Türkiye’deki Dünya Miras Alanlarına Yönelik Afet Risk Ağırlıklarının Delphi ve BWM Yöntemi ile Belirlenmesi

Öz

Kültürel miras toplumun temel taşlarından birçok unsuru içinde barından bir terimdir. Bir toplumun kimliği, kültürü ve tarihi ile ilgili bilgileri kültürel miras öğelerine bakarak çözümleyebiliriz. Birleşmiş Milletler Eğitim, Bilim ve Kültür Örgütü’nün (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization / UNESCO) dünya mirası olarak kayıt altına aldığı alanların özenle korunması ve gelecek nesillere aktarımı sağlanmalıdır. Ancak miras alanlarının doğa olayları ve canlılar nedeniyle birçok tehlike ile karşı karşıya kaldığı bilinmektedir. Bu tehlikelerin bertaraf edilmesi ya da etkilerinin azaltılması gerekmektedir. Bunun için dünya miras öğelerinin sürdürülebilirliğine etki edecek risk faktörlerinin önem sırasına göre sıralanması ve ivedilikle önlem alınması gerekmektedir. Çalışmada, bu risk faktörleri literatür taranarak ve alanında uzman kişilerin görüşlerine başvurularak belirlenmiştir. İlgili kriterlerin belirlenmesi aşamasında Delphi yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Bir sonraki aşamada ise, belirlenen riskler çok kriterli karar verme (ÇKKV) yöntemi olan En iyi- En Kötü Yöntemi’yle (BWM) önem derecesine göre sıralanmıştır. Bu çalışma, Türkiye'deki UNESCO Dünya Mirası Alanlarına yönelik risk oluşturan tehlikelerin ve bu tehlikelere karşı savunmasızlık bileşenlerinin hangi öncelik sırasıyla ele alınması gerektiğini belirleyerek literatüre yeni bir bakış açısı kazandırmaktadır. Ayrıca, kültürel miras alanındaki belirsizlikler ve karar verme süreçlerindeki gecikmeler, çalışmada sunulan karar destek mekanizması ile ele alınmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Afet riskleri
• BWM
• Çok kriterli karar verme
• Delphi yöntemi
• Türkiye
• UNESCO Dünya miras alanları

Determination of Disaster Risk Priorities for World Heritage Sites in Türkiye Through The Delphi and BWM Methods

Öz

Cultural heritage is a term that encompasses many elements which are fundamental to society. By examining cultural heritage elements, it can be deciphered information about a society's identity, culture, and history. The careful preservation and transmission of United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World Heritage Sites to future generations are essential. However, these heritage sites are known to be exposed to a wide range of hazards arising from natural phenomena and biological agents. It is necessary to eliminate these threats or reduce their impact. For this purpose, it is crucial to prioritize and take immediate action against risk factors affecting the sustainability of cultural heritage sites. In the study, these risk factors were identified through literature review and consultation with experts in the field. The Delphi method was used in the stage of determining the relevant criteria. In the next stage, the identified risks were ranked according to their importance using the Best Worst Method (BWM), which is a multi-criteria decision-making method (MCDM). This study contributes a new perspective to the literature by determining the priority order in which threats posing risks to UNESCO World Heritage Sites in Turkey and the vulnerability components to these threats should be addressed. This study contributes a new perspective to the literature by identifying the order in which risks to UNESCO World Heritage Sites in Türkiye should be addressed. Furthermore, the uncertainty and delays in decision-making in the cultural heritage domain have been addressed using the decision support mechanism presented in the study.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• BWM
• Deiphi method
• Disaster risks
• MCDM
• Turkiye
• UNESCO World heritage sites

