1.

Introduction

According to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
South Asian delta cities are highly vulnerable to climate change and are among the most at-risk
urban areas in the world. Flooding can become a significant issue of concern under all
greenhouse gas scenarios due to the combined impacts of rising sea levels, prolonged monsoon
rainfall, and river flooding (IPCC, 2022). Bangladesh is one of the countries greatly impacted by
this situation. A large portion of the country lies in the Bengal Delta and the average land
elevation is less than ten meters above sea level for most of the territory. Hence, Bangladesh is
where the combination of the physical exposure and a very low capability of the institutions to
adapt leads to making urban populations, especially the poor communities, highly vulnerable to
climate-induced flood events. In this national context, the Dhaka Metropolitan Region (DMR) is
a case of a highly dangerous situation due to ongoing rapid urban growth mainly in unplanned
areas located on floodplains, urban planning measures that are hardly compatible with flood
hazards, and a lack of a strong examination of the urban planning framework in relation to flood
hazard (Alam & Rabbani, 2007).

The pace of expansion in DMR urban areas has consistently outstripped the ability of its
planning and legal institutions to manage the situation. Under the control of Rajdhani Unnayan
Kartripakkha (RAJUK), the DMR constitutes 1, 528 square kilometers of the Bengal Delta
surrounded by the Buriganga, Turag, Balu, and Shitalakshya rivers (RAJUK, 2022). Informal
settlements for low-income people, which generally have very high population densities, lack
sufficient drainage facilities, have substandard buildings, and insecure land ownership, have
mainly encroached on those areas which as per formal planning were considered the most
vulnerable like river embankments and flood passages. In a way, they are always the ones who
are getting hit the most, and as stated by Satterthwaite et al. (2007) from their research of low-
and middle-income cities worldwide, these groups of people who live in these areas have a
higher exposure to physical hazards and at the same time an extremely limited capacity to adapt
to the hazards, thus they become a potential risk factor of which the economically most
disadvantaged residents suffer the highest share of climate-related hazards.

Considering the widespread dissatisfaction with the current state of the environment, bringing
about changes to the way climate change governance is operated is a must. Barnett and O'Neill
(2010) describe maladaptation as actions taken to address climate change which inadvertently
lead to exposing other systems, sectors, or groups to increased vulnerability the results not only
being unintended but, to a large extent, already embedded in the institutional decision-making
[Link] et al. (2016) extend this notion by identifying development decisions as a way
of locking vulnerability in as an important component of maladaptive governance, especially in
cases where adaptation-related information is accessible but not used for policymaking. In the
case of urban planning, this can result in statutory zoning allowing the development and
formalization of risk-prone areas: the same instrument that is meant to regulate land use becomes
the means through which areas susceptible to flooding are converted into dwellings, thereby the
scenario where the residents of these areas become at flood risk is being formalized rather than
resolved, and the costs of vulnerability are being transferred to the social groups that are the least
able to afford them.

The Revised Detailed Area Plan (DAP) 2022, 2035 of Bangladesh, released by RAJUK, is a
detailed official spatial planning document and remains the most complete planning document
for the DMR (RAJUK, 2022). Usually, DAP only identifies the flood hazard zones but also at
the same time prescribes land-use designations for the entire region. Having both the hazard
classification and the development zoning in one planning document allows the Planning Gap
Analysis, which is a methodical examination into whether the officially designated hazard areas
are simultaneously zoned for residential or development purposes, and therefore, constitute
climate adaptation failure that is institutionally embedded.

This paper plans to set three objectives to cover the above research questions. First (RQ1): What
percentage of the total area of low-income settlements is situated within the flood hazard zones
according to the official map of DMR? Second (RQ2): To what extent are the low-income
settlement clusters (58 in total) exposed to flood hazards and what types of flood severity
patterns can be identified? Third (RQ3): What is the percentage of short settlement areas affected
by floods that are also designated by the DAP 2022 and 2035 as residential or mixed-use,
through which a planning gap and maladaptation can be revealed? The findings will be directly
tied to SDG 11 (sustainable cities and communities) and SDG 13 (climate action) and also will
be consistent with the Sendai Framework's focus on risk-informed land-use planning as a major
component of disaster risk reduction (UNDRR, 2015; United Nations, 2015).

