Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection logoLink to Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection
. 2022 Dec 2;116(2):1615–1637. doi: 10.1007/s11069-022-05731-y

Effect of individual characteristics, risk perception, self-efficacy and social support on willingness to relocate due to floods and landslides

Sefa Mızrak 1,✉, Melikşah Turan 2
PMCID: PMC9716163  PMID: 36474522

Abstract

People may have to leave their home, environment, region and country because of disasters or disaster risks. Effective and efficient disaster risk reduction activities involving the community can reduce disaster risks and enable people to reside more safely and peacefully in their environment. The objective of this study was to investigate whether individual characteristics, risk perception, self-efficacy and perceived social support were correlated with the willingness to relocate due to floods and landslides. The data were collected from 947 people residing in Gümüşhane Province (Türkiye) using a survey. In the study, a total of ten models were tested with the help of ordinal logistic regression analysis. Consequently, the participants' willingness to relocate due to landslides was determined to be higher than the willingness to relocate due to floods. University students and people with chronic diseases and flood and landslide experiences had a greater willingness to relocate. Residence duration and informal social support were negatively correlated with relocation willingness. Those who believed that they could protect themselves in the event of a flood and landslide were more likely to relocate. Among risk perceptions, probability increased relocation willingness mostly due to floods, while fear increased relocation willingness mostly due to landslides. This study attempted to provide policy makers and scientists insight into disaster risk reduction and disaster risk communication related to relocation.

Keywords: Risk perception, Self-efficacy, Social support, Relocation willingness

Introduction

Natural disasters endanger the sustainability of the community and the environment by causing death, injury, and economic, social, cultural and psychological damage. Flood, which was the most common type of natural disaster in the world between 2000 and 2019, affected 1.6 billion people and caused 104 614 deaths (United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction 2020). Between 1994 and 2014, a total of 3876 landslides occurred in 128 countries, and these landslides caused 177 536 casualties (Haque et al. 2019). In addition, due to the possibility of a disaster or disasters that may occur, people may have to leave their home, environment, region or country permanently or temporarily in the long or short term and relocate in other settlements. The International Displacement Monitoring Centre (2020) reported that 23.9 million people were displaced by weather-related disasters in 140 countries and territories in 2019. Badong County, China, was relocated three times due to natural hazards (Gong et al. 2021). The study conducted in two regions affected by the earthquake found that three-quarters of the participants wanted to relocate because of earthquakes (Xu et al. 2020).

Relocation is a risk coping behavior (Qing et al. 2022), investment in resilience (Pinter and Rees 2021), adaptation strategy (Seebauer and Winkler 2020) and risk reduction policy (Thaler and Fuchs 2020). However, people who have to relocate due to disasters encounter social, economic, mental and physical problems. For example, the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami worsened the socioeconomic, mental and physical conditions of the displaced people (Takahashi et al. 2016). The unsuccessful and unplanned management of forced relocations caused by a typhoon in Taiwan adversely affected the security, housing, agricultural activities, occupations and emotional adjustment of the community (Taiban et al. 2020). Post-disaster relocation may cause deterioration of family structure and negative behaviors of family members toward each other (Samonte 2021). After Hurricane Katrina, the trauma symptoms of children who were permanently relocated were higher than those of children who returned to their previous residence (Hansel et al. 2013). Financial resources, such as government aid, private aid and insurance payments, are also used to accelerate recovery in the relocation process (Thaler and Fuchs 2020). Post-flood relocation in Iran reduced production and employment and increased the debts of the relocated people (Garakani et al. 2020). Relocation needs of people due to disasters can be eliminated by reducing vulnerability to disasters, and as a result, the social and cultural structure of the community can be protected.

Scientific studies were conducted in order to remove and reduce the problems encountered during and after the relocation process. Garakani et al. (2020) investigated the impact of relocation on production, economy, social structure, family order, environment, population and urbanization in the region where eleven villages were relocated and in three villages that were relocated to their previous locations after the devastating flood in Iran. Kılıc et al. (2006) investigated the effects of earthquake experience and socioeconomic factors on traumatic stress and depression in people who moved to a low-earthquake-risk region due to the 1999 Marmara Earthquake. Iuchi and Mutter (2020) comparatively reviewed the social and economic impacts of relocation strategies adopted after earthquake and tsunami, storm surge and volcanic eruption. Sipe and Vella (2014) evaluated policies applied to the post-flood relocation community in Australia in terms of best practices and argued whether practices for relocation could be adapted to a situation of the same or larger scale. As a case study, stakeholders and people affected by the flood were interviewed about the strategies implemented throughout the process for the households relocated due to the floods in Germany (Mayr et al. 2020). The factors affecting people's thoughts and attitudes about relocation were investigated through semi-structured interviews, focus group discussions and questionnaires in landslide-prone areas in Cameroon (Baert et al. 2020). Rey-Valette et al. (2019) investigated the effect of socio-demographic characteristics, life satisfaction, early warning awareness, home location and home ownership on resistance against relocation in flood-prone coastal areas via a composite index combining place attachment, housing mobility and risk perception. Rashid et al. (2007) examined whether people residing in slums in areas with high flood risk would relocate to areas without flood risk in exchange for employment, new land, loans and grants. It is important for disaster risk reduction to reveal people's perceptions and vulnerabilities toward relocation and the factors that affect the relocation decision.

This study aimed to reveal the factors affecting people's willingness to relocate due to floods and landslides. Ordinal logistic regression analysis revealed whether individual characteristics, risk perception, self-efficacy and social support were correlated with the willingness to relocate. Except for individual characteristics, all other variables were measured separately for floods and landslides. This study aimed to contribute to disaster resilience and risk reduction policies by investigating the relocation willingness of people in the region where there is a high risk of flood and landslide, as well as rapid population growth and urbanization. In addition, it explored how and to what extent individual characteristics, risk perception, social support and self-efficacy variables were correlated with people's attitudes toward both flood and landslide risk, thus providing a better understanding of the type of disaster and the relationship between these variables. The results may benefit scientists and decision makers who contribute to disaster risk reduction, disaster preparedness and relocation policies.

Theoretical background, research model and hypotheses

The independent variables utilized in this study were created based on the results of empirical studies. This study tested four hypotheses to understand which factors were correlated with relocation willingness due to both floods and landslides. The variables in the models tested in this study are presented in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

Research model

Individual characteristics, such as gender, marital status, income, age and education, are important variables that enable people to cope with disasters. Scientists mostly investigated the effects of education, income, disaster experience and occupation variables among individual characteristics that affect community resilience to disasters (Cai et al. 2018). Gender, demographic characteristics, economic status and disability and the special needs of individuals were the main indicators that affect social vulnerability to disasters (Fatemi et al. 2017). Therefore, some groups are considered as vulnerable groups to disasters. For example, women's disaster resilience is lower than men's disaster resilience (Drolet et al. 2015). Marital status (Tekeli-Yeşil et al. 2011) and number of children (Ozdemir and Yilmaz 2011) affect people's attitude toward disaster risks. People with high income (Strömberg 2007) and education (Garbero and Muttarak 2013; Ma et al. 2021) levels have a higher capacity to cope with disasters. People experiencing floods have higher awareness about floods and care more about flood risks (Bera and Daněk 2018). People with chronic diseases have a low level of disaster preparedness (Bethel et al. 2011) and confront a lot of problems after disasters because of their chronic diseases (Jhung et al. 2007). Using data from 175 countries between 1960 and 2015, a study reported that disasters caused more deaths and economic damage in countries with high unemployment rates (Tselios and Tompkins 2019). Compared to young people, older people need more help after disasters because of their physical and mental problems (Ahmadi et al. 2018; Malak et al. 2020). University students constitute a highly vulnerable part of community (Mızrak and Aslan 2020). Studies conducted in regions with high disaster risk found that there was a positive relationship between residence duration and sense of place (Anton and Lawrence 2014; Anacio et al. 2016). Moreover, scientists scrutinized whether individual characteristics were correlated with the willingness to relocate due to disasters (Rashid et al. 2007; Vlaeminck et al. 2016; Xu et al. 2017; Chao 2017; Shao et al. 2017; Song and Peng 2017; Rey-Valette et al. 2019; Baert et al. 2020; Holley et al. 2022). Furthermore, some scientists employed individual characteristics as control variables while investigating the factors affecting the willingness to relocate due to disasters (Xu et al. 2017; Chao 2017; Shao et al. 2017; Zhou et al. 2021). Based on these studies, Hypothesis 1 was proposed.

