Gönüllü Arama Kurtarma Ekiplerinin Orman Yangınlarındaki Tahliye Deneyimleri: 2021 Akdeniz Orman Yangınları

Öz

Tüm dünyada küresel iklim değişikliğinin de etkisiyle, sıklığı ve büyüklüğü artan orman yangınları her geçen gün daha fazla insan için risk oluşturmaktadır. Özellikle Türkiye açısından bu riskin ciddi bir afete dönüştüğü 2021 yılındaki orman yangınları ilk olarak 28 Temmuz’da Antalya/Manavgat’ta başlayıp birçok şehirde aynı anda devam ederek yaklaşık 15 gün kadar sürmüştür. Orman Genel Müdürlüğü’nün yayımlamış olduğu resmi istatistiklere göre bu yangınlar, yaklaşık 140 bin hektar alanın yanması ile son 33 yılın (1988-2021) en büyük afeti olarak nitelendirilir. Bu önemle mevcut çalışma; yönetim, müdahale ve organizasyon çalışmaları açısından dönüm noktası niteliğindeki 2021 yılı orman yangınlarının kümülatif açıdan değerlendirilmesini içerir. Araştırmada nitel araştırma yöntemlerinden fenomenolojik desen kullanılmıştır. Katılımcılar ölçüt ve kartopu örnekleme tekniği ile belirlenmiştir. Ölçüt olarak, “Yangınlarda müdahale ve tahliye faaliyetlerine katılmış gönüllü arama kurtarma personeli olmak” alınmıştır. Elde edilen veriler Maxqda 2022 yazılımı ile tematik analize tabi tutulmuştur. Görüşmeler neticesinde orman yangınlarında tahliye faaliyetlerinin başarısının tahliye edilecek bireylerin mekânsal bağlılıkları, kurumlara güvensizlikleri ve ekonomik kaygıları gibi etkenlerden olumsuz etkilendiği saptanmıştır. Diğer bulgu ise yangın ve tahliye faaliyetlerinin arama kurtarma gönüllüleri üzerindeki etkileridir. Gönüllüler bu süreçte yaşamı tehdit edici tehlikeler ile karşılaşmış ve psikolojik olarak travmatik olaylara maruz kalmışlardır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Afet
• Afet Gönüllüleri
• Akdeniz
• Orman Yangını
• Tahliye

Evacuation Experiences of Volunteer Search and Rescue Teams in Forest Fires: 2021 Mediterranean Forest Fires

Öz

With the impact of global climate change around the world, forest fires are becoming more frequent and severe, posing an increasing risk for people. Especially for Turkey, the forest fires in 2021 turned into a serious disaster. They started in Manavgat, Antalya on July 28th and continued in many cities simultaneously for about 15 days. According to official statistics published by the General Directorate of Forestry, these fires are considered the biggest crisis in the last 33 years (1988-2021), with approximately 140,000 hectares of land burned. This study is a cumulative evaluation of the 2021 forest fires in terms of management, intervention, and organizational work, which is a turning point. The phenomenological design was used as a qualitative research method in the study. Participants were selected using the criterion and snowball sampling techniques. The criterion was "volunteer search and rescue personnel who participated in intervention and evacuation activities during fires." The data obtained were analyzed thematically with the Maxqda 2022 software. As a result of the interviews, it was determined that the success of evacuation activities during forest fires was negatively affected by factors such as the spatial affiliations of individuals to be evacuated, their distrust of institutions, and economic concerns. Another finding was the effects of fires and evacuation activities on search and rescue volunteers. Volunteers encountered life-threatening dangers during this process and were exposed to psychologically traumatic events.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Disaster
• Disaster Volunteers
• Evacuation
• Forest Fire
• Mediterranean

