Deneyimlenen ve Varsayımsal Bir Deprem Sonrası Mekânsal Olanaklar ve İnsan Davranışları: 2020 Ege Denizi Depremi

Öz

Depremler, özellikle yüksek yoğunluklu kentsel alanlarda yaşayan bireyler için önemli bir risk faktörüdür. Deprem sonrası bireylerin güvenli bölgelere tahliyesi, afet yönetimi açısından kritik bir öneme sahiptir. Bu çalışmada, 2020 Ege Denizi Depremi’ni deneyimlemiş üniversite öğrencilerinin gerçek ve varsayımsal deprem anlarındaki tahliye davranışlarını incelenmiştir. Öğrencilerin tercih ettiği açık alan türleri, tahliye güzergâhlarının mesafeleri ve bu tercihlerde etkili olan bireysel özelliklere ilişkin bilgiler anket ve harita işaretleme yöntemiyle elde edilmiş ve istatistiksel analizlerle değerlendirilmiştir. Bulgular, öğrencilerin gerçek deprem anında boş alan gibi “plansız açık alanlara”, varsayımsal senaryoda ise yeşil alan ve toplanma alanı gibi “planlı açık alanlara” yöneldiğini göstermektedir. Ayrıca, güvenli alana erişimde gerçek deprem durumunda ortalama yaklaşık 95 m, varsayımsal durumda ise yaklaşık 140 m mesafe kat ettikleri görülmüştür. Bu sonuçlar depreme ilişkin farkındalılık arttıkça bireylerin kısmen daha uzakta bulunan daha uygun alanlara gitmeyi tercih ettiklerini göstermiştir. Ayrıca elde edilen bulgular, tahliye davranışlarının yalnızca demografik değişkenlere göre değil, aynı zamanda mekânsal çevrenin sunduğu olanaklara göre de şekillendiğini ortaya koyarak çevresel olanaklar teorisini desteklemektedir. Araştırma, deprem sonrası bireylerin güvenli alanlara tahliyesinde riskleri azaltmak adına, planlı açık alanların herkes için erişilebilir hale getirilmesine yönelik planlama uygulamalarının ve yerel yönetimlerce belirlenen toplanma alanlarının görünürlüğünü artıracak kentsel tasarım müdahalelerinin gerekliliğinin altını çizmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Deprem
• Mekansal Davranış
• Kentsel Mekan
• Mekansal Olanaklar

Spatial Opportunities and Human Behavior After Experienced and Hypothetical Earthquakes: 2020 Aegean Sea

Abstract

Earthquakes pose significant risks, especially in densely populated urban areas. Post-earthquake evacuation to safe zones is critical for effective disaster management. This study examines the real and hypothetical evacuation behaviors of university students who experienced the 2020 Aegean Sea Earthquake. Data on preferred open space types, evacuation route distances, and influencing individual characteristics were collected through surveys and map-marking techniques, then analyzed statistically. Findings indicate that during the actual earthquake, students moved toward “unplanned open spaces” like vacant lots, while in the hypothetical scenario, they preferred “planned open spaces” such as green areas and designated gathering points. The average evacuation distance was about 95 meters in the real event and 140 meters in the hypothetical case, suggesting that increased awareness may lead individuals to choose more appropriate but farther locations. The study supports the theory of environmental affordances, revealing that evacuation behaviors are shaped not only by demographic factors but also by spatial features. The results highlight the importance of ensuring the accessibility of planned open spaces and enhancing the visibility of official gathering areas through urban design interventions to reduce evacuation-related risks.