Hypothesis 1 (H1)

Vulnerable groups will be more likely to relocate due to floods and landslides (women, married people, people with low income and education levels, families with children, those with disaster experiences and chronic diseases, the unemployed, university students, the elderly and people residing in a high-risk area for less time).

Risk perception is an important factor that affects people's behaviors and thoughts before, during and after a disaster. People with high flood and hurricane risk perception were more supportive of public policies for relocation and evacuation (Shao et al. 2017). Xu et al. (2017) found that risk perception was the strongest variable that increased the willingness to relocate due to landslide hazard, and suggested that people's perceptions of probability and threat to disasters should be understood in order to reduce problems between government and the public when establishing relocation policies. The possibility of landslides occurrence in Uganda increased household heads' willingness to relocate (Vlaeminck et al. 2016). Individuals with low-risk perception residing in high-landslide-hazard areas in Bangladesh had less preparedness and willingness to settle in a safer area (Alam 2020). People with continuous negative psychological effects of earthquake and people who felt sensitive to earthquake tended to evacuate more (Ao et al. 2020). People who did not feel safe in their homes in New Orleans against disaster were more likely to evacuate (Burnside et al. 2007). People's perception of disaster risk may vary according to the type of disaster, and people's feelings, thoughts, behaviors and approaches to disasters may also affect their relocation decisions differently. Therefore, in order to better understand the impact of disaster risk perception on relocation willingness, risk perception should be comprehensively addressed. In this study, Hypothesis 2 was proposed to test whether the perception of flood and landslide risk was correlated with the willingness to relocate.

Hypothesis 2 (H2)

The four dimensions of risk perception (severity, possibility, fear and uncontrollable) will be significantly and positively correlated with the willingness to relocate due to floods and landslides.

Meta-analysis studies revealed that high perceived self-efficacy was a strong motivational factor that increased adaptation behaviors toward climate change (van Valkengoed and Steg 2019) and floods (Bamberg et al. 2017). Samaddar et al (2014) found that people with high self-efficacy to cope with floods were more confident in their own abilities and capacities and had more flood preparedness intention. As the self-efficacy of people living in flood-prone areas increased, their flood damage mitigation measures also increased (Botzen et al. 2019). Self-efficacy was positively and significantly correlated with the willingness to participate in adaptive measures related to geological hazards (Hu et al. 2022). The self-efficacy of earthquake survivors was negatively and significantly correlated with the level of post-traumatic stress disorder (Guerra et al. 2014). While the self-efficacy belief of people residing in earthquake-prone area was not significantly correlated with their relocation intention, it was positively and significantly correlated with their evacuation intention (Qing et al. 2022). Self-efficacy increases people's resilience to disasters, and people with high self-efficacy against any disaster may want to stay in the area they live in because they think that they can protect themselves in case of a disaster. Hypothesis 3 was proposed to reveal the effect of self-efficacy on the willingness to relocate due to floods and landslides.

Hypothesis 3 (H3)

Self-efficacy will be significantly and negatively correlated with the willingness to relocate due to floods and landslides.

Strong social relationships in the community facilitate the reduction of the effects of disasters. Perceived financial support decreased the depression and anxiety of the victims affected by the 2013 flood in Germany (Daniel and Michaela 2021). Social support increased the resilience level and quality of life of earthquake survivors (Xu and Ou 2014). Babcicky and Seebauer (2020) found that social support decreased the fear of floods and increased self-efficacy against flood risks. The study conducted on the people affected by the 2010 Chile earthquake revealed that expected support was positively and significantly correlated with the collective efficacy (Drury et al. 2016). The greater number of reliable relatives and membership in informal groups reduced the household’s post-flood recovery speed in central Vietnam (Dinh et al. 2021). A qualitative study conducted in disaster-prone communities reported that external support from government and other partners was an effective strategy to reduce the damage of landslides and floods (Osuret et al. 2016). Xu et al. (2017) investigated whether social support, measured by the number of people who could receive financial aid, was significantly and negatively correlated with the willingness to relocate in the region under the threat of landslides. Social support from people or institutions enables people to better prepare for disasters and to recover from the effects of disasters quickly. Individuals may not want to move from a disaster-prone area because they think that they will be less affected by disasters thanks to social support. Based on this, Hypothesis 4 was proposed.

Hypothesis 4 (H4)

Informal and formal social support will be significantly and negatively correlated with the willingness to relocate due to floods and landslides.

Methods

Study area

Gümüşhane province, located in the Eastern Black Sea region of Türkiye, is on a deep valley in a mountainous land, and the majority of settlement is on the mountain slopes and by a river called the Harşit River flowing through the city (Figs. 2, 3a–e). The central population of Gümüşhane was 37 856 in 2008 and 54 108 in 2021 (Turkish Statistical Institute 2022). Gümüşhane ranks 64th among the 81 provinces in Türkiye according to the social and economic development index calculated with 52 variables such as population, education, employment, health, accessibility and quality of life (Acar et al. 2019). On the one hand, Gümüşhane University, which was established in 2008, has made a great contribution to the development of the province. On the other hand, the university has led to an increase in the population of the province and rapid urbanization.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Open in a new tab

Türkiye disaster risk map (Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Türkiye 2022). Note: The red color on the map indicates the earthquake hazard

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3

Open in a new tab

Study area

The mountainous terrain and climatic conditions in the province make human life difficult. There are many tunnels on the entrance and exit roads of the province, and the traffic flow on the highways and in the center is disrupted due to rockfalls and landslides. Many retaining walls have been built in the city center to prevent landslides and rockfalls, and there are wire fences in some places. Rain-induced flooding causes disruption of transportation on the highway, which is the only one in many parts of the city (Fig. 3e). Gümüşhane has ground and environmental problems for building construction (Tudes et al. 2012). Besides, due to rapid urbanization in Gümüşhane, excavations for building construction trigger landslides (Alemdag et al. 2014; Kaya et al. 2016). Moreover, structures on the banks of the Harşit river are highly vulnerable to floods (Fig. 3d). Furthermore, the risk of flood, landslide and forest fire is high in the provinces around Gümüşhane (Fig. 2).

The Gümüşhane Disaster and Emergency Directorate reported that Gümüşhane was the 21st province with the highest number of disasters among the 81 provinces in Türkiye. The most common disasters in the province are landslides (%49), rockfalls (%38), floods (%9) and avalanches (%3). In Gümüşhane, 39 132 residences, 1573 public buildings and 838 workplaces are located in a very high- and high-landslide-risk area. The Gümüşhane Disaster and Emergency Directorate requested 3,337,000 Turkish Liras from the national disaster management authority to cover the damage of 52 floods between 2016 and 2021 (Gümüşhane Disaster and Emergency Directorate 2021).

