Deprem Bilinci ve Kentsel Planlama İlişkisine Yönelik Farkındalığının Belirlenmesi: Tekirdağ/Süleymanpaşa İlçesi Örneği

Abstract

Çalışmada, Tekirdağ İli Süleymanpaşa İlçesinde deprem bilinci ile kentsel planlama arasındaki ilişkinin toplum tarafından nasıl algılandığı incelenmiştir. Bu amaçla anket yöntemi çerçevesinde, Tekirdağ İli Süleymanpaşa İlçesi’nde yaşayan 363 kişinin deprem bilincine (bilgi, tutum) yönelik eğilimi ile kentsel planlama süreçlerinin deprem odaklı yaklaşımla ilişkilendirilmesine yönelik genel farkındalıklarının (tutum ve davranışlarının) değerlendirilmesi hedeflenmiştir. Bulgular; tanımlayıcı istatistikler ile faktör analizi ve hiyerarşik kümeleme analizi çerçevesinde analiz edilmiştir. Elde edilen sonuçlar; kentsel planlama politikalarının ve afet risk azaltma stratejilerinin toplum bilinci ile uyumlu şekilde geliştirilmesine katkı sağlayacaktır.

Keywords

• Deprem
• Kentsel planlamada deprem yaklaşımı
• Tekirdağ/Süleymanpaşa

Determining Awareness of the Relationship Between Earthquake Awareness and Urban Planning: The Example of Tekirdag/Süleymanpasa District

Abstract

In this study, how the relationship between earthquake awareness and urban planning is perceived by the society in Süleymanpaşa District of Tekirdağ Province was examined. For this purpose, the survey aimed to evaluate the attitudes of 363 Süleymanpaşa residents towards earthquake awareness and their general awareness of the association between urban planning processes and an earthquake-focused approach. The findings were analysed using descriptive statistics, factor analysis and hierarchical cluster analysis. These results will inform the development of urban planning policies and disaster risk reduction strategies that align with public awareness.

Keywords

• Earthquake
• Earthquake approach in urban planning
• Tekirdag/Süleymanpasa

References

1. AFAD (2014). Türkiye, Afet Farkındalığı ve Afetlere Hazırlık Araştırması. Erişim adresi: https://www.afad.gov.tr/kurumlar/afad.gov.tr/3923/xfiles/turkiye-afet-farkindaligi-ve-afetlere-hazirlik-arastirmasi_-2014-edited.pdf
2. Aitsi-Selmi A., Egawa S., Sasaki H., Wannous C., Murray, V. (2015). The sendai framework for disaster risk reduction: renewing the global commitment to people’s resilience, health and well-being. International Journal Disaster Risk Sci, 6, 164–176.
3. Akay, A. (2021). Belediyeler için afetlere dirençli kentler rehberi. T.C. Cumhurbaşkanlığı Yerel Yönetim Politikaları Kurulu, Kent Araştırmaları Enstitüsü. Ankara.
4. Alikaei S., Bakhtiar Nasrabadi A. (2025). Towards A Resilient Urban Future: Implementing Risk-Sensitive Physical Urban Planning İn Tehran’s Earthquake-Prone District 10 Based on Scenario Building Technique. International Journal of Environmental Research 19, 236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41742-025-00873-w.
5. Anonim (2011). Ulusal Deprem Stratejisi ve Eylem Planı 2012-2023. Başbakanlık Afet ve Acil Durum Yönetimi Başkanlığı, Resmî Gazete (Sayı: 28029). Erişim adresi: https://deprem.afad.gov.tr/downloadDocument?id=1643.
6. Anonim (2014). Afete dirençli şehir planlama ve yapılaşma. İstanbul Valiliği, İstanbul Proje Koordinasyon Birimi (İPKB), (İSMEP).
7. Anonim (2018). On Birinci Kalkınma Planı 2019-2023. T.C. Cumhurbaşkanlığı Strateji ve Bütçe Başkanlığı, Erişim adresi: https://www.sbb.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/ 2022/07/ On_Birinci_Kalkinma_Plani-2019-2023.pdf.
8. Ao, Y., Zhang, H., Yang, L., Wang, Y., Martek, I., Wang, G. (2021). Impacts of earthquake knowledge and risk perception on earthquake preparedness of rural residents. Natural Hazards, 107, 1287–1310.

