Afet risk yönetimi kapsamında afet ve acil durum toplanma alanlarının BWM ve CBS ile belirlenmesi: İlkadım (Samsun) örneği, Türkiye

Öz

Afet risklerinin azaltılması ve kriz anlarında etkin müdahalenin sağlanabilmesi açısından afet ve acil durum toplanma alanlarının doğru bir biçimde belirlenmesi büyük önem taşımaktadır. Çünkü toplanma alanları afet sonrasında geçici barınma görevi görmektedir. Toplanma alanları bu öneminin yanı sıra, yanlış konumlandırıldığında ikincil afet riskini artırarak daha büyük riskler oluşturabilmektedir. Bu çalışma CBS (Coğrafi Bilgi Sistemleri) ve BWM (Best-Worth Method) entegrasyonu ile İlkadım’da afet ve acil durum toplanma alanlarının konumsal uygunluğu ve potansiyel toplanma alanları için uygun yerleri belirlemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Mevcut ve potansiyel toplanma alanlarının uygunluğunu değerlendirmek üzere dokuz farklı coğrafi kriter belirlenmiştir. Bu kriterlerin ağırlıkları BWM yöntemiyle hesaplanmış, ardından CBS kullanılarak potansiyel toplanma alanları uygunluklarına göre sınıflara ayrılmıştır. Elde edilen bulgular, İlkadım’daki 61 mahallede yer alan toplanma alanlarının 36’sında yetersiz kaldığını ve yeni alan tahsisinin gerekli olduğunu göstermektedir. Çalışma, mevcut toplanma alanlarının yetersizliğini ortaya koymakla kalmayıp alternatif güvenli alanların belirlenmesine yönelik karar destek sağlayan veri temelli bir metodoloji sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Afet Risk Yönetimi
• Toplanma Alanı
• Best-Worth Metot (BWM)
• Coğrafi Bilgi Sistemleri (CBS)
• Samsun

Determining disaster and emergency assembly areas using BWM and GIS in disaster risk management: a case study of İlkadım (Samsun), Türkiye

Öz

It is essential to correctly determine assembly areas to reduce disaster risks and ensure an effective response in times of crisis. Assembly areas serve as temporary shelters after a disaster. However, if they are poorly positioned, they can increase the risk of secondary disasters and create even greater risks. This study aims to determine the spatial suitability of assembly areas in İlkadım and suitable locations for potential assembly areas through integrating GIS (Geographic Information Systems) and BWM (Best-Worst Method). Nine different geographic criteria were determined to assess the suitability of existing and potential assembly areas. The weights of these criteria were calculated using the BWM method, and then potential assembly areas were categorised according to their suitability using GIS. The findings indicate that assembly areas in 36 of the 61 neighborhoods in İlkadım are inadequate, necessitating the allocation of new areas. The study reveals the inadequacy of existing assembly areas and provides a data-based methodology that provides decision support for identifying alternative safe areas.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Disaster Risk Management
• Assembly Area
• Best-Worth Method (BWM)
• Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
• Samsun

Kaynakça

1. Akar, A., Akar, Ö., & Konakoğlu, B. (2024). Analysis of emergency assembly points for post-earthquake disaster management: A case study of Erzincan, Türkiye. Natural Hazards, 120(13), 11791–11824. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-024-06661-7
2. Alvarez, P. A., Ishizaka, A., & Martínez, L. (2021). Multiple-criteria decision-making sorting methods: A survey. Expert Systems with Applications, 183, 115368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2021.115368
3. Aman, D. D., & Aytaç, G. (2022). Multi-criteria decision making for city-scale infrastructure of post-earthquake assembly areas: Case study of Istanbul. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 67, 102668. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102668
4. Atmaca, E., Aktaş, E., & Öztürk, H. N. (2023). Evaluate post-disaster and emergency assembly areas using multi-criteria decision-making techniques: A case study of Turkey. Sustainability, 15(10), 8350. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15108350
5. Badri Ahmadi, H., Kusi-Sarpong, S., & Rezaei, J. (2017). Assessing the social sustainability of supply chains using Best Worst Method. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 126, 99–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.07.020
6. Bağcı, H. R., Çağırır, N., & Demir, S. (2024). Arnavutköy’de (İstanbul) afet ve acil durum toplanma alanlarının afet süreçlerinde kullanılmaya uygunluk açısından değerlendirilmesi. Coğrafya Dergisi, 49, 113–133. https://doi.org/10.26650/JGEOG2024-1508051
7. Bahadır, M., Ocak, F., & Şen, H. (2024). Determination of the development of settlements above earthquake susceptibility classes in Atakum district (Samsun/Turkey). International Journal of Engineering and Geosciences, 9(3), 390-405. https://doi.org/10.26833/ijeg.1465072
8. Bakır, B. S., Sucuoğlu, H., & Yılmaz, T. (2002). An overview of local site effects and the associated building damage in Adapazari during the 17 August 1999 Izmit earthquake. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 92(1), 509–526.

