Triggering hazards and vulnerability in disasters

Year 2022, Issue: 47, 280 - 299, 30.09.2022

Bekir Taştan Arif Çağdaş Aydınoğlu

https://doi.org/10.32003/igge.1124921

Abstract

Disaster hazards are events caused by man and nature. These hazards either occur as a single event or develop sequentially and trigger each other. When disaster hazards trigger each other, the relationships between the hazards become more complicated, and the direction and magnitude of the hazard change. While it is very difficult to study single disaster hazards scientifically, this difficulty becomes even greater with multiple hazards. This study was conducted to shed light on the complex conceptual structure of triggering hazards and vulnerability in disasters. In this study the relationships among multiple hazards; event trees, interaction matrices, and probabilistic models, which are among the methods used to evaluate the triggering hazards, are presented. In this way, hazard and vulnerability analyses, which are the two important steps in disaster risk management studies, were explained in the framework of triggering hazards.

Keywords

Disaster, triggering disaster hazard, vulnerability, risk management

Afetlerde tetikleyen tehlikeler ve zarar görebilirlik

Abstract

Afet tehlikesi, afetlere neden olan insan ve doğa kaynaklı olaylardır. Afet tehlikeleri ya bir tek olay olarak ortaya çıkar ya da birbirini tetikleyerek peşi sıra gelişir. Afet tehlikeleri birbirini tetiklerse tehlikeler arası ilişkiler karmaşıklaşmakta, zarar görebilirliğin yönü ve boyutu değişmektedir. Tekli afet tehlikelerini bilimsel olarak incelemek oldukça zor iken, çoklu tehlikelerde bu zorluk daha da artmaktadır. Bu çalışma, afetlerde tetikleyen tehlikelerin ve zarar görebilirliğin karmaşık kavramsal yapısını aydınlatabilmek amacıyla gerçekleştirilmiştir. Çalışmada çoklu tehlike ilişkilerinin gösterimi yapılmış; tetikleyen tehlikeleri değerlendirme yöntemlerinden olay ağaçları, etkileşim matrisleri ve olasılıksal modeller tanıtılmıştır. Böylelikle afet risk yönetimi çalışmalarının önemli iki basamağını oluşturan tehlike ve zarar görebilirlik incelemesi tetikleyen tehlikeler kapsamında yapılmıştır.