Kaynakça

1. AFAD. (2018/2019). Türkiye deprem tehlike haritası. T.C. İçişleri Bakanlığı Afet ve Acil Durum Yönetimi Başkanlığı https://www.afad.gov.tr/turkiye-deprem-tehlike-haritasi (Son Erişim Tarihi: 12 Eylül 2025)
2. AFAD. (2022a). “Açıklamalı Afet Yönetimin Terimleri Sözlüğü”, T.C. İçişleri Bakanlığı Afet ve Acil Durum Yönetimi Başkanlığı, https://www.afad.gov.tr/aciklamali-afet-yonetimi-terimleri-sozlugu (Erişim: 02-Nisan-2024). www.afad.gov.tr (Son Erişim Tarihi: 15 Kasım 2025)
3. AFAD. (2022b). Afet Haritaları. T.C. İçişleri Bakanlığı Afet ve Acil Durum Yönetimi Başkanlığı, https://www.afad.gov.tr/afet-haritalari (Son Erişim Tarihi: 18 Kasım 2025)
4. AFAD. (2025). BHİKPK 2025 Faaliyet Raporu. Deprem ve Risk Azaltma Genel Müdürlüğü. https://www.harita.gov.tr/uploads/folder/BH%C4%B0KPK%202025%20AFAD%20FAAL%C4%B0YETLER%C4%B0.pdf (Son Erişim Tarihi: 12 Kasım 2025)
5. Asaduzzaman, M., Hameem, Ş. (2021). Granding built heritage through multi criteria. 12(3), 1027–1032.
6. Aygün Gürsoy, A. (2019). An Assessment of disaster risk management in a world heritage site in Turkey: the case of Bergama [Thesis (M.Arch.) - Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences. Conservation of Cultural Heritage in Architecture.]. Middle East Technical University.
7. Bottero, M., D’Alpaos, C., Oppio, A. (2019). Ranking of adaptive reuse strategies for abandoned industrial heritage in vulnerable contexts: A multiple criteria decision aiding approach. Sustainability (Switzerland), 11(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/su11030785
8. D’Alpaos, C., Valluzzi, M. R. (2020). Protection of cultural heritage buildings and artistic assets from seismic hazard: A hierarchical approach. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(4), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12041608

