IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/nathaz/v91y2018i1d10.1007_s11069-017-3134-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The relevance of flood hazards and impacts in Turkey: What can be learned from different disaster loss databases?

Author

Listed:
  • Gamze Koç

    (University of Potsdam)

  • Annegret H. Thieken

    (University of Potsdam)

Abstract

Turkey has been severely affected by many natural hazards, in particular earthquakes and floods. Especially over the last two decades, these natural hazards have caused enormous human and economic damage. Although there is a large body of literature on earthquake hazards and risks in Turkey, comparatively little is known about flood hazards and risks. Therefore, this study aims to investigate the severity of flooding in comparison with other natural hazards in Turkey and to analyse the flood patterns by providing an overview of the temporal and spatial distribution of flood losses. These will act as a metric for the societal and economic impacts of flood hazards in Turkey. For this purpose, Turkey Disaster Database (TABB) was used for the years 1960–2014. As input for more detailed event analyses, the most severe flood events in Turkey for the same time interval will also be retrieved. Sufficiency of the TABB database to achieve the main aim of the study in terms of data quality and accuracy was also discussed. The TABB database was analysed and reviewed through comparison, mainly with the Emergency Events Database (EM-DAT), the Global Active Archive of Large Flood Events—Dartmouth Flood Observatory database, news archives and the scientific literature, with a focus on listing the most severe flood event. The comparative review of these data sources reveals big mismatches in the flood data, i.e. the reported number of events, number of affected people and economic loss all differ dramatically. Owing to the fact that the TABB is the only disaster loss database for Turkey, it is important to explore the reasons for the mismatches between TABB and the other sources with regard to aspects of accuracy and data quality. Therefore, biases and fallacies in the TABB loss data are also discussed. The comparative TABB database analyses show that large mismatches between global and national databases can occur. Current global and national databases for monitoring losses from national hazards suffer from a number of limitations, which in turn could lead to misinterpretations of the loss data. Since loss data collection is gaining more and more attention, e.g. in the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030, this study offers a framework for developing guidelines for the Turkey Disaster Database (TABB), implications on how to standardize national loss databases and implement across the other hazard events in Turkey.

Suggested Citation

  • Gamze Koç & Annegret H. Thieken, 2018. "The relevance of flood hazards and impacts in Turkey: What can be learned from different disaster loss databases?," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 91(1), pages 375-408, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:nathaz:v:91:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1007_s11069-017-3134-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s11069-017-3134-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11069-017-3134-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11069-017-3134-6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ali Kömüşcü & Seyfullah Çelik, 2013. "Analysis of the Marmara flood in Turkey, 7–10 September 2009: an assessment from hydrometeorological perspective," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 66(2), pages 781-808, March.
    2. Ozlem Ozdemir & Cengiz Yilmaz, 2011. "Factors affecting risk mitigation revisited: the case of earthquake in Turkey," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(1), pages 17-46, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Tian Liu & Peijun Shi & Jian Fang, 2022. "Spatiotemporal variation in global floods with different affected areas and the contribution of influencing factors to flood-induced mortality (1985–2019)," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 111(3), pages 2601-2625, April.
    2. İsmail Bilal Peker & Sezar Gülbaz & Vahdettin Demir & Osman Orhan & Neslihan Beden, 2024. "Integration of HEC-RAS and HEC-HMS with GIS in Flood Modeling and Flood Hazard Mapping," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(3), pages 1-18, February.
    3. M. Kubilay Kelesoglu & Rasim Temur & Sezar Gülbaz & Nurdan Memisoglu Apaydin & Cevza Melek Kazezyılmaz-Alhan & Ilknur Bozbey, 2023. "Site assessment and evaluation of the structural damages after the flood disaster in the Western Black Sea Basin on August 11, 2021," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 116(1), pages 587-618, March.
    4. Mustafa Akgul & Anil Orhan Akay & Murat Ozocak & Abdullah İlker Esin & Necmettin Şenturk, 2022. "A new approach to spatial risk analysis in the long-term (1950–2020) assessment of natural disasters (avalanche, landslide, rockfall, flood) in Turkey," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 114(3), pages 3471-3508, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Morshedi, Mohamad Ali & Kashani, Hamed, 2022. "Assessment of vulnerability reduction policies: Integration of economic and cognitive models of decision-making," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 217(C).
    2. Jing-Shia Tang & Jui-Ying Feng, 2018. "Residents’ Disaster Preparedness after the Meinong Taiwan Earthquake: A Test of Protection Motivation Theory," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-12, July.
    3. Julia S. Becker & Douglas Paton & David M. Johnston & Kevin R. Ronan, 2013. "Salient Beliefs About Earthquake Hazards and Household Preparedness," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(9), pages 1710-1727, September.
    4. Giovanni B. Concu & Claudio Detotto & Marco Vannini, 2021. "Drivers of intentions and drivers of actions: willingness toparticipate versus actual participation in fire management inSardinia, Italy," Working Papers 018, Laboratoire Lieux, Identités, eSpaces et Activités (LISA).
    5. Sefa Mızrak & Ahmet Özdemir & Ramazan Aslan, 2021. "Adaptation of hurricane risk perception scale to earthquake risk perception and determining the factors affecting women's earthquake risk perception," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 109(3), pages 2241-2259, December.
    6. Kazuya Nakayachi & Branden B. Johnson & Kazuki Koketsu, 2018. "Effects of Acknowledging Uncertainty about Earthquake Risk Estimates on San Francisco Bay Area Residents’ Beliefs, Attitudes, and Intentions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(4), pages 666-679, April.
    7. Krellenberg, Kerstin & Turhan, Ethemcan, 2017. "How to respond to climate change at the local level: A guideline for Turkish cities [İklim değişikliğine yerel düzeyde nasıl yanıt verilmelidir? Türkiye Kentleri için Bir Kılavuz]," UFZ Reports 03/2017, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ).
    8. John T. Brady, 2012. "Health risk perceptions across time in the USA," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(6), pages 547-563, June.
    9. An Gie Yong & Louise Lemyre & Celine Pinsent & Daniel Krewski, 2017. "Risk Perception and Disaster Preparedness in Immigrants and Canadian‐Born Adults: Analysis of a National Survey on Similarities and Differences," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(12), pages 2321-2333, December.
    10. Bahtiyar Efe & Anthony R. Lupo & Ali Deniz, 2020. "Extreme temperatures linked to the atmospheric blocking events in Turkey between 1977 and 2016," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 104(2), pages 1879-1898, November.
    11. Sefa Mızrak & Melikşah Turan, 2023. "Effect of individual characteristics, risk perception, self-efficacy and social support on willingness to relocate due to floods and landslides," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 116(2), pages 1615-1637, March.
    12. Ehud Segal & Maya Negev & Eran Feitelson & Danielle Zaychik, 2017. "Devising ‘policy packages’ for seismic retrofitting of residences," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 89(1), pages 497-519, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:nathaz:v:91:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1007_s11069-017-3134-6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.