TY - JOUR A1 - Koc, Gamze A1 - Petrow, Theresia A1 - Thieken, Annegret T1 - Analysis of the most severe flood events in Turkey (1960-2014) BT - which triggering mechanisms and aggravating pathways can be identified? JF - Water / Molecular Diversity Preservation International (MDPI) N2 - The most severe flood events in Turkey were determined for the period 1960-2014 by considering the number of fatalities, the number of affected people, and the total economic losses as indicators. The potential triggering mechanisms (i.e., atmospheric circulations and precipitation amounts) and aggravating pathways (i.e., topographic features, catchment size, land use types, and soil properties) of these 25 events were analyzed. On this basis, a new approach was developed to identify the main influencing factor per event and to provide additional information for determining the dominant flood occurrence pathways for severe floods. The events were then classified through hierarchical cluster analysis. As a result, six different clusters were found and characterized. Cluster 1 comprised flood events that were mainly influenced by drainage characteristics (e.g., catchment size and shape); Cluster 2 comprised events aggravated predominantly by urbanization; steep topography was identified to be the dominant factor for Cluster 3; extreme rainfall was determined as the main triggering factor for Cluster 4; saturated soil conditions were found to be the dominant factor for Cluster 5; and orographic effects of mountain ranges characterized Cluster 6. This study determined pathway patterns of the severe floods in Turkey with regard to their main causal or aggravating mechanisms. Accordingly, geomorphological properties are of major importance in large catchments in eastern and northeastern Anatolia. In addition, in small catchments, the share of urbanized area seems to be an important factor for the extent of flood impacts. This paper presents an outcome that could be used for future urban planning and flood risk prevention studies to understand the flood mechanisms in different regions of Turkey. KW - hierarchical clustering KW - Hess-Brezowsky Grosswetterlagen classification KW - ERA5 KW - flood hazards KW - pathway KW - Turkey Y1 - 2020 U6 - https://doi.org/10.3390/w12061562 SN - 2073-4441 VL - 12 IS - 6 PB - MDPI CY - Basel ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Koç, Gamze A1 - Petrow, Theresia A1 - Thieken, Annegret T1 - Analysis of the Most Severe Flood Events in Turkey (1960–2014) BT - Which Triggering Mechanisms and Aggravating Pathways Can be Identified? JF - Water N2 - The most severe flood events in Turkey were determined for the period 1960–2014 by considering the number of fatalities, the number of affected people, and the total economic losses as indicators. The potential triggering mechanisms (i.e., atmospheric circulations and precipitation amounts) and aggravating pathways (i.e., topographic features, catchment size, land use types, and soil properties) of these 25 events were analyzed. On this basis, a new approach was developed to identify the main influencing factor per event and to provide additional information for determining the dominant flood occurrence pathways for severe floods. The events were then classified through hierarchical cluster analysis. As a result, six different clusters were found and characterized. Cluster 1 comprised flood events that were mainly influenced by drainage characteristics (e.g., catchment size and shape); Cluster 2 comprised events aggravated predominantly by urbanization; steep topography was identified to be the dominant factor for Cluster 3; extreme rainfall was determined as the main triggering factor for Cluster 4; saturated soil conditions were found to be the dominant factor for Cluster 5; and orographic effects of mountain ranges characterized Cluster 6. This study determined pathway patterns of the severe floods in Turkey with regard to their main causal or aggravating mechanisms. Accordingly, geomorphological properties are of major importance in large catchments in eastern and northeastern Anatolia. In addition, in small catchments, the share of urbanized area seems to be an important factor for the extent of flood impacts. This paper presents an outcome