Governance-Induced Vulnerability in Urban Areas Prone to Disaster Risk

Öz

Urban planning processes carried out in disaster-prone urban areas are directly related not only to technical adequacy but also to institutional coherence, governance structure, and judicial oversight. This study aims to evaluate planning stability through the repeated litigation of zoning plans and land readjustment procedures approved between 2015 and 2022 within an approximately 101-hectare transformation area in Karabağlar district of İzmir, which was declared a risky area under Law No. 6306. The study was designed within a qualitative research framework and conducted through document analysis based on planning documents, court decisions, expert reports, plan explanation reports, and official correspondence. In this context, the plans approved during the 2015–2022 period were traced through a chronological planning matrix in terms of approval dates, suspension period, litigation links, and revision stages, while judicial decisions were classified through thematic content analysis based on annulment grounds and planning problems. The findings indicate that, despite technical revisions made to plan contents, deficiencies in participation and an atmosphere of distrust toward decision-making processes disrupted the transformation process. Moreover, the continuous subjection of plans to judicial review weakened the implementation basis and delayed public interest-oriented transformation goals in disaster-prone areas. In this context, ensuring continuity in planning processes in disaster-prone areas requires the establishment of institutional coordination mechanisms between central and local governments that can reconcile planning decisions without driving them into cycles of judicial delay and annulment, strengthening participation, and implementing planning instruments only after legal stability has been secured.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Disaster Risk
• Governance-Induced Vulnerability
• Risky Area
• Urban Transformation

Proje Numarası

Bu makale, Konya Teknik Üniversitesi, Lisansüstü Eğitim Enstitüsü, Şehir ve Bölge Planlama Ana Bilim Dalında, ikinci yazar danışmanlığında yürütülen birinci yazarın yüksek lisans tezine dayalı olarak hazırlanmıştır.

Afet Riski Altındaki Kentsel Alanlarda Yönetişim Kaynaklı Kırılganlık

Öz

Afet riski altındaki kent parçalarında yürütülen planlama süreçlerinin etkinliği, teknik yeterliliğin ötesinde kurumsal uyum, yönetişim yapısı ve yargı denetimiyle doğrudan ilişkilidir. Bu çalışma, 6306 sayılı Kanun kapsamında riskli alan ilan edilen İzmir Karabağlar ilçesindeki yaklaşık 101 hektarlık dönüşüm alanında, 2015–2022 yılları arasında onaylanan imar planları ve parselasyon işlemlerinin tekrar eden biçimde dava konusu edilmesi üzerinden planlama istikrarını değerlendirmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Çalışma, nitel araştırma yaklaşımıyla yapılandırılmış; plan belgeleri, mahkeme kararları, bilirkişi raporları, plan açıklama raporları ve resmî yazışmalara dayalı doküman analizi yöntemiyle yürütülmüştür. Bu kapsamda, 2015–2022 dönemindeki planlar; onay tarihleri, askı süreci, dava ilişkileri ve revizyon aşamaları bakımından kronolojik bir planlama matrisi üzerinden izlenmiş; yargı kararları ise iptal gerekçeleri ve planlama sorunları temelinde tematik içerik analizi yoluyla sınıflandırılmıştır. Elde edilen bulgular, plan içeriklerinde yapılan teknik düzenlemelere rağmen, katılım eksiklikleri ve karar süreçlerine yönelik güvensizlik ortamının dönüşüm sürecini kesintiye uğrattığını göstermektedir. Ayrıca planların sürekli yargı denetimine tabi olması, uygulama zemininin zayıflamasına ve afet riski altındaki alanlarda kamu yararı odaklı dönüşüm hedeflerinin gecikmesine yol açmaktadır. Bu bağlamda, afet riski altındaki alanlarda planlama sürekliliğinin sağlanabilmesi için, merkezi idare ile yerel yönetim arasında plan kararlarını yargısal gecikme ve iptal döngüsüne sürüklemeden uzlaştıracak kurumsal eşgüdüm mekanizmalarının kurulması, katılımın güçlendirilmesi ve uygulama araçlarının hukuki istikrar sağlandıktan sonra işletilmesi temel bir gereklilik olarak öne çıkmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Afet Riski
• Kentsel Dönüşüm
• Riskli Alan
• Yönetişim Kaynaklı Kırılganlık