2. Literature Review

2.1 Urban flood vulnerability and Global South

Floor exposure and it’s impacts are inextricably linked to economic condition. Lower or middle
income countries, especially disadvantageous neighborhoods faces higher floor risk then the
better off ones(Kephart et al., 2025; Pala et al., 2025; Rentschler et al., 2022), with socio-
hydrological modelling emphasizing their disproportionately experienced loses, slower recovery
and reinforcing inequality(Amoako & Inkoom, 2018; Moulds et al., 2021). The unavailability of
affordable, legal land forces informal settlement to occupy marginal, environmentally fragile,
and flood-prone lands (Bhanye, 2025; Moulds et al., 2021; Williams et al., 2018), with studies
showing that residents of informal settlements are “compelled to live in the most unsafe
locations” and are consistently over-exposed to flooding(Anwana & Owojori, 2023; Bhanye,
2025; Williams et al., 2018). Furthermore, case studies from Dhaka show that one-third of the
city’s population lives in low-income settlements, with many on highly flood-prone land(Haque,
2021; Haque et al., 2020). Due to higher affordability built up area in flood prone areas and
coastal zones are experiencing rapid growth, especially in delta cities(Dulawan et al., 2024;
Tierolf et al., 2021). So, it is affordability constraints, not informed residential preference, that
systematically displace low-income populations toward floodplain margins.

2.2 Maladaptation theory

3. Methodology

3.1 Study Area

The study is situated within the Dhaka Metropolitan Region (DMR), defined by the planning
jurisdiction of RAJUK. The DMR covers an area of 1,528 square kilometres which extends
across the Bengal Delta between the Buriganga River and the Turag River and the Balu River
and the Shitalakshya River. The administrative boundaries of the region include the Dhaka North
City Corporation and the Dhaka South City Corporation and various nearby municipalities and
union parishads. The active floodplain of the area together with its extreme land elevation
differences creates conditions which make most DMR territory vulnerable to both seasonal
flooding and rapid floodwaters during the monsoon season (RAJUK, 2022). The DMR serves as
a vital research site for climate adaptation governance studies because it ranks as one of the most
densely populated areas in South Asia which suffers from flooding problems.

3.2 Data Sources

This study uses secondary geospatial datasets collected from official government sources.
RAJUK's planning documentation and the Dhaka City Corporation have all the datasets available
on public domain. No primary field data collection was done. Table 1 summarises the spatial
layers used in the analysis.
Table 1. Spatial Datasets Used in the Analysis

Layer Geometry Source Year Features

RAJUK / DAP Overlay

Flood Hazard Zones Polygon 2022 42,328
(Ov_Flood_Zone_rev)

Low-Income Settlements Polygon DAP 2022–2035 Affordable 2022 58

 Layer Geometry Source Year Features

Housing Dataset

DAP Proposed Land Use

Polygon RAJUK DAP 2022–2035 2022 254,847
Plan

Current Land Use Zoning Polygon RAJUK Lu Zoning Overlay 2022 488

Dhaka City Corporation

Ward Boundaries Polygon 2019 111
(DCC_New)

Source: Compiled by authors from RAJUK DAP 2022–2035 and Dhaka City Corporation datasets.

The flood hazard layer classifies the DMR into three hazard categories based on inundation
characteristics. General Flood Flow denotes areas subject to diffuse, low-velocity seasonal
flooding; General Flood Plain denotes areas of moderate inundation depth subject to regular
seasonal flooding; and Main Flood Flow denotes areas of concentrated, high-velocity flood
discharge, representing the highest hazard severity. This ascending risk ordering follows
RAJUK's own hazard framework as set out in the DAP 2022–2035 technical documentation. The
low-income settlement layer identifies 58 affordable housing clusters delineated as polygons
from the DAP's affordable housing component. The DAP Proposed Land Use Plan provides the
statutory zoning framework through 2035.

3.3 Analytical Framework

All spatial analysis was conducted in R (R Core Team, 2025) using the sf package (Pebesma,
2018), alongside dplyr for tabular processing and ggplot2 with ggspatial for cartographic output.
All layers were reprojected to UTM Zone 46N (EPSG:32646) for metric accuracy in area
calculations, and geometry validity was enforced using st_make_valid() to eliminate topological
errors.
The analysis proceeded in three sequential stages. In Stage 1 (RQ1), a spatial intersection was
computed between the 58 settlement polygons and the flood hazard layer to quantify overlapping
area in hectares, disaggregated by flood zone type. Stage 2 (RQ2) assigned each settlement a risk
category based on the percentage of its footprint within any flood zone: No Exposure (0%), Low
(<25%), Moderate (25–50%), High (50–75%), or Very High (>75%). Flood-exposed settlement
areas were then spatially joined to ward boundaries to identify administrative concentrations of
exposure. The study examined flood-exposed settlement areas through its third stage using the
DAP Proposed Land Use Plan to measure hazardous settlement land areas which had residential
or development zoning designations as the planning gap. The total area measurements were
depicted in hectares and compared to the complete settlement area of 386.2 hectares.