that could be used for future urban planning and flood risk prevention studies to understand the flood mechanisms in different regions of Turkey. KW - hierarchical clustering KW - Hess-Brezowsky Großwetterlagen classification KW - ERA5 KW - flood hazards KW - pathway KW - Turkey Y1 - 2020 U6 - https://doi.org/10.3390/w12061562 SN - 2073-4441 VL - 12 IS - 6 PB - MDPI CY - Basel ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Petrow, Theresia A1 - Thieken, Annegret T1 - Entwicklunge in der Flächenvorsorge JF - Das Hochwasser im Juni 2013 : Bewährungsprobe für das Hochwasserrisikomanagement in Deutschland Y1 - 2015 SN - 978-3-933181-62-6 SP - 92 EP - 99 PB - Deutsches Komitee Katastrophenvorsorge CY - Bonn ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Petrow, Theresia A1 - Hasan, Issa A1 - Otto, Antje A1 - Thieken, Annegret T1 - Entwicklungen in der Gesetzgebung zm Hochwasserrisikomanagment JF - Das Hochwasser im Juni 2013 : Bewährungsprobe für das Hochwasserrisikomanagement in Deutschland Y1 - 2015 SN - 978-3-933181-62-6 SP - 47 EP - 51 PB - Deutsches Komitee Katastrophenvorsorge CY - Bonn ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Thieken, Annegret A1 - Kienzler, Sarah A1 - Kreibich, Heidi A1 - Kuhlicke, Christian A1 - Kunz, Michael A1 - Mühr, Bernhard A1 - Müller, Meike A1 - Otto, Antje A1 - Petrow, Theresia A1 - Pisi, Sebastian A1 - Schröter, Kai T1 - Review of the flood risk management system in Germany after the major flood in 2013 JF - Ecology and society : E&S ; a journal of integrative science for resilience and sustainability N2 - Widespread flooding in June 2013 caused damage costs of €6 to 8 billion in Germany, and awoke many memories of the floods in August 2002, which resulted in total damage of €11.6 billion and hence was the most expensive natural hazard event in Germany up to now. The event of 2002 does, however, also mark a reorientation toward an integrated flood risk management system in Germany. Therefore, the flood of 2013 offered the opportunity to review how the measures that politics, administration, and civil society have implemented since 2002 helped to cope with the flood and what still needs to be done to achieve effective and more integrated flood risk management. The review highlights considerable improvements on many levels, in particular (1) an increased consideration of flood hazards in spatial planning and urban development, (2) comprehensive property-level mitigation and preparedness measures, (3) more effective flood warnings and improved coordination of disaster response, and (4) a more targeted maintenance of flood defense systems. In 2013, this led to more effective flood management and to a reduction of damage. Nevertheless, important aspects remain unclear and need to be clarified. This particularly holds for balanced and coordinated strategies for reducing and overcoming the impacts of flooding in large catchments, cross-border and interdisciplinary cooperation, the role of the general public in the different phases of flood risk management, as well as a transparent risk transfer system. Recurring flood events reveal that flood risk management is a continuous task. Hence, risk drivers, such as climate change, land-use changes, economic developments, or demographic change and the resultant risks must be investigated at regular intervals, and risk reduction strategies and processes must be reassessed as well as adapted and implemented in a dialogue with all stakeholders. KW - August 2002 flood KW - Central Europe KW - Floods Directive KW - governance KW - June 2013 flood KW - risk management cycle Y1 - 2016 U6 - https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08547-210251 SN - 1708-3087 SN - 1195-5449 VL - 21 IS - 2 PB - Resilience Alliance CY - Wolfville, NS ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Thieken, Annegret A1 - Otto, Antje A1 - Pisi, Sebastian A1 - Petrow, Theresia A1 - Kreibich, Heidi A1 - Kuhlicke, Christian A1 - Schröter, Kai A1 - Kienzler, Sarah A1 - Müller, Meike T1 - Schlussfolgerungen und Empfehlungen JF - Das Hochwasser im Juni 2013 : Bewährungsprobe für das Hochwasserrisikomanagement in Deutschland Y1 - 2015 SN - 978-3-933181-62-6 SP - 184 EP - 196 PB - Deutsches Komitee Katastrophenvorsorge CY - Bonn ER -