9. Bansal BK., Verma M., Gupta AK., Prasath RA. (2022). On mitigation of earthquake and landslide hazards in the Eastern Himalayan Region. Naturel Hazards, 114(2),1079–1102.
10. Becker, J.S., Paton, D., Johnston, D.M., Ronan, K.R. (2012). A model of household preparedness for earthquakes: how ındividuals make meaning of earthquake ınformation and how this ınfluences preparedness. Natural Hazards, 64, 107–137.
11. Bhuiya, M.M.R., Shao, W. (2022). Perceptions of earthquake risks and knowledge about earthquake response among movement challenged persons in Dhaka city of Bangladesh. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduc., 70, 102743, https://doi.org/ 10.1016/ j. ijdrr.2021.102743.
12. Çapar, H., Yelboğa, N. (2025). The ımpact of earthquake anxiety on quality of life: The case of Türkiye. Discover Public Health, 22,3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12982-025-00390-
13. Ciampi, P., Giannini, L.M., Hedayat S., Ziariati T., Mugnozza, G.S. (2024). Iran’s seismic puzzle: bridging gaps in earthquake emergency planning and public awareness for risk reduction. Italian Journal of Engineering Geology and Environment, 1(2024), 5-15.
14. Costello, A., Osborne, J. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Pract. Assess. Res. Eval., 10,7. https://doi.org/10.7275/jyj1-4868
15. Dölek, İ. (2024). Afetler ve afet yönetimi. 6. Baskı, PEGEM Akademi Yayınları, Ankara, s.207.
16. Emre, Ö., Duman, TY., Özalp, S., Elmacı, H., Olgun, Ş., Şaroğlu, F. (2013). Açıklamalı Türkiye diri fay haritası. Ölçek 1:1.250.000. Maden Tetkik ve Arama Genel Müdürlüğü, Özel Yayın Serisi-30. Ankara.
17. Fuady, M., Buraida, Kevin, MA., Farrel, MR., Triaputri, A. (2025). Enhancing urban resilience: opportunities and challenges in adapting to natural disasters in Indonesian Cities. Sustainability, 17(4), 1632.
18. Gafoor, KA. (2012). Considerations in the Measurement of Awareness. National Seminar on Emerging trends in education. Erişim adresi: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED545374.pdf.
19. Ghalehteimouri, KJ. (2024). Evaluate the capacity of japanese spatial planning system for hazards ıntegration realities and (f)acts: a pre-post the Great East Japan Earthquake In Fukushima 2011. Safety in Extreme Environments, 6, 201–218.
20. Godschalk, D. R. (2003). Urban hazard mitigation: Creating resilient cities. Natural Hazards Review, 4(3), 136–143.
21. Granato, D., Santos, JS., Escher, GB., Ferreira, BL., Maggio, RM. (2018). Use of principal component analysis (PCA) And hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA) for multivariate association between bioactivecompounds and functional properties in foods: a critical perspective. Trends in Food Science & Technology 72,83–90.
22. Jenkins, A., Rust A., Biggs J. (2024). The relationship between large earthquakes and volcanic eruptions: a global statistical study. Volcanica, 7(1),165–179.
23. Kaur N., Haloi R., Ingle NA. (2014). KAP surveys and oral health: a detailed review. Journal of Contemporary Dentistry, 4(2), 99–105.
24. Kodag, S., Man, SK., Balamurugan, G., Bera, S. (2022). Earthquake and flood resilience through spatial planning in the complex urban system, progress in disaster science. 14. 100219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pdisas.2022.100219.
25. Kinanthi, R., Wikan, P.A., Nurmaya, A., Fitrianingrum, M.E. (2024). Knowledge about earthquake evacuation: A survey to high-rise buildings employee in Jakarta. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1314(1), No. 012001, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1314/1/01200.
26. Kwikima, MM., Daud, EK. (2025). Integrated assessment of hospital and community disaster preparedness in Dodoma Municipality, Tanzania: bridging gaps in awareness and resilience. Discover Environment, 17(3), https://doi.org/10.1007/s44274-025-00201-1.
27. Lin, BC., Lee CH. (2024). Assessing the efficacy of adaptive capacity-building strategies in earthquake-prone communities. Geomatics Naturel Hazards Risk., 15(1), https://doi.org/10.1080/19475705.2024.2380908.
28. Lindell, M. K., Perry, R. W. (2012). The protective action decision model: theoretical modifications and additional evidence. Risk Analysis, 32(4), 616–632.
29. Mattjik, AA., Sumertajaya IM. (2011). Sidik peubah ganda dengan Menggunakan SAS. IPB Press, Bogor.