4. Results and Findings

4.1 Flood Hazard Exposure of Low-Income Settlements (RQ1)
The spatial analysis of 58 low-income settlement areas together with RAJUK flood hazard data
shows that 92.5 hectares of low-income settlement land exists within designated flood hazard
zones. The DMR area which extends over 386.2 hectares shows that 23.9 percent of its total
settlement area exists within flood hazard zones. The General Flood Plain designation includes
91.9 hectares which represents 99.3 percent of all flood-exposed settlement area based on the
different flood zone types. The General Flood Flow zone contains 0.51 hectares while the Main
Flood Flow zone which represents the highest danger level has 0.12 hectares. The two flood flow
corridor categories contain smaller areas because their active flood flow corridor status increases
the danger of floods which cause rapid water movement and soil erosion along with deeper water
flooding. The General Flood Plain area which represents intermediate flood risk shows that most
low-income settlements inside DMR reside there. The current exposure of settlements within the
General Flood Plain should be treated as a baseline which will worsen throughout time because
growing flood events will increase dangers to these settlements according to IPCC (2022) flood
hazard projections for South Asian delta cities across all emissions scenarios. Figure 1 illustrates
the spatial distribution of settlement clusters across the DMR in relation to the three flood hazard
zone classifications.
 Figure 1. Spatial distribution of low-income settlement clusters within officially designated flood hazard zones,
Dhaka Metropolitan Region. Red polygons denote settlement cluster boundaries. Data: RAJUK DAP 2022–2035.
Projection: UTM Zone 46N (EPSG:32646).

4.2 Spatial Pattern of Flood Risk Exposure (RQ2)

The risk distribution of 58 settlement clusters shows significant imbalance because their total
flood hazard zone footprint distribution results in markedly skewd risk levels. Table 2 shows
how five exposure categories distribute their respective elements. The majority of settlements —
41 clusters (70.7%) — record No Exposure. The 17 settlements with measurable exposure
(29.3%) show extreme distribution because seven settlements (12.1%) received Very High
exposure classification due to 64.5 hectares of their 75.1-hectare footprint in flood hazard zones
which resulted in more than 85% direct land area exposure for these settlements. The Very High
category alone accounts for 69.7% of total flood-exposed settlement land across the DMR,
demonstrating that hazard exposure is not distributed evenly but is concentrated in a small
number of high-vulnerability clusters.
Table 2. Distribution of Low-Income Settlements by Flood Risk Exposure Category

Settlements Settlements Exposed Area

Risk Category Total Area (ha)
(n) (%) (ha)

No Exposure 41 70.7 237.07 0.00

Low (< 25%) 5 8.6 18.50 1.52

Moderate (25–50%) 2 3.4 38.40 16.00

High (50–75%) 3 5.2 16.80 10.50

Very High (> 75%) 7 12.1 75.10 64.50

Total 58 100.0 386.17 92.52

Source: Authors' spatial analysis; data from RAJUK DAP 2022–2035.

Figure 2 displays spatial distribution patterns which show that Very High exposure settlements
experience their highest concentration in southern and peripheral areas of DMR which border
river corridors and floodplain margins that extend beyond the historical DCC administrative
boundary. This concentration reflects the well-documented dynamic in rapidly urbanising cities
of the Global South whereby land constraints and affordability pressures systematically displace
low-income populations toward hazard-prone peripheral locations (Satterthwaite et al., 2007).
Settlements classified as No Exposure or Low exposure are concentrated within the core DCC
area, where higher-elevation land has been more extensively developed and partially protected
through existing drainage infrastructure.
 Figure 2. Flood risk exposure level by low-income settlement cluster, Dhaka Metropolitan Region. Grey outlines
denote clusters with no flood zone overlap; red fill intensity indicates increasing exposure severity. Data: RAJUK
DAP 2022–2035. Projection: UTM Zone 46N (EPSG:32646).