9. Bayata, H. F., Mazlum, Y. E., Baş, F. İ., & Çolak, M. A. (2025). Erzincan kent merkezi deprem yapı stoğu ve ulaşım altyapı analizi. Geomatik, 10(1), 34-44.
10. Besharati Fard, M., Hamidi, D., Ebadi, M., Alavi, J., & Mckay, G. (2022). Optimum landfill site selection by a hybrid multi-criteria and multi-Agent decision-making method in a temperate and humid climate: BWM-GIS-FAHP- GT. Sustainable Cities and Society, 79, 103641. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2021.103641
11. Bray, J. D., Rodriguez-Marek, A., & Gillie, J. L. (2009). Design ground motions near active faults. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, 42(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.5459/bnzsee.42.1.1-8
12. Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED). (2024). 2023 Disasters in numbers. Retrieved from https://files.emdat.be/reports/2023_EMDAT_report.pdf
13. Cheng, H., & Yang, X. K. (2012). A comprehensive evaluation model for earthquake emergency shelter. Sustainable Transportation Systems, 412–422. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784412299.0050
14. Choukolaei, H. A., Rezaee, M. J., Yousefi, S., & Saberi, M. (2022). A simulation-based approach for decision- making in earthquake crisis management. In M. Gul, M. Yucesan & M. Erdogan (Eds.), Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (1st ed., pp. 281–302). CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003212904-19
15. Çakır, E., & Can, M. (2019). Best-Worst yöntemine dayalı ARAS yöntemi ile dış kaynak kullanım tercihinin belirlenmesi: turizm sektöründe bir uygulama. Journal of Graduate School of Social Sciences, 23(3), 1273– 1300.
16. Çınar, A. K., Akgün, Y., & Maral, H. (2018). Analysing the planning criteria of emergency assembly points and temporary shelter areas: case of İzmir-Karşıyaka. Journal of Planning, 28(2), 179–200. https://doi.org/10.14744/planlama.2018.07088
17. Dayanır, H., Çınar, A. K., Akgün, Y., & Çorumluoğlu, Ö. (2022). Delphi yöntemi kullanarak afet sonrası geçici barınma alanı seçimi ve planlaması ölçütlerinin belirlenmesi: İzmir/Seferihisar Örneği. Doğal Afetler ve Çevre Dergisi, 8(1), 87–102. https://doi.org/10.21324/dacd.936585
18. Eckert, E., Scalise, M., Louie, J. N., & Smith, K. D. (2022). Exploring basin amplification within the Reno metropolitan area in Northern Nevada using a magnitude 6.3 shakeout scenario. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 112(1), 457–473. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120200309
19. Ekin, E., & Sarıkaya, Z. (2021). AHP tabanlı Topsis yöntemi ile afet sonrası acil toplanma alanlarının belirlenmesine yönelik bir uygulama. Social Sciences Research Journal, 10(3), 696–713.
20. Ersayın, K. (2024). Post-disaster temporary shelter site location determination with BWM and GIS: a case study of Tokat, Turkey. Sustainable and Resilient Infrastructure, 10(3), 252-266. https://doi.org/10.1080/23789689.2024.2404797
21. Geng, S., Hou, H., & Zhang, S. (2020). Multi-Criteria location model of emergency shelters in humanitarian logistics. Sustainability, 12(5), 1759.
22. Ghaffarian, S., Shafapourtehrany, M., Lagap, U., Batur, M., Özener, H., Kılcı, R. E., & Karaman, H. (2025). Earthquake-based multi-hazard resilience assessment: A case study of Istanbul, Turkey (neighborhood level). Npj Natural Hazards, 2, 15. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44304-025-00065-8
23. Guo, S., & Zhao, H. (2017). Fuzzy best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method and its applications. Knowledge-Based Systems, 121, 23–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2017.01.010
24. Gupta, H. (2018). Evaluating service quality of airline industry using hybrid best worst method and VIKOR. Journal of Air Transport Management, 68, 35–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2017.06.001