Participants

In the study, the data were collected through a survey using the convenience sampling method in March 2022. In the convenience sampling method, which is one of the nonprobability sampling strategies, people who are easily accessible and close are selected to save time and money. On the other hand, it is a disadvantage that the results of studies using this sampling method cannot be generalized to the whole study area (Bornstein et al. 2013). The COVID-19 outbreak was ongoing at the time of the data collection; therefore, this sampling method was preferred to protect both researchers and participants because the number of people who could be in every workplace, public institution and open spaces at the same time was limited in order to prevent the spread of the epidemic and fines were imposed on those who did not comply with the rules. In addition, people did not allow strangers to enter their homes due to fear of illness. This situation made it difficult to reach the participants, and therefore, suitable areas and people were preferred to administer the survey. The survey was first applied online through social media platforms, and the participants were asked to send the survey link to other people residing in Gümüşhane. However, only 433 people participated in the study using the online method. For population sizes of 50,000 and 75,000, a sample size of 381–382 is sufficient (Krejcie and Morgan 1970). Since the convenience sampling method was used in order to increase the scope of the results, it was desired to reach more participants. Five trained interviewers and the authors of this study reached people on the streets and in the workplaces and administered the survey to 514 people. Finally, a total of 947 people voluntarily participated in this research.

Instrument

The survey used in this study consists of three parts. The first part of the survey determined individual characteristics, while the second part related to floods and the third part related to landslides measured risk perception, self-efficacy, social support and relocation willingness. The individual characteristics included gender, age, marital status, monthly income, number of children, education, chronic disease, occupation, residence duration in the province, flood experience and landslide experience. Risk perception, self-efficacy, social support and relocation willingness were determined separately for floods and landslides with Likert type scales ranging 0–4 (see Table 2). Flood and landslide risk perception was measured via severity, possibility, fear and uncontrollable sub-dimensions, using studies investigating disaster risk perception (Bubeck et al. 2012; Xu et al. 2016, 2020; Peng et al. 2017, 2019). Self-efficacy addressed according to previous studies (Samaddar et al. 2014; Babcicky and Seebauer 2020; Yu et al. 2022) was determined according to the level of knowledge that people perceive to protect themselves in case of a flood and landslide. Questions measuring social support were formed according to the approaches of studies investigating the relationship between disaster and social support (Chao 2017; Xu et al. 2017; Yu et al. 2022). Perceived social support in the face of flood or landslide damage was determined as formal and informal social support. The willingness to relocate was determined by how often people thought of moving from their city to another place due to floods and landslides.

Table 2.

Survey questions, means and standard deviations

Variables related to flood Mean SD
Risk perception
Severity = If a flood occurred in Gümüşhane, how much would the damage be? 2.50 .95
Possibility = What is the possibility of a flood that can cause a disaster in Gümüşhane within 2 years? 1.97 .99
Fear = How much does the possibility of flooding in Gümüşhane frighten you? 1.83 1.26
Uncontrollable = How adequate are the measures taken to prevent floods that may cause disasters in Gümüşhane? 2.25 1.07
Self-efficacy = Do you have enough knowledge to protect yourself in the event of a flood? 1.91 1.14
Social support
Informal Social Support = If you were damaged by a flood in Gümüşhane, how much would people around you help you? 2.26 1.16
Formal Social Support = If you were damaged by a flood in Gümüşhane, how much would public institutions help you? 2.16 1.12
Relocation Willingness = Are you considering moving from Gümüşhane because of flood? 1.42 1.35
Variables related to landslide Mean SD
Risk perception
Severity = If a landslide occurred in Gümüşhane, how much would the damage be? 2.62 1.09
Possibility = What is the possibility of a landslide that can cause a disaster in Gümüşhane within two years? 2.33 1.04
Fear = How much does the possibility of landslide in Gümüşhane frighten you? 2.05 1.23
Uncontrollable = How adequate are the measures taken to prevent landslides that may cause disasters in Gümüşhane? 2.20 1.05
Self-efficacy = Do you have enough knowledge to protect yourself in the event of a landslide? 1.86 1.15
Social support
Informal Social Support = If you were damaged by a landslide in Gümüşhane, how much would people around you help you? 2.24 1.13
Formal Social Support = If you were damaged by a landslide in Gümüşhane, how much would public institutions help you? 2.15 1.11
Relocation Willingness = Are you considering moving from Gümüşhane because of landslide? 1.53 1.36
Open in a new tab

Response options: Severity (0 = No damage, 4 = There would be a lot of damage), Possibility (0 = Very low, 4 = Very high), Fear (0 = It does not fright at all, 4 = It frightens a lot), Uncontrollable (0 = Very adequate, 4 = Very inadequate), Self-efficacy (0 = I have no knowledge, 4 = I have a lot of knowledge), Social support (0 = They never help, 4 = They help a lot), Relocation willingness (0 = Never, 4 = Always)

Data analysis

The data were analyzed with the help of the SPSS program. The frequency and percentage values of the categorical variables and the mean and standard deviation (SD) values of the continuous variables were presented. The willingness to relocate due to floods and landslides was employed as dependent variables, and the relationships between the dependent and independent variables (individual characteristics, risk perception, self-efficacy, social support) were revealed by ordinal logistic regression analysis. Ordinal logistic regression was constructed since the dependent variables were an ordered multiclassification variable and the independent variables were both categorical and continuous variables. A total of 10 models were tested in this study. Before the regression analysis, the control of multicollinearity problem among the independent variables was checked with variance inflation factors (VIF) and tolerance values. In order to avoid multicollinearity problem among the independent variables, the VIF value should be below 4 (O’brien 2007) and the tolerance value should be above 0.2 (Hosmer et al. 2008). All VIF values below 4 and all tolerance values above 0.2 in this study showed that there was no multicollinearity problem for regression analyses. First, in Model 1–5, the effect of the individual characteristics, flood risk perception, self-efficacy and social support sub-dimensions on the willingness to relocate due to floods were tested. Second, in Model 6–10, the effects of the individual characteristics, landslide risk perception, self-efficacy and social support sub-dimensions on the willingness to relocate due to landslides were tested. After creating a separate model for each set of independent variables (Model 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9), all independent variables were included in the final models (Model 5, 10). The results of the analyses were interpreted with estimates, standard errors and R square (R2). For the education and occupation variable, undergraduate or higher and others options were taken as reference categories, respectively, and the relocation willingness of the other groups were compared according to these reference categories. The other independent variables were interpreted according to the estimation values indicating the change in the dependent variable caused by a unit increase or decrease in the independent variable. Statistical significance levels of .05, .01 and .001 were used to indicate the 95%, 99% and 99.9% confidence levels of the regression results, respectively.

Ethical consideration

People participated in this study voluntarily and without expecting anything in return. The Scientific Research and Publication Ethics Committee of Gümüşhane University approved the method and rationale of this research scientifically and ethically on February 2022.

Results

Descriptive statistical analysis

Table 1 presents the characteristics of the individuals participating in this study. 50.7% of the participants were male and 35.5% were married. According to the income group, the middle-income group was the highest with 52% and the least participant was in the very high-income group with 4%. 68.6% of individuals did not have children and 60.7% were university graduates. While 93.5% of them had no flood experience, 91.9% had no landslide experience. 82.7% of them did not have a chronic disease and 38.1% were university students. The oldest participant was 65 years old, and the participant with the longest residence duration in the province had been living in the province for 63 years.

Table 1.

