









































Pa
ge

 
1



Pa
ge

 
16

American Journal of   
Environment and Climate (AJEC)

Pre-Disaster Preparedness/Prevention and Mitigation Strategies for Floods: A Use Case  
of  Lagos, Nigeria

Ayuba Job Danladi1*, Muritala Kolade Yusuf1, Gilles Dusserre1, Nasir Baba Ahmed2, Luc Vechot3

Volume 3 Issue 3, Year 2024
ISSN: 2832-403X (Online) 

DOI: https://doi.org/10.54536/ajec.v3i3.3362
https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajec

Article Information ABSTRACT

Received: August 14, 2024
Accepted: September 16, 2024

Published: September 20, 2024

Climate change-induced phenomena are increasingly becoming frequent and intense causing 
global challenges. Urbanization and population growth continue to aggravate flood events, 
making building resilient cities a vital way to combat them. This research reviews flood 
preparedness and mitigation strategies employed in developed countries to reveal flood 
risk management practices that promote resilience in these countries to allow adoption in 
struggling and developing countries such as Nigeria. The review from previous and current 
studies followed three methods consisting of  Inclusion & Exclusion criteria, Abstract 
screening, and Full-text review. The findings from past studies present multifaceted measures 
taken to prepare for and mitigate floods and how they have enabled people and cities to live 
with floods, however, developing countries still face a major risk of  a severe impact from 
flood inundation. The use case area, Lagos, was found to be continuously inundated by 
floods and is in grave need of  better management strategies to mitigate the impact resulting 
from floods. The results from the review show that flood risk mitigation is primarily affected 
by risk perception, indicating its effect on response measures which are either structural or 
non-structural. This research concludes by proposing an approach or framework that is an 
outcome of  a comparative assessment of  flood risk management from developed countries to 
consider for the implementation of  preparedness and mitigation strategies in the use case area.

Keywords
Disaster, Floods, Mitigation, 
Preparedness, Risk Management

1 Department of  Disaster Management and Environmental Impact, IMT Mines Ales, France
2 Laboratory for the Science of  Risks (LSR), IMT Mines Ales, France 
3 MKOPSC, Texas A&M University Qatar, Qatar
* Corresponding author’s e-mail: ayuba.danladi@mines-ales.fr

INTRODUCTION
Climate-related events such as floods are becoming 
increasingly frequent and intensified, owing to rapid 
changes in climate, posing continued threats and 
discomfort to livelihoods and existing infrastructures 
(Raikes et al., 2019). The growing need for settlement due 
to population increase, urban migration, and urbanization 
continues to escalate the impact of  disasters, as people 
tend to settle in severely exposed areas increasing their 
vulnerability and undermining  the integrity of  existing 
preparedness and mitigation measures (Konami et al., 2021; 
Krongthaeo et al., 2021). This vulnerability contributes 
to the severe impact that results from flooding - one of  
the most common natural disasters - that continues to 
plague societies and economies, drawing global attention 
since its effect is felt in both developed and developing 
countries (Echendu, 2023). The growing uncertainties of  
weather patterns due to climate change is a wakeup call 
to develop, improve existing, and implement strategies 
that prevent or mitigate flooding events (Fernández et 
al., 2023; Hashim et al., 2021; Rofiah et al., 2021; Vivita 
et al., 2023). The best way to live with and adapt to 
floods, despite their increased frequency and impact, is 
through resilience. Several societies are now developing 
and implementing measures/strategies that enable 
them to thrive in a rapidly changing climate, primarily 
through establishing flood risk management strategies 
that strengthen their preparedness and mitigation 
measures to become resilient to this devastating climate-
induced hazard. Pre-disaster preparedness and mitigation 

strategies are critical aspects of  flood risk reduction that 
promote more resilient and smart societies (Hatori et al., 
2023; Raikes et al., 2019). Thus, measures such as building 
early warning systems, community education/awareness, 
and construction of  engineering structures, etc., form 
a bedrock for building disaster resilience (Nguyễn et al., 
2023; Rofiah et al., 2021).
According to the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk 
Reduction (2015), “every one dollar spent on disaster 
preparedness, saves up to fifteen dollars on reconstructing 
disaster-affected communities”. This indicates how vital 
disaster preparedness and mitigation are in reducing flood 
impacts. Since preparedness and mitigation are the first 
actions of  defense against potential disasters in disaster 
management, it is important to explore the different 
innovative ideas and advance preparedness and mitigation 
measures that safeguard cities and societies to limit the 
impact of  these devastating floods (Nguyễn et al., 2023). 
This can be achieved by uncovering current knowledge and 
research recommendations proposed to meet the demand 
placed on cities and societies to alleviate and minimize the 
impact and challenges faced by people from floods. A study 
on various literature has been conducted to review and 
assess the various practices that have been recommended 
and implemented to prepare for and mitigate floods from 
impacting cities, especially in developing countries.

LITERATURE REVIEW
One objective of  disaster-stricken regions is to anticipate 
the probability of  occurrence of  disasters and set 



Pa
ge

 
17

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajec

Am. J. Environ. Clim. 3(3) 16-27, 2024

up measures that reduce or prevent them. Disaster 
preparedness is defined by Siriwardhana et al. (2021) as 
“a set of  activities, measures, and capacities developed 
by governments, private sectors, communities, and 
individuals before a disaster, to support vulnerable 
populations to mitigate the impact of  hazards and to 
enable their effective response and recovery including 
developing early warning systems, evacuation plans, 
formulating emergency preparedness plans, conducting 
education/training programs, and prepositioning 
resources”. In several scientific studies and peer-
reviewed articles, flood preparedness is mostly focused 
on assessing population readiness for disasters (Appleby-
Arnold et al., 2021; Forsyth et al., 2023; Hatori et al., 2023; 
Nguyễn et al., 2023; Yildiz et al., 2021), and consequent 
community resilience through direct actions from 
individuals (Echendu, 2023; Nakai & Nakano, 2023). 
Some studies have focused on more specific topics, 
such as flood preparedness through school intervention 
programs, community engagement (Fernández et al., 
2023; Hasbi et al., 2023), response measures for specific 
population groups (Krongthaeo et al., 2021), and on 
the inclusion of  vulnerable groups during flood events 
(Rofiah et al., 2021). This shows that flood preparedness 
strategies are multifaceted, nonetheless, research in 
comparative analysis of  flood risk management and 
mitigation strategies appears to be limited, indicating a 
gap that provides knowledge of  how communities and 
cities can adopt and implement frameworks from resilient 
societies to better their flood management approach. In 
an aspect of  individual preparedness, Hashim et al. (2021) 
note that risk perception strongly influences individual 
preparedness for floods, but individual preparedness 
does not mean actual evacuation during disasters, 
providing a need for the development of  better disaster 
preparedness awareness, and/ or policy enforcement 
measures. Embedding preparedness measures into the 
cultural behavior of  individuals has been proposed 
to influence public participation and preparedness 
for disaster by some authors. For example, Appleby-
Arnold et al. (2021)  strongly suggest that embedding 
disaster preparedness attitudes in everyday life enables 
an understanding of  the set of  actions to take during an 
actual disaster. Similarly, Hatori et al. (2023) agree that the 
best form of  disaster preparedness is through everyday 
practice; giving an overview of  the level of  influence 
of  hazard perception of  citizens on responsive actions 
in the face of  disasters. Furthermore, Nguyen et al. 
(2023) suggest that social relationships and community 
assets sharing are vital in shaping individual disaster 
preparedness through a study of  disaster preparedness of  
residents in Seattle United States; suggesting that disaster 
preparedness efforts necessitate supplementing with daily 
resources provision and sharing between individuals to 
enable quick recovery. Nonetheless, studies by Nakai 
and Nakano (2023) argue that community collaborative 
preparedness presents a better approach to flood 
preparedness, expounding the practice of  the ‘individual 

