical Sciences, 7(13), pp.2213-2219.

Surminski, S. and Eldridge, J., 2015. Flood insurance in England - an assessment of the
current and newly proposed insurance scheme in the context of rising flood risk. Journal of
Flood Risk Management, 10(4), pp.415-435.
Surminski, S. and Thieken, A., 2017. Promoting flood risk reduction: The role of insurance
in Germany and England. Earth's Future, 5(10), pp.979-1001.

Surminski, S., 2018. Fit for Purpose and Fit for the Future? An Evaluation of the UK's New
Flood Reinsurance Pool. Risk Management and Insurance Review, 21(1), pp.33-72.

Surminski, S., Mehryar, S. and Golnaraghi, M., 2020. Flood Risk Management in England:
Building flood resilience in a changing climate. The Geneva Association.

Surminski, S., Roezer, V. and Golnaraghi, M., 2020. Flood Risk Management in Germany
Building flood resilience in a changing climate. The Geneva Association—International
Association for the Study of Insurance Economics.

317
Svetlana, D., Radovan, D. and Ján, D., 2015. The Economic Impact of Floods and their
Importance in Different Regions of the World with Emphasis on Europe. Procedia
Economics and Finance, 34, pp.649-655.

Taherdoost, H., 2016. Sampling Methods in Research Methodology; How to Choose a

Sampling Technique for Research. SSRN Electronic Journal, 5(2), pp.18-27.

Takagi, H., Esteban, M., Mikami, T. and Fujii, D., 2016. Projection of coastal floods in 2050
Jakarta. Urban Climate, 17, pp.135-145.

Talbot, C.J., Bennett, E.M., Cassell, K., Hanes, D.M., Minor, E.C., Paerl, H., Raymond, P.A.,
Vargas, R., Vidon, P.G., Wollheim, W. and Xenopoulos, M.A., 2018. The impact of flooding
on aquatic ecosystem services. Biogeochemistry, 141(3), pp.439-461.

Tangen, O., 2019. An ongoing crisis: Freedom of speech in Turkey. Made for minds, [online]
Available at: <https://p.dw.com/p/3CuNb> [Accessed 6 February 2021].

Tariq, M., Farooq, R. and van de Giesen, N., 2020. A Critical Review of Flood Risk
Management and the Selection of Suitable Measures. Applied Sciences, 10(23), p.8752.

Tas, M., Tas, N., Durak, S. and Atanur, G., 2013. Flood disaster vulnerability in informal
settlements in Bursa, Turkey. Environment & Urbanization, vol. 25, no. 2, pp.443–63.

Taştan, B. and Aydınoğlu, A., 2015. Çoklu Afet Risk Yönetiminde Tehlike Ve Zarar Görebilirlik
Belirlenmesi İçin Gereksinim Analizi. Marmara Coğrafya Dergisi, 0(31), pp.366-397.

Tavmen, G., 2014. Disaster recovery in Turkey: Some businesses shine but many lag. [online]
ComputerWeekly.com. Available at: https://www.computerweekly.com/feature/Disaster-
recovery-in-Turkey-Some-businesses-shine-while-many-lag [Accessed 19 May 2019].

Tembata, K., Yamamoto, Y., Yamamoto, M. and Matsumoto, K., 2020. Don't rely too much
on trees: Evidence from flood mitigation in China. Science of The Total Environment, 732,
p.138410.

Ten Brinke, W., Knoop, J., Muilwijk, H. and Ligtvoet, W., 2017. Social disruption by flooding,
a European perspective. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 21, pp.312-322.

Tercan, B., 2018. Türkiye’de afet politikaları ve kentsel dönüşüm. Abant Kültürel
Araştırmalar Dergisi, 3(5), pp.102-120.

318
Terrell, S., 2012. Mixed-Methods Research Methodologies. The Qualitative Report, 17(1),
pp.254-280.

Terry, G., Hayfield, N., Clarke, V. and Braun, V., 2017. Thematic Analysis. In The Sage
Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology, edited by C. Willig and Stainton-
Rogers, 17–37. 2nd ed. London: Sage.

Thanh Thi Pham, N., Nong, D., Raghavan Sathyan, A. and Garschagen, M., 2020.
Vulnerability assessment of households to flash floods and landslides in the poor upland
regions of Vietnam. Climate Risk Management, 28, p.100215.

Thanvisitthpon, N., Shrestha, S. and Pal, I., 2018. Urban Flooding and Climate
Change. Environment and Urbanization ASIA, 9(1), pp.86-100.