Keywords

• Earthquake
• Spatial Behavior
• Urban Space
• Spatial Opportunities

Kaynakça

1. Baer, D. M. (2019). Environment and behavior. Routledge.
2. Bechtel, R. B. (1997). Environment and behavior: An introduction. Sage. Bernardini, G., Quagliarini, E., & D'Orazio, M. (2016b). A survey on earthquake evacuation behaviors and movement analysis. Applied Soft Computing, 40, 327–338.
3. Bernardini, G., Santarelli, S., & Quagliarini, E. (2017). Dynamic guidance tool for a safer earthquake pedestrian evacuation in urban systems. Safety Science, 98, 280–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.06.001 Bernardini, G., Lovreglio, R., & Quagliarini, E. (2019). Proposing behavior-oriented strategies for earthquake emergency evacuation: A behavioral data analysis from New Zealand, Italy and Japan. Safety science, 116, 295-309.
4. Bernardini, G., & Quagliarini, E. (2020). How to account for the human motion to improve flood risk assessment in urban areas. Water, 12(5), 1316.
5. Chen, C., & Cheng, L. (2020). Evaluation of seismic evacuation behavior in complex urban environments based on GIS: A case study of Xi'an, China. Sustainable Cities and Society, 63, 102430.
6. D’Orazio, M., Spalazzi, L., Quagliarini, E., & Bernardini, G. (2014). Agent-based model for earthquake pedestrians’ evacuation in urban outdoor scenarios: Behavioural patterns definition and evacuation paths choice. Safety science, 62, 450-465.
7. Erdin, H. E., Çelik, H. Z., Aydın, M. B. S., & Partigöç, N. S. (2023). Afet ve acil durumlarda sosyal altyapı alanlarının toplanma alanı olarak belirlenme kriterleri ve yöntemi. Türk Deprem Araştırma Dergisi, 5(1), 1–21.
8. Feizizadeh, B., Adabikhosh, S. J., & Panahi, S. (2023). A scenario-based and game-based geographical information system (GIS) approach for earthquake disaster simulation and crisis mitigation. Sustainability, 15(14), 11131.

