The Assessment of Turkey’s Vulnerability to Disasters and Hazards with IDB Indicator System

Yıl 2022, , 133 - 143, 19.03.2022

Ünal Yaprak , Turgut Şahinöz , Saime Şahinöz

https://doi.org/10.37989/gumussagbil.944234

Öz

The aim of this study is to determine vulnerabilitiy and catascrophic indexes of the provinces of Turkey and to determine the current situation and deficiencies of these provinces against disasters and to guide the decision makers.
The study was prepared with a semi-numerical method and the scope of the study was all provinces of our country. The study covers the period 2015-2017 and it has been applied to all provinces of Turkey. Prevalent Vulnerability Index (PVI) consists of 24 sub-factors and the index value is between 0 and 1.
The first four provinces with the highest index average for 2015-2017 are Şanlıurfa, Şırnak, Mardin and Diyarbakır. The provinces with the lowest value were Giresun, Trabzon, Artvin and Rize. In addition, 40.74% of our provinces were in the high vulnerability category, while 59.26% were in the middle index category. There were no provinces in the low index category.
As a result, while it was seen that our country was not at the desired level in terms of vulnerability in the international arena, it was remarkable that in national context, the less developed regions or provinces of our country were in a worse position than the other provinces in terms of vulnerability.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Disaster, Risk, Vulnerability, IDB

Destekleyen Kurum

-

Proje Numarası

-

Teşekkür

-

Türkiye’nin Afet ve Tehlikelere Karşı Savunmasızlığının IDB Gösterge Sistemi ile Değerlendirilmesi

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, Türkiye illerinin kırılganlık endekslerini belirlemek ve bu illerin afetlere karşı mevcut durumunu ve eksikliklerini tespit etmek ve karar vericilere rehberlik etmektir.
Çalışma yarı sayısal bir yöntemle hazırlanmış ve çalışmanın kapsamı ülkemizin tüm illerindendir. Çalışma 2015-2017 dönemini kapsamakta olup, Türkiye'nin tüm illerine uygulanmıştır. Yaygın Savunmasızlık Endeksi (YSE) 24 alt faktörden oluşmaktadır ve endeks değeri 0 ile 1 arasındadır.
2015-2017 yılları arasında endeks ortalaması en yüksek ilk dört il Şanlıurfa, Şırnak, Mardin ve Diyarbakır'dır. En düşük değere sahip iller Giresun, Trabzon, Artvin ve Rize'dir. Ayrıca illerimizin %40,74' ü yüksek savunmasızlık kategorisinde ve %59,26' sı orta endeks kategorisindedir. Düşük endeks kategorisinde herhangi bir il bulunmamaktadır.
Sonuç olarak, uluslararası arenada savunmasızlık açısından ülkemizin istenilen düzeyde olmadığı görülmekle birlikte, ulusal alanda, ülkemizin daha az gelişmiş bölgelerinin veya illerinin daha kötü bir konumda olduğu dikkat çekicidir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Afet, Risk, Savunmasızlık, IDB