Thieken, A., 2016. The flood of June 2013 in Germany: How much do we know about its
impacts?. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 16(6), p.1519.

Thieken, A., Kienzler, S. and Bubeck, P., 2019, January. Estimating losses potentially caused
by pluvial floods. In Geophysical Research Abstracts (Vol. 21).

Thorne, C., 2014. Geographies of UK flooding in 2013/4. The Geographical Journal, 180(4),
pp.297-309.

Thorne, C.R., Lawson, E.C., Ozawa, C., Hamlin, S.L. and Smith, L.A., 2018. Overcoming
uncertainty and barriers to adoption of Blue‐Green Infrastructure for urban flood risk
management. Journal of Flood Risk Management, 11, pp.S960-S972.
Tong, S., 2017. Flooding-related displacement and mental health. The Lancet Planetary
Health, 1(4), pp.124-125.

Toprak Karaman, Z., 2019. Risk Toplumunda Afetlerde Erken Uyarı, Mukavemetli Toplum
Ve Kamu Yönetiminin İkna Kapasitesi. Bitlis Eren Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 8(1),
pp.185-212.

Torzhkov, I., Kushnir, E., Konstantinov, A., Koroleva, T., Efimov, S. and Shkolnik, I., 2019. The
economic consequences of future climate change in the forest sector of Russia. IOP
Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 226, p.012032.

Tozier de la Poterie, A. and Baudoin, M., 2015. From Yokohama to Sendai: Approaches to
Participation in International Disaster Risk Reduction Frameworks. International Journal of
Disaster Risk Science, 6, pp.128-139.

319
Tramblay, Y., Bouvier, C., Ayral, P. and Marchandise, A., 2011. Impact of rainfall spatial
distribution on rainfall-runoff modelling efficiency and initial soil moisture conditions
estimation. Natural Hazards and Earth System Science, 11(1), pp.157-170.

Trogrlić, R.Š., Wright, G.B., Duncan, M.J., van den Homberg, M.J., Adeloye, A.J., Mwale, F.D.
and Mwafulirwa, J., 2019. Characterising Local Knowledge across the Flood Risk
Management Cycle: A Case Study of Southern Malawi. Sustainability, 11(6), pp.1-23.

Tuğaç, Ç., 2019. Kentsel Dirençlilik Perspektifinden Yerel Yönetimlerin Görevleri ve

Sorumlulukları. İdealkent, 10(28), pp.984-1019.

Turkish Department of Flood and Drought Management, 2015. Flood Management

Planning in Turkey within the context of EU Flood Directive. Ministry of Forestry and Water
Affairs.

Turkiye Sigorta Birligi, 2021. Yangın Sigortası Genel Şartları. [online] Available at:
<https://www.tsb.org.tr/yangin-sigortasi-genel-sartlari.aspx?pageID=524> [Accessed 3
March 2021].

Turoğlu, H., 2011. Flashfloods and Floods in Istanbul. Ankara Üniversitesi Çevrebilimleri
Dergisi, 3(1), pp.39-46.

Tyler, J., Sadiq, A. and Noonan, D., 2019. A review of the community flood risk management
literature in the USA: lessons for improving community resilience to floods. Natural
Hazards, 96(3), pp.1223-1248.
Uğur, A. and Işik, M., 2020. Türkiye’nin Afetlere Hazırlık Politikalarının Toplum Algısı
Üzerinden Karşılaştırmalı Analizi: Van-Bitlis İlleri Örneği. Doğal Afetler ve Çevre Dergisi,
pp.1-21.

UK Government. 2021. Government proposes further support for flood resilience measures.
[online] Available at: <https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-proposes-
further-support-for-flood-resilience-measures> [Accessed 26 May 2021].

UK Government., 2015. The Flood Reinsurance (Scheme Funding and Administration)

Regulations 2015.

Umut, M., 2019. AB Üyelik Sürecinde Türk Sigortacılık Piyasasının Mevcut Gelişmişliği Ve
Artirilmasina İlişkin Politika Önerileri. 3. Sektör Sosyal Ekonomi Dergisi, 54(1), pp.222-242.

UNDP., 2004. A global report: Reducing Disaster Risk: A Challenge for Development. United
Nations Development Programme.

320
UNISDR (United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction), 2011. Hyogo
Framework For Action 2005–2015 Mid-Term Review. Geneva: UNISDR.

UNISDR (United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction), 2015. Sendai
framework for disaster risk reduction 2015–2030. Geneva: UNISDR.