Proje Numarası

Bu makale, Konya Teknik Üniversitesi, Lisansüstü Eğitim Enstitüsü, Şehir ve Bölge Planlama Ana Bilim Dalında, ikinci yazar danışmanlığında yürütülen birinci yazarın yüksek lisans tezine dayalı olarak hazırlanmıştır.

Etik Beyan

Derginizde yayınlanmak üzere iletilen, başlık ve yazar bilgisi verilen çalışmada insan katılımcılardan veri toplanmadığı ve deneysel bir uygulama yapılmadığı için etik kurul izni ve/veya yasal/özel izin gerektirmeyen bir çalışma olduğunu beyan ederim.

Kaynakça

1. AFAD. (2022). Açıklamalı afet yönetimi terimleri sözlüğü. https://www.afad.gov.tr/aciklamali-afet-yonetimi-terimleri-sozlugu (Son Erişim: 02.07.2025)
2. Ahrens, J., Rudolph, P. M. (2006). The importance of governance in risk reduction and disaster management. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 14(4), 207-220. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5973.2006.00497.x 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 of Disaster Risk Science, 6(2), 164-176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-015-0050-9
3. Ansell, C., Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543-571. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032
4. Bankoff, G. (2003). Vulnerability as a measure of change in society. International Journal of Mass Emergencies & Disasters, 21(2), 5-30. https://doi.org/10.1177/028072700302100201
5. Benouar, D., Benmokhtar, A. (2025). Risk governance for the implementation of the Sendai Framework for disaster risk reduction in Algeria. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 16(1), 58-70. https://doi:10.1007/s13753-025-00619-4
6. Britton, N. R. (1986). Developing an understanding of disaster. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology, 22(2), 254-271. https://doi.org/10.1177/144078338602200206
7. Burby, R. J., Deyle, R. E., Godschalk, D. R., Olshansky, R. B. (2000). Creating hazard resilient communities through land-use planning. Natural Hazards Review, 1(2), 99-106. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1527-6988(2000)1:2(99)
8. Cannon, T. (2008). Reducing people's vulnerability to natural hazards communities and resilience, WIDER Research Paper, No. 2008/34, ISBN 978-92-9230-080-7, The United Nations University World Institute for Development Economics Research (UNU-WIDER), Helsinki. https://hdl.handle.net/10419/45089

9. Cardona, O. D. (2013). The need for rethinking the concepts of vulnerability and risk from a holistic perspective: A necessary review and criticism for effective risk management. In G. Bankoff, G. Frerks, D. Hilhorst (Eds.), Mapping vulnerability (pp. 37-51). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781849771924
10. CIMA Research Foundation. (2020). Guidance note on using the probabilistic country risk profiles for disaster risk management. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR). https://www.preventionweb.net/media/48211/download?startDownload=20250731 (Son Erişim: 01.07.2025)
11. Cutter, S. L., Boruff, B. J., Shirley, W. L. (2012). Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. In S. L. Cutter (Ed.), Hazards vulnerability and environmental justice (pp. 115-132). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781849771542
12. ÇŞİDB. (2021). İzmir kentsel dönüşüm yol haritası. Çevre, Şehircilik ve İklim Değişikliği Bakanlığı. Ankara.
13. Damsari, A.G.U., Thayaparan, M., Fernando, T., (2022). State of the art in risk sensitive urban development: A systematic literature review. In: Y.G. Sandanayake, S. Gunatilake, K.G.A.S. Waidyasekara (Eds). Proceedings of the 10th World Construction Symposium, 24-26 June 2022, Sri Lanka. pp. 731-742. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31705/WCS.2022.59
14. Davis, M., Seitz, S. T. (1982). Disasters and governments. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 26(3), 547-568. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002782026003008
15. Duman, T. Y., Emre, Ö., Karakaya-Gülmez, F., Özalp, S., Elmacı, H., Olgun, S., Çörekçipoğlu, Ş., Çan, T., Saroğlu, F. (2013). Türkiye diri fayları veri tabanı. TBBOB Coğrafi Bilgi Sistemleri Kongresi. 11-13 Kasım 2013, Ankara. https://obs.hkmo.org.tr/show-media/resimler/ekler/510e4c76a84cb6e_ek.pdf
16. Farinós-Dasí, J., Pinazo-Dallenbach, P., Peiró Sánchez-Manjavacas, E., Rodríguez-Bernal, D. C. (2024). Disaster risk management, climate change adaptation and the role of spatial and urban planning: evidence from European case studies. Natural Hazards, 121, (pp.23479–23512). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-024-06448-w
17. GFDRR (2017, May). Understanding financial protection: Knowledge note. https://www.gfdrr.org/sites/default/files/publication/UFCOPKnowledgeNoteMay.pdf.
18. Godschalk, D. R. (2003). Urban hazard mitigation: Creating resilient cities. Natural Hazards Review, 4(3), 136-143. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1527-6988(2003)4:3(136)
19. Healey, P. (1997). Traditions of planning thought. In: Collaborative planning. Planning Environment Cities. Palgrave, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-25538-2_1
20. Hufschmidt, G. (2011). A comparative analysis of several vulnerability concepts. Natural Hazards, 58(2), 621-643. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-011-9823-7
21. IPCC, 2022: Annex II: Glossary [Möller, V., R. van Diemen, J.B.R. Matthews, C. Méndez, S. Semenov, J.S. Fuglestvedt, A. Reisinger (eds.)]. In: Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem, B. Rama (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, pp. 2897–2930, https://doi:10.1017/9781009325844.029
22. İzmir Büyükşehir Belediyesi. (1999). İzmir deprem senaryosu ve deprem master planı. https://www.izmir.bel.tr/izmirdeprem/ (Son Erişim: 03.07.2025)
23. Kapucu, N., Dougherty, R. B., Hu, Q. (2022). Network governance for coordinated disaster response. Public Administration Quarterly, 46(4), 309-333. https://doi.org/10.37808/paq.46.4.2
24. Kuyucu, T., Ünsal, Ö. (2010). ‘Urban transformation’as state-led property transfer: An analysis of two cases of urban renewal in Istanbul. Urban Studies, 47(7), 1479-1499. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098009353629
25. Lacoere, P., Leinfelder, H. (2023). Land oversupply. How rigid land-use planning and legal certainty hinder new policy for Flanders. European Planning Studies, 31(9), 1926-1948. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2022.2148456
26. McEntire, D. A. (2005). Emergency management theory: Issues, barriers, and recommendations for improvement. Journal of Emergency Management, 3(3), 44-54. https://doi.org/10.5055/JEM.2005.0031
27. Papathoma-Köhle, M., Thaler, T., Fuchs, S. (2021). An institutional approach to vulnerability: Evidence from natural hazard management in Europe. Environmental Research Letters, 16(4), 044056. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abe88c
28. Perry, R. W. (2017). Defining disaster: An evolving concept. In H. Rodríguez, W. Donner, J. Trainor (Eds), Handbook of disaster research (pp. 3-22): Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63254-4_1
29. Rauws, W. (2017). Embracing uncertainty without abandoning planning: Exploring an adaptive planning approach for guiding urban transformations. DisP-The Planning Review, 53(1), 32-45. https://doi.org/10.1080/02513625.2017.1316539
30. Reichel, C., Frömming, U. U. (2014). Participatory mapping of local disaster risk reduction knowledge: An example from Switzerland. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 5(1), 41-54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-014-0013-6
31. Resmî Gazete. (2012). İzmir ili Karabağlar ilçesinde bulunan alanın riskli alan ilan edilmesine ilişkin Bakanlar Kurulu kararı (Karar Sayısı: 2012/4048). 31 Aralık 2012, Sayı: 28514. https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2012/12/20121231-6.htm (Son Erişim: 30.06.2025)
32. Stallings, R. A. (2005). Disaster and the theory of social order. In E.L. Quarantelli (Ed.), What is a Disaster? (pp. 127-146): Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203984833
33. Şen, İ. S. (2026). 6360 sayılı kanun bağlamında belediyelerin planlama yetkilerinin dönüşümü ve yeni bir yerel yönetim modeli tartışması. JENAS Journal of Environmental and Natural Studies, 8(1), 1-17. https://izlik.org/JA79TM74WF
34. Tarakçı, S., Türk, Ş. Ş. (2021). Kentsel yenileme ile ilgili yasal düzenlemelerde takdir yetkisinden gelen esneklikler. Planlama, 31(3): https://doi.org/10.14744/planlama.2021.65707
35. Tierney, K. (2012). Disaster governance: Social, political, and economic dimensions. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 37(1), 341-363. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-020911-095618
36. Tiwari, A. (2024). Collaborative governance and integrated risk management framework of natural disasters. Journal of Asia Business Studies, 18(6), 1668-1686. https://doi.org/10.1108/JABS-10-2022-0342
37. Turer Baskaya, F. A. (2015). Disaster sensitive landscape planning for the coastal megacity of Istanbul. Journal of Coastal Conservation, 19(5), 729-742. https://doi:10.1007/s11852-014-0365-5
38. Tüdes, S., Yılmaz, G. (2009). Evaluation of relationship of spatial planning-georisks and urban risk analysis: The case study of Bartin. Gazi University Journal of Science, 22(4), 395-411. https://izlik.org/JA72EM96JW
39. Tüfekçi, Y., Alkay, E. (2019). Kentsel dönüşüm uygulamalarında kurumsal kapasite yaratmanın önemi Planlama, 29(1), 50-58. https://doi.org/10.14744/planlama.2019.39358
40. UNDP (2013, January). Issue brief: Disaster risk governance. https://www.undp.org/sites/g/files/zskgke326/files/publications/Issue_brief_disaster_risk_reduction_governance_11012013.pdf (Son Erişim: 30.06.2025)
41. UNDP (2015). Strengthening disaster risk governance: UNDP support during the HFA implementation period 2005-2015. https://www.undp.org/sites/g/files/zskgke326/files/publications/Strengthening%20Disaster%20Risk%20Governance-Full-Report.pdf (Son Erişim: 28.06.2025)
42. UNDRR (2015). Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction 2015–2030. https://www.preventionweb.net/files/43291_sendaiframeworkfordrren.pdf?startDownload=true. (Son Erişim: 28.06.2025)
43. UNDRR. (2017a). The Sendai Framework Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction. "Disaster". https://www.undrr.org/terminology/disaster (Son Erişim: 28.06.2025)
44. UNDRR (2017b). The Sendai Framework Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction. "Exposure". Accessed 27 March 2026. https://www.undrr.org/terminology/exposure (Son Erişim: 28.06.2025)
45. UNDRR. (2020). Words into action guidelines: Enhancing disaster preparedness for effective response. https://www.undrr.org/media/43008/download?startDownload=20250730 (Son Erişim: 30.06.2025)
46. UNISDR (United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction). (2015a). For specific formatting, see the guidance at PreventionWeb. https://www.preventionweb.net/files/45270_unisdrcnws2wg2vulnerabilityandexpos.pdf?startDownload=true (Son Erişim: 01.07.2025)
47. UNISDR. (2015b). Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction 2015–2030. United Nations. https://www.undrr.org/media/16176/download?startDownload=20250730 (Son Erişim: 28.06.2025)
48. Wisner, B., Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., Davis, I. (2004). Towards a safer environment. In P. Blaikie, T. Cannon, I. Davis, B. Wisner (Eds.), At risk: Natural hazards, people's vulnerability and disasters (2nd Edition ed.). London: Routledge.