Individual characteristics of participants

Variable Groups Frequency Percent
Gender Male 480 50.7
Female 467 49.3
Marital status Single 611 64.5
Married 336 35.5
Income Very low 117 12.4
Low 170 18.0
Middle 492 52.0
High 130 13.7
Very high 38 4.0
Number of children No child 650 68.6
1 child 109 11.5
2 child 143 15.1
More than 2 45 4.8
Education level Literate 31 3.3
Primary school 40 4.2
Elementary 43 4.5
High school 258 27.2
Pre-undergraduate 228 24.1
Undergraduate or above 347 36.6
Flood experience No 885 93.5
Yes 62 6.5
Landslide experience No 870 91.9
Yes 77 8.1
Chronic disease No 783 82.7
Yes 164 17.3
Occupation Unemployed 72 7.6
University student 361 38.1
Self-employed 120 12.7
Officer 174 18.4
Tradesmen 65 6.9
Others 155 16.4
Variable Minimum Maximum Mean SD
Age 18 65 29.15 9.04
Residence duration (years) 1 63 14.92 14.2
Open in a new tab

Table 2 demonstrates the survey questions and their means and standard deviations. The ranking of the flood risk perception sub-dimensions from the highest mean to the lowest mean was severity, uncontrollable, possibility and fear. For the landslide risk perception, this ranking was from highest to lowest severity, probability, uncontrollable and fear. The perceived self-efficacy and social support for floods were higher than the perceived self-efficacy and social support for landslides. The participants' willingness to relocate due to landslides was higher than their willingness to relocate due to floods. Generally speaking, for both floods and landslides, the participants' perceptions of risk, self-efficacy and social support were moderate, while their willingness to relocate was low.

Model results

Table 3 shows the results of the models (Model 1–5) that tested the effect of the independent variables on the willingness to relocate due to floods. According to Model 1, which shows the effect of individual characteristics on the dependent variable, gender, marital status, income, number of children and age were not significantly correlated with the willingness to relocate due to floods. Literate people and primary and secondary school graduates were more likely to relocate due to floods compared to those with undergraduate or higher education levels. Flood experience and chronic disease were positively and significantly correlated with the willingness to relocate because of floods. Compared to other occupational groups, only being a university student among occupational groups was positively and significantly correlated with the willingness to relocate because of floods. Residence duration was negatively and significantly correlated with the willingness to relocate because of floods. Severity was not significantly correlated with the dependent variable, and the strongest flood risk perception that was positively and significantly correlated with the dependent variable was possibility, fear and uncontrollable, respectively (Model 2).

Table 3.

Ordinal logistic regression results of the effect of independent variables on willingness to relocate due to floods

Independent variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5
Gender − .151 (.126) − .113 (.133)
Marital status − .029 (.203) − .213 (.216)
Income .033 (.071) .090 (.074)
Number of children .163 (.11) .292 (.117)*
Education
Literate .929 (.35)** .840 (.358)*
Primary school .977 (336)** .697 (.347)*
Elementary .916 (.316)** .485 (.333)
High school .198 (.162) .273 (.168)
Pre-undergraduate .155 (.16) .208 (.166)
Undergraduate or abovea
Flood Experience .632 (.25)* .024 (.258)
Chronic Illness .596 (.165)*** .448 (.170)**
Occupation
Unemployed .379 (.268) .268 (.280)
University Student .738 (.226)** .628 (.237)**
Self-employed .18 (.226) − .136 (.241)
Officer − .039 (.223) − .141 (.233)
Tradesmen − .058 (.28) − .212 (.290)
Othersa
Age − .01 (.011) − .020 (.012)
Residence duration − .019 (.006)** − 015 (.007)*
Risk perception = Severity − .029 (.079) − .034 (.082)
Risk perception = Possibility .671 (.08)*** .667 (.084)***
Risk perception = Fear .306 (.058)*** .323 (.061)***
Risk perception = Uncontrollable .160 (.06)** .118 (.063)
Self-efficacy .302 (.052)*** .271 (.060)***
Informal social support − .132 (.059)* − .198 (.065)**
Formal social support − .093 (.061) − .163 (.066)*
Pseudo-R square
Cox and Snell .10 .21 .03 .01 .31
Nagelkerke .11 .23 .03 .01 .33
McFadden .03 .08 .01 .005 .12
Model fitting information
− 2 Log Likelihood 2585.628 1428.292 153.519 470.202 2490.847
Chi-square 108.926*** 234.384*** 31.706*** 13.411** 360.575***
Open in a new tab

a = Reference category. Robust standard errors in parentheses. Outside the parentheses are the estimates. Results significant at the *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001 levels

Model 3 stated that self-efficacy against floods was positively and significantly correlated with the willingness to relocate. The perceived informal social support was negatively and significantly correlated with the willingness to relocate due to floods, whereas formal social support was not significantly correlated with the willingness to relocate due to floods (Model 4). In Model 5, in which individual characteristics, flood risk perception, social support and self-efficacy were applied as the independent variables, gender, marital status, income, flood experience and age were not significantly correlated with the dependent variable. Model 5 demonstrated that the number of children, education, chronic illness, being a university student, possibility, fear and self-efficacy were positively and significantly correlated with the willingness to relocate because of floods. In model 5, residence duration and informal and formal social support were negatively and significantly correlated with the dependent variable. According to the R square values, the best model explaining the variation in the willingness to relocate due to floods was Model 5 (all independent variables), Model 2 (flood risk perception), Model 1 (individual characteristics), Model 3 (self-efficacy) and Model 4 (social support), respectively.

Table 4 demonstrates the results of the models (Model 6–10) that tested the effect of the independent variables on the willingness to relocate due to landslides. Model 6 shows that the variables of gender, marital status, income, number of children and age were not significantly correlated with the dependent variable. On the other hand, being a primary school graduate, landslide experience, chronic illness and being a university student were positively and significantly correlated with the willingness to relocate due to landslides. Residence duration was negatively and significantly correlated with the willingness to relocate due to landslides (Model 6). From the landslide risk perception sub-dimensions, while severity was not significantly correlated with the dependent variable, the strongest independent variable that was positively and significantly correlated with the dependent variable were fear, possibility and uncontrollable, respectively (Model 7).

Table 4.

Ordinal logistic regression results of the effect of independent variables on willingness to relocate due to landslides

Independent variable Model 6 Model 7 Model 8 Model 9 Model 10
Gender − .168 (.125) − .067(.130)
Marital status − .014 (.202) − .160(.210)
Income − .008 (.070) − .001(.073)
Number of children .147 (.110) .233(.114)*
Education
Literate .401 (.351) .372 (.358)
Primary school .798 (.337)* .715 (.348)*
Elementary .466 (.319) .297 (.333)
High school .082 (.161) .272 (.167)
Pre-undergraduate − .014 (.159) .096 (.165)
Undergraduate or abovea
Landslide experience .947 (.235)*** .437 (.243)
Chronic Illness .667 (.166)*** .527 (.171)**
Occupation
Unemployed .311 (.266) .321 (.276)
University student .556 (.225)* .494 (.233)*
Self-employed .140 (.226) − .136 (.236)
Officer − .087 (.222) − .102 (.229)
Tradesmen − .159 (.281) − .048 (.291)
Othersa
Age − .015 (.011) − .013 (.011)
Residence duration − .029 (.006)*** − .024 (.007)***
Risk perception = Severity − .008 (.078) − .005 (.08)
Risk perception = Possibility .403 (.077)*** .396 (.08)***
Risk perception = Fear .567 (.063)*** .489 (.065)***
Risk Perception = Uncontrollable .238 (.060)*** .208 (.063)**
Self-efficacy .332 (.051)*** .297 (.059)***
Informal social support − .112 (.063) − .203 (.069)**
Formal social support − .040 (.064) − .065 (.068)
Pseudo-R square
Cox and Snell .13 .25 .04 .007 .33
Nagelkerke .14 .26 .04 .007 .35
McFadden .04 .09 .01 .002 .13
Model fitting information
− 2 Log Likelihood 2616.052 1327.980 145.975 438.061 2527.634
Chi-square 137.985*** 271.754*** 39.782*** 6.542* 390.072**
Open in a new tab

a = Reference category. Robust standard errors in parentheses. Outside the parentheses are the estimates. Results significant at the *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001 levels