UNISDR., 2017. Disaster-related Data for Sustainable Development Sendai Framework Data
Readiness Review 2017: Global Summary Report. UNISDR.

United Nations and Economic Commission for Europe (UN/ECE)., 2004. Best Practices On
Flood Prevention, Protection and Mitigation.

United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction UNDRR., 2015. 20-year review shows 90%
of disasters are weather-related; US, China, India, Philippines, and Indonesia records the
most. [online] UNDDR. Available at: https://www.undrr.org/news/20-year-review-shows-
90-disasters-are-weather-related-us-china-india-philippines-and-indonesia [Accessed 21
Aug. 2019].

United Nations University (UNU)., 2004. Two Billion Vulnerable To Floods By 2050; Number
Expected To Double Or More In Two Generations. ScienceDaily. [online] Available at:
https:// www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/06/040614081820.htm [Accessed 12 Aug.
2019].

United Nations, 2003. Guidelines on Participatory Planning and Management for Flood
Mitigation and Preparedness. United Nations Publications.

United Nations, 2020. World Economic Situation and Prospects. [online] New York: United
Nations. Available at: <https://unctad.org/system/files/official-
document/wesp2020_en.pdf> [Accessed 24 May 2021].

USGS, 2021. USGS Flood Information. [online] USGS Science for a changing world. Available
at: <https://www.usgs.gov/mission-areas/water-resources/science/usgs-flood-
information?qt-science_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects> [Accessed 15 May
2021].

Usta, A., 2009. İstanbul sele teslim oldu. [online] Uskudar 34 Haber Sitesi. Available at:
https://www.uskudar34.com/haber/1475-istanbul-istanbul-sele-teslim-oldu.html
[Accessed 2 Feb. 2019].

321
Usta, I., 2009. People on a flooded road in Istanbul wait to be rescued. [image] Available at:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/sep/09/flash-floods-istanbul-turkey
[Accessed 14 May 2019].

Üstün, U. and Eryilmaz, A., 2014. A Research Methodology to Conduct Effective Research
Syntheses: Meta-Analysis. TED Eğitim ve Bilim, 39(174), pp.1-32.

Uzun, Ö. and Balyemez, S., 2020. İstanbul Ve Antakya Şehirlerinde Deprem Risk Azaltma
Çalışmaları Üzerine Karşılaştırmalı Bir Değerlendirme. İstanbul Aydin Universitesi Dergisi,
12(3), pp.229-250.

Vaismoradi, M., Jones, J., Turunen, H. and Snelgrove, S., 2016. Theme development in
qualitative content analysis and thematic analysis. Journal of Nursing Education and
Practice, 6(5), pp.100-110.

Valerio, M.A., Rodriguez, N., Winkler, P., Lopez, J., Dennison, M., Liang, Y. and Turner, B.J.,
2016. Comparing two sampling methods to engage hard-to-reach communities in research
priority setting. BMC medical research methodology, 16(1), p.146.

van Buuren, A., Lawrence, J., Potter, K. and Warner, J., 2018. Introducing Adaptive Flood
Risk Management in England, New Zealand, and the Netherlands: The Impact of
Administrative Traditions. Review of Policy Research, 35(6), pp.907-929.

van den Honert, R. and McAneney, J., 2011. The 2011 Brisbane Floods: Causes, Impacts and
Implications. Water, 3(4), pp.1149-1173.
van der Molen, F., 2018. How knowledge enables governance: The coproduction of
environmental governance capacity, Environmental Science & Policy, vol. 87, pp. 18-25.

van Der Plank, S., Brown, S., Nicholls, R. and Tompkins, E., 2019. Stakeholder expectations
of the public in local coastal flood risk management in England. In Institution of Civil
Engineers Coastal Management 2019. Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE).

van Niekerk, D., Coetzee, C. and Nemakonde, L., 2020. Implementing the Sendai
Framework in Africa: Progress Against the Targets (2015–2018). International Journal of
Disaster Risk Science, 11(2), pp.179-189.

Vaughan, A., 2019. Global warming intensifies risk of bad floods in Europe. New Scientist,
243(3249), p.18.

Vojinovic, Z., 2015. Flood Risk: The Holistic Perspective From Integrated to Interactive
Planning for Flood Resilience. London: IWA Publishing.

322
Vojtek, M. and Vojtekova, J., 2016. Flood hazard and flood risk assessment at the local
spatial scale: a case study. Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk, 7(6), pp.1973-1992.