Kaynakça

1. Chen, Y. (2021). Relief goods distribution problem: Considering donation strategies, fairness, and interventions. Progress in Disaster Science, 12, 100198. doi:10.1016/j.pdisas.2021.100198
2. Hammarberg, K., Kirkman, M., & Lacey, S. de. (2016). Qualitative research methods: when to use them and how to judge them. Human Reproduction, 31(3), 498–501. doi:10.1093/humrep/dev334
3. Işık, O., Aydinlioglu, H. M., Koc, S., Gundogdu, O., Korkmaz, G. ve Ay, A. (2013). Disaster Management and Disaster Oriented Health Services. The Medical Journal of Okmeydani Training and Research Hospital, 28(Supplement 2), 82–123. doi:10.5222/otd.supp2.2012.082
4. Jung, D. Y., & Ha, K. M. (2021). A comparison of the role of voluntary organizations in disaster management. Sustainability (Switzerland), 13(4), 1–15. doi:10.3390/su13041669
5. Kuligowski, E. (2021). Evacuation Decision-Making And Behavior in Wildfires: Past Research, Current Challenges and A Future Research Agenda. Fire Safety Journal, 120(February 2020), 103129. doi:10.1016/j.firesaf.2020.103129
6. Kuligowski, E. (2021). Evacuation decision-making and behavior in wildfires: Past research, current challenges and a future research agenda. Fire Safety Journal, 120(February 2020), 103129. doi:10.1016/j.firesaf.2020.103129
7. Lindell, M. K. ve Perry, R. W. (2012). The Protective Action Decision Model: Theoretical Modifications and Additional Evidence. Risk Analysis, 32(4), 616–632. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01647.x
8. Liu, Y., Stanturf, J., & Goodrick, S. (2010). Trends in global wildfire potential in a changing climate. Forest Ecology and Management, 259(4), 685–697. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2009.09.002