4.3 Planning Gap Analysis (RQ3)

The DAP 2022–2035 Proposed Land Use Plan shows a significant planning deficiency which
exists between the 92.5-hectare flood-exposed settlement area and its spatial intersection with the
DAP 2022–2035 Proposed Land Use Plan. The DAP designates Mixed Use Zone
(Predominantly Residential) as the land use for 82.38 hectares which represents 89% of all flood-
exposed settlement land. The land area of Residential Zone spreads across 3.27 hectares which
represents 3.5% of the total area. The two residential designations together cover 85.65 hectares
which equals 92.6% of flood-exposed settlement area that the document designates as flood
hazard zones when it assigns residential zoning. The rest of the flood-exposed settlement area
gets designated as Heavy Industrial Zone which occupies 6.88 hectares or 7.4% of the total area.
Less than 1% of flood-exposed settlement land receives a DAP designation which implements
hazard mitigation through waterbody conservation agricultural buffering or designated open
space. The study shows that planning for new residential and mixed-use development will affect
all but one hectare of every ten hectares which dedicated to low-income settlement land within
flood hazard zones. Figure 3 presents the distribution of DAP land-use designations within the
flood-exposed settlement footprint.

Figure 3. Distribution of DAP 2022–2035 proposed land-use designations within flood-exposed low-income
settlement areas, Dhaka Metropolitan Region. Dark red bars indicate residential and mixed-use planning gap
zones; blue bar indicates non-residential zoning. Total flood-exposed settlement area: 92.5 ha. Data: RAJUK DAP
2022–2035.

Discussion

5.1 Maladaptation by Omission: The Planned Vulnerability Trap

Indeed, the results of this paper indicate quite directly the situation coined here as 'maladaptation
by omission'- a scenario where an organization possesses sufficient evidence to detect risk-prone
land-uses but it does not operationalize that knowledge to amend their policies, consequently,
making people vulnerable yet inexorably turning them into a resilient state. This idea finds
support in the concept of maladaptation put forth by Magnan et al. (2016) who view vulnerability
locking in through developmental decisions as a principal feature of maladaptive governance.
Besides, Barnett and O'Neill (2010) adaptation pathways highlight actions that shift the burden
disproportionately on the less fortunate. DAP 2022-2035 reflects the situation clearly as it really
has within its data system the hazard classification layer that was used in this study a layer
produced by RAJUK in the same planning cycle (RAJUK, 2022). The fact that 89% of flood-
prone low-income settlement land is allotted a residential or mixed-use zoning in the very
document that also identifies those areas as flood hazard zones cannot simply be explained as
ignorance of information. It rather implies that the organization has missed the opportunity of
using the pre-existing knowledge of spatial hazards for planning purposes that differentiate
between zones which failure, as according to the 13-year plan of the DAP, will keep on exposing
the climate risk to DMR's most vulnerable communities.

The current paper characterizes the above-described phenomenon as a 'planned vulnerability

trap': a state where the document that is meant to mitigate risk turns out to become the very
reason of risk continuation. If, through the DAP, residential use is allowed on the flood-hazard
land, then a legal warrant is given to the expansion of those settlements which are already most
susceptible to the floods, at the same time, other adaptive measures which include managed
retreat, the development of flood-resilient building codes based on the degree of hazard, or even
the land-use downzoning in the highest-risk corridors are also prohibited. The seven settlements
that are 'Very High exposure' and whose areas consist of more than 85% flood hazard zones are
potentially the ones that are most locked in to this trap: that is to say, an uninterrupted residential
zoning under the DAP signifies that no planning step could be taken to halt or reverse the
densification of hazard-exposed areas, and legalization of ongoing occupation and development
of those areas through 2035 will continue occurring.