Proje Numarası

-

Kaynakça

• 1. Ciurean, R.L, Schroter, D. and Glade, T. (2013). Conceptual Frameworks of Vulnerability Assessments for Natural Disasters Reduction. London: INTECH Open Science.
• 2. Kadıoğlu, M. (2008). Basic Principles of Reducing Disaster Damages. Ankara: JICA Turkey Office Publications.
• 3. ABD (Asian Development Bank). (2018). Economic and Fiscal Impacts of Disasters in the Pacific. Philippines: Asian Development Bank.
• 4. UNICEF. (2013). Disaster Risk Analysis Guidance for Local Governments. Geneva-Switzerland: UNICEF.
• 5. Bradshaw, S. (2004). Socio-economic impacts of natural disasters: a gender analysis. Chile: United Nations Publications.
• 6. Birkman, J, Cardona, O.D, Carreño, M.L, Barbat, A.H, Pelling, M, Schneiderbauer, S, Kienberger, K.M, Alexander, R.D, Zeil, P. and Welle, T. (2013). “Framing Vulnerability, Risk and Societal Responses: the MOVE Framework”. Nat Hazards, 67 (2), 193-211.
• 7. Wei, Y.M, Fan, Y, Lu, C. and Tsaı, H.T.T. (2004). “The Assessment of Vulnerability to Natural Disasters in China by Using the DEA Method”. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 24 (4), 427-439.
• 8. UNISDR. and WMO. (2012). Disaster Risk and Resilience. Geneva: UNISDR Publishing.
• 9. Connelly, A, Carter, J.G. and Handley, J. (2015). State of the Art Report (4) Vulnerability Assessment. Manchester: RESIN.
• 10. Mitra, S. and Vivekananda, J. (2015). Compounding Risk: Disasters, Fragility and Conflict. London: International Alert Policy Brief.
• 11. Wilhelmi, O.V. and Wilhite, D.A. (2002). “Assessing Vulnerability to Agricultural Drough: A Nebraska Case Study”. Natural Hazards, 25, 37-58.
• 12. Downing, T.E. (1991). Assessing socioeconomic vulnerability to famine: frameworks, concepts, and applications, research report. Providence: Brown University.
• 13. Green, C.H. and Van der, V.A, Wıerstra, E. and Penning-Rowsell, E. (1994). Vulnerability refined: analysing full flood impacts. London: Middlesex Universty Press.
• 14. Cutter, S.L. (1996). “Vulnerability to environmental hazards”. Progress in Human Geography, 20(1), 529-39.
• 15. WFO. (1998). WFP vulnerability mapping guidelines. Access address:http://www.wfp.org/DM_vAMWFPMapGuide.html;1998 (Accessed date: 03 April 2019).
• 16. Weichselgartner, J. (2001). “Disaster Mitigation: The Concept of Vulnerability Revised”. Disaster Prevention and Management, 10 (2), 85-94.
• 17. Weichselgartner, J. and Obersteiner, M. (2002). “Knowing Sufficient and Applying More: Challenges in Hazards Management”. Global Environmental Change Part B: Environmental Hazards, 4 (2), 73–77.
• 18. King, D. (2001). “Uses and Limitations of Socioeconomic Indicators of Community Vulnerability to Natural Hazards: Data and Disasters in Northern Australia”. Natural Hazards, 24(2), 147-156.
• 19. Wisner, B. (2003). Turning knowledge into timely and appropiate action: Reflections on IADB/IDEA program of disaster risk indicators. Manizales: IADB/IDEA Programa de Indicadores para la Gestión de Riesgos.
• 20. Cutter, S.L. (2003). “Social Vulnerability to Environmental Hazards”. Social Science Quarterly, 84 (2), 242-261.
• 21. Adger, W.N. (2006). “Vulnerability”. Global Environmental Change, 16, 268-281.
• 22. Westen, C.V. (2011). Risk analysis, Multi-hazard risk assessment: Distance education course Guide book. Tokyo: United Nations University.
• 23. Alexander, D, Kienberger, S. and Birkmann, J. (2014). Assessment of Vulnerability to Natural Hazards: A European Perspective. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
• 24. IDEA (Instituto de Estudios Ambientales). (2005). Access address: http://idea.unalmzl.edu.co/ingles/contexto.php (Access date: 21 May 2018).
• 25. Carreño, M.L, Cardona, O.D. and Barbat, A.H. (2005). Sistema de indicadores para la evaluación de riesgos. Barcelona: Centro Internacional de Métodos Numéricos en Ingenieria.
• 26. Cardona, O.D. (2005). Indicators of Disaster Risk and Risk Management. Washington: Inter American Development Bank.
• 27. Fuchs, S, Birkmann, J. and Glade, T. (2012). “Vulnerability Assessment in Natural Hazard and Risk Analysis: Current Approaches and Future Challenges”. Nat Hazards, 64 (3), 1969-1975.
• 28. Nasiri, H. and Shahmohammadı-Kalalagh, S. (2013). “Flood Vulnerability Index As A Knowledge Base for Flood Risk Assessment in Urban Area”. Journal of Novel Applied Sciences, 2(8), 269-272.
• 29. Etwire, P.M, Al-Hassan, R.M, Kuwornu, J.K.M. and Osei-Owusu, Y. (2013). “Applicationof Livelihood Vulnerability Index in Assessing Vulnerability to Climate Change and Variability in Northern Ghana”. Journal of Environment and Earth Science, 3 (2), 157-170.
• 30. BID. (2010). Indicadores de Riesgo de Desastre y de Gestión de Riesgos (Argentina). Washington: Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo.
• 31. IDB. (2011a). Indicators for Disaster Risk and Risk Management (Bahamas). Washington: Inter-American Development Bank.
• 32. IDB. (2011b). Indicators for Disaster Risk and Risk Management (Belize). Washington: Inter-American Development Bank.