9. Mack, N., Cynthıa Woodsong, Macqueen, K. M., Guest, G., & Namey, E. (2005). Qualitative Research Methods. Family Health International.
10. McCaffrey, S. M. ve Rhodes, A. (2009). Public response to wildfire: Is the Australian “stay and defend or leave early” approach an option for wildfire management in the United States? Journal of Forestry, 107(1), 9–15.
11. McCaffrey, S., Wilson, R., & Konar, A. (2018). Should I Stay or Should I Go Now? Or Should I Wait and See? Influences on Wildfire Evacuation Decisions. Risk Analysis, 38(7), 1390–1404. doi:10.1111/risa.12944
12. McGee, T. K., Nation, M. O., & Christianson, A. C. (2019). Residents’ wildfire evacuation actions in Mishkeegogamang Ojibway Nation, Ontario, Canada. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 33(July 2018), 266–274. doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2018.10.012
13. McLennan, J., Elliott, G., Omodei, M. ve Whittaker, J. (2013). Householders’ safety-related decisions, plans, actions and outcomes during the 7 February 2009 Victorian (Australia) wildfires. Fire Safety Journal, 61, 175–184. doi:10.1016/j.firesaf.2013.09.003
14. McLennan, J., Elliott, G., Omodei, M., & Whittaker, J. (2013). Householders’ safety-related decisions, plans, actions and outcomes during the 7 February 2009 Victorian (Australia) wildfires. Fire Safety Journal, 61, 175–184. doi:10.1016/j.firesaf.2013.09.003
15. McLennan, Jim, Paton, D. ve Wright, L. (2015). At-risk householders’ responses to potential and actual bushfire threat: An analysis of findings from seven Australian post-bushfire interview studies 2009-2014. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 12, 319–327. doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2015.02.007
16. McLennan, Jim, Ryan, B., Bearman, C., & Toh, K. (2019). Should We Leave Now? Behavioral Factors in Evacuation Under Wildfire Threat. Fire Technology, 55(2), 487–516. doi:10.1007/s10694-018-0753-8
17. McNamee, M., Meacham, B., van Hees, P., Bisby, L., Chow, W. K., Coppalle, A., … Weckman, B. (2019). IAFSS agenda 2030 for a fire safe world. Fire Safety Journal, 110. doi:10.1016/j.firesaf.2019.102889
18. Mol, T. (1993). Orman Yangınları. İstanbul Üniversitesi Orman Degisi, 43(3-4), 68-78.
19. Moritz, M. A., Batllori, E., Bradstock, R. A., Gill, A. M., Handmer, J., Hessburg, P. F., … Syphard, A. D. (2014). Learning to coexist with wildfire. Nature, 515(7525), 58–66. doi:10.1038/nature13946
20. Mozumder, P., Raheem, N., Talberth, J., & Berrens, R. P. (2008). Investigating intended evacuation from wildfires in the wildland-urban interface: Application of a bivariate probit model. Forest Policy and Economics, 10(6), 415–423. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2008.02.002
21. Mutch, R. W., Rogers, M. J., Stephens, S. L., & Gill, A. M. (2011). Protecting Lives and Property in the Wildland-Urban Interface: Communities in Montana and Southern California Adopt Australian Paradigm. Fire Technology, 47(2), 357–377. doi:10.1007/s10694-010-0171-z
22. Oosterhof, L., Heuvelman, A., & Peters, O. (2009). Donation to disaster relief campaigns: Underlying social cognitive factors exposed. Evaluation and Program Planning, 32(2), 148–157. doi:10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2008.10.006
23. Önsüz, M., & Atalay, B. (2015). Afet lojistiği. Osmangazi Tıp Dergisi, 37(3), 1-6.
24. Penta, S., Wachtendorf, T., & Nelan, M. M. (2020). Disaster Relief as Social Action: A Weberian Look at Postdisaster Donation Behavior. Sociological Forum, 35(1), 145–166. doi:10.1111/socf.12571
25. Public Safety Canada. (2017). An Emergency Management Framework for Canada, (May), 26. Şahin, C. ve Sipahioğlu, Ş. (2003). Doğal Afetler ve Türkiye (Genişletil.). Ankara: Gündüz Eğitim ve Yayıncılık. Roth, S. (2015). Aid work as edgework-Voluntary risk-taking and security in humanitarian assistance, development and human rights work. Journal of Risk Research, 18(2), 139–155. doi:10.1080/13669877.2013.875934
26. Scharbach, J., & Waldram, J. B. (2016). Asking for a disaster: Being “at risk” in the emergency evacuation of a northern canadian aboriginal community. Human Organization, 75(1), 59–70. doi:10.17730/0018-7259-75.1.59
27. Shaluf, I. M. (2007). Disaster types. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal, 16(5), 704–717. doi:10.1108/09653560710837019
28. Stopher, P., Rose, J., & Alsnih, R. (2004). Dynamic Travel Demand for Emergency Evacuation: The Case of Bush"fires, 15.
29. Taylor, M. A. P., & Freeman, S. K. (2010). A review of planning and operational models used for emergency evacuation situations in Australia. First International Conference on Evacuation Modeling and Management, 3, 3–14. doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2010.07.003
30. Tierney, K. (2009). Disaster response: Research findings and their implications for resilience measures (Vol. 6). Oak Ridge, TN: CARRI research report. Toledo, T., Marom, I., Grimberg, E., & Bekhor, S. (2018). Analysis of evacuation behavior in a wildfire event. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 31(March), 1366–1373. doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2018.03.033 Tong, A., Sainsbury, P., & Craig, J. (2007). Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International journal for quality in health care, 19(6), 349-357.
31. Twigg, J. (2015). Disaster Risk Reduction- Good Practice Review 9. Humanitarian Policy Network, 1–382. http://odihpn.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/GPR-9-web-string-1.pdf adresinden erişildi.
32. United Nations [UN]. (2020). Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020. doi:10.4060/ca8753en
33. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction [UNDRR]. (2022). United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction Terminology.
34. URL 1. Orman Genel Müdürlüğü [OGM], İllere göre orman yangınlarının dağılımı, 2021. Erişim adresi: https://www.ogm.gov.tr/tr/e-kutuphane/resmi-istatistikler (Son Erişim: 19.02.2023).
35. URL 2. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction Terminology. Erişim Adresi: https://www.undrr.org/terminology (Son Erişim: 19.02.2023)
36. URL 3. International Federation of Red Cross [IFRC]. (2023). What is a disaster? Erişim Adresi: https://www.ifrc.org/our-work/disasters-climate-and-cris