Ülkelerin Afet Riski Performans Değerlendirmesi: Bulanık Mantık Uygulaması

Yıl 2021, , 33 - 42, 10.05.2021

Ali Erkan Karaman Barış Özkul

https://doi.org/10.21605/cukurovaumfd.933250

Cited By: 1

Öz

Bu çalışmada; afet öncesi ve afet sonrasını kapsayan afet yönetimi süreci incelenmiştir. Ülkelerin afet yönetimi performanslarını diğer ülkelerle karşılaştırmalarını sağlayacak bir model geliştirilerek örnek bir uygulama sunulması amaçlanmıştır. Çalışmanın örneklemi 4 farklı ülke için alanında uzman 5 akademisyenin görüşü alınarak belirlenmiştir. Ölçülen risk değerleri bulanık sayılara dönüştürülerek ana risk ve alt risk değerleri oluşturulmuştur. Ülkelerin afet risk yönetimi performansını karşılaştırmak için bulanık ağırlıklı ortalama (FWA) algoritması kullanılmıştır. Elde edilen sonuçlar ülkelerin afet sonrası aşamada afet öncesi aşamaya göre daha başarılı olduğunu ve örneklemde simgesel olarak gösterilen A ülkesinin risk performans değeri en yüksek olduğunu göstermiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Doğal afetler, Risk performans değerlendirmesi, Bulanık mantık

Disaster Risk Performance Assessment of Countries: Application of Fuzzy Logic

Öz

In this study; The disaster management process, including pre-disaster and post-disaster, has been examined. It is aimed to present a model application by developing a model that will enable countries to compare their disaster management performances with other countries. The sample of the study was determined for 4 different countries by taking the opinions of 5 academicians who are experts in their fields. The main risk and sub-risk values were created by converting the measured risk values into fuzzy numbers. It uses fuzzy weighted average (FWA) algorithm to compare disaster risk management performance of countries. The results have shown that countries are more successful in the post-disaster phase than the pre-disaster phase, and the risk performance value of country A, which is symbolically shown in the sample, is the highest.

Kaynakça

• 1. Manilofia, R., 2006. Disaster Communications in the Solomon Islands. ITU/ESCAP Disaster Communications Workshop, 12–15 December 2006. Bangkok. Thailand, 1-12.
• 2. Xu, J., Lu, Y., 2018. Towards an Earthquake- Resilient World: from Post-disaster Reconstruction to Pre-disaster Prevention. Environmental Hazards, 17(4), 269-275.
• 3. Souza, F., Kushchu, I., 2005. Mobile Disaster Management System Applications-current Overview and Future Potential–proc. Of the First European Mobile Government Conference MGOV2005, Brighton, UK, 10-12 July, mGCI publications, UK, 455-466.
• 4. Crowe, M., 2015. Texas Flood Tests Use of Drones by Emergency Responders. Emergency Management Magazine Retrieved from http://www.emergencymgmt.com/disaster/Texas-Flood-Tests-Drones-Emergency-Responders. html Accessed 20.12.2020.
• 5. Limoncu, S., Almaca, A.B., 2018. Çocuk Merkezli Afet Yönetimi. Megaron. (131), 132-143.
• 6. Büyükkaracığan, N., 2017. Türkiye’de Kriz and Afet Yönetimi Mevzuatının Değerlendirilmesi. Selcuk University Journal of Social and Technical Researches. 13, 144-193.
• 7. SH-SSP. 2018. Report, Disaster Management, Space Based Solutions for Developing Nations, University of South Australia and International Space University, 54.
• 8. Siriporananon, S., Visuthismajarn, P., 2018. Key Success Factors of Disaster Management Policy: A Case Study of the Asian Cities Climate Change Resilience Network in Hat Yai City, Thailand. Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences, 39(2), 269-276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.kjss.2018.01.005.
• 9. Enarson, E., 2000. Gender and Natural Disasters. Crisis Response and Reconstruction Working Paper No: 1, ILO Infocus Programme on Crisis Response and Reconstruction, 73.
• 10. CRED. 2015, The Human Cost of Natural Disasters. Centre or Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (Cred), CRED 2015 Research, 57.
• 11. Dilley, M., Robert, S.C., Uwe, D., Arthur, L.L., Margaret, A., 2005. Natural Disaster Hotspots: a Global Risk Analysis. Washington, DC: World Bank. https://openknowledge. worldbank.org/handle/10986/7376 License: CC BY 3.0 IGO, 148.
• 12. Anbarci, N., Escaleras, M., Register, C., 2005. Earthquake Fatalities: The Interaction of Nature and Political Economy. Journal of Public Economics. 89, 9–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2004.08.002
• 13. Escaleras, M., Anbarci, N., Register, C., 2007. Public Sector Corruption and Major Earthquakes: A Potentially Deadly Interaction. Public Choice, 132, 209-230, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-007-9148-y
• 14. OECD. 2008. Costs of Inaction of Environmental Policy Challenges Report. OECD 2008.
• 15. World Bank. 2005. Project Appraisal Document on a Proposed Loan to the Republic of Turkey for an Istanbul Seismic Risk Mitigation and Emergency Preparedness Project. Report 32173-TR.
• 16. Maly, E., Suppasri, A., 2020. The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction at Five: Lessons from the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami. Int J Disaster Risk Sci. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-020-00268- 9.
• 17. Sena, L., Michael, K.W., 2006. Disaster Prevention and Preparedness. Ethiopia: Ethiopia Public Health Training Initiative, 189.
• 18. Abulnour, AH., 2014. Towards Efficient Disaster Management in Egypt. HBRC Journal, 10, 117-126. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hbrcj.2013.07.004.
• 19. Sim, T., Lau, J., Cui, K., Wei, H.H., 2019. Post-Disaster Psychosocial Capacity Building for Women in a Chinese Rural Village. Int J Disaster Risk Sci 10, 193–203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-019-0221-1.
• 20. Jorge, V.A.M., Granada, R., Maidana, R.G., Jurak, D.A., Heck, G., Negreiros, A.P.F., dosSantos, D.H., Gonçalves, L.M.G., Amory, A.M., 2019. A Survey on Unmanned Surface Vehicles for Disaster Robotics: Main Challenges and Directions. Sensors. 19, 702. https://doi.org/10.3390/s19030702.
• 21. Kao, C., Liu, S.T., 2001. Fractional Programming Approach to Fuzzy-weighted Average. Fuzzy Sets and Systems. 1203, 435-444 Crossref, ISI.
• 22. Kale, S., Karaman, E., 2009. Fuzzy Logic Model for Benchmarking Knowledge Management Performance of AEC Firms. Fifth International Conference on Construction in the 21st Century.
• 23. Guh, Y.Y., Hon, C.C., Lee, E.S., 2011. Fuzzy- Weighted Average: The Linear Programming Approach Via Charnes and Cooper’s Rule. Fuzzy Sets and Systems. 1171, 157-160.
• 24. Otay, İ., Jaller, M., 2020. Multi-expert Disaster Risk Management & Response Capabilities Assessment Using Interval-valued Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets. Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems. 38(1), 835-852.
• 25. Đurić, G., Todorović, G., Đorđević, A., Tišma, A.B., 2019. A New Fuzzy Risk ManagementModel for Production Supply Chain Economicand Social Sustainability. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 32(1), 1697-1715.
• 26. Özkul, B., Karaman, A.E., 2007. Doğal Afetler için Risk Yönetimi. TMMOB İnşaat Mühendisleri Odası, Afet Sempozyumu.