30. Mitchell, D., Grant, D., Roberge, D., Bhatta, G.P., Caceres, C. (2017). An evaluation framework for earthquake-responsive land administration. Land Use Policy, 67 (Sep), 239–252.
31. Mutianingsih, M., Panjaitan, R.U. (2020). Relationship between psychological preparedness and anxiety among elderly in earthquake prone areas. Enfermería Clínica, 30(3),45-48.
32. Noy, I., Dupont, W. (2015). The long-term consequences of natural disasters—a summary of the literature. Victoria University of Wellington, School of Economics and Finance. 2015. Erişim adresi: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-long-term-consequences-of-natural-disasters-
33. Okada, T., Terada, M. (2010). Earthquake risk reduction and sustainable urban planning: Lessons from Japan. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 1(2), 194–207.
34. Özyetgin Altun, A. (2023). Dirençli toplum yaklaşımında “bilinç” olgusu ve kent planlama ile ilişkisi. Dirençlilik Dergisi, 7(1), 93-110.
35. Parizi, SM., Taleai M., Sharifi A. (2024). A spatial evaluation framework of urban physical resilience considering different phases of disaster risk management. Natural Hazards, 120, 13041–13076.
36. Paul, BK., Bhuiyan, RH. (2010). Urban earthquake hazard: perceived seismic risk and preparedness in Dhaka City, Bangladesh. Disasters, 34(2), 337–59.
37. Prati, G., Pietrantoni, L. (2011). The relation of perceived and objective earthquake risk with coping self-efficacy. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31(4), 412–418.
38. Rahman, MM., Barua, U., Khatun, F., Islam, I., Rafiq, R. (2018). Participatory vulnerability reduction (PVR): an urban community-based approach for earthquake management. Naturel Hazard, 93(3),1479–1505.
39. Rousseeuw, PJ. (1987). Silhouettes: A graphical aid to the ınterpretation and validation of cluster analysis. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 20,53–65.
40. Saunders, W. S. A., Becker, J. S. (2015). A discussion of resilience and sustainability: Land use planning recovery from the Canterbury earthquakes. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 14, 73–81.
41. Shrestha, N. (2021). Factor Analysis As a Tool for Survey Analysis. American Journal of Applied Mathematics and Statistics, 9(1), 4-11.
42. Süleymanpaşa Belediyesi (2025). Süleymanpaşa nüfusu. Erişim adresi: https://www.suleymanpasa. bel.tr/ suleymanpasa-nufusu.
43. Tabibian, M., Mozafari, N. (2018). Assessment of the vulnerability of residential areas to earthquake disasters and its planning guidelines (Case Study: District Number 6, Tehran Municipality). Motaleate Shahri, 7(27), 93–112.
44. Taghizadeh, K., Noorzai, E., Zaman, Z., Amiri, M., Samaee, Rahnee N. (2021). Identifying the most ımportant rework factors in building projects and providing a solution to reduce their effects. Journal of the Institution of Engineers (India): Seri A 102, 1027–1043.
45. Tian, L., Yao, P., Jiang, S.J. (2014) Perception of earthquake risk: a study of the earthquake insurance pilot area in China. Nat Hazards, 74(3),1595–1611.
46. TMMOB (2023). Afet riski azaltma ve dirençlilik artırma ön teknik raporu peyzaj planlama ve tasarım ile afet riski azaltma ve dirençlilik artırma. TMMOB Peyzaj Mimarları Odası, Ankara. Erişim adresi: https://api2.peyzajmimoda.org.tr/ uploads/portal/resimler/ekler/ 524f443bec59efd_ek.pdf.
47. Turan Bayraktar, D., Kefeli Çol, B., Gümüşler Başaran, A., Genç Köse, B. (2024). Earthquake knowledge level and sustainable earthquake awareness of university students. Natural Hazards, 120, 10001–10011.
48. UNDRR (2015). Global assessment report on disaster risk reduction: making development sustainable. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, United Nations.
49. UN-Habitat. (2020). World cities report 2020: the value of sustainable urbanization, United Nations Human Settlements Programme.
50. Yıldız, S. (2017). Sosyal bilimlerde örnekleme sorunu: nicel ve nitel paradigmalardan örnekleme kuramına bütüncül bir bakış. Kesit Akademi Dergisi, 3(11),421-442.
51. Zheng, Q., Zhou A., Shen SL. (2025). Mapping bushfire risk based on scale division and factor analysis: a case study from Victoria Australia. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 118, 105222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2025.105222.