Unpacking property owners’ perceptions of flood damage

Floods cause damage to lands and thereby often prevent property owners from using their property in the way they intend. Because of flood damage, property owners face challenges such as destruction and decreased value of their property, not finding tenants, etc. While land policy predominantly treats damage as solely economic, it also has emotional and social implications. Memories linked to a home, a spatial attachment to a specific piece of land, or a family legacy are only a few examples. Just like the values that property owners assign to their properties differ, so do their perceptions of damage. Perception of property forms the basis that shapes how damage is perceived. Despite the vast literature on risk perception and awareness, discussions in flood management mainly focus on assessing the likelihood of disasters. Noticeably, there is a lack of emphasis on flood damage itself, especially concerning damage to private property. Considering that the definition of damage influences the land policy measures taken on private property, there is a need to explore property owners’ perceptions of damage to provide more effective land policy responses. Therefore, this research analyzes how property owners perceive and interpret flood damage on their private property. Social aspects such as personal experience, cultural background, and demographic profile all influence these perceptions. Furthermore, this research outlines how the mismatch between land policies and property owners’ perceptions of damage is an obstacle to effectively combating the consequences of flooding on private property. A qualitative case study is conducted in a small-scale district in Türkiye’s Western Black Sea Basin. This study includes narrative interviews with local property owners. These interviews reveal the property owners’ multiple perceptions of flood damage and show the mismatch between land policy responses and the needs of the property owners. The findings from this research show that the existing land policy instruments are often too generic and are not tailored to the needs of the property owners.