Keywords

Afet, birbirini tetikleyen afet tehlikesi, zarar görebilirlik, risk

References

• AON. (2021). Catastrophe management & analytics. Weather climate catastrophe insight. 2020 Annual Report. 20 Ekim 2021 tarihinde, https://www.aon.com/global-weather-catastrophe-natural-disasters-costs-climate- change-2020-annual-report/index.html, adresinden edinilmiştir.
• Bahadır, H., & Uçku, R. (2018). Uluslararası acil durum veri tabanına göre Türkiye Cumhuriyeti tarihindeki afetler. Doğal Afetler ve Çevre Dergisi, 4(1), 28–33.
• Birkmann, J. (2006). Indicators and criteria for measuring vulnerability: Theoretical bases and requirements. Measuring vulnerability to natural hazards: Towards Disaster Resilient Societies, 55–77.
• Birkmann, J. (2007). Risk and vulnerability indicators at different scales:. Applicability, usefulness and policy implications. Environmental Hazards, 7(1), 20–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envhaz.2007.04.002
• Cannon, T., Davis, I., & Wisner, B. (2003). At risk: Natural hazards, people’s vulnerability and disasters. Taylor & Francis.
• Cardona, O. D., Van Aalst, M. K., Birkmann, J., Fordham, M., Mc Gregor, G., Rosa, P., Pulwarty, R. S., Schipper, E. L. F., Sinh, B. T., & Décamps, H. (2012). Determinants of risk: Exposure and vulnerability. In Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation: Special report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change (pp. 65–108). Cambridge University Press.
• Carpignano, A., Golia, E., Di Mauro, C., Bouchon, S., & Nordvik, J. P. (2009). A methodological approach for the definition of multi-risk maps at regional level: First application. Journal of Risk Research, 12(3–4), 513–534. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669870903050269
• Coppola, D. P. (2011). Introduction to International Disaster Management. In Introduction to International Disaster Management. Elsevier. UK. https://doi.org/10.1016/C2009-0-64027-7
• Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters-CRED. (2021). Disaster Year in Review 2020 Global Trends and Perspectives Report. Issue No. 62, 20 Ekim 2021 tarihinde, https://reliefweb.int/report/world/cred-crunch- newsletter-issue-no-62-may-2021-disaster-year-review-2020-global-trends-and, adresinden edinilmiştir.
• Cutter, S. L. (2018). Compound, cascading, or complex disasters: What’s in a name? Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 60(6), 16–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/00139157.2018.1517518
• Cutter, S. L., Boruff, B. J., & Shirley, W. L. (2003). Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Social Science Quarterly, 84(2), 242–261. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6237.8402002
• De Pippo, T., Donadio, C., Pennetta, M., Petrosino, C., Terlizzi, F., & Valente, A. (2008). Coastal hazard assessment and mapping in Northern Campania, Italy. Geomorphology, 97(3–4), 451–466.
• Delmonaco, G., Margottini, C., & Spizzichino, D. (2006). ARMONIA methodology for multi-risk assessment and the harmonisation of different natural risk maps. Deliverable 3.1.1. ARMONIA EU Project.
• Demir, A., Kemeç, S., & İlke, F. D. (2022). Afet riski değerlendirmelerinde çoklu tehlike analizi ‘Erciş, Van Örneği.’ Resilience, 6(1), 15–38.
• Dickson, E., Baker, J. L., Hoornweg, D., & Asmita, T. (2012). Urban risk assessments. The World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-0-8213-8962-1
• Dökmeci, A. H., & Akduman, Ö. (2022). Doğal olayların tetiklediği KBRN-p tehlikesi ve riski: Türkiye örneği. Doğal Afetler ve Çevre Dergisi, 8(1), 165–177.
• Eidsvig, U., McLean, A., Vangelsten, B. V, & Kalsnes, B. (2011). Socio-economic vulnerability to natural hazards– proposal for an indicator-based model. Geotechnical Safety and Risk. ISGSR 2011, 141–148.
• Erdik, M. (2000). Report on 1999 Kocaeli and Düzce (Turkey) earthquakes. Boğaziçi Üniversitesi, Kandilli Rasathanesi ve Deprem Araştırma Enstitüsü.
• European Commission. (2007). Assessing and mapping multiple risks for spatial planning; approaches, methodologies and tools in Europe. ARMONIA Project, 15 Ekim 2021 tarihinde, https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/511208, adresinden edinilmiştir.
• Gill, J. C., & Malamud, B. D. (2016). Hazard interactions and interaction networks (cascades) within multi-hazard methodologies. Earth System Dynamics, 7(3), 659.
• Granger, K., Jones, T. G., Leiba, M., & Scott, G. (1999). Community risk in Cairns: a multi-hazard risk assessment. Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 14(2), 25–26.
• Guillard-Gonçalves, C., & Zêzere, J. L. (2018). Combining social vulnerability and physical vulnerability to analyse landslide risk at the municipal scale. Geosciences, 8(8), 294.
• He, Z., & Weng, W. (2020). Synergic effects in the assessment of multi-hazard coupling disasters: Fires, explosions, and toxicant leaks. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 388, 121813. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.121813
• Hewitt, K., & Burton, I. (1971). The hazardousness of a place: a regional ecology of damaging events. University of Toronto, Department of Geography research publication.
• International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies-IFRC. (2020). World disaster report 2020.
• İlerisoy, Z., Gökşen, F., Soyluk, A., & Takva, Y. (2022). Deprem kaynaklı ikincil afetler ve Türkiye örneklemi. Online Journal of Art and Design (OJAD), 10(2).
• Julià, P. B., & Ferreira, T. M. (2021). From single-to multi-hazard vulnerability and risk in historic urban areas: A literature review. Natural Hazards, 108(1), 93–128.
• Kappes, M. S, Papathoma-Köhle, M., & Keiler, M. (2012a). Assessing physical vulnerability for multi-hazards using an indicator-based methodology. Applied Geography, 32(2), 577–590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2011.07.002