9. Dalkey, N., Helmer, O. (1963). An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of experts. Management Science, 9(3), 458–467. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.9.3.458
10. Della Spina, L. (2020). Adaptive sustainable reuse for cultural heritage: A multiple criteria decision aiding approach supporting urban development processes. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(4), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12041363
11. Eldiasty, A., Sabry Hegazi, Y., El-Khouly, T. (2021). Using space syntax and TOPSIS to evaluate the conservation of urban heritage sites for possible UNESCO listing the case study of the historic centre of Rosetta, Egypt. Ain Shams Engineering Journal, 12(4), 4233–4245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2021.04.017
12. Falcão, A. P., Machete, R., Castilho Gomes, M., Gonçalves, A. B. (2021). Spatial multi-criteria decision analysis for rehabilitation priority ranking: A collaborative application to heritage workforce housing sites. International Journal of Architectural Heritage, 15(5), 790–806. https://doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2019.1650132
13. Fedorczak- Cisak, M., Kowalska, A., Radziszewska – Zielina, E., Śladowski, G., Pachla, F., Tatara, T. (2019). A multi-criteria approach for selecting the utility function of the historical building “Stara Polana” located in Zakopane. MATEC Web of Conferences, 262, 07002. https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201926207002
14. Ferretti, V., Bottero, M., Mondini, G. (2014). Decision making and cultural heritage: An application of the multi-attribute value theory for the reuse of historical buildings. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 15(6), 644–655. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CULHER.2013.12.007
15. Giuliani, F., De Falco, A., Landi, S., Giorgio Bevilacqua, M., Santini, L., Pecori, S. (2018). Reusing grain silos from the 1930s in Italy. A multi-criteria decision analysis for the case of Arezzo. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 29, 145–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CULHER.2017.07.009
16. Haroun, H. A. A. F., Bakr, A. F., Hasan, A. E. S. (2019). Multi-criteria decision making for adaptive reuse of heritage buildings: Aziza Fahmy Palace, Alexandria, Egypt. Alexandria Engineering Journal, 58(2), 467–478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2019.04.003
17. ICOMOS ICORP Türkiye. (2019). Kültür Varlıklarına Yönelik Afet Risklerinin Yönetimi. Erişim: https://icorpturkiye.org/Makaleler/K%C3%BClt%C3%BCr%20Varl%C4%B1klar%C4%B1na%20Afet%20Risklerinin%20Y%C3%B6netimi.pdf
18. Ismaeel, E. H. (2023). DveC technique as an MCDM tool for managing the heritage value assessment of historic buildings in post-war cities: Mosul Old City as a case study. Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCHMSD-03-2022-0042
19. Işık, B. Ö., Demir, S. (2017). Integrated multi-criteria decision-making methods for the sustainability of historical-cultural structures on the Trabzon coastline. Sustainability (Switzerland), 9(11). https://doi.org/10.3390/su91121144
20. İzmir Kalkınma Ajansı. (2020, 11 Kasım). UNESCO dünya kültür mirası ve Türkiye: İzmir özelinde bir değerlendirme. https://kalkinmaguncesi.izka.org.tr/index.php/2020/11/11/unesco-dunya-kultur-mirasi-ve-turkiye-izmir-ozelinde-bir-degerlendirme/ (Son Erişim Tarihi: 3 Kasım 2025)
21. Kadıoğlu, M., (2011). Afet Yönetimi Beklenilmeyeni Beklemek En Kötüsünü Yönetmek. T.C. Marmara Belediyeler Birliği Yayını, İstanbul.
22. Kapadokya Alan Başkanlığı (2024). Kapadokya 2024-2028 stratejik planı. Kapadokya Yönetim Planı. Erişim adresi: https://kapadokyaalan.ktb.gov.tr/documents/2024-2028-stratejik-plan.pdf (Son Erişim Tarihi: 13 Kasım 2025)
23. Khan, M. I., Khan, S., Haleem, A. (2022). Analysing barriers towards management of Halal supply chain: a BWM approach. Journal of Islamic Marketing, 13(1), 66–80. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIMA-09-2018-0178
24. Kioussi, A., Kirytopoulos, K., Karoglou, M., Bakolas, A. (2021). A risk-based approach for assessing social sustainability performance of cultural heritage construction works. International Journal of Architectural Heritage, 15(11), 1671–1684. https://doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2020.1714097
25. Kumar, A., Gupta, H. (2020). Evaluating green performance of the airports using hybrid BWM and VIKOR methodology. Tourism Management, 76, 103941. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TOURMAN.2019.06.016
26. Kültür ve Tabiat Varlıklarını Koruma Kanunu, Kanun No. 2863, Md 3a, Yayımlandığı Resmi Gazete Tarihi (23.07.1983).
27. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı. (2026a). Dünya Miras Listesi. Kültür Varlıkları ve Müzeler Genel Müdürlüğü. Erişim adresi: https://kvmgm.ktb.gov.tr/tr-44423/dunya-miras-listesi.html (Son Erişim Tarihi: 24 Kasım 2025)
28. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı. (2026b). Ulusal yönetim planları. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı. Erişim adresi: https://kvmgm.ktb.gov.tr/TR-204384/ulusal-yonetim-planlari.html (Son Erişim Tarihi: 24 Kasım 2025)
29. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı. (2026c). Dünya Miras Listesi. Kültür Varlıkları ve Müzeler Genel Müdürlüğü. Erişim adresi: https://kvmgm.ktb.gov.tr/TR-44395/dunya-miras-gecici-listesi.html (Son Erişim Tarihi: 24 Kasım 2025)
30. Li, M. (2024). Disaster risk management of cultural heritage: A global scale analysis of characteristics, multiple hazards, lessons learned from historical disasters, and issues in current DRR measures in world heritage sites. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 110, 104633. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2024.104633
31. Liang, Y., Ju, Y., Tu, Y., Rezaei, J. (2022). Nonadditive best-worst method: Incorporating criteria interaction using the Choquet integral. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 74(6), 1495–1506. https://doi.org/10.1080/01605682.2022.2096504
32. Masoud, E., Gharipour, M. (2022). Developing a model to weigh cultural values in the adaptive reuse of heritage buildings: the case of the Risbaf Factory in Isfahan, Iran. Journal of the Institute of Conservation, 45(2), 105–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/19455224.2022.2065689
33. Mei, M., Chen, Z. (2021). Evaluation and selection of sustainable hydrogen production technology with hybrid uncertain sustainability indicators based on rough-fuzzy BWM-DEA. Renewable Energy, 165, 716–730. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2020.11.051
34. Mohammadi, F., Nabi Bidhendi, G., Aslani, A. (2022). Designing an energy security index with a sustainable development approach for energy-exporting countries using fuzzy BWM method. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, Winzer. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-22631-7
35. Nadkarni, R. R., Puthuvayi, B. (2020). A comprehensive literature review of multi-criteria decision making methods in heritage buildings. Journal of Building Engineering, 32, 101814. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101814
36. Nesticò, A., Somma, P. (2019). Comparative analysis of multi-criteria methods for the enhancement of historical buildings. Sustainability (Switzerland), 11(17). https://doi.org/10.3390/su11174526
37. Oktay, S. (2021). Kültürel miras alanlarında afet yönetimi: İznik örneği. Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi. Bursa Uludağ Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü.
38. Paolini, A., Vafadari, A., Cesaro, G., Santana Quintero, M., Van Balen, K., Vileikis, O., Fakhoury, L. (2012). Risk Management at Heritage Sites: A Case Study of the Petra World Heritage Site. UNESCO Digital Library, https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000217107
39. Prieto, A. J., Silva, A., de Brito, J., Macías-Bernal, J. M., Alejandre, F. J. (2017). Multiple linear regression and fuzzy logic models applied to the functional service life prediction of cultural heritage. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 27, 20–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2017.03.004
40. Rezaei, J. (2015). Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Omega (United Kingdom), 53, 49–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2014.11.009
41. Rezaei, J., Kothadiya, O., Tavasszy, L., Kroesen, M. (2018). Quality assessment of airline baggage handling systems using SERVQUAL and BWM. Tourism Management, 66, 85–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TOURMAN.2017.11.009
42. Ribera, F., Nesticò, A., Cucco, P., Maselli, G. (2020). A multicriteria approach to identify the Highest and Best Use for historical buildings. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 41, 166–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2019.06.004
43. Ruiz-Jaramillo, J., Muñoz-González, C., Joyanes-Díaz, M. D., Jiménez-Morales, E., López-Osorio, J. M., Barrios-Pérez, R., Rosa-Jiménez, C. (2020). Heritage risk index: A multi-criteria decision-making tool to prioritize municipal historic preservation projects. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 9(2), 403–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2019.10.003
44. Salehipour, M., Kazemi, N., Jokar Arsanjani, J., ve Karimi Firozjaei, M. (2025). Developing a multi-criteria decision model to unlock sustainable heritage tourism potential. Sustainability, 17(8), 3703. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17083703
45. Selçuk, O., Karakas, H. (2022). How does tourism affect protected areas?: A multi-criteria decision making application in UNESCO natural heritage sites. Research Square, 1–20.
46. Sevieri, G., Galasso, C., D’Ayala, D., De Jesus, R., Oreta, A., Earl, M., Ibabao, R. (2020). A multi-hazard risk prioritisation framework for cultural heritage assets. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 20, 1391–1414.
47. Sharifi, A. A., Farahinia, A. H. (2023). A theoretical framework for developing the MAU model to determine the most appropriate use for historic buildings. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 30(1), 238–258. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-06-2021-0500
48. Šiožinyte, E., Antuchevičiene, J., Kutut, V. (2014). Upgrading the old vernacular building to contemporary norms: Multiple criteria approach. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 20(2), 291–298. https://doi.org/10.3846/13923730.2014.904814
49. Tupenaite, L., Zavadskas, E. K., Kaklauskas, A., Turskis, Z., Seniut, M. (2010). Multiple criteria assessment of alternatives for built and human environment renovation. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 16(2), 257–266. https://doi.org/10.3846/jcem.2010.30
50. UNDRR. (2015). Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. https://www.undrr.org/implementing-sendai-framework/what-sendai-framework (Son Erişim Tarihi: 24 Kasım 2023).
51. UNESCO WHC. (2023). Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. 1972. Version 2023. UNESCO World Heritage Centre, Paris, France.
52. UNESCO WHC. (2010). Managing Disaster Risks for World Heritage. The World Heritage Centre of UNESCO, ICCROM, ICOMOS and IUCN. https://whc.unesco.org/en/activities/630/ ( Son Erişim Tarihi: 24 Kasım 2023).
53. UNESCO WHC. (2007). Decision 31 COM 7.2. Issues Relative to the State of Conservation of World Heritage Properties: Strategy for Risk Reduction at World Heritage Properties. UNESCO World Heritage Centre. https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/1262 (Erişim Tarihi: 26 Kasım 2023).
54. UNESCO WHC. (2026). State of conservation: World Heritage properties in Türkiye. World Heritage Convention. UNESCO World Heritage Centre. https://whc.unesco.org/en/soc/?action=listvepattern=Türkiye
55. UNESCO WHC. (2015). “Reducing Disasters Risks at World Heritage Properties (2015)”, UNESCO World Heritage Centre. https://whc.unesco.org/en/disaster-risk-reduction/#strategy. (Son Erişim Tarihi: 29 Kasım 2023). www.whc.unesco.org
56. Valagussa, A., Frattini, P., Crosta, G. et al. Multi-risk analysis on European cultural and natural UNESCO heritage sites. Nat Hazards 105, 2659–2676 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-020-04417-7
57. Vehbi, B. O., Günçe, K., Iranmanesh, A. (2021). Multi-criteria assessment for defining compatible new use: Old administrative hospital, Kyrenia, Cyprus. Sustainability (Switzerland), 13(4), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041922
58. Veillon, R., ve UNESCO. (2014). State of conservatıon of world heritage propertıes - A statistical analysis. 102. https://whc.unesco.org/en/soc/?&&&sitescategory=1&id_search_state=50&id_search_region=4&groupby=propertiesthreats&soc_start=2019&soc_end=2019&mode=list&threats=8 (Son Erişim Tarihi: 29 Kasım 2023).
59. Yau, Y. (2009). Multi-criteria decision making for urban built heritage conservation: Application of the analytic hierarchy process. Journal of Building Appraisal, 4(3), 191–205. https://doi.org/10.1057/jba.2008.34