Model 8 shows that self-efficacy against landslides was positively and significantly correlated with the willingness to relocate. Perceived social support in case of a landslide damage was not significantly correlated with the willingness to relocate due to landslides (Model 9). When individual characteristics, landslide risk perception, self-efficacy and social support were included in Model 10 as independent variables, gender, marital status, income, landslide experience, age, severity and formal social support were not significantly correlated with the dependent variable. The number of children, chronic illness, being a primary school graduate, possibility, fear, uncontrollable and self-efficacy were positively and significantly correlated with the willingness to relocate due to landslides. Informal social support and residence duration were negatively and significantly correlated with the willingness to relocate due to landslides. The R square values revealed that the model that best explained the variation in the willingness to relocate due to landslides was Model 10 (all independent variables), Model 7 (landslide risk perception), Model 6 (individual characteristics), Model 8 (self-efficacy) and Model 9 (social support), respectively.

Discussion

This study revealed how and to what extent individual characteristics, risk perception, self-efficacy and perceived social support were correlated with the willingness of people residing in Gümüşhane (Türkiye) to relocate due to floods and landslides via ordinal logistic regression analysis. Risk perception (severity, possibility, fear and uncontrollable), self-efficacy and perceived social support were determined separately for floods and landslides, and five models for floods and five models for landslides were tested. The independent variables were included in the analysis one by one and finally all together.

It is thought that the results of the research will theoretically and practically contribute to disaster management. This study focused on the pre-disaster period for better disaster risk management and compared the results according to floods and landslides. It presented the results of a study conducted in Gümüşhane, where flood and landslide risks are high and the socioeconomic level is low. It also revealed that risk perception, self-efficacy, perceived social support, and relocation willingness differed for floods and landslides and the strength of the relationship between independent variables and relocation willingness varied according to floods and landslides. In short, this study emphasized that disaster risk reduction studies should be conducted separately for each disaster type to increase regional resilience and to plan better disaster preparedness. The design and results of the study can be a reference for scientists and those who implement public policy for disaster risk reduction in settlements in the world where there are many hazards.

Inconsistent with hypothesis H1, gender, marital status, income and age were not significantly correlated with the willingness to relocate due to both floods and landslides. When included in the analysis with all independent variables, consistent with hypothesis H1, the number of children was positively and significantly correlated with the willingness to relocate due to floods and landslides. Similarly, Seebauer and Winkler (2020) revealed that children affected families' relocation decisions. On the other hand, Holley (2022) found that the presence of children and grandchildren at home was not correlated with the relocation decision. Families with a large number of children may want to move from the unsafe area, as they are more worried about their children in case of floods and landslides. Consistent with hypothesis H1, people with lower education levels were more likely to relocate. Education level is an important factor affecting people's resilience to disasters (Cai et al. 2018); therefore, people with low education level may want to relocate, as they feel more vulnerable to floods and landslides.

Consistent with hypothesis H1, people who experienced floods and landslides were more likely to relocate. Disaster experience is an important factor affecting people’s attitudes and behaviors toward disasters. For example, in France, the severity of flood experience was positively and significantly correlated with the flood mitigation behavior (Richert et al. 2017). People who were more damaged by flooding thought that it was less possible to prevent floods and reduce flood damage, and had higher-flood-risk perceptions (Hudson et al. 2020). Flood experience of people residing in flood risk area increased perceived probability of a further flood risk (Bustillos Ardaya et al. 2017). A meta-analysis study revealed that flood experience negatively affected trust in public flood protection, but positively affected threat appraisal (Bamberg et al. 2017). The severity of disasters experienced was significantly and positively correlated with perceived threat and responsive efficacy (Xue et al. 2021). People experiencing floods and landslides may want to leave the area where they live because they are worried about future disasters. Future studies can provide a better understanding of the past disaster experiences of these people with the help of qualitative methods and therefore produce solutions against flood and landslide hazards.

Consistent with hypothesis H1, the chronic disease variable was positively and significantly correlated with the willingness to relocate due to floods and landslides. Scientific studies showed that people with chronic diseases or any disability confronted many problems in the fight against disasters. For instance, those with poor general health, the disabled and those with three or more chronic diseases had lower disaster preparedness levels than those without any health problems (Bethel et al. 2011). Tomio et al. (2010) found that it became more and more difficult for people with chronic diseases to obtain their medicines after the flood. Students with chronic diseases thought that disasters would be more difficult to control in the university campus (Mızrak and Aslan 2020). People with chronic diseases participating in this research may want to move from the hazardous area because they feel vulnerable to floods and landslides. For this reason, disaster management plans should be prepared according to the needs of people with chronic diseases and disabilities, and the demands and suggestions of these people for protection from disasters should be understood. In this way, the resilience of people with chronic diseases and disabilities against disasters is increased, and they are provided to live in a safer environment.

Consistent with hypothesis H1, university students had more intention to leave the city due to floods and landslides. University students have low awareness of the environment (Simms et al. 2013) and disaster preparedness (Lovekamp and Tate 2008; Wu et al. 2017; Hasan et al. 2022), and need more external assistance (Tanner and Doberstein 2015). Flood and landslide risk perceptions of university students should be understood, and their awareness related to environmental hazards and institutions and stakeholders should be increased by collaborating with the university administration. Consistent with hypothesis H1, residence duration in the province was positively and significantly correlated with the willingness to relocate due to floods and landslides. People with a long period of residence in the province may have higher material and moral dependence on the environment and other people, which may increase their intention to stay in the province.

Consistent with H2, risk perception was positively and significantly correlated with willingness to relocate due to both floods and landslides. However, inconsistent with H2, severity, which is one of the risk perception sub-dimensions, was not positively and significantly correlated to the willingness to relocate due to both floods and landslides. In addition, risk perception was the strongest independent variable explaining the change in the willingness to relocate and the effect size of the risk perception sub-dimensions on willingness to relocate changed. The willingness to relocate due to floods was most correlated with possibility, while the willingness due to landslides was most correlated with fear. Similarly, other scientific studies revealed that risk perception factors had different effects on willingness to relocate. For instance, uncertainty about flooding was a primary factor influencing people's relocation decisions in Austria (Seebauer and Winkler 2020). Among the sub-dimensions of landslide risk perception, worry and unknown were not significantly correlated with relocation willingness, while probability was positively and significantly correlated with relocation willingness more than threat. Moreover, controllability was negatively and significantly correlated with relocation willingness (Xu et al. 2017). In another study, probability was not significantly correlated with the intention to relocate elsewhere in or out of the state due to floods; however, perceived consequences were positively and significantly correlated with the intention to relocate (Holley et al. 2022). These results highlight the need for a comprehensive study of people's risk perceptions and the importance of risk perception on relocation policies.

Inconsistent with H3 and Seebauer and Winkler (2020), self-efficacy was positively and significantly correlated with the willingness to relocate due to both floods and landslides. Seebauer and Winkler (2020) found that people with strong self-efficacy regarding flood preparedness and prevention tended to stay in the flood risk area. On the other hand, Song and Peng (2017) found that high awareness of the effects of sea level rise increased relocation willingness. Likewise, the perceived self-efficacy to avoid flood risk was positively and significantly correlated with the intention to move to a new place in Louisiana and to move from Louisiana to elsewhere (Holley et al. 2022). Although the participants in this study believed that they could protect themselves in case of floods and landslides, the reason why they wanted to move from the province might be that they were worried about their families and their welfare. Persons responsible for disaster management in the province should be provided with the necessary training and practices so that people can acquire the knowledge and skills to protect other people in case of a flood and landslide and to take the necessary protection measures before floods and landslides.

When all independent variables were included in the analysis, consistent with H4, formal and informal social support were negatively and significantly correlated the willingness to relocate due to floods. However, consistent with H4, only informal social support was negatively and significantly correlated the willingness to relocate due to landslides. Social support can reduce the willingness to relocate because it helps people cope with disasters. For example, social support perceptions of the elderly increased community cohesion and residential satisfaction after typhoon-induced relocation (Chao 2017). People with high social commitment stated that it was more possible to be protected from flood damages (Hudson et al. 2020). Moreover, this study showed that the variable that least explained the change in willingness to relocate was social support. Since formal social support did not affect the relocation decision due to landslides, institutions should interact more with the public in their work on landslides. In this study, the model that best explained the willingness to relocate was the models in which all independent variables were included in the analysis. Therefore, the factors affecting people's decision to relocate due to disasters should be addressed more comprehensively.

Conclusion and recommendations

This study investigated the factors affecting the relocation willingness of people residing in areas with high flood and landslide risks. In addition to individual characteristics, risk perception, self-efficacy and social support measured separately for floods and landslides were utilized as independent variables, and the data were analyzed separately according to floods and landslides. Except for the uncontrollable sub-dimension, the landslide risk perception was higher than the flood risk perception in the other sub-dimensions (severity, possibility, fear). The perceived informal and formal social support and self-efficacy for floods were higher, and the informal social support was higher than the formal social support for both floods and landslides. The willingness to relocate due to landslides was higher than the willingness to relocate due to floods.

People with more children, people with disaster experience and chronic diseases, and university students were more likely to relocate because of both floods and landslides. Compared with graduates of undergraduate or higher education, literate people and primary and secondary school graduates were more likely to relocate due to floods, while primary school graduates were more likely to relocate due to landslides. Those who resided longer in an area with high flood and landslide risks had less willingness to relocate. The possibility and fear of floods and landslides and the thought that the measures taken against these disasters were inadequate triggered the willingness to relocate. In the event of a landslide or flood, people's high level of knowledge to protect themselves increased their willingness to relocate. People who thought that they could get help from people and institutions around them in case of a flood were less likely to relocate because of floods. People's thoughts that institutions could help them in case of a landslide were not correlated with their decision to relocate because of the landslides.

People's thoughts, attitudes and behaviors toward different types of disasters should be monitored spatially and temporally because the type, severity and probability of disasters vary from region to region. If the factors that cause people to be affected by disasters are reduced or removed, people will live in a more sustainable community and safer environment. In order to control the relocation caused by disasters and to protect the social and environmental structure, people's place preferences for relocation may be investigated. Policy makers and scientists should support the disaster management strategies of institutions more and increase the cooperation between institutions and the public in order to increase the disaster resilience of the community. All disaster risks in the region should be considered while creating disaster management policies, and disaster plans should be customized according to the type of disaster.

Limitations

This study has limitations that should be considered. This study only discussed the willingness to relocate and not the willingness to evacuate. The factors affecting the relocation and evacuation decision can be investigated together, and the results can be compared. The data in this study were obtained as cross-sectional and generally reflected the thoughts of people in the city center of Gümüşhane related to floods and landslides. However, floods may cause more damage to those structures close to the Harşit River, while landslides may damage settlements in areas with high slopes. Future research should focus on people living in the high-risk areas of the city to gain deeper knowledge. If the coronavirus pandemic had not occurred during the data collection process, more participants could have been reached, the probability sampling method could have been used or more specific data could have been collected from households.

Author contributions

The authors read, reviewed and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

This research did not receive any funding.

Declarations

Conflict of interest

No conflict of interest.

Footnotes

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Contributor Information

Sefa Mızrak, Email: sefamizrak1@gmail.com.

Melikşah Turan, Email: shahturan@gmil.com.

References

  1. Acar S, Bilen Kazancık L, Meydan MC, Işık M. Socio-economic development of provinces and regions ranking survey SEGE-2017. General Directorate of Development Agencies, Ankara: Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Industry and Technology; 2019. [Google Scholar]
  2. Ahmadi S, Khankeh H, Sahaf R, et al. Daily life challenges in an earthquake disaster situation in older adults a qualitative study in Iran. J Clin Diagnostic Res. 2018;12:08–12. doi: 10.7860/JCDR/2018/32699.11377. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Alam E. Landslide hazard knowledge, risk perception and preparedness in Southeast Bangladesh. Sustainability. 2020;12:6305. doi: 10.3390/su12166305. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Alemdag S, Akgun A, Kaya A, Gokceoglu C. A large and rapid planar failure: causes, mechanism, and consequences (Mordut, Gumushane, Turkey) Arab J Geosci. 2014;7:1205–1221. doi: 10.1007/s12517-012-0821-1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Anacio DB, Hilvano NF, Burias IC, et al. Dwelling structures in a flood-prone area in the philippines: sense of place and its functions for mitigating flood experiences. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct. 2016;15:108–115. doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2016.01.005. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Anton CE, Lawrence C. Home is where the heart is: the effect of place of residence on place attachment and community participation. J Environ Psychol. 2014;40:451–461. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.10.007. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Ao Y, Huang K, Wang Y, et al. Influence of built environment and risk perception on seismic evacuation behavior: evidence from rural areas affected by Wenchuan earthquake. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct. 2020;46:101504. doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101504. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Babcicky P, Seebauer S. Collective efficacy and natural hazards: differing roles of social cohesion and task-specific efficacy in shaping risk and coping beliefs. J Risk Res. 2020;23:695–712. doi: 10.1080/13669877.2019.1628096. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Baert M, Kervyn M, Kagou AD, et al. Resettlement preferences from landslide prone areas in Cameroon: willingness to move, reasons to stay. Land Use Policy. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.04.036. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Bamberg S, Masson T, Brewitt K, Nemetschek N (2017) Threat, coping and flood prevention – A meta-analysis. J Environ Psychol 54:116–126. 10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.08.001
  11. Bera MK, Daněk P. The perception of risk in the flood-prone area: a case study from the Czech municipality. Disaster Prev Manag Int J. 2018;27:2–14. doi: 10.1108/DPM-01-2017-0004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Bethel JW, Foreman AN, Burke SC. Disaster preparedness among medically vulnerable populations. Am J Prev Med. 2011;40:139–143. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2010.10.020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Bornstein MH, Jager J, Putnick DL. Sampling in developmental science: situations, shortcomings, solutions, and standards. Dev Rev. 2013;33:357–370. doi: 10.1016/j.dr.2013.08.003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Botzen WJW, Kunreuther H, Czajkowski J, Moel H. Adoption of individual flood damage mitigation measures in New York City: an extension of protection motivation theory. Risk Anal. 2019;39:2143–2159. doi: 10.1111/risa.13318. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Bubeck P, Botzen WJW, Aerts JCJH. A review of risk perceptions and other factors that influence flood mitigation behavior. Risk Anal. 2012;32:1481–1495. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01783.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Burnside R, Miller DMS, Rivera JD (2007) The impact of information and risk perception on the Hurricane evacuation decision-making of greater New Orleans residents. Sociol Spectr 27:727–740. 10.1080/02732170701534226
  17. BustillosArdaya A, Evers M, Ribbe L. What influences disaster risk perception? Intervention measures, flood and landslide risk perception of the population living in flood risk areas in Rio de Janeiro state, Brazil. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct. 2017;25:227–237. doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.09.006. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Cai H, Lam NSN, Qiang Y, et al. A synthesis of disaster resilience measurement methods and indices. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct. 2018;31:844–855. doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2018.07.015. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Chao S-F. Social support, coping strategies and their correlations with older adults’ relocation adjustments after natural disaster. Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2017;17:1006–1014. doi: 10.1111/ggi.12807. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Daniel A, Michaela C. Mental health and health-related quality of life in victims of the 2013 flood disaster in Germany—a longitudinal study of health-related flood consequences and evaluation of institutionalized low-threshold psycho-social support. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct. 2021 doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102179. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Dinh NC, Ubukata F, Tan NQ, Ha VH. How do social connections accelerate post-flood recovery? Insights from a survey of rural households in central Vietnam. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct. 2021 doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102342. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Drolet J, Dominelli L, Alston M, et al. Women rebuilding lives post-disaster: innovative community practices for building resilience and promoting sustainable development. Gend Dev. 2015;23:433–448. doi: 10.1080/13552074.2015.1096040. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Drury J, Brown R, González R, Miranda D. Emergent social identity and observing social support predict social support provided by survivors in a disaster: solidarity in the 2010 Chile earthquake. Eur J Soc Psychol. 2016;46:209–223. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2146. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Fatemi F, Ardalan A, Aguirre B, et al. Social vulnerability indicators in disasters: findings from a systematic review. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct. 2017;22:219–227. doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2016.09.006. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Garakani SA, Lak A, Niyasati M. Toward sustainable development in post-flood relocation of rural settlements in Iran. Int J Disaster Resil Built Environ. 2020;11:359–377. doi: 10.1108/IJDRBE-05-2019-0020. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Garbero A, Muttarak R. Impacts of the 2010 droughts and floods on community welfare in rural Thailand: differential effects of village educational attainment. Ecol Soc. 2013;18:art27. doi: 10.5751/ES-05871-180427. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Gong W, Juang CH, Wasowski J. Geohazards and human settlements: lessons learned from multiple relocation events in Badong, China–Engineering geologist’s perspective. Eng Geol. 2021;285:106051. doi: 10.1016/j.enggeo.2021.106051. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Guerra C, Cumsille P, Martínez ML. Post-traumatic stress symptoms in adolescents exposed to an earthquake: association with self-efficacy, perceived magnitude, and fear. Int J Clin Heal Psychol. 2014;14:202–207. doi: 10.1016/j.ijchp.2014.05.001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Gümüşhane Disaster and Emergency Directorate (2021) Provincial Disaster and Risk Reduction Plan. https://gumushane.afad.gov.tr/il-planlari. Accessed 8 June 2022
  30. Hansel TC, Osofsky JD, Osofsky HJ, Friedrich P. The Effect of long-term relocation on child and adolescent survivors of Hurricane Katrina. J Trauma Stress. 2013;26:613–620. doi: 10.1002/jts.21837. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Haque U, da Silva PF, Devoli G, et al. The human cost of global warming: deadly landslides and their triggers (1995–2014) Sci Total Environ. 2019;682:673–684. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.03.415. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Hasan MK, Moriom M, Shuprio SIM, et al. Exploring disaster preparedness of students at university in Bangladesh. Netherlands: Springer; 2022. [Google Scholar]
  33. Holley JR, McComas KA, Lambert CE, et al. Responding to flood risk in Louisiana: the roles of place attachment, emotions, and location. Nat Hazards. 2022 doi: 10.1007/s11069-022-05316-9. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S, May S (2008) Applied survival analysis: regression modeling of time to event data, Second edition. Wiley, Ottawa
  35. Hudson P, Hagedoorn L, Bubeck P. Potential linkages between social capital, flood risk perceptions, and self-efficacy. Int J Disaster Risk Sci. 2020;11:251–262. doi: 10.1007/s13753-020-00259-w. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Huyu S, Yu M, Que T, et al. Individual willingness to prepare for disasters in a geological hazard risk area: an empirical study based on the protection motivation theory. Nat Hazards. 2022;110:2087–2111. doi: 10.1007/s11069-021-05026-8. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. International Displacement Monitoring Centre (2020) Global report on internal displacement. In: Nor Refug Counc https://www.internal-displacement.org/sites/default/files/publications/documents/2020-IDMC-GRID.pdf. Accessed 13 Feb 2022
  38. Iuchi K, Mutter J. Governing community relocation after major disasters: an analysis of three different approaches and its outcomes in Asia. Prog Disaster Sci. 2020;6:100071. doi: 10.1016/j.pdisas.2020.100071. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  39. Jhung MA, Shehab N, Rohr-Allegrini C, et al. Chronic disease and disasters. Medication demands of Hurricane Katrina Evacuees. Am J Prev Med. 2007;33:207–210. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2007.04.030. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Kaya A, Alemdağ S, Dağ S, Gürocak Z. Stability assessment of high-steep cut slope debris on a landslide (Gumushane, NE Turkey) Bull Eng Geol Environ. 2016;75:89–99. doi: 10.1007/s10064-015-0753-6. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Kılıc C, Aydın İ, Taşkıntuna N, et al. Predictors of psychological distress in survivors of the 1999 earthquakes in Turkey: effects of relocation after the disaster. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2006;114:194–202. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0447.2006.00786.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Krejcie RV, Morgan DW. Determining sample size for research activities. Educ Psychol Meas. 1970;30:607–610. doi: 10.1177/001316447003000308. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Lovekamp WE, Tate ML. College student disaster risk, fear and preparedness. Int J Mass Emerg Disasters. 2008;26:70–90. doi: 10.1177/028072700802600201. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Ma Z, Guo S, Deng X, Xu D. Community resilience and resident’s disaster preparedness: evidence from China’s earthquake-stricken areas. Nat Hazards. 2021;108:567–591. doi: 10.1007/s11069-021-04695-9. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  45. Malak MA, Sajib AM, Quader MA, Anjum H. “We are feeling older than our age”: vulnerability and adaptive strategies of aging people to cyclones in coastal Bangladesh. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct. 2020;48:101595. doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101595. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  46. Mayr B, Thaler T, Hübl J. Successful small-scale household relocation after a millennial flood event in Simbach, Germany 2016. Water (Switzerland) 2020 doi: 10.3390/w12010156. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Türkiye (2022) DEMA draws Türkiye’s disaster risk map. https://www.icisleri.gov.tr/afad-turkiyenin-afet-risk-haritasini-cikardi
  48. Mızrak S, Aslan R. Disaster risk perception of university students. Risk, Hazards Cris Public Policy. 2020;11:411–433. doi: 10.1002/rhc3.12202. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. O’brien RM, A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Qual Quant. 2007;41:673–690. doi: 10.1007/s11135-006-9018-6. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  50. Osuret J, Atuyambe LM, Mayega RW, et al. Coping strategies for landslide and flood disasters: a qualitative study of Mt. Elgon region, Uganda. PLoS Curr. 2016 doi: 10.1371/currents.dis.4250a225860babf3601a18e33e172d8b. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Ozdemir O, Yilmaz C. Factors affecting risk mitigation revisited: the case of earthquake in Turkey. J Risk Res. 2011;14:17–46. doi: 10.1080/13669871003782751. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  52. Peng L, Lin L, Liu S, De XuD. Interaction between risk perception and sense of place in disaster-prone mountain areas: a case study in China’s Three Gorges Reservoir Area. Nat Hazards. 2017;85:777–792. doi: 10.1007/s11069-016-2604-6. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  53. Peng L, Tan J, Lin L, Xu D. Understanding sustainable disaster mitigation of stakeholder engagement: risk perception, trust in public institutions, and disaster insurance. Sustain Dev. 2019;27:885–897. doi: 10.1002/sd.1948. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  54. Pinter N, Rees JC. Assessing managed flood retreat and community relocation in the Midwest USA. Nat Hazards. 2021;107:497–518. doi: 10.1007/s11069-021-04592-1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  55. Qing C, Guo S, Deng X, et al. Stay in risk area: place attachment, efficacy beliefs and risk coping. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19:2375. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19042375. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Rashid H, Hunt LM, Haider W. Urban flood problems in Dhaka, Bangladesh: slum residents’ choices for relocation to flood-free areas. Environ Manag. 2007;40:95–104. doi: 10.1007/s00267-006-0233-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Rey-Valette H, Robert S, Rulleau B. Resistance to relocation in flood-vulnerable coastal areas: a proposed composite index. Clim Policy. 2019;19:206–218. doi: 10.1080/14693062.2018.1482823. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  58. Richert C, Erdlenbruch K, Figuières C. The determinants of households’ flood mitigation decisions in France-on the possibility of feedback effects from past investments. Ecol Econ. 2017;131:342–352. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.09.014. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  59. Samaddar S, Chatterjee R, Misra B, Tatano H. Outcome-expectancy and self-efficacy: reasons or results of flood preparedness intention? Int J Disaster Risk Reduct. 2014;8:91–99. doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2014.02.002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  60. Samonte P. Understanding the impacts of post-disaster relocation on family dynamics and resilience. Int J Disaster Resil Built Environ. 2021 doi: 10.1108/IJDRBE-03-2021-0026. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  61. Seebauer S, Winkler C. Should I stay or should I go? Factors in household decisions for or against relocation from a flood risk area. Glob Environ Chang. 2020;60:102018. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.102018. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  62. Shao W, Xian S, Lin N, Small MJ. A sequential model to link contextual risk, perception and public support for flood adaptation policy. Water Res. 2017;122:216–225. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2017.05.072. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Simms JL, Kusenbach M, Tobin GA. Equally unprepared: assessing the hurricane vulnerability of undergraduate students. Weather Clim Soc. 2013;5:233–243. doi: 10.1175/WCAS-D-12-00056.1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  64. Sipe N, Vella K. Relocating a flood-affected community: good planning or good politics? J Am Plan As. 2014;80:400–412. doi: 10.1080/01944363.2014.976586. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  65. Song J, Peng B. Should we leave? Attitudes towards relocation in response to sea level rise. Water. 2017;9:941. doi: 10.3390/w9120941. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  66. Strömberg D. Natural disasters, economic development, and humanitarian aid. J Econ Perspect. 2007;21:199–222. doi: 10.1257/jep.21.3.199. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  67. Taiban S, Lin HN, Ko CC. Disaster, relocation, and resilience: recovery and adaptation of Karamemedesane in Lily Tribal Community after Typhoon Morakot, Taiwan. Environ Hazards. 2020;19:209–222. doi: 10.1080/17477891.2019.1708234. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  68. Takahashi S, Nakamura M, Yonekura Y, et al. Association between relocation and changes in cardiometabolic risk factors: a longitudinal study in tsunami survivors of the 2011 Great East Japan earthquake. BMJ Open. 2016 doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011291. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. Tanner A, Doberstein B. Emergency preparedness amongst university students. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct. 2015;13:409–413. doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2015.08.007. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  70. Tekeli-Yeşil S, Dedeoğlu N, Braun-Fahrlaender C, Tanner M. Earthquake awareness and perception of risk among the residents of Istanbul. Nat Hazards. 2011;59:427–446. doi: 10.1007/s11069-011-9764-1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  71. Thaler T, Fuchs S. Financial recovery schemes in Austria: how planned relocation is used as an answer to future flood events. Environ Hazards. 2020;19:268–284. doi: 10.1080/17477891.2019.1665982. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  72. Tomio J, Sato H, Mizumura H. Interruption of medication among outpatients with chronic conditions after a flood. Prehosp Disaster Med . 2010;25:4–6. doi: 10.1017/S1049023X00007652. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  73. Tselios V, Tompkins EL. What causes nations to recover from disasters? An inquiry into the role of wealth, income inequality, and social welfare provisioning. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct. 2019;33:162–180. doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2018.10.003. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  74. Tudes S, Ceryan S, Bulut F. Geoenvironmental evaluation for planning: an example from Gumushane City, close to the North Anatolia Fault Zone, NE Turkey. Bull Eng Geol Environ. 2012;71:679–690. doi: 10.1007/s10064-012-0439-2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  75. Turkish Statistical Institute (2022) Address based census registration system results. https://biruni.tuik.gov.tr/medas/?kn=100&locale=tr. Accessed 6 Aug 2022
  76. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (2020) Human cost of disasters. An overview of the last 20 years the last 20 years 2000–2019. In: Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters https://www.undrr.org/media/48008/download. Accessed 19 Oct 2021
  77. van Valkengoed AM, Steg L. Meta-analyses of factors motivating climate change adaptation behaviour. Nat Clim Chang. 2019;9:158–163. doi: 10.1038/s41558-018-0371-y. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  78. Vlaeminck P, Maertens M, Isabirye M, et al. Coping with landslide risk through preventive resettlement. Designing optimal strategies through choice experiments for the Mount Elgon region Uganda. Land Use Policy. 2016;51:301–311. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.11.023. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  79. Wu H-C, Greer A, Murphy HC, Chang R. Preparing for the new normal: students and earthquake hazard adjustments in Oklahoma. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct. 2017;25:312–323. doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.09.033. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  80. Xu J, Ou L. Resilience and quality of life among Wenchuan earthquake survivors: the mediating role of social support. Public Health. 2014;128:430–437. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2014.03.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  81. Xu D, Peng L, Su C, et al. Influences of mass monitoring and mass prevention systems on peasant households’ disaster risk perception in the landslide-threatened Three Gorges Reservoir area, China. Habitat Int. 2016;58:23–33. doi: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2016.09.003. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  82. Xu D, Peng L, Liu S, et al. Influences of sense of place on farming households’ relocation willingness in areas threatened by geological disasters: evidence from China. Int J Disaster Risk Sci. 2017;8:16–32. doi: 10.1007/s13753-017-0112-2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  83. Xu D, Qing C, Deng X, et al. Disaster risk perception, sense of pace, evacuation willingness, and relocation willingness of rural households in earthquake-stricken areas: evidence from sichuan province, china. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 doi: 10.3390/ijerph17020602. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  84. Xue K, Guo S, Liu Y, et al. Social networks, trust, and disaster-risk perceptions of rural residents in a multi-disaster environment: evidence from Sichuan, China. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18:1–25. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18042106. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  85. Yu J, Sim T, Qi W. Informal social support and disaster preparedness: Mediating roles of perceived collective efficacy and self-efficacy. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct. 2022 doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102734. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  86. Zhou W, Ma Z, Guo S et al (2021) Livelihood capital, evacuation and relocation willingness of residents in earthquake-stricken areas of rural China. Saf Sci 141:105350. 10.1016/j.ssci.2021.105350

Articles from Natural Hazards (Dordrecht, Netherlands) are provided here courtesy of Nature Publishing Group

RESOURCES