5.2 Relating the Findings to the Climate Adaptation Literature

The trend highlighted in our research is a case of how climate change adaptation governance can
fail in the rapidly urbanizing cities of South Asia. In fact the IPCC (2022) report states that urban
adaptation in low and middle-income countries is very often inadequate and it particularly
highlights the role of institutional barriers. For instance, the failure to incorporate climate risks in
official plans is one of the major factors delaying the implementation of adaptation measures.
Dhaka gets a special mention here because DAP 2022, 2035 is a modified plan that incorporates
the latest GIS-based hazard data, including flood risk zones that have been also used in this
study. Consequently, the continued development of housing in areas that are officially designated
as flood-hazard zones can hardly be considered a case of lack of data. Rather, it is a perfect
example that reflects the governance failure model put forward by Magnan et al. (2016): a
scenario where indeed the planning institutions making the decisions have the potential to use
hazard information but no effective difference in policy outcome is made, leading to
vulnerabilities staying intact throughout the plan's implementation.
The extent of the planning neglect that our study has uncovered is also significant for the long
term development of climate risk in the DMR. Flood hazard is expected to increase in South
Asian delta cities under all emissions scenarios as per IPCC (2022). Turning flood-hazard land
into a residential development zone is a guaranteed way to expand the population and asset base
that will be adversely affected by such flood hazards. The 92.5 hectares of flood-exposed
settlement land still designated for residential development is not merely a planning error at the
present time. Actually, it is a continuing process of accumulating future risk: each new home that
receives DAP approval in these areas adds to the exposure base that is irreversible. This exposure
base is what subsequent adaptation efforts will have to deal with, and these efforts are likely to
be not only more expensive but also politically more difficult than the preventive zoning actions.

5.3 Policy Recommendations: Towards Climate-Adaptive Land Use Governance

Bangladesh considers the findings from this study to be greatly supportive of the country's
agenda for achieving Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 11 (Target 11.1: adequate, safe, and
affordable housing for all) and SDG 13 (climate action), in addition to Sendai Framework's
Priority 4 for enhanced preparedness for effective response (UNDRR, 2015). Leaving No One
Behind (LNOB) principle, a key component of the SDGs, mandates prioritization of the most
deprived urban dwellers in climate-adaptive planning (United Nations, 2015). The following
three specific policy recommendations emerge from this study:

1. RAJUK should initiate a hazard-zoning reconciliation process through DAP immediately and
complete it by the end of the first quarter of 2020. This means that a thorough check and change
of classification of all properties within the flood hazard area will be carried out to other land
uses such as ecological conservation, flood storage, or agricultural buffering that are consistent
with their hazard status. Not only the predominantly residential areas should be considered in
this reconciliation, but the 6.88 hectares of flood-hazard land that are Heavy Industrial zoned,
which could pose occupational and environmental risk besides residential flood exposure.
However, the most critical thing is that this reclassification does not indicate the people being
removed from these areas but will cease the further concentration of highly hazardous areas by
the approval of new constructions and will be a clear institutional commitment to risk-sensitive
planning.

2. Flood-risk impact assessment must be included as one of the documents that developers
submit for any development approvals in the General Flood Plain or Main Flood Flow areas as
per Bangladesh Government's policy. Making such an impact assessment mandatory before the
development approval process is a method of introducing risk-sensitivity and aligning it with the
planning components of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR, 2015).
3. RAJUK together with Dhaka City Corporations should plan and implement a community-
participated, flood-resilient housing upgrading scheme for the residents living in the Very High
exposure zones of the seven settlement clusters where more than 85% of the settlement footprints
are located within flood-hazard areas. This intervention should take community feedback into
account, seek funding from climate adaptation donors, and fully operationalize Leave No One
Behind principle of SDG 11 and SDG 13 (United Nations, 2015).

Making sure that such adaptation measures do not cause forced eviction or marginalization of
poor residents will be one of their objectives.

6. Conclusion

This study analyses 58 clusters of low-income settlements using official map data of flood
hazard zones in Dhaka Metropolitan Region (DMR) through geospatial overlay in R with the aim
to identify housing flood risk periods and perform a planning gap analysis against the DAP
2022-2035. In fact, the paper disclosed that an astonishing 23.9% (92.5 hectares) of the low-
income settlement land is situated within flood hazard zones according to the official designation
where 91.9 hectares are found in the general flood plain and only 1 hectare is located in a
[Link] settlements together occupy 69.7% of the total flood-exposed land in the region,
and each of the settlements have more than 85% of their total footprints flooded simultaneously.
Most significantly, 89% (82.38 hectares) of this flood-exposed settlement land is still designated
under the statutory plan for Mixed Use (Predominantly Residential) development, thereby
revealing a major, clear and measurable planning gap, which has been institutionally embedded.