Wahlström, M., 2015. New Sendai Framework Strengthens Focus on Reducing Disaster
Risk. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 6, pp.200-201.

Walker-Springett, K., Butler, C. and Adger, W., 2017. Wellbeing in the aftermath of
floods. Health & Place, 43, pp.66-74.

Walkling, B. and Haworth, B., 2020. Flood risk perceptions and coping capacities among the
retired population, with implications for risk communication: A study of residents in a north
Wales coastal town, UK. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 51, p.101793.

Wallemacq, P., Guha-Sapir, D., McClean, D., CRED and UNISDR, 2015. The Human Cost of
Weather Related Disasters - 1995 - 2015.

Walliman, N., 2017. Research methods: The basics. Routledge.

Watson, L., Turner, C., and Boyle, D., 2015. Storm Desmond: Death toll rises to three - as it
happened on Monday December 7. [online] Available at:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/weather/12038704/Storm-Desmond-as-it-happened-
on-Monday-December-7.html [Accessed 3 Feb. 2019].

Werken, W., 2012. Flood Risk and Water Management in the Netherlands. Waterdienst.
Werritty, A., 2019. ‘How can we learn to live with floods? Challenges for science and
management’: guest editorial introduction. Scottish Geographical Journal, 135(1-2), pp.1-
4.

Whitelaw, J., 2009. Flooding: Ready for more?. [online] New Civil Engineer. Available at:
https://www.newcivilengineer.com/archive/flooding-ready-for-more-06-08-2009/
[Accessed 3 Feb. 2020].

Wiering, M. and Winnubst, M., 2017. The conception of public interest in Dutch flood risk
management: Untouchable or transforming?. Environmental Science & Policy, 73, pp.12-
19.

Wiering, M., Kaufmann, M., Mees, H., Schellenberger, T., Ganzevoort, W., Hegger, D.,
Larrue, C. and Matczak, P., 2017. Varieties of flood risk governance in Europe: How do
countries respond to driving forces and what explains institutional change?. Global
Environmental Change, 44, pp.15-26.

323
Williams, L., Arguillas, M. and Arguillas, F., 2020. Major storms, rising tides, and wet feet:
Adapting to flood risk in the Philippines. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction,
50, p.101810.

Willner, S., Levermann, A., Zhao, F. and Frieler, K., 2018. Adaptation required to preserve
future high-end river flood risk at present levels. Science Advances, 4(1), p.eaao1914.

Wing, O., Bates, P., Smith, A., Sampson, C., Johnson, K., Fargione, J. and Morefield, P., 2018.
Estimates of present and future flood risk in the conterminous United
States. Environmental Research Letters, 13(3), p.034023.

Wingfield, T., Macdonald, N., Peters, K., Spees, J. and Potter, K., 2019. Natural Flood
Management: Beyond the evidence debate. Area, 51(4), pp.743-751.

Winsemius, H., Aerts, J., van Beek, L., Bierkens, M., Bouwman, A., Jongman, B., Kwadijk, J.,
Ligtvoet, W., Lucas, P., van Vuuren, D. and Ward, P., 2015. Global drivers of future river
flood risk. Nature Climate Change, 6(4), pp.381-385.

Witting, A., Brandenstein, F. and Kochskämper, E., 2021. Evaluating learning spaces in flood
risk management in Germany: Lessons for governance research. Journal of Flood Risk
Management, 14(2).

Wood, J.A., 2008. Methodology for dealing with duplicate study effects in a meta-
analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 11(1), pp.79-95.

World Bank., 2019. Myanmar Floods and Landslides: Post Disaster Needs Assessment.
[online] Available at:
https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/myanmar/publication/myanmar-floods-and-
landslides-post-disaster-needs-assessment [Accessed 11 Feb. 2020].

World Meteorological Organization (WMO)., 2015. Effectiveness of Flood Management

Measures. APFM Technical Document No. 21, Flood Management Tools, Associated
Programme on Flood Management (APFM), Geneva.

Wreford, A. and Topp, C., 2020. Impacts of climate change on livestock and possible
adaptations: A case study of the United Kingdom. Agricultural Systems, 178, p.102737.

Xia, Y., Guan, D., Steenge, A., Dietzenbacher, E., Meng, J. and Mendoza Tinoco, D., 2019.
Assessing the economic impacts of IT service shutdown during the York flood of 2015 in the
UK. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences,
475(2224), p.20180871.