25. Haddad, M., & Sanders, D. (2018). Selection of discrete multiple criteria decision making methods in the presence of risk and uncertainty. Operations Research Perspectives, 5, 357–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orp.2018.10.003
26. Hosseini, S. M. A., Ghalambordezfooly, R., & de la Fuente, A. (2022). Sustainability model to select optimal site location for temporary housing units: Combining GIS and the MIVES–Knapsack model. Sustainability, 14(8), 4453.
27. Hu, F., Yang, S., & Xu, W. (2014). A non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm for the location and districting planning of earthquake shelters. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 28(7), 1482–1501. https://doi.org/10.1080/13658816.2014.894638
28. Huang, Y., Yin, Z., & Chu, H. (2019). Suitability assessment of emergency shelters based on GIS: A case study in urban function optimization area of Shanghai. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 234, 012039. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/234/1/012039
29. Junian, J., & Azizifar, V. (2018). The evaluation of temporary shelter areas locations using geographic ınformation system and analytic hierarchy process. Civil Engineering Journal, 4(7), 1678. https://doi.org/10.28991/cej-03091104
30. Kar, B., & Hodgson, M. E. (2008). A GIS‐Based model to determine site suitability of emergency evacuation shelters. Transactions in GIS, 12(2), 227–248. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9671.2008.01097.x
31. Kartal, M. E., Kaya, Ç. M., & Yavuz, F. (2024). Ege Denizi depremi sonrası barınma çözümleri: Acil, geçici ve kalıcı barınma yaklaşımları. Afet ve Risk Dergisi, 7(2), 560–571. https://doi.org/10.35341/afet.1386500
32. Keskin, İ. (2011). 1:100.000 Ölçekli Türkiye Jeoloji Haritaları, SAMSUN E-36 ve F-36 Paftaları, Rapor No: 149.
33. Kılcı, F., Kara, B. Y., & Bozkaya, B. (2015). Locating temporary shelter areas after an earthquake: A case for Turkey. European Journal of Operational Research, 243(1), 323–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2014.11.035
34. Liang, F., Brunelli, M., & Rezaei, J. (2020). Consistency issues in the best worst method: Measurements and thresholds. Omega, 96, 102175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2019.102175
35. Moratto, L., Vuan, A., Saraò, A., Slejko, D., Papazachos, C., Caputo, R., Civile, D., Volpi, V., Ceramicola, S., Chatzipetros, A., Daja, S., Fabris, P., Garcia-Pelaez, J., Geletti, R., Karvelis, P., Pavlides, S., Rapti, D., Rebez, A., Rossi, G., … Zuliani, D. (2021). Seismic hazard for the Trans Adriatic Pipeline (TAP). Part 2: Broadband scenarios at the Fier Compressor Station (Albania). Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 19, 3389–3413. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-021-01122-z
36. Mou, Q., Xu, Z., & Liao, H. (2016). An intuitionistic fuzzy multiplicative best-worst method for multi-criteria group decision making. Information Sciences, 374, 224–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2016.08.074
37. Öcal, T., & Yıldız, A. (2023). 06 Şubat 2023 Kahramanmaraş depremleri öncesi toplanma alanlarının coğrafi analizi: Antakya ve çevresi. Hatay Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 20(52), 132-157.
38. Özçelik, M. (2021). Assessment of liquefaction susceptibility in sedimentary deposits on the Western side of the Antalya urban area (Turkey). Pure and Applied Geophysics, 178, 1859–1869. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-021-02738-7