emergency relief  box’ - an initiative of  a community in 
Japan - for tsunami inundation preparedness. This unique 
approach allows individual households to prepare and 
package relief  materials in boxes to store in a common 
storage facility managed primarily by the community 
authorities. This practice has the potential to reinvigorate 
disaster preparedness practices in cultural behaviors. On 
a similar note, Appleby-Arnold et al. (2021) conclude that 
daily disaster preparedness behavior by individuals can 
be strengthened by community-individual collaboration 
through the establishment of  the recommendations;
(i) Family should set up emergency plans, simple 

reminders, easy communication medium, and convergence 
points in situations of  disasters,
(ii) Individuals should lookout for publicly displayed 

information on how to prepare for disasters and form a 
habit of  reading and memorizing this information, 
(iii) Enquire for and attend community workshops on 

disaster preparedness programs,
(iv) Create bonds with individuals of  other cultural 

backgrounds to foster better communication during an 
evacuation,
(v) Inform other participants and trainers of  personal 

skills during workshops that could be useful to the 
community during disaster response. 
Such strategies can improve the cognitive behavior of  
individuals toward disaster preparedness, as well as 
foster community-individual participation during flood 
disaster response. Meanwhile, other studies have focused 
on applying a practical approach to inform community 
preparedness. For example, Nakano et al. (2020) used 
movie clips to simulate school evacuation drills in the event 
of  floods from tsunamis. These tools can strengthen the 
perception of  citizens to deal with disasters themselves, 
thus promoting alternative measures of  preparedness 
implementation.
Whilst non-structural approaches for flood risk 
management such as individual preparedness remain 
crucial to preventing severe consequences (casualties) 
from floods, mitigation measures such as policymaking, 
infrastructural development, and spatial planning are 
paramount for effective risk or disaster reduction/
management. Although preparedness and mitigation 
are interchangeably used in many contexts, specific 
distinctions have considered preparedness to be ‘actions 
taken’ by communities and cities to “get ready” for 
potential disasters, and mitigation to be structural 
architectures and policy frameworks that ‘prevent or 
reduce’ the impact of  disasters. Traditional mitigation 
structures such as levees and embankments have 
been considered as the most important measures in 
mitigating floods. For example, as Thieken et al. (2016) 
report, that mitigation measures implemented after the 
August 2002 floods in Germany that caused damages of  
more than €11.6 billion, were effective in preventing a 
similar scale of  damage from the severe floods in 2013. 
These measures included decentralized flooding control 
strategies such as reclaiming floodplains, renaturation of  



Pa
ge

 
18

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajec

Am. J. Environ. Clim. 3(3) 16-27, 2024

surface water bodies, unsealing of  lands, etc. Thieken et 
al. (2016) also verified that traditional defense systems 
(e.g. embankments, controlled flood retention basins, and 
dams) strengthened the flood resilience of  communities 
affected by extreme hydraulic load in 2013. In another 
research, Bubeck et al. (2017) describe how flood 
mitigation systems such as embankments and levees 
regarded as technical measures have a sustained tradition 
of  protecting areas from being inundated by floods. 
Such traditional measures demonstrate their vitality in 
preventing floods, nonetheless, breaches and overtopping 
of  these structures provide a concern for the integrity of  
these structures to efficiently protect cities against floods, 
prompting requirements to improve existing frameworks 
and defense systems whilst encouraging precautionary 
and preparatory actions from individuals living nearby 
waterbodies (Thieken et al., 2016). In other contexts of  
flood mitigation measures, sustainable urban drainage 
systems (SUDS), and stormwater harvesting are proposed 
to better mitigate against and manage floods, especially 
for pluvial floods and for developing countries that lack 
the financial capacity to build traditional defense systems. 
For example, Ortega et al. (2023) suggest that promoting 
sustainable urban drainage systems holds the capacity 
to build more flood-resilient communities. SUDS are 
believed to present better solutions for reducing surface 
run-offs and improving biodiversity in urban areas. 
However, its advantage does not convince some cities, 
as SUDS implementation is slow-paced (Ortega et al., 
2023) with several authors attributing lack of  transition 
to SUDS implementation over conventional approaches 
to socio-political hindrance or perception (Li et al., 2020; 
Thorne et al., 2018). 
In all these papers reviewed so far, and also in others not 
included in this summary, we observed limited research 
in comparative assessment of  flood risk management 
practices in different countries. This prompted the need 
to conduct an assessment and comparison of  different 
flood preparedness and mitigation strategies to establish 
a foundation for the efficient adoption and transfer 
of  approaches from resilient societies to struggling 
societies, particularly developing countries. This research 
will potentially unveil the strengths of  flood mitigation 
and management strategies in developed and resilient 
societies, allowing other countries to adopt and implement 
the same strategies in their flood risk management. In 
response to the identified gap, this paper focuses on 
conducting an in-depth investigation of  recent research 

to assess effective and feasible flood risk mitigation and 
management measures in developed countries. The aim is 
to propose a flood risk management strategy/framework 
that can be recommended to implementation in the use 
case region Lagos Nigeria, by considering the following 
research question.
(1) How do individuals and communities ‘get ready’ and 

‘respond’ to perceived flood events
(2) What are the existing government policies/

frameworks that promote and enhance sustainable flood 
risk mitigation?
(3) Which conclusion can be drawn to improve flood 

disaster preparedness and mitigation in Lagos Nigeria?

MATERIALS AND METHODS 
Publication Selection and Collection
To carry out this research we started by identifying 
academic databases that contain relevant peer-reviewed 
articles and appropriate governmental websites “grey 
literature” of  some countries to access information and 
data relevant to the study. Statical data were extracted from 
primary data available on the governmental website since 
they contain authentic information. Search strategy and 
selection criteria for the identification of  relevant studies 
were developed (as seen in Table 1). Mixed search strategy 
was adopted for the collection of  relevant studies; the 
first stage focused on utilizing academic database search 
engines such as Web of  Science, ScienceDirect, and 
Google Scholar. The search began using some predefined 
keywords such as “Disaster preparedness”, “Disaster 
mitigation” “Hazard mitigation”, and “pre-disaster 
preparations”, but the search terms were later redefined 
to be more specific to flood disasters because previous 
terms returned studies on general and all kind of  disasters 
(natural and man-made). The redefined keywords were 
thus, “Flood hazard mitigation”, “Flood preparedness 
strategies”, “Flood management approaches”, and 
“Flood risk management”. 
Many of  the articles focused on individual-community 
preparedness for disasters, according to the search terms, 
only a few articles contained research on flood mitigation 
strategies by countries. Additionally, the generated articles 
from the search were screened by reviewing the title and 
abstract to determine whether the paper was relevant to 
the study. If  the paper was relevant to the study, the year 
of  publication is then considered to either obtain the full-
text version of  the article or exclude the article based on 
specific reasons.

Table 1: Inclusion and Exclusion criteria for generated papers
Inclusion criteria Exclusion criteria Reasons
Sources published in English 
language

Sources not published in English English is the widely used language 
in academic research

Sources published from 2013 – 
2023

Sources published before 2013 Avoiding obsolete research, and 
focusing on recent studies

Research domain; Environmental 
science, social sciences.

Research domain; Computer science, 
Health science, economic science

Studies related to natural disasters



Pa
ge

 
19

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajec

Am. J. Environ. Clim. 3(3) 16-27, 2024

In the second phase, a focused search was conducted for 
articles related to flood risk management in some countries. 
This was done to establish a comparative assessment of  
flood risk mitigation strategies by examining studies that 
focused on specific countries such as the United Kingdom 
(UK), the United States (US), and the Netherlands.

Secondary Data Collection
Subsequently, after the relevant articles were collected, 
numerical data of  past flood disasters in the US were 
extracted from the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency (FEMA) database to assess the performance of  
the flood risk management framework in the country. The 
included data were those recorded from economic losses, 
casualties (deaths), and infrastructural damages from 1980 
to 2023. These data were used to present the trend of  
flood impact and losses before and after implementation 
of  the flood risk management framework. Furthermore, 
a graph of  ‘Billion-Dollar’ flood disasters in the US 
was plotted using Microsoft Excel (Fig.1) to assess the 
performance of  the framework.

Description of  Use Case Region (Lagos, Nigeria)
Communities and cities situated close to coastlines are 
continuously facing threats and damages from floods. 
Climate change has intensified This disastrous natural 
phenomenon in recent years, with increasing the frequency 
and intensity of  extreme rainfall being a major player. 
These affected regions (such as Lagos) are left counting 
economic losses, population displacement, deaths, and 
disruptions to public services year-in-year-out (Ekoh et 
al., 2022). It is a known fact that natural hazards cannot 
be prevented but mitigation and adaptation practices 
have become sustainable actions to reduce the impact and 
damages from natural hazards through preparedness and 
mitigation strategies. 
Lagos one of  the flood-prone regions in West Africa, 
is located in the Southwestern part of  Nigeria near 
the Atlantic Ocean, it has several inland waterbodies 
including a lagoon that flows into the Atlantic. According 
to Nkwunonwo et al. (2016), its proximity to the ocean 
favors rapid economic growth, which has been a major 
factor in its rapid urbanization. However, the increased 
influx of  migrants continually exerts pressure on the 
available infrastructures leading to rapid urbanization, 
with the poor population forced to settle in areas that are 
extremely vulnerable to floods (Echendu, 2023). Flood 
disasters in Nigeria are mostly fluvial (river) or pluvial 
(rainfall) related, however, most recent floods in Lagos 
have been linked to rainfall events (Nkwunonwo et al., 
2016), and the poor population are the group that bears 
the majority of  the flood impact; as a result of  poor 
awareness and communication measures to this group. 
Assessing the flood disaster preparedness and mitigation 
of  Lagos is important because of  its low-lying landscape 

and proximity to the ocean. Its dense population also 
presents a concern for improved flood management 
as socioeconomic factors of  the state have had major 
constraints on flood mitigation.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The rising global need to prevent the severe impact of  
disasters on economies, public and private infrastructures, 
and more importantly human health and sustainability has 
been the driving force behind diverse flood risk mitigation 
actions from individuals, communities, and governments. 
These actions span from flood risk governance, flood risk 
communication and awareness, response and evacuation 
drills and training programs, flood risk warning actions 
such as hazard monitoring etc., The Research findings 
from this study present below the factors that influence/
promote flood preparedness and mitigation.

Flood Hazard Knowledge and Risk Perception
Floods are mostly characterized as slow-onset disasters, 
thus preparing for these types of  disasters mostly 
depends on individual perception of  the hazards 
associated with floods especially those related to rainfall 
(Appleby-Arnold et al., 2021). The level of  disaster 
awareness and communication by stakeholders who are 
aware of  the potential impact of  floods is a tool that can 
be used to shape and improve how individuals perceive 
extreme rainfall events (Hashim et al., 2021). Since hazard 
identification indicates awareness of  individuals’ possible 
hazard impact, perception of  risk is a determinant 
factor that links the identification of  hazards to disaster 
preparedness (Kamarulzaman et al., 2016). People tend 
to prepare for what they believe has a severe impact on 
them. Most times, the experience of  similar events has an 
influence on the behavioral pattern of  individuals during 
potential flooding (Albano et al., 2016) such experiences 
play a good role in solidifying the preparedness and 
mitigation measures of  individuals and societies. Risk 
perception indicates that preparedness and mitigation 
measures against disasters possess a strong link to 
resilience and adaptation.

Flood Hazard Monitoring
Monitoring involves continuous observation of  water level 
in terms of  coastal and river floods, and for pluvial floods 
measurement of  the influx of  rainfall with specialized 
equipment to predict flood events. River and coastal 
floods are easier to monitor as opposed to floods from 
extreme rainfall events, which are mostly influenced by 
several factors  such as infrastructures, and precipitation 
pattern (Echendu, 2023). However, floods are generally 
hazards that can be predicted, observed, and evaded 
because the gradual increase in water/precipitation level 
gives people time to prepare for them (Krongthaeo et al., 
2021). Flood monitoring provides important information 

Disaster preparedness related 
flood disasters

Disaster preparedness related to man-
made disasters, and other natural disasters

Paper is focused on flood disaster 
preparedness strategies



Pa
ge

 
20

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajec

Am. J. Environ. Clim. 3(3) 16-27, 2024

on the possibility of  its impact and more importantly 
development of  measures to reduce its impact. This is 
possible through instrumentations and installation of  
systems such as sensors, and river gauges in river banks or 
coastal areas (Silva Souza et al., 2017; Ufuoma et al., 2021) 
satellite data, and weather forecast systems (Liu et al., 
2022; Oduah et al., 2023) to predict and detect futuristic 
flood events. These early warning systems allow adequate 
response to disasters both for individual and emergency 
management agencies.

Flood Warning and Communication
Early warning systems are an integral component of  
disaster preparedness and mitigation as these systems 
can collect real-time data and communicate potential 
flood disasters (Silva Souza et al., 2017), facilitating 
timely response. Flood warning systems are primarily 
interconnected with monitoring systems that record 
these events and transmit the observations to give on-
time information that alerts concerned stakeholders. 
Souza et al. (2017) demonstrate how early warning 
systems disseminate flood warning information, through 
connecting monitoring sensors to the internet cloud 
that stores and disseminates these data based on the 
signals from the sensors. Most hazard communications 
systems commonly use colors (green, yellow, and red) 
to indicate the degree of  severity of  potential flood 
events. Moreover, traditional measures are utilized to 
provide warning and communication to individuals and 
communities that may not have access to modern channels 
(Krongthaeo et al., 2021), although it requires constant 
checking and monitoring of  water levels by designated 
authorities, primarily in seasons when precipitation levels 
are high. Other communication channels such as mobile 
apps, SMS alerts, and siren-mounted vehicles enable flood 
information dissemination seamlessly whilst reaching a 
large number of  people at the same time (Kamarulzaman et 
al., 2016; Rollason et al., 2018), these channels are effective 
at sending first-hand information to citizens, thus enabling 
vigilance and swift response to floods. Furthermore, 
integrating flood monitoring and warning systems into 
disaster emergency frameworks is necessary to promote 
rapid and coordinated actions (Rollason et al., 2018).

Flood Risk Management
Governance and policymaking are integral aspects of  
building resilient societies in a world where natural and 
man-made hazards are on the increase. Formulating 
robust strategies for managing and mitigating floods has 
been on the increase, as climate change persistently alters 
precipitation patterns and causes intensified flood events. 
Most flood governance is primarily centered on prevention 
and mitigation with the use of  structural measures such 
as dikes, embankment systems, etc. over non-structural 
solutions like land use planning and insurance (Raikes 
et al., 2019). Such governmental strategies for flood risk 
management have led to its adoption in many countries 
including the United States, the Netherlands, and the 

United Kingdom. For instance, flood prevention in 
the Netherlands is most notably focused on structural 
measures, thus governance and policies are aimed at 
constructing and improving engineering structures that 
impede the occurrence and impact of  floods (Bubeck et 
al., 2017; Kolen et al., 2013), While in France, prevention 
emphasis is on planning for engineering measures failure, 
a contingency plan that absorbs risk and promotes timely 
recovery through insurance mechanisms (Gersonius et al., 
2016; Kolen et al., 2013), but a more balanced flood risk 
management strategy involving pre-disaster planning and 
preparedness, response, and recovery is practiced in the 
United States and the United Kingdom (Gersonius et al., 
2016; Raikes et al., 2019). Flood governance is widely and 
primarily dependent on the risk conception/perception of  
public authorities and policymakers, a major contribution 
that may have led to disparities in disaster preparedness 
measures in states and even local levels of  government.

Flood Risk Policy Frameworks (The European 
Flood Directive framework case)
Policies and frameworks are the non-structural 
components of  disaster preparedness and mitigation 
strategies that enable governments and societies to 
proffer sustainable solutions to prevent the negative 
consequences of  disasters (Dash & Punia, 2019; Vij et al., 
2020). Most policies consider economic, environmental, 
and human health sustainability, and these actions are 
now top priorities among nations to combat rising 
climate change and frequent occurrence of  disasters. For 
example, disparities and ineffective flood risk management 
particularly in transboundary communities is a primary 
factors that led to the formulation of  the European Union 
Flood Directive (EUFD) to assess and manage flood 
risk to prevent undermining of  the European Union’s 
goal of  sustainable economies, environment, and human 
health (Priest et al., 2016). The directive emphasizes 
the establishment of  a common framework for better 
flood management across borders, thereby improving 
transboundary coordination and cooperation, especially in 
communities situated within the boundaries. Table 2. gives 
a summary of  the assessment of  the EUFD framework. 
It is important to note that the directive does not rule 
over national policies or frameworks on flood risk 
management, it was however, established to provide a 
minimum common framework for managing flooding 
and to reduce the impact on European societies (Priest et 
al., 2016). Although the flood directive admits that floods 
are unpredictable natural events, improved management 
of  societal activities is feasible to reduce the risk of  
flood events and their consequences. The creation of  
the European FD, which is in response to severe flood 
events that hit Europe between 1998 and 2007, causing 
more than 50 billion in economic losses and more than 
1000 loss in lives, has since led to accurate assessment and 
creation of  river basin hazard maps (Bonasia & Lucatello, 
2019) essential to establish flood risk management plans 
and guidance on policy improvement.



Pa
ge

 
21

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajec

Am. J. Environ. Clim. 3(3) 16-27, 2024

Table 2: Assessment of  the European FD for flood risk management
Criteria Judgment
Governance effectiveness FD embraces the river basin scale as the primary management unit and employs a 

multilevel strategy for establishing goals and standards, contributing positively to 
adaptive governance. Nevertheless, the absence of  adequately institutionalized 
instruments within the legal framework could impede transboundary collaboration. 
Additionally, disparities in legal structures, political perspectives on flood risk 
management, and variations in economic, social, and physical contexts may hinder 
effective coordination and cooperation across different scales.

Robustness One of  the FD declared objectives is to encourage a more varied approach to flood 
management. Nonetheless, countries have the autonomy to establish their own goals, 
and there are no set standards for the variety of  flood management strategies.

Adaptability There is a lot of  latitude under the FD for nations to choose appropriate risk 
thresholds and flood risk control goals. However, if  certain FD standards are novel 
and dissimilar from already-used methods, they will be more challenging and complex 
to implement, such as creating plans for flood risk management and introducing 
participatory techniques.

Effectiveness towards goal Even with coordinated transboundary approaches being the goal, there remains 
variation across national borders. This variation can be linked to variations in concept 
definitions, legal frameworks and obligations, political perspectives on flood risk 
management, and physical, social, and economic environments.

Comparative Assessment of  Flood Management 
Strategies (UK, US, and Netherlands)
Flood risk management system in different countries 
is mostly driven by demand and support for distinct 
characteristics of  landscapes and types of  flood risk. 
Countries often, by trend, rely more on structural systems 
when flood hazard is characterized by high impacts, and 
short warning time, even when having the least probability 
of  occurrence. In contrast, countries faced with more 
frequent flood hazards with minimal impact and 
sufficient prediction time are more likely to have flexible 
frameworks (Bubeck et al., 2017; Dash & Punia, 2019). 
In the past, flood hazards were believed to be exclusively 
resolved by technical engineering measures, and this 
belief  in engineering defense systems has been challenged 
by the occurrence of  flood events in regions that were 
considered ‘protected’ against floods (Bubeck et al., 2017). 
Moreover, climate change and aggravated rainfall have 
shifted sole reliance on technical flood defense, towards 
greater emphasis on non-structural measures such as 
governance and spatial planning (Bubeck et al., 2017; Vij 
et al., 2020).

Flood Management Strategy in the UK
The institutional bodies for flood risk management 
in the UK were established based on risk analysis, 
and quantifying the likelihood of  flooding based on 
an annual exceedance probability (AEP). The central 
government institution responsible for flood policy 
is the Department for Environment, Food and Rural 
Affairs (DEFRA), while a non-departmental government 
body, the Environmental Agency (AG) makes in-depth 
assessment, planning, and implementation of  flood risk 
and management at national and regional scale (Miller 
& Hutchins, 2017; Rubinato et al., 2019). Furthermore, 

there are local institutional bodies with responsibilities 
to manage floods caused by inadequate sewage, 
comprising mainly of  privatized companies. Other local 
authorities are responsible for local emergencies, spatial 
planning, and emergency response to floods. Finally, 
private insurance companies provide cover for damages 
offloods to residential and most commercial properties 
(Bubeck et al., 2017; Rubinato et al., 2019). The broadness 
of  flood management in the UK ensures shared 
responsibility between the government, local authorities, 
and communities. Natural solutions such as SUDS are 
more commonly used to manage floods in the UK (Li 
et al., 2020), however, their ability to effectively manage 
excessive flooding is still under deliberation. Nevertheless, 
traditional flood defense systems (engineering structures) 
are still valid options considered by institutions especially 
having historical importance in mitigating floods 
(Rubinato et al., 2019).

Flood Management Strategy in the US
The United States Federal Emergency Management 
Agency (FEMA) in 2002 created the National Flood 
Insurance Program (NFIP) that mandates communities 
to abide by a predefined set of  floodplain management 
standards and to offer insurance to communities 
with significant flood risk (FEMA, 2023). This act 
promotes the engagement of  states to assume major 
roles in floodplain management by adhering to the 
NFIP standards, helping them to advise and support 
participating local communities to adhere to the standards 
(Tyler et al., 2019). The program standardizes flood risk 
management by imposing minimum building and flood 
zoning requirements on communities across the US. The 
importance of  the NFIP is that it gives local governments 
the authority to restrict development in flood-risk areas, and 



Pa
ge

 
22

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajec

Am. J. Environ. Clim. 3(3) 16-27, 2024

mandates ground floor of  new or substantially renovated 
buildings be elevated if  ‘unprotected’ by levees (Bubeck et 
al., 2017; Tyler et al., 2019). FEMA unlike the DEFRA in 
the UK, has the sole responsibility to identify flood-hazard 
areas, provide flood risk maps, insure properties, create 
construction design standards in flood plains, and fund 
mitigation projects (FEMA, 2023). Additionally, the NFIP 

does not restrict participating communities, hence, states 
and local governments can impose additional building 
codes and flood-zoning regulations on individuals (Bubeck 
et al., 2017). To assess the performance of  the NFIP 
program, data from past and recent flood events from 
FEMA were analyzed and plotted for flood disasters in the 
US from 1980-2023, as seen in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Billion-dollar flood disasters in the US from 1980-2023 (FEMA, 2023)

Flood Management Strategy in the Netherlands
The responsibility of  flood risk management in the 
Netherlands is predominantly of  the central government 
and committed water board (Bubeck et al., 2017), primarily 
relying on flood defense measures due to the development 
of  land reclamation of  almost 800 years, resulting in the 
establishment of  dyke ring areas; areas that have fixed 
boundaries with embankments or other flood defenses. 
The Netherlands is one of  the most vulnerable flood-
prone countries with over 60% of  the land coverage 
in floodplains (Van Herk et al., 2015). The flood safety 
is well structured but massive and continuous effort is 
required to protect the country against future flooding. 
Flood management frameworks focus on large-scale to 
local-scale protection consisting of  flood embankments 
and channelization. This protection approach ranks 
among the highest in the world. Protection against storm 
surges and river floods is enhanced by the reinforcement 
of  the country’s flood defense system comprising coastal 
dunes, dikes, and storm surges (Edelenbos et al., 2017; 
Van Herk et al., 2015). The focus of  the flood risk 
management system in the Netherlands of  ‘managing 
the flood’ rather than ‘managing the risk’ has undergone 
a transition to an integrated flood risk management 
and lies on the minimum standard requirement of  the 
EUFD (Bubeck et al., 2017). The transition led to a 
Multi-layer Safety framework that identifies three layers: 
namely, flood protection, sustainable spatial planning, 
and emergency management. The degree of  adoption of  
the framework announced in the Netherlands’ National 
Water Plan (Bubeck et al., 2017) is yet to be realized since 
there has not been a major flooding event since the 1953 

storm surge, indicating that the flood-defense strategy is 
considerably successful.

Flood Mitigation Strategies and Architectures
Structural flood risk mitigation strategies are the most 
widely used defense systems against inundation from 
extreme water levels and rainfall events. The approach 
of  flood management has proved its effectiveness in 
militating disastrous flood impacts on cities and societies. 
Implementation of  structural and non-structural systems 
of  flood risk management has enabled more resilient 
societies since most residual floods can be dealt with by 
the non-structural aspect of  flood management (Bubeck 
et al., 2017).  For example, dikes are the main structural 
defense system, but they are backed up by contingency 
plans that allow smooth recovery (Richert et al., 2019).  
These defense systems are predominantly accepted by the 
public as efforts to mitigate the impact of  floods, giving 
them the confidence to follow and abide by policies 
and frameworks set up by governments. The most 
common structural mitigation systems are: namely levees, 
embankments, and dikes which are mostly constructed 
to impede river and coastal inundations (Edelenbos et 
al., 2017). However,  recent flood mitigation strategies 
such as sustainable urban drainage systems, polders, 
stormwater harvesting, unsealing lands, reclamation of  
flood plains, etc. have gained wide practice in preventing 
the severe impact of  floods (Albrecht & Hartmann, 
2021; Li et al., 2020; Nick et al., 2023; Thieken et al., 2016). 
Additionally, individuals living close to coastal and river 
areas have adopted mitigation strategies in constructing 
houses, such as creating  floating foundations, building 



Pa
ge

 
23

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajec

Am. J. Environ. Clim. 3(3) 16-27, 2024

mounds around buildings, or even raising  basement that 
allows individuals to live on the upper floor during flood 
disasters (Creach et al., 2020; Krongthaeo et al., 2021). 
Table 3. shows some architectural design patterns that are 
adopted for flood risk mitigation.

Flood Risk Management Strategies in Lagos Nigeria
Perception of  risk is a main driver in preparedness 
and mitigation of  disasters. Understanding the flood 
risk, probability and potential associated disaster has 
over time influenced the decision of  what flood risk 

management strategy  to adopt and implement. The 
flood risk management strategy in Lagos has been based 
on the prevention and control of  floods with primary 
measures being the implementation of  structural 
strategies (Nkwunonwo et al., 2016). Most recent flood 
risk management strategies have shifted attention to 
flood risk analysis rather than disaster control, which has 
strengthened flood mitigation in several countries (Bubeck 
et al., 2017; Rubinato et al., 2019), this has not been the 
case in Lagos until a few years ago when non-structural 
strategies were initiated with a major focus on flood risk 

Table 3: Architectural design patterns adopted for flood risk mitigation (extracted from Creach et al., 2020)
Mitigation strategy Architecture design patterns
(a) Protection: construction of  protective structures that reduce the 
probability of  flooding in a particular zone.
b) Retreat: moving exposed building to a safer zone (higher elevation).
(c) Accommodate: reconstructing or renovating the building to minimize 
flood impact.

assessment and reduction.
Flood risk management is defined by Sayers et al. (2013) 
to range from information gathering, and risk analysis 
to continuous societal risk assessment and adoption of  
policies. This broad range of  flood management is rather 
less considered during the formulation of  preparedness 
and mitigation strategies, which has mostly constituted 
structural measures for flood mitigation. Negligence to 
enforce established frameworks and policies that enhance 
flood risk management contributes to the vast number of  
Lagos population living in flood-exposed and prone areas 
with the urban poor being the most vulnerable groups 
(Adelekan, 2016). Therefore, it is not only sufficient 
to build structural barriers and establish frameworks 
that deal with flood mitigation, but it is also important 
to carry out effective and efficient sensitization of  the 
public that encourages participatory and collaborative 
efforts against flood disasters. Consequently, most 
structural efforts towards flood risk management in 
Lagos have centered primarily on the construction of  
SUDS, which can retain and dispense rainfall water into 
waterbodies, but notable constraints to this measure 
have been the poor waste management system in the 
state that sees the voluminous amount of  trash disposed 
of  in the drainages (Nkwunonwo et al., 2016). On the 
contrary, contingency measures such as insurance have 
been skewed to multinational companies in the city with 
a majority of  the population (the urban poor) having 
to feel the heat in recovering from floods (Adelekan, 
2016). On a general note, flood management in Lagos 
Nigeria, has gained much attention with increased efforts 
from the public and private sectors that have drastically 
increased and improved flood mitigation efforts, however, 
increased participation of  citizens is a vital requirement 
to sustainably prepare for and mitigate flood disasters 
in Lagos. Additionally, technical early warning systems 
such as water gauges, sensors, and transmitters, satellite 

data are non-structural measures that are lacking and 
have a visible impact on flood management mitigation 
(Adelekan, 2016). Such instrumentation and installations 
can provide rapid and timely early information regarding 
the potential inundation of  the city. In summary, flood 
risk mitigation in Lagos state is far beyond expectations, 
especially in the face of  a rapidly changing climate which 
is a wakeup call to increase efforts that mitigate and 
reduce the impact of  flooding.

Discussion
The rise in frequency and intensity of  flooding events in 
several nations is an indication of  advancing development 
and enforcement in preparedness and mitigation 
measures against this ever-devastating event. With 
significant evidence of  aggravated preparedness and 
mitigation measures from governments, communities 
are more resilient to natural disasters. Findings from this 
research show that individual readiness and willingness 
to take action against flood events have of  significant 
effect in limiting the impact of  floods (Appleby-Arnold 
et al., 2021; Hashim et al., 2021; Kamarulzaman et al., 
2016). Since people constitute the most important part 
of  societies, their access to information and knowledge 
on flood disaster preparedness is vital in ensuring resilient 
societies (Yildiz et al., 2021), this indicates the necessity 
to educate and train people and create easy access to 
flood information. Flood preparedness and mitigation 
strategies are strengthened when they are an integrated 
and collaborative effort between citizens and institutional 
governing bodies because the direct implementation 
of  frameworks established by governance is largely 
dependent on the response and acceptance of  citizens. 
Noteworthy, a shift of  attention from technical flood risk 
management measures to non-structural measures such 
as policy-making has proven to provide more sustainable 
solutions to mitigate flood disasters (Bubeck et al., 2017; 



Pa
ge

 
24

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajec

Am. J. Environ. Clim. 3(3) 16-27, 2024

Li et al., 2020; Rubinato et al., 2019). Figure 1. Shows how 
the NFIP program formed by the US government has 
performed in flood risk management. We see that before 
the NFIP formation, losses from flood disasters were 
high despite having a considerably low number of  events. 
Although there seems to be great economic loss in the 
aftermath of  the NFIP formation, this can be attributed 
to an increased number of  weather events, which is a 
result of  climate change. The framework can be said to 
have performed well so far in flood risk management in 
the US, however, increased effort is required to further 
strengthen the engagement of  citizens, allowing the 
program to achieve its purpose. Nonetheless, the shift 
in attention towards non-structural measures of  flood 
mitigation strategies has rather strengthened structural 
measures as they are still much in use and considered 
important in preventing flood disasters. Such is seen in 
the flood risk management approach in the Netherlands, 
where there is more focus on structural measures since a 
large part of  the country is situated in a floodplain zone. 
However, there have been recent efforts to integrate 
both measures (Van Herk et al., 2015), which are in 
response to the requirements set by the EUFD. Flood 
risk management strategies in the United States and the 
United Kingdom lie more on governance, which is a 
broad approach that ensures flood risk avoidance in the 
first instance. The disparity in strategies demonstrates that 
flood risk management is specific to flood risk probability 
and potential impact in each country. Nevertheless, 
adopting structural building patterns (Creach et al., 

2020) are effective measures to prepare for and mitigate 
floods. Findings from this research indicate that flood 
preparedness and mitigation is multifaceted, therefore 
adopting an already existing framework in a more resilient 
society may prove vital in mitigating and managing floods 
in less resilient societies.

Proposed Approach  for Flood Risk Management in 
the Use Case Area
The proposed approach is a systematic way of  analyzing 
a system to reveal its strengths and weaknesses and 
then suggest a solution that improves its operation to 
further strengthen the system. In the context of  flood 
risk management, it entails the adoption of  an existing 
working framework from a region with similar risk 
or challenge, and implementation to better improve 
flood risk management in that specific region. The 
comparative assessment of  flood risk management 
strategies in three different countries (the UK, the US, 
and the Netherlands) has established an overview of  
the strategy that can be adopted to manage flood risk 
in Lagos, the proposed strategy suggests a framework 
that allows collaboration and partnership from all sphere 
of  the society. The framework is focused on providing 
support and guidance to efficient flood management 
such as enforcing adherence to policies and standards in 
implementing strategies. This allows public authorities 
to exert restrictions and sanctions on perpetrators. This 
management strategy has the potential to mandate Lagos 
state inhabitants to adhere to and abide by the policies 

Fig 2: Proposed framework for flood mitigation strategies in the use case area



Pa
ge

 
25

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajec

Am. J. Environ. Clim. 3(3) 16-27, 2024

established by the governments.
The framework also allows the government to provide 
coverage for the population living in floodplain areas, 
especially for the urban poor. Such measures will enable the 
urban poor population to adhere to government policies 
and have access to a contingency plan that helps them 
recover easily from flood disasters. Nonetheless, adopting 
a framework or policies is not as simple as it seems, several 
factors like economic system, geographic landscape, flood 
risk, technical know-how, performance of  framework, etc., 
need to be considered (Bubeck et al., 2017) before adopting 
a flood risk management framework.

CONCLUSION
Floods are becoming more frequent and intense, 
necessitating enhanced preparedness and mitigation 
strategies to minimize their devastating effects. In 
response to flood risks, several economies, especially 
developed ones, have come up with innovative solutions 
ranging from structural barriers to non-structural 
measures that improve flood risk management efficiency. 
This research has been able to reveal the extent of  
flood preparedness and mitigation measures, and how 
they affect the lives of  people. Flood preparedness and 
mitigation can be improved by highlighting the factors 
that affect preparedness and mitigation of  flooding and 
making this information readily available to individuals 
and authorities that are concerned with preparing and 
preventing floods. Perception is one of  the most important 
factors to consider when preparing for flood disasters, 
which affects how individuals, societies, economies, and 
countries prepare. People and countries would be able to 
respond more effectively to flooding events if  sustainable 
measures were implemented. This research has been able 
to demonstrate that non-structural measures possess the 
same importance as structural measures in flood risk 
management, and the effort towards mitigation of  flood 
impact is rather a participatory and collaborative process 
than sole reliance on public authorities.
Lagos by its location is an extremely vulnerable state to 
flooding events, and there remains a great demand on the 
citizens and the government to strengthen their efforts in 
preparedness and mitigation strategies against this natural 
phenomenon. A notable setback is the citizen’s perspective 
and lack of  participation and collaboration with the 
government of  the state. This lack of  collaboration will 
always be a hindrance to the effective implementation of  
policies and standards established by the government. 
Directing attention toward citizens’ awareness and 
participation in flood preparedness and mitigation will 
serve a great deal to achieve the goal of  frameworks and 
policies set by the government and also an alignment with 
the sustainable development goals (SDG) 11.

REFERENCES
Albano, C. M., Dettinger, M. D., McCarthy, M. I., 

Schaller, K. D., Welborn, T. L., & Cox, D. A. (2016). 
Application of  an extreme winter storm scenario to 

identify vulnerabilities, mitigation options, and science 
needs in the Sierra Nevada mountains, USA. Natural 
Hazards, 80(2), 879–900. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11069-015-2003-4

Albrecht, J., & Hartmann, T. (2021). Land for flood risk 
management—Instruments and strategies of  land 
management for polders and dike relocations in 
Germany. Environmental Science & Policy, 118, 36–44. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.12.008

Appleby-Arnold, S., Brockdorff, N., & Callus, C. (2021). 
Developing a “culture of  disaster preparedness”: 
The citizens’ view. International Journal of  Disaster Risk 
Reduction, 56, 102133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijdrr.2021.102133

Bonasia, R., & Lucatello, S. (2019). Linking flood 
susceptibility mapping and governance in Mexico for 
flood mitigation: A participatory approach model. 
Atmosphere, 10(8), 424. https://doi.org/10.3390/
atmos10080424

Bubeck, P., Kreibich, H., Penning‐Rowsell, E. C., Botzen, 
W. J. W., De Moel, H., & Klijn, F. (2017). Explaining 
differences in flood management approaches in 
Europe and in the USA – A comparative analysis. 
Journal of  Flood Risk Management, 10(4), 436–445. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/jfr3.12151

Creach, A., Bastidas-Arteaga, E., Pardo, S., & Mercier, D. 
(2020). Vulnerability and costs of  adaptation strategies 
for housing subjected to flood risks: Application 
to La Guérinière France. Marine Policy, 117, 103438. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.02.010

Dash, P., & Punia, M. (2019). Governance and disaster: 
Analysis of  land use policy with reference to 
Uttarakhand flood 2013, India. International Journal 
of  Disaster Risk Reduction, 36, 101090. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101090

Echendu, A. J. (2023). Human factors vs climate change; 
experts’ view of  drivers of  flooding in Nigeria. 
Natural Hazards Research, 3(2), 240–246. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.nhres.2023.04.002

Edelenbos, J., Van Buuren, A., Roth, D., & Winnubst, 
M. (2017). Stakeholder initiatives in flood risk 
management: Exploring the role and impact of  
bottom-up initiatives in three ‘Room for the River’ 
projects in the Netherlands. Journal of  Environmental 
Planning and Management, 60(1), 47–66. https://doi.org
/10.1080/09640568.2016.1140025

Ekoh, S. S., Teron, L., Ajibade, I., & Kristiansen, S. 
(2022). Flood risk perceptions and future migration 
intentions of  Lagos residents. International Journal 
of  Disaster Risk Reduction, 83, 103399. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2022.103399

Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2023). 
Floodplain management. https://www.fema.gov/
floodplain-management

Fernández, R., Correal, J. F., D’Ayala, D., & Medaglia, 
A. L. (2023). Towards disaster risk mitigation on 
large-scale school intervention programs. International 
Journal of  Disaster Risk Reduction, 90, 103655. https://



Pa
ge

 
26

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajec

Am. J. Environ. Clim. 3(3) 16-27, 2024

doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2023.103655
Forsyth, W., Roberts, T., & Brewer, G. (2023). 

Conceptualizing risk communication barriers to 
household flood preparedness. Urban Governance, 3(2), 
116–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ugj.2023.02.001

Gersonius, B., Van Buuren, A., Zethof, M., & Kelder, 
E. (2016). Resilient flood risk strategies: Institutional 
preconditions for implementation. Ecology and Society, 
21(4), art28. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08752-
210428

Hasbi, S., Hanim, Z., & Husain, S. B. (2023). The 
implementation optimization of  school development 
plan in flood disaster mitigation policy in tropical 
rainforest (Case study at state junior high 
school 5 Samarinda). Social Sciences & Humanities 
Open, 7(1), 100440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ssaho.2023.100440

Hashim, H. M., Ng, Y. G., Talib, O., & Md Tamrin, 
S. B. (2021). Factors influencing flood disaster 
preparedness initiatives among small and medium 
enterprises located at flood-prone area. International 
Journal of  Disaster Risk Reduction, 60, 102302. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102302

Hatori, T., Moriwaki, R., & Shingu, K. (2023). Disparity 
between evacuation intention and actual evacuation 
behavior during a heavy rain induced disaster event 
in Japan: Exploring the role of  everyday awareness of  
disaster preparedness. International Journal of  Disaster 
Risk Reduction, 92, 103729. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijdrr.2023.103729

Kamarulzaman, N. H., Vaiappuri, S. A. L. K. N., Ismail, 
N. A., & Mydin, M. A. O. (2016). Local knowledge 
of  flood preparedness: Current phenomena to 
future action. Jurnal Teknologi, 78(5). https://doi.
org/10.11113/jt.v78.8246

Kolen, B., Slomp, R., & Jonkman, S. N. (2013). The 
impacts of  storm Xynthia February 27–28, 2010 in 
France: Lessons for flood risk management. Journal 
of  Flood Risk Management, 6(3), 261–278. https://doi.
org/10.1111/jfr3.12011

Konami, T., Koga, H., & Kawatsura, A. (2021). Role 
of  pre-disaster discussions on preparedness on 
consensus-making of  integrated flood management 
(IFM) after a flood disaster, based on a case in the 
Abukuma River Basin, Fukushima, Japan. International 
Journal of  Disaster Risk Reduction, 53, 102012. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.102012

Krongthaeo, S., Piaseu, N., Junda, T., & Wall, B. M. (2021). 
Community-based flood preparedness for Thai 
dependent older adults. International Journal of  Disaster 
Risk Reduction, 63, 102460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijdrr.2021.102460

Li, L., Collins, A. M., Cheshmehzangi, A., & Chan, F. 
K. S. (2020). Identifying enablers and barriers to the 
implementation of  the Green Infrastructure for urban 
flood management: A comparative analysis of  the 
UK and China. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 54, 
126770. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126770

Liu, J., Cho, H.-S., Osman, S., Jeong, H.-G., & Lee, 
K. (2022). Review of  the status of  urban flood 
monitoring and forecasting in TC region. Tropical 
Cyclone Research and Review, 11(2), 103–119. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.tcrr.2022.07.001

Miller, J. D., & Hutchins, M. (2017). The impacts of  
urbanisation and climate change on urban flooding 
and urban water quality: A review of  the evidence 
concerning the United Kingdom. Journal of  
Hydrology: Regional Studies, 12, 345–362. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2017.06.006

Nakai, F., & Nakano, G. (2023). Community-mediated 
individual disaster preparedness practices: A case 
study in Kochi, Japan. International Journal of  Disaster 
Risk Reduction, 86, 103532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijdrr.2023.103532

Nakano, G., Yamori, K., Miyashita, T., Urra, L. F., 
& Matsuda, Y. (2021). Implementing disaster 
preparedness programs in elementary and junior high 
schools: An evaluation model and critical variables. 
International Journal of  Disaster Risk Reduction, 53, 
102005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.102005

Nguyễn, L. T., Bostrom, A., Abramson, D. B., & Moy, 
P. (2023). Understanding the role of  individual- and 
community-based resources in disaster preparedness. 
International Journal of  Disaster Risk Reduction, 96, 
103882. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2023.103882

Nick, F. C., Sänger, N., Van Der Heijden, S., & Sandholz, 
S. (2023). Collaboration is key: Exploring the 2021 
flood response for critical infrastructures in Germany. 
International Journal of  Disaster Risk Reduction, 91, 
103710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2023.103710

Nkwunonwo, U. C., Whitworth, M., & Baily, B. (2016). 
Review article: A review and critical analysis of  the 
efforts towards urban flood risk management in 
the Lagos region of  Nigeria. Natural Hazards and 
Earth System Sciences, 16(2), 349–369. https://doi.
org/10.5194/nhess-16-349-2016

Oduah, U. I., Anierobi, C. M., & Ilori, O. G. (2023). 
Inventing a robust road-vehicle flood level monitoring 
device for disaster mitigation. Heliyon, 9(10), e20784. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e20784

Ortega, A. D., Rodríguez, J. P., & Bharati, L. (2023). 
Building flood-resilient cities by promoting SUDS 
adoption: A multi-sector analysis of  barriers and 
benefits in Bogotá, Colombia. International Journal 
of  Disaster Risk Reduction, 88, 103621. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2023.103621

Priest, S. J., Suykens, C., Van Rijswick, H. F. M. W., 
Schellenberger, T., Goytia, S., Kundzewicz, Z. W., Van 
Doorn-Hoekveld, W. J., Beyers, J.-C., & Homewood, 
S. (2016). The European Union approach to flood 
risk management and improving societal resilience: 
Lessons from the implementation of  the Floods 
Directive in six European countries. Ecology and 
Society, 21(4), Article 50. https://doi.org/10.5751/
ES-08913-210450

Raikes, J., Smith, T. F., Jacobson, C., & Baldwin, C. (2019). 



Pa
ge

 
27

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajec

Am. J. Environ. Clim. 3(3) 16-27, 2024

Pre-disaster planning and preparedness for floods 
and droughts: A systematic review. International Journal 
of  Disaster Risk Reduction, 38, 101207. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101207

Richert, C., Erdlenbruch, K., & Grelot, F. (2019). The 
impact of  flood management policies on individual 
adaptation actions: Insights from a French case 
study. Ecological Economics, 165, 106387. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106387

Rofiah, N. H., Kawai, N., & Nur Hayati, E. (2021). Key 
elements of  disaster mitigation education in inclusive 
school settings in the Indonesian context. Jàmbá 
- Journal of  Disaster Risk Studies, 13(1), Article 1159. 
https://doi.org/10.4102/jamba.v13i1.1159

Rollason, E., Bracken, L. J., Hardy, R. J., & Large, A. R. G. 
(2018). Rethinking flood risk communication. Natural 
Hazards, 92(3), 1665–1686. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11069-018-3273-4

Rubinato, M., Nichols, A., Peng, Y., Zhang, J., Lashford, 
C., Cai, Y., Lin, P., & Tait, S. (2019). Urban and river 
flooding: Comparison of  flood risk management 
approaches in the UK and China and an assessment 
of  future knowledge needs. Water Science and 
Engineering, 12(4), 274–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
wse.2019.12.004

Sayers, P., Yuanyuan, L., Galloway, G., Penning-Rowsell, 
E., Fuxin, S., Kang, W., ... & Le Quesne, T. (2013). 
Flood risk management: A strategic approach.

Silva Souza, A., De Lima Curvello, A. M., De Souza, F. L. 
D. S., & Da Silva, H. J. (2017). A flood warning system 
to critical regions. Procedia Computer Science, 109, 1104–
1109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2017.05.453

Siriwardhana, S., Kulatunga, U., & Fernando, T. (2021, 
March). A systematic review to establish a definition 
for natural disaster preparedness. In Proceedings of  
the 11th Annual International Conference on Industrial 
Engineering and Operations Management (pp. 5386-5397). 
IEOM Society International. https://ieomsociety.
org/singapore2021/papers/903.pdf

Thieken, A. H., Kienzler, S., Kreibich, H., Kuhlicke, C., 
Kunz, M., Mühr, B., Müller, M., Otto, A., Petrow, T., 
Pisi, S., & Schröter, K. (2016). Review of  the flood 
risk management system in Germany after the major 

flood in 2013. Ecology and Society, 21(2), Article 51. 
https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08547-210251

Thorne, C. R., Lawson, E. C., Ozawa, C., Hamlin, S. L., 
& Smith, L. A. (2018). Overcoming uncertainty and 
barriers to adoption of  Blue-Green Infrastructure 
for urban flood risk management. Journal of  Flood Risk 
Management, 11(S2). https://doi.org/10.1111/jfr3.12218

Tyler, J., Sadiq, A.-A., & Noonan, D. S. (2019). A review 
of  the community flood risk management literature in 
the USA: Lessons for improving community resilience 
to floods. Natural Hazards, 96(3), 1223–1248. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11069-019-03606-3

Ufuoma, G., Sasanya, B. F., Abaje, P., & Awodutire, 
P. (2021). Efficiency of  camera sensors for flood 
monitoring and warnings. Scientific African, 13, e00887. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sciaf.2021.e00887

Van Herk, S., Rijke, J., Zevenbergen, C., & Ashley, R. 
(2015). Understanding the transition to integrated 
flood risk management in the Netherlands. 
Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 15, 84–
100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2013.11.001

Vij, S., Russell, C., Clark, J., Parajuli, B. P., Shakya, P., 
& Dewulf, A. (2020). Evolving disaster governance 
paradigms in Nepal. International Journal of  Disaster 
Risk Reduction, 50, 101911. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijdrr.2020.101911

Vivita, L., Husaini, Anggraini, R., & Dewi, C. (2023). 
Enhancement of  disaster preparedness: Approaches 
of  place attachment and behavior to “build back 
better” mosque as tsunami evacuation building 
in Banda Aceh City, Indonesia. Progress in Disaster 
Science, 19, 100293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
pdisas.2023.100293

Words into Action guidelines. (n.d.). Enhancing disaster 
preparedness for effective response. UNDRR. https://
www.undrr.org/enhancing-disaster-preparedness-
effective-response

Yildiz, A., Teeuw, R., Dickinson, J., & Roberts, J. (2021). 
Children’s perceptions of  flood risk and preparedness: 
A study after the May 2018 flooding in Golcuk, 
Turkey. Progress in Disaster Science, 9, 100143. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.pdisas.2021.100143