324
Xiao, Y. and Watson, M., 2017. Guidance on Conducting a Systematic Literature
Review. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 39(1), pp.93-112.

Yaman, F., Ayranci, E. and Helvacioglu, İ., 2020. Türkiye’nin Ulusal Afet ve Acil Durum
Yönetim Sisteminin Mevcut Hali ve Yeni Bir Yönetim Modeli Önerisi. Resilience, 4(2),
pp.205-220.

Yang, T. and Liu, W., 2020. A General Overview of the Risk-Reduction Strategies for Floods
and Droughts. Sustainability, 12(7), p.2687.

Yavuz, M., Hasançebi, M. and Kurşun, E., 2020. Açık ve uzaktan öğrenme ders kitaplarında
bulunması gereken özellikler: sistematik literatür taraması. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim
Fakültesi Dergisi, 50, pp.533-560.

Yildirim, E. and Demir, I., 2021. An Integrated Flood Risk Assessment and Mitigation
Framework: A Case Study for Middle Cedar River Basin, Iowa, US. International Journal of
Disaster Risk Reduction, 56, p.102113.

Yildirim, I., 2018. Access to Finance: Developing Microinsurance Market in Turkey, In:
Woldie, A. and Thomas B. (eds.) Financial Entrepreneurship for Economic Growth in
Emerging Nations. IGI Global, pp. 217-228.
Yilmaz, C. and Kaya, M., 2020. Şehir coğrafyası ve afet yönetimi bağlamında Samsun -
Atakum sel ve taskinlari. Doğu Coğrafya Dergisi, 25(44), pp.31 - 46.

Yin, R.K., 2009. Case study research: Design and methods (4thEd.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Yin, R.K., 2017. Case study research and applications: Design and methods. Sage
publications.

Yucel, I., 2015. Assessment of a flash flood event using different precipitation datasets.
Natural Hazards. 79 (3), p11069-015.

Yuksel, I., Arman, H., Goktepe, F. and Ceribasi, G., 2011. Flood management to prevent
flooding damages in western Black Sea region in Turkey. International Journal of the
Physical Sciences, 6(29), pp.6759-66.

Zanchetta, A. and Coulibaly, P., 2020. Recent Advances in Real-Time Pluvial Flash Flood
Forecasting. Water, 12(2), p.570.

325
Zeng, Z., Guan, D., Steenge, A., Xia, Y. and Mendoza-Tinoco, D., 2019. Flood footprint
assessment: a new approach for flood-induced indirect economic impact measurement
and post-flood recovery. Journal of Hydrology, 579.

Zentel KO., Glade T., 2013. International Strategies for Disaster Reduction (IDNDR and
ISDR). In: Bobrowsky P.T. (eds) Encyclopedia of Natural Hazards. Encyclopedia of Earth
Sciences Series. Springer, Dordrecht.

Zevenbergen, C., van Herk, S., Rijke, J., Kabat, P., Bloemen, P., Ashley, R., Speers, A.,
Gersonius, B. and Veerbeek, W., 2012. Taming global flood disasters. Lessons learned from
Dutch experience. Natural Hazards, 65(3), pp.1217-1225.

Zhang, B. and Soden, B., 2019. Constraining Climate Model Projections of Regional
Precipitation Change. Geophysical Research Letters, 46(17-18), pp.10522-10531.
Zheng, X.T., Hui, C., Xie, S.P., Cai, W. and Long, S.M., 2019. Intensification of El Niño rainfall
variability over the tropical Pacific in the slow oceanic response to global
warming. Geophysical Research Letters, 46(4), pp.2253-2260.

Zhong, M., Lin, K., Tang, G., Zhang, Q., Hong, Y. and Chen, X., 2020. A Framework to Evaluate
Community Resilience to Urban Floods: A Case Study in Three Communities. Sustainability,
12(4), p.1521.

Zurich Insurance and JBA Trust., 2016. Flooding after Storm Desmond: PERC UK 2015. [pdf]
Available at: https://www.jbatrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/flooding-after-
storm-desmond-PUBLISHED-24-August-2016.pdf [Accessed 12 Apr. 2019].