39. Rahman, M., Chen, N., Islam, M. M., Dewan, A., Pourghasemi, H. R., Washakh, R. M. A., Nepal, N., Tian, S., Faiz, H., Alam, M., & Ahmed, N. (2021). Location-allocation modeling for emergency evacuation planning with GIS and remote sensing: A case study of Northeast Bangladesh. Geoscience Frontiers, 12(3), 101095. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2020.09.022
40. Rehman, A., Song, J., Haq, F., Ahamad, M. I., Sajid, M., & Zahid, Z. (2021). Geo-physical hazards microzonation and suitable site selection through multicriteria analysis using geographical information system. Applied Geography, 135, 102550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2021.102550
41. Rezaei, J. (2015). Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Omega, 53, 49–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2014.11.009
42. Qu, S., Xu, Y., Wu, Z., Xu, Z., Ji, Y., Qu, D., & Han, Y. (2021). An Interval-Valued Best–Worst Method with normal distribution for multi-criteria decision-making. Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, 46, 1771–1785. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-020-05035-y
43. Saunders, G. (2013). Minimum standards in shelter, settlement and non-food items. In P. & W. D. Greaney (Eds.), The Sphere Project, Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response (pp. 204–248).
44. Şenik, B., & Uzun, O. (2021). An assessment on size and site selection of emergency assembly points and temporary shelter areas in Düzce. Natural Hazards, 105, 1587–1602. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-020-04367-0
45. Şentürk, E., & Erener, A. (2017). Determınation of temporary shelter areas in natural disasters by GIS: A case study for Gölcük/Turkey. International Journal of Engineering and Geosciences, 2(3), 84–90. https://doi.org/10.26833/ijeg.317314
46. Şirin, M., & OCak, F. (2020). Gümüşhane şehri’nde afet ve acil durum toplanma alanlarının coğrafi bilgi sistemleri ortamında değerlendirilmesi. Doğu Coğrafya Dergisi. https://doi.org/10.17295/ataunidcd.790893
47. Soltani, A., Ardalan, A., Boloorani, A. D., Haghdoost, A., & Attar, M. J. H. (2015). Criteria for Site Selection of Temporary Shelters after Earthquakes: A Delphi Panel. PloS Currents, 23(7). http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/currents.dis.07ae4415115b4b3d71f99ba8b304b807
48. Song, R., Li, Y., & van de Lindt, J. W. (2014). Impact of earthquake ground motion characteristics on collapse risk of post-mainshock buildings considering aftershocks. Engineering Structures, 81, 349–361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.09.047
49. T.C. İçişleri Bakanlığı. (2025). Afet ve acil durum toplanma alanları, 13 Şubat tarihinde https://www.icisleri.gov.tr/afet-ve-acil-durum-toplanma-alanlari adresinden edinilmiştir.
50. T.C. İçişleri Bakanlığı Afet ve Acil Durum Yönetimi Başkanlığı (AFAD). (2015). Geçici Barınma Merkezlerinin Kurulması, Yönetimi ve İşletilmesi Hakkında Yönerge. Retrieved from https://www.afad.gov.tr/kurumlar/afad.gov.tr/2310/files/Gecici_Barinma_Merkezlerinin_Kurulmasi_Yonetimi _Isletilmesi_Yonerge.pdf
51. Tunusluoğlu, M. C., & Karaca, O. (2018). Liquefaction severity mapping based on SPT data: a case study in Canakkale city (NW Turkey). Environmental Earth Sciences, 77, 422. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-018-7597-x
52. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu (TÜİK). (2025). İl göstergeleri, 15 Şubat tarihinde https://biruni.tuik.gov.tr/ilgosterge/? locale=tr adresinden temin edilmiştir.
53. Wu, Q., Li, D.-Q., Liu, Y., & Du, W. (2021). Seismic performance of earth dams founded on liquefiable soil layer subjected to near-fault pulse-like ground motions. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 143, 106623. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2021.106623
54. Yao, Y., Zhang, Y., Yao, T., Wