COMPARISON OF LANDSLIDE SUSCEPTIBILITY, HAZARD AND RISK STUDIES BETWEEN TURKEY AND EUROPEAN UNION COUNTRIES

Abstract

Increasing economic, sociological, environmental and physical resilience around the world have significantly increased the loss of life and property resulting from disasters in recent years. Geographical structure, climatic and geological characteristics due to frequent exposure to disasters, especially earthquakes in Turkey, landslides and floods are causing a significant amount of loss of life and property. The estimation of the extent of damages caused by landslides with destructive effects to a lesser extent makes it necessary to carry out detailed studies on landslides.

In this study, it was aimed at comparing the scientific landslide susceptibility, hazard and risk studies related to Turkey and the European Union countries. According to the landslide susceptibility, hazard and risk literature surveys, a total of 714 studies published in international journals by researchers in the European Union member countries and Turkey, have been examined. When these studies are examined, it was seen that most of the studies were performed about the landslide susceptibility concept. A total of 335 landslide susceptibility, 164 landslide hazard and 122 landslide risk studies have been reached by the researchers in EU member countries, while 85 landslide susceptibility, 3 landslide hazard and 5 landslide risk studies have been conducted by researchers in Turkey.

When studies on the landslide susceptibility are compared, 107 studies made by researchers in Italy, in terms of the total number of works, are in the first place.  85 studies performed by Turkish scientists, received 5344 citations, are in the first place in terms of total number of citations and are in the second place in terms of the total number of studies. Compared with the European Union countries, landslide susceptibility studies conducted in Turkey holding an important place in this area, but, few studies on landslide hazard and risk show that the need for more work in landslide hazard and risk studies.

Keywords

• Landslide,Landslide Susceptibility,Landslide Hazard,Landslide Risk,Turkey,EU Countries

HEYELAN DUYARLILIĞI, TEHLİKESİ VE RİSKİ İLE İLGİLİ ÇALIŞMALARDA TÜRKİYE VE AVRUPA BİRLİĞİ ÜLKELERİNİN KARŞILAŞTIRILMASI

Öz

Dünya genelinde ekonomik, sosyolojik, çevresel ve fiziksel kırılganlıkların artması, son yıllarda afetler sonucunda oluşan can ve mal kayıplarını önemli oranda arttırmıştır. Coğrafi yapısı,  iklimsel ve jeolojik özellikleri nedeniyle afetlere sık sık maruz kalan Türkiye’de özellikle depremler, heyelanlar ve taşkınlar önemli miktarda can ve mal kaybına sebep olmaktadır. Yıkıcı etkiye sahip olan heyelanların verdiği zararların boyutlarının gereğinden daha düşük tahmin edilmesi, heyelanlara ilişkin detaylı çalışmaların yapılmasını zaruri kılmaktadır.

Bu çalışmada heyelan duyarlılığı, tehlikesi ve riski ile ilgili bilimsel çalışmalarda Türkiye ve Avrupa Birliği (AB)’ne üye ülkelerin karşılaştırılması amaçlanmıştır.  Yapılan taramalara göre heyelan duyarlılığı, tehlikesi ve riski ile ilgili AB’ne üye ülkelerdeki ve Türkiye’deki araştırmacılar tarafından uluslararası dergilerde yayımlanan toplam 714 çalışma incelenmiştir. Bu çalışmalar incelendiğinde en fazla çalışmanın heyelan duyarlılığı konusunda yapıldığı görülmektedir. AB’ne üye ülkelerdeki araştırmacılar tarafından yapılan toplam 335 heyelan duyarlılığı, 164 heyelan tehlikesi ve 122 heyelan riski ile ilgili çalışmaya ulaşılırken, Türkiye’deki araştırmacılar tarafından yapılan 85 heyelan duyarlılığı, 3 heyelan tehlikesi ve 5 heyelan riski ile ilgili çalışmaya ulaşılmıştır.

Heyelan duyarlılığı ile ilgili çalışmalar kıyaslandığında, toplam çalışma sayısı açısından İtalya’daki araştırmacılar tarafından yapılan 107 çalışma ilk sırada yer almaktadır. Alınan toplam atıf sayısı açısından ise Türkiye’deki araştırmacılar tarafından yapılan ve toplam çalışma sayısı açısından 2. sırada olan 85 çalışma, aldıkları 5344 atıfla ilk sırada gelmektedir. AB’ne üye ülkelerle kıyaslandığında Türkiye’de yapılan heyelan duyarlılığı çalışmaları bu alanda önemli bir yer tutarken, heyelan tehlikesi ve riski ile ilgili az sayıda çalışma olması bu alanlarda daha fazla çalışılmasının gerekliliğini göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Heyelan,Heyelan Duyarlılığı,Heyelan Tehlikesi,Heyelan Riski,Türkiye,AB Ülkeleri

Kaynakça

1. Aleotti, P., Chowdhury, R. (1999). Landslide hazard assessment: summary review and new perspectives. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment, 58, 21-44.
2. Baeza, C., & Corominas, J. (2001). Assessment of shallow landslide susceptibility by means of multivariate statistical techniques. Earth surface processes and landforms, 26(12), 1251-1263.
3. Cardinali, M., Reichenbach, P., Guzzetti, F., Ardizzone, F., Antonini, G., Galli, M., ... & Salvati, P. (2002). A geomorphological approach to the estimation of landslide hazards and risks in Umbria, Central Italy. Natural hazards and earth system science, 2(1/2), 57-72.
4. Carrara, A., Cardinali, M., Detti, R., Guzzetti, F., Pasqui, V., & Reichenbach, P. (1991). GIS techniques and statistical models in evaluating landslide hazard. Earth surface processes and landforms, 16(5), 427-445.
5. Catani, F., Casagli, N., Ermini, L., Righini, G., & Menduni, G. (2005). Landslide hazard and risk mapping at catchment scale in the Arno River basin. Landslides, 2(4), 329-342.
6. Chung, C. J. F., & Fabbri, A. G. (1999). Probabilistic prediction models for landslide hazard mapping. Photogrammetric engineering and remote sensing, 65(12), 1389-1399.
7. Clerici, A., Perego, S., Tellini, C., & Vescovi, P. (2002). A procedure for landslide susceptibility zonation by the conditional analysis method. Geomorphology, 48(4), 349-364.
8. Corominas, J., van Westen, C., Frattini, P., Cascini, L., Malet, J. P., Fotopoulou, S., ... & Pitilakis, K. (2014). Recommendations for the quantitative analysis of landslide risk. Bulletin of engineering geology and the environment, 73(2), 209-263.

9. EM-DAT (2015). The human cost of natural disasters 2015: a global perspective. http://emdat.be/human_cost_natdis (Son Erişim: 07.04.2018)
10. Ercanoglu, M., & Gokceoglu, C. (2002). Assessment of landslide susceptibility for a landslide-prone area (north of Yenice, NW Turkey) by fuzzy approach. Environmental geology, 41(6), 720-730.
11. Ercanoglu, M., & Gokceoglu, C. (2004). Use of fuzzy relations to produce landslide susceptibility map of a landslide prone area (West Black Sea Region, Turkey). Engineering Geology, 75(3-4), 229-250.
12. Ermini, L., Catani, F., & Casagli, N. (2005). Artificial neural networks applied to landslide susceptibility assessment. Geomorphology, 66(1-4), 327-343.
13. Fell, R., Corominas, J., Bonnard, C., Cascini, L., Leroi, E., & Savage, W. Z. (2008). Guidelines for landslide susceptibility, hazard and risk zoning for land use planning. Engineering Geology, 102(3), 85-98.
14. Gomez, H., & Kavzoglu, T. (2005). Assessment of shallow landslide susceptibility using artificial neural networks in Jabonosa River Basin, Venezuela. Engineering Geology, 78(1-2), 11-27.
15. Gökçe, O., Özden, Ş., Demir, A., (2008). Türkiye’de Afetlerin Mekansal ve İstatistiksel Dağılımı: Afet Bilgileri Envanteri. Afet İşleri Genel Müdürlüğü, Ankara, 117 s.
16. Guzzetti, F. (2000). Landslide fatalities and the evaluation of landslide risk in Italy. Engineering Geology, 58(2), 89-107.
17. Guzzetti, F., Carrara, A., Cardinali, M., & Reichenbach, P. (1999). Landslide hazard evaluation: a review of current techniques and their application in a multi-scale study, Central Italy. Geomorphology, 31(1), 181-216.
18. Guzzetti, F., Reichenbach, P., Ardizzone, F., Cardinali, M., & Galli, M. (2006). Estimating the quality of landslide susceptibility models. Geomorphology, 81(1-2), 166-184.
19. Guzzetti, F., Reichenbach, P., Cardinali, M., Galli, M., & Ardizzone, F. (2005). Probabilistic landslide hazard assessment at the basin scale. Geomorphology, 72(1-4), 272-299.
20. Hutchinson, J.N. (1995). Landslide hazard assessment. Proceedings of 6th International Symposium on the Landslides, 10-14 February 1992, Christchurch, England, D.H.Bell (ed.), Balkema, 1805-1842.
21. Pourghasemi, H. R., Pradhan, B., & Gokceoglu, C. (2012). Application of fuzzy logic and analytical hierarchy process (AHP) to landslide susceptibility mapping at Haraz watershed, Iran. Natural hazards, 63(2), 965-996.
22. Pradhan, B., & Lee, S. (2010). Landslide susceptibility assessment and factor effect analysis: backpropagation artificial neural networks and their comparison with frequency ratio and bivariate logistic regression modelling. Environmental Modelling & Software, 25(6), 747-759.
23. Pradhan, B., & Lee, S. (2010). Regional landslide susceptibility analysis using back-propagation neural network model at Cameron Highland, Malaysia. Landslides, 7(1), 13-30.
24. Süzen, M. L., & Doyuran, V. (2004). A comparison of the GIS based landslide susceptibility assessment methods: multivariate versus bivariate. Environmental geology, 45(5), 665-679.
25. Süzen, M. L., & Doyuran, V. (2004). Data driven bivariate landslide susceptibility assessment using geographical information systems: a method and application to Asarsuyu catchment, Turkey. Engineering Geology, 71(3-4), 303-321.
26. Schuster, R. L. (1996). Socio-economic significance of landslides. In: Turner, Shuster (eds) “Landslides: investigation and mitigation”. Transportation Research Board – National Research Council, Special Report 247, 12–35.
27. Schuster, R.L., and Fleming, R.W. (1986). Economic losses and fatalities due to landslides. Bulletin of Association of Engineering Geologists, 23(1), 11-28.
28. UNISDR (2015). ” Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015 – 2030”.http://www.unisdr.org/files/43291_sendaiframeworkfordrren.pdf (Son Erişim: 07.04.2018)
29. Van Westen, C. J., Rengers, N., & Soeters, R. (2003). Use of geomorphological information in indirect landslide susceptibility assessment. Natural hazards, 30(3), 399-419.
30. Varnes D.J. 1984. Landslide hazard zonation: a review of principles and practice, Unesco Press, Paris, 63.
31. Yalcin, A. (2008). GIS-based landslide susceptibility mapping using analytical hierarchy process and bivariate statistics in Ardesen (Turkey): comparisons of results and confirmations. Catena, 72(1), 1-12.
32. Yesilnacar, E., & Topal, T. (2005). Landslide susceptibility mapping: a comparison of logistic regression and neural networks methods in a medium scale study, Hendek region (Turkey). Engineering Geology, 79(3-4), 251-266.
33. Yilmaz, I. (2009). Landslide susceptibility mapping using frequency ratio, logistic regression, artificial neural networks and their comparison: a case study from Kat landslides (Tokat—Turkey). Computers & Geosciences, 35(6), 1125-1138.
34. Yilmaz, I. (2010). Comparison of landslide susceptibility mapping methodologies for Koyulhisar, Turkey: conditional probability, logistic regression, artificial neural networks, and support vector machine. Environmental Earth Sciences, 61(4), 821-836.