Empirical evidence is the paper's major strength. The paper was written solely on government
data, disclosing that the main statutory planning instrument of the DMR is actually
institutionalising flood risk for the low-income segment instead of alleviating it. By applying the
maladaptation frameworks of Barnett and O'Neill (2010) and Magnan et al. (2016) to these
findings, the paper demonstrates the relationship between the climate hazard and the spatial
planning outcomes. The paper describes this as one type of maladaptation, i.e. maladaptation by
omission, as the hazard information are still within the plan data system, but has not been turned
into hazard-differentiated zoning outcomes. As such, a planned vulnerability trap is formed
whereby the legal development framework not only formalises but also deeply embeds the
climate-induced flood exposure of the most marginalised communities in the DMR at a time
when the resilience to South Asian flood hazard under climate change is causing such
institutionalised exposure to dangerously increase.
We offer hazard progressive zoning, making flood-risk impact assessments mandatory through
planning, and participatory flood-resilient housing programs as central policy interventions
which not only satisfy the principle of "Leave No One Behind" under SDGs 11 and 13 but also
are in line with Sendai Framework's Priority 4. The implementation of these policies will still
require institutional coordination among RAJUK, the Dhaka City Corporations, and the Ministry
of Housing and Public Works. Besides, these institutions might be impressed by the technical
and financial assistance extended by the development partners involved in the climate adaptation
of Bangladesh.

The main drawback of the study is that it is almost entirely based on polygon-level spatial
analysis, and therefore, the lack of any field validation can lead to boundary accuracy issues
when calculating intersections. In addition, the study has also ignored the socioeconomic
vulnerability factors such as household income, tenure security or even access to early warning
systems which are all very crucial aspects of a good climate risk [Link] one side, future
research should be able to make use of detailed building-level exposure data, field-verified
settlement delineations, and multi-dimensional vulnerability indices. Apart from that, a
longitudinal study tracking the changes in planning-hazard misalignment through the successive
revisions of the DAP can show the instances when maladaptive planning frameworks after
climate change are amended.

Amoako, C., & Inkoom, D. K. B. (2018). The production of flood vulnerability in Accra, Ghana:

Re-thinking flooding and informal urbanisation. Urban Studies, 55(13), 2903–2922.

[Link]

Anwana, E. O., & Owojori, O. M. (2023). Analysis of Flooding Vulnerability in Informal

Settlements Literature: Mapping and Research Agenda. Social Sciences, 12(1).

[Link]

Bhanye, J. (2025). A review study on community-based flood adaptation in informal settlements

in the Global South. Discover Sustainability, 6(1), 595. [Link]

025-01449-6
Dulawan, J. M. T., Imamura, Y., Amaguchi, H., & Ohara, M. (2024). Social Drivers of Flood

Vulnerability: Understanding Household Perspectives and Persistence of Living in Flood

Zones of Metro Manila, Philippines. Water, 16(6). [Link]

Haque, A. N. (2021). Climate risk responses and the urban poor in the global South: The case of

Dhaka’s flood risk in the low-income settlements. International Journal of Disaster Risk

Reduction, 64, 102534. [Link]

Haque, A. N., Bithell, M., & Richards, K. S. (2020). Adaptation to flooding in low-income urban

settlements in the least developed countries: A systems approach. The Geographical

Journal, 186(3), 314–326. [Link]

Kephart, J. L., Bilal, U., Gouveia, N., Sarmiento, O. L., Shingara, E., Rangel Moreno, K.,

Bakhtsiyarava, M., Rodriguez, J. P., Ayala, S., Carrasco-Escobar, G., & Diez Roux, A.

V. (2025). Social disparities in neighborhood flood exposure in 44,698 urban

neighborhoods in Latin America. Nature Cities, 2(3), 246–253.

[Link]

Moulds, S., Buytaert, W., Templeton, M. R., & Kanu, I. (2021). Modeling the Impacts of Urban

Flood Risk Management on Social Inequality. Water Resources Research, 57(6),

e2020WR029024. [Link]

Pala, O. N., Daloglu Cetinkaya, I., & Yazar, M. (2025). Urban Flood Exposure and

Vulnerability: Insights From Pendik District of Istanbul. Journal of Flood Risk

Management, 18(1), e70000. [Link]

Rentschler, J., Salhab, M., & Jafino, B. A. (2022). Flood exposure and poverty in 188 countries.

Nature Communications, 13(1), 3527. [Link]

Tierolf, L., de Moel, H., & van Vliet, J. (2021). Modeling urban development and its exposure to

river flood risk in Southeast Asia. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 87,

101620. [Link]

Williams, D. S., Costa, M. M., Celliers, L., & Sutherland, C. (2018). Informal Settlements and

Flooding: Identifying Strengths and Weaknesses in Local Governance for Water

Management. Water, 10(7). [Link]