9. Fraser, T. (2022). The road more traveled: Evacuation networks in the US and Japan. Environment and Behavior, 54(4), 833–863.
10. French, E. L., Birchall, S. J., & Landman, K. (2019). Designing public open space to support seismic resilience: A systematic review. Sustainable Cities and Society, 50, 101682.
11. Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception (Chapter 8: The theory of affordances). Houghton Mifflin. Goltz, J. D. (1984). Are the news media responsible for the disaster myths? A content analysis of emergency response imagery. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 2(3), 345–368.
12. Hossain, N. (2014). ‘Street’ as accessible open space network in earthquake recovery planning in unplanned urban areas. Asian Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences (AJHSS), 2(4), 103–112.
13. Jackson, E. L. (1981). Response to earthquake hazard: The West Coast of North America. Environment and Behavior, 13(4), 387–416.
14. Kiecolt, K. J., & Nigg, J. M. (1982). Mobility and perceptions of a hazardous environment. Environment and Behavior, 14(2), 131–154.
15. Kondyli, A., Zhu, M., & Elefteriadou, L. (2018). Evacuation modeling calibration using video data: Pedestrian behavior and exit choice. Transportation Research Record, 2672(20), 1–10.
16. Li, S., Tong, L., & Zhai, C. (2022). Extraction and modelling application of evacuation movement characteristic parameters in real earthquake evacuation video based on deep learning. Sustainable Cities and Society.
17. Liu, C., Liu, S., Zhang, J., Wang, L., Guo, X., Li, G., & Wang, W. (2023). An optimal design method of emergency evacuation space in the high-density community after earthquake based on evacuation simulation. Natural Hazards, 117, 1–23.
18. Liu, W., Xu, H., Wu, J., Li, W., & Hu, H. (2022). Measuring spatial accessibility to refuge green space after earthquakes: A case study of Nanjing, China. PLOS ONE, 17(7), e0270035.
19. Liu, Z., Jacques, C. C., Szyniszewski, S., & Guest, J. K. (2016). Agent-based simulation of building evacuation after an earthquake: Coupling human behavior with structural response. Natural Hazards Review, 17(3).
20. No, W., Choi, J., Park, S., & Lee, D. (2020). Balancing hazard exposure and walking distance in evacuation route planning during earthquake disasters. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 9(7), 432.
21. Ohta, Y., & Ohashi, H. (1985). Field survey on occupant behavior in an earthquake. International Journal of Mass Emergencies & Disasters, 3(1), 147-160.
22. Oshima, D., Tanaka, S., & Oguchi, T. (2012). Evaluation of traffic control policy in disaster case by using traffic simulation model. In Proceedings of the 19th ITS World Congress (pp. 22–26). Vienna, Austria.
23. Perry, R. W. & Lindell, M. K. (2003). Preparedness for Emergency Response: Guidelines for the Emergency Planning Process. Disasters, 27(4), 336–350.
24. Quarantelli, E. L. (1990). The Warning Process and Evacuation Behavior: The Research Evidence (Disaster Research Center Preliminary Paper #148). Newark, DE: Disaster Research Center, University of Delaware.
25. Santarelli, S. (2019). A behavioural approach to the earthquake safety planning of historical centres: Development of innovative methodologies and tools for planners and evacuees (Doctoral dissertation). Università Politecnica delle Marche.
26. Shapira, S., Aharonson-Daniel, L., & Bar-Dayan, Y. (2018). Anticipated behavioral response patterns to an earthquake: The role of personal and household characteristics, risk perception, previous experience and preparedness. International journal of disaster risk reduction, 31, 1-8.
27. Shrestha, S. R., Sliuzas, R., & Kuffer, M. (2018). Open spaces and risk perception in post-earthquake Kathmandu city. Applied Geography, 93, 72–86.
28. Song, X., Zhang, Q., & Sekimoto, Y. (2014). Prediction of human emergency behavior and their mobility following large-scale disaster. In Proceedings of the 20th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining.
29. Tai, C. A., Lee, Y. L., & Yau, J. T. (2014). A study of evacuation behavior during earthquakes. International journal of sustainable development and planning, 9(6), 874-884.
30. Tierney, K. (2007). From the margins to the mainstream? Disaster research at the crossroads. Annual Review of Sociology, 33, 503–525.
31. Tsai, M. T., & Chang, H. W. (2023). Contribution of accessibility to urban resilience and evacuation planning using spatial analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(4), 2913.
32. TÜİK. (2024). Adrese Dayalı Nüfus Kayıt Sistemi Sonuçları 2024. https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Adrese-Dayali-Nufus-Kayit-Sistemi-Sonuclari-2024-53783
33. Tuzun Aksu, D., & Ozdamar, L. (2014). A mathematical model for post-disaster road restoration: Enabling accessibility and evacuation. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 61, 56–67.
34. Utami, W., & Nurhadi, N. (2018, April). Evacuation simulation for earthquake (Case study in Sayangan Hamlet, Kotagede Complex, Yogyakarta, Indonesia). In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science (Vol. 145, No. 1, p. 012064). IOP Publishing.
35. Varol, C., Hayrullahoglu, G., Soylemez, E., Sat, N. A., Varol, E., & Ozcan, N. T. (2024). The movement pattern changes of population following a disaster: Example of the Aegean Sea earthquake of October 2020. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 112, 104743.
36. Wang, W., Zhang, N., Wang, L., Wang, Z., & Ma, D. (2020). A study of influence distance and road safety avoidance distance from postearthquake building debris accumulation. Advances in Civil Engineering, 2020(1), 7034517.
37. Yabe, T., Jones, N. K., Rao, P. S. C., Gonzalez, M. C., & Ukkusuri, S. V. (2022). Mobile phone location data for disasters: A review from natural hazards and epidemics. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 94, 101777.
38. Yabe, T., Sekimoto, Y., Tsubouchi, K., & Ikemoto, S. (2019). Cross-comparative analysis of evacuation behavior after earthquakes using mobile phone data. PLOS ONE, 14(2), e0211375.
39. Zube, E. H., & Moore, G. T. (Eds.). (2013). Advances in environment, behavior and design: Volume 2. Springer Science & Business Media.