• Kappes, M. S., Keiler, M., von Elverfeldt, K., & Glade, T. (2012b). Challenges of analyzing multi-hazard risk: A review. In Natural Hazards, 64(2), 1925–1958. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-012-0294-2
• Kappes, M. S. (2011). Multi-hazard risk analyses: a concept and its implementation. PhD thesis. University of Vienna.
• Komendantova, N., Mrzyglocki, R., Mignan, A., Khazai, B., Wenzel, F., Patt, A., & Fleming, K. (2013). New Multi-Hazard and Multi-Risk Assessment Methods for Europe. MATRIX results II and Reference Report. MATRIX Consortium.
• Marzocchi, W., Garcia-Aristizabal, A., Gasparini, P.,Mastellone, M. L. & Ruocco, A. Di. (2012). Basic principles of multi-risk assessment: A case study in Italy. Natural Hazards, 62(2), 551–573. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-012- 0092-x
• Matanle, P. (2011). The Great East Japan Earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear meltdown: towards the (re) construction of a safe, sustainable, and compassionate society in Japan’s shrinking regions. Local Environment, 16(9), 823–847.
• McEntire, D. A. (2001). Triggering agents, vulnerabilities and disaster reduction: towards a holistic paradigm. Disaster Prevention and Management, 10(3), 189–196.
• Öncü, S. (2021). CBS yöntemiyle Bursa’nın bütünleşik doğal tehlike analizi. Yüksek lisans tezi. Uludağ Üniversitesi. Bursa
• Pelling, M. (2012). The vulnerability of cities: natural disasters and social resilience. Routledge.
• Pescaroli, G., & Alexander, D. (2015). A definition of cascading disasters and cascading effects: Going beyond the “toppling dominos” metaphor. Planet@ Risk, 3(1), 58–67.
• Ritchie, H. & Hoser, M. (2020). Natural Disasters, 15 Ekim 2021 tarihinde, https://ourworldindata.org/natural- disasters, adresinden edinilmiştir.
• Schmidt, J., Matcham, I., Reese, S., King, A., Bell, R., Henderson, R., Smart, G., Cousins, J., Smith, W., & Heron, D. (2011). Quantitative multi-risk analysis for natural hazards: A framework for multi-risk modelling. Natural Hazards, 58(3), 1169–1192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-011-9721-z
• Soyhan, M. C. (2020). Çoklu afet risk yönetimi ile oluşan tehlike & zararın belirlenmesine yönelik gereksinim analizi ve Akyazı özelinde modelleme. Yüksek lisans tezi. Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü. Sakarya Üniversitesi.
• Şengün, H. & Temiz, A. (2007). Afet yönetimi ve Karabük. TMMOB Afet Sempozyumu, 261–278.
• Tang, P., Xia, Q., & Wang, Y. (2019). Addressing cascading effects of earthquakes in urban areas from network perspective to improve disaster mitigation. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 35, 101065.
• Taştan, B., & Aydınoğlu, A. Ç. (2015). Çoklu afet risk yönetiminde tehlike ve zarar görebilirlik belirlenmesi için gereksinim analizi. Marmara Coğrafya Dergisi, 31, 366–397.
• TC. Sağlık Bakanlığı. (2022). Günlük COVID-19 tablosu, 09 Mayıs 2022 tarihinde, https://covid19.saglik.gov.tr, adresinden edinilmiştir.
• Tilloy, A., Malamud, B. D., Winter, H., & Joly-Laugel, A. (2019). A review of quantification methodologies for multi- hazard interrelationships. Earth-Science Reviews, 196, 102881. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2019.102881
• UNISDR. (2009). 2009 UNISDR Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction. International Stratergy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR), 09 Mayıs 2022 tarihinde, https://www.undrr.org/publication/2009-unisdr-terminology- disaster-risk-reduction, adresinden edinilmiştir.
• Url-1: Caribbean handbook on risk information management. Methodology book. Methods for risk assessment,
• 29 Mayıs 2021 tarihinde, http://www.charim.net/methodology/55, adresinden edinilmiştir.
• Url-2: Event trees, 29 Mayıs 2021 tarihinde, https://www.usbr.gov/ssle/damsafety/risk/BestPractices/Chapters/A5-EventTrees.pdf, adresinden edinilmiştir.
• Url-3: Understanding disaster risk. 15 Ekim 2021 tarihinde, https://www.preventionweb.net/understanding- disaster-risk/component-risk / vulnerability#:~:text=Vulnerability % 20is % 20the % 20human % 20dimension,environment % 20that % 20they % 20live%20in, adresinden edinilmiştir.
• Url-4: Tracking vulnerability indicators in Vermont, 13 Şubat 2022 tarihinde, https: // www.healthvermont.gov / tracking / vulnerability-indicators, adresinden edinilmiştir.
• Uzer, E., & Gülersoy, N. Z. (2011). Kentsel kültür mirası için risk analizi, Büyükada örneği. İTÜ Dergisi/A, 10(1).
• Van Westen, C. J., & Greiving, S. (2017). Multi-hazard risk assessment and decision making. In N. R. Dalezios (Ed.), Environmental hazards methodologies for risk assessment and management (pp. 31–94). IWA Publishing. https://doi.org/10.2166/9781780407135_0031
• Van Westen, C. J., Alkema, D., Damen, M. C. J., Kerle, N., & Kingma, N. C. (2011a). Multi-hazard risk assessment: Distance education course. United Nations University–ITC School on Disaster Geo-Information Management (UNU-ITC DGIM).
• Van Westen, C. J., Alkema, D., Damen, M. C. J., Kerle, N., & Kingma, N. C. (2011b). Multi-hazard risk assessment. United Nations University–ITC School on Disaster Geoinformation Management.
• WHO. (2022). WHO Coronavirus (COVID-19) Dashboard, 09 Mayıs 2022 tarihinde, https://covid19.who.int, adresinden edinilmiştir.
• Woodruff, S., Vitro, K. A., & BenDor, T. K. (2017). GIS and Coastal Vulnerability to Climate Change. Comprehensive Geographic Information Systems, 3, 236–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-409548-9.09655-X
• Yeh, H., Sato, S., & Tajima, Y. (2013). The 11 March 2011 East Japan earthquake and tsunami: Tsunami effects on coastal infrastructure and buildings. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 170(6–8), 1019–1031.