326
Appendices

Appendix A - Ethics committee review letter

Appendix B - Ethical conduct declaration form
Appendix C - Participant Information Sheet
Appendix D - Consent Form
Appendix E - Interview questions

327
Appendix A - Ethics committee review letter

328
Appendix B - Ethical conduct declaration form

329
 Appendix C - Participant information sheet

PARTICIPANT INFORMATION SHEET

Title of Project: Assessing the effectiveness of flood management: a comparative study between
Turkey and the UK

Name and Contact Details of Researcher: Ali YASITLI - [email protected]

Name and Contact Details of Supervisor: Dr. Richard TEEUW - [email protected]

Ethics Committee Reference Number: 2018-060

1. Invitation
I would like to invite you to take part in my research study. Joining the study is entirely up to you,
before you decide I would like you to understand why the research is being done and what it would
involve for you. I will go through this information sheet with you, to help you decide whether or
not you would like to take part and answer any questions you may have. I would suggest this should
take less than an hour. Please feel free to talk to others about the study if you wish. Do ask if
anything is unclear.

I am, a PhD student at the University of Portsmouth, studying on flood management practices and
this survey is my individual work in partial fulfilment of the academic programme. The main purpose
is to identify the effectiveness of flood management system at the local authority level.

2. Study Summary

This study is concerned with evaluating the current flood management practices at the local level
by assessing the efficiency of current systems, frameworks and practices. This is important because
it will help to determine the effectiveness of the systems and how the UK and Turkish communities
can become more resilient to the flood hazard. We are seeking emergency management
professionals who should have responsibilities for/experiences in managing floods. Participation in
the research would require you to attend an interview during break hours which will take less than
an hour of your time.

3. What is the purpose of the study?

The purpose of the research is to identify a suitable framework for flood management at local level.
The study will use a case study approach together with interviews that will be conducted on
employees in one of the local flood management agencies. The project has an educational objective
because it will assist the researcher to get a degree. However, it will also be beneficial to flood
management organizations especially with the challenges that arise due to climate change.

330
4. Why have I been invited?
You have been invited to be part of the study because you have the required professional skills and
information that can be useful for the study. You are, therefore, invited in professional capacity as
a member of the organization. However, the researcher also wants to have your personal views on
the issues raised. The total number of participants invited are 20.

5. Do I have to take part?

No, taking part in this research is entirely voluntary. It is up to you to decide if you want to
volunteer for the study. We will describe the study in this information sheet. If you agree to take
part, we will then ask you to sign the attached consent form, dated 11.07.2018, version number,
3.

6. What will happen to me if I take part?

If you choose to take part in the study, you will be accorded a maximum of one hour to respond to
the questions. The interview will be conducted once as a result the maxim time that will be spent
for the entire process is less than an hour. The participant will answer a series of questions freely.
The information presented will be recorded by audio tapping. The researcher does not intend to
publish the information presented by the interviewees immediately. However, if need arises, the
consent of the participants will be requested.

7. Expenses and payments

The participants of the research will not receive any form of payment for their involvement in the
study. However, the researcher will show gratitude by thanking all the participants.

8. Anything else I will have to do?

There are no any restrictions which will be placed on participants, or any instructions for them.

9. What data will be collected and / or measurements taken?

The data collected will mainly concern the flood management initiatives adopted by the
organization. No specialized equipment will be used. However, the participant is encouraged to
take the researcher on a tour to examine the equipment used in flood management. No sensitive
data will be collected. The researcher will ask a few personal questions such as the age of the
participant and their position in the organization. It is also essential to note that the findings of the
study will not affect the wellbeing or the health of the participant.

10. What are the possible disadvantages, burdens and risks of taking part?

331
The researcher does not anticipate any risks and burdens affecting the participants. This is because
the research will not be experimental. However, certain site visits may be risky, as a result, an
independent medical officer will be contacted in case of any issue.

11. What are the possible advantages or benefits of taking part?

The research will not bring direct benefits to the participant; however, the outcomes of the study
will provide better understanding on the area of flood management.

12. Will my taking part in the study be kept confidential?

Taking part in research will not be confidential because the management of the agency will already
be informed about the participant’s involvement in the study. As a participant, you will be
acknowledged and identified. Your consent will be sort and any arising issues will be noted.

The raw data, which identifies you, will be kept securely by the researcher. Personal information
used to identify you will also be kept safe by the researcher. The password will be created secretly
with top-secret codes. During the research period, the folder containing the information provided
will be stored in the University system. It will only be accessible by the researcher. The data you
provided will be recorded using audio tapes. The facts will also be written and photographs may be
taken in some to sites.

During the study, your confidentiality will be guaranteed by the researcher by ensuring that the
information you provided is kept safely to avoid invasion by third parties. After collecting the data,
the written facts will be stored by the researcher, after which it is reviewed. Subsequently, once
the review is over, the information is used or integrated in the research. After, the study is
complete, the data will be transferred to the University System on a special folder that is only
accessible to the researcher and the supervisor. If the participant agrees, the information will later
be published as anonymous, which does not identify the participant. The main data controller in
this context is the researcher.

13. What will happen if I don’t want to carry on with the study?
As a volunteer you can stop any participation in the interview at any time, or withdraw from the
study at any time before (August 15th 2018), without giving a reason if you do not wish to. Once the
research has been completed, and the data analysed, it will not be possible for you to withdraw
your data from the study.

14. What if there is a problem?

If you have a query, concern or complaint about any aspect of this study, in the first instance you
should contact the researcher if appropriate. If the researcher is a student, there will also be an

332
academic member of staff listed as the supervisor whom you can contact. If there is a complaint
and there is a supervisor listed, please contact the Supervisor with details of the complaint. The
contact details for both the researcher and any supervisor are detailed on page 1.

If your concern or complaint is not resolved by the researcher or their supervisor, you should
contact the Head of Department:

The Head of Department: Dr. Michelle HALE

Department / School of Earth and Environmental Science (SEES), University of Portsmouth,
Burnaby Road, Portsmouth, PO1 3QL.
Tel: + (44) 23 9284 2257
Email: [email protected]
If the complaint remains unresolved, please contact:
The University Complaints Officer
+44 23 9284 3642 [email protected]

15. Who is funding the research?

This research is being funded by the Ministry of National Education in the Republic of Turkey. The
researcher will not receive any financial reward by conducting this study, other than his normal
bursary as a student of the University.

16. Who has reviewed the study?

Research involving human participants is reviewed by an ethics committee to ensure that the
dignity and well-being of participants is respected. This study has been reviewed by the Science
Faculty Ethics Committee and been given favourable ethical opinion.

Thank you
Thank you for taking time to read this information sheet and for considering volunteering for this
research. If you do agree to participate your consent will be sought; please see the accompanying
consent form. You will then be given a copy of this information sheet and your signed consent
form, to keep.

333
 Appendix D - Consent form

CONSENT FORM
Title of Project: Assessing the effectiveness of flood management: a comparative study between Turkey
and the UK

Name and Contact Details of Researcher: Ali YASITLI - [email protected]

Name and Contact Details of Supervisor: Dr. Richard TEEUW – [email protected]

University Data Protection Officer: Samantha Hill, 023 9284 3642 or [email protected]

Ethics Committee Reference Number: 2018-060

1. I confirm that I have read and understood the information sheet dated 11.07.2018 (version 3)
for the above study. I have had the opportunity to consider the information, ask questions and
have had these answered satisfactorily.

2. I understand that my participation is voluntary and that I am free to withdraw at any time
without giving any reason.

3. I understand that data collected during this study will be retained in accordance with
the University’s data retention policy and could also be requested by UK regulatory authorities.

4. I agree to take part in the above study.

5. I consent for my interview to be audio recorded. The recording will be transcribed and
analysed for the purposes of the research. The collected data through interviews
will be stored and secured in a password-protected university Google drive account.

6. I consent to verbatim quotes being used in publications; I will not be named but
I understand that there is a risk that I could be identified.

7. I agree to the data I contribute being retained for any future research that has been given
a favourable opinion by a Research Ethics Committee.

8. I understand that to maximise the re-use and societal benefit of this research, anonymous data
(which does not identify me) will be publicly shared at the end of the project and made open access
under a CC-BY licence. I understand that this means anyone else (including researchers, businesses,
governments, charities, and the general public) will be allowed to use this anonymised data for
any purpose that they wish (including commercial purposes), providing that they credit the University
and research team as the original creators.

334
9. I understand that should I disclose any concerns with regard to my own, or others’ professional
practice in the course of the interview, the researcher might be duty bound to refer the matter
to relevant agencies.

10. I understand that the results of this study may be published and / or presented at meetings or
academic conferences, and may be provided to research commissioners. I give my permission
for my anonymous data, which does not identify me, to be disseminated in this way.

Name of Participant: Date: Signature:

Name of Person taking Consent: Date: Signature:

335
 Appendix E - Interview questions
Welcome to the Interview!
The purpose of the interview is to identify the effectiveness of flood management. To do this, the
survey focuses on the preparedness and planning, response and recovery options in the context of
flood management. The survey is the individual work of the researcher in partial fulfilment of the
academic programme. Answering the interview questions will take thirty to forty minutes. The
researcher will read each question and make a note of your feedback. Please note that the data
collected from the interview is confidential. The study will limit the utility of the responses to
statistical observations, analysis, and presentation without disclosing the identity of the
respondents.

1) Interview …

2) Date of interview:

3) Gender:
a) Male b) Female

4) Age:
a) 18-25 b) 26-35 c) 36-45 d) 46-55 e) 56-65 f) 66+

5) Organisation:
-)
6) What is your full job title?
-)
7) What would you say is your role in flood management?
-)
8) What are the main responsibilities of your role?
-)
9) How long have you been in this role for?
-)
10) In total, throughout your career, how many years have you worked in flood management?
-)
My research questions are about the effectiveness of flood management systems. By
effectiveness I mean the degree to which managing floods is successful in overcoming harmful
consequences.
11) What do you think is essential for an effective flood management system?
-)

336
The next set of questions focus on the activities of your organisation.
12) Within your organisation do you have any mitigation plans for floods?
a) Yes b) No
● If yes, when was this plan written?
● If no, why not?

13) Have you ever had to enact your flood mitigation plan?
a) Yes b) No
-) If yes, when did you enact this plan?

14) From your experience were there any areas where you thought improvements could have
been made?
a) Point
Why?
b) Point
Why?

15) Does your organisation currently have any response plan for floods?
a) Yes b) No
i. If no, why not?

16) Have you ever had to enact your response plan?

a) Yes b) No
-) If yes, when did you enact this plan

17) From your experience were there any areas where you thought improvements could have
been made?
a) Point 1.
1. Why?
b) Point 2.
1. Why?

18) Post event where your mitigation or response plans are used, what arrangements does
your organisation have in place to learn from these experiences?
a) Arrangement…
b) Arrangement…
-) There are no arrangements in place
i. If there are no arrangements in place, why do you think this is?

337
 1. Reason…
2. Reason…

19) If there are institutional learning arrangements in place, how well do you think these
works?
-)
20) How would you describe the make up of your flood management team, who is involved?
a. Participants…
b. Participants…

21) Do you have a volunteer base as part of your team?

a. Yes
i. Approximately how many volunteers do you have?
b. No

22) In regards to flood management training, what training do you deliver to your team?
a. Training…
i. To which members of your team do you deliver that to?
b. Training…
i. To which members of your team do you deliver that to?

23) What further training do you think your team could benefit from?
a. Training …
i. For who?
b. Training…
i. For who?
c. No further training required.

24) Do you exercise your response plan?

a. Yes
i. How often?
b. No
i. Why not?
1. Reason…
2. Reason…

25) What changes do you think could be taken in the future to improve your exercises?
a. Change…

338
 i. Why?
b. Change…
i. Why?

26) How do you distribute responsibilities between emergency actors for emergencies?
-)

27) How well do you think this distribution of responsibilities works?

a. What works well?
i. Point…
ii. Point…

b. What improvements do you think could be made?

i. Improvement…
ii. Improvement…

28) Do you prepare communities for flood emergencies?

a) Yes
b) No
-) Why not?
i. Reason…
ii. Reason…

29) If you do prepare communities, how do you engage with the communities?
a) Action…
b) Action…

30) What do you think the strengths of your community engagement are?
a) Strength…
b) Strength…

31) Do you think any further improvements could be made?

a) Yes
i. Improvement…
ii. Improvement…
b) No

32) Do you have any warning system to inform communities for upcoming flooding?
a) Yes
b) No

339
 -) why?
i. Reason…
ii. Reason…

33) How do you communicate your warnings?

-)

34) Which of the methods of communication that you use do you think are most effective?
a. Method…
i. Why do you think this method is so effective?
b. Method…
i. Why do you think this method is so effective?

35) In regards to flooding, have you ever had to evacuate people?

a) Yes
-) How is this decision made?
b) No

36) In terms of the resources that you have available for managing floods, what do you think
would help you to further improve the effectiveness of your flood management system?
1. Resource…
a. Why?
2. Resource…
a. Why?

37) Do you have a recovery plan for floods?

a) Yes
b) No
-) Why not?
38) In order to prepare your recovery plan, did you undertake any of the following?
a) Reinstating critical infrastructure
b) Damage assessment
c) Debris management
d) Environmental assessment
e) Rehabilitation for emergency victims
f) …

39) What improvements do you think could be made to your recovery plan?

340
 a) Improvement…
i) Why?
b) Improvement…
ii) Why?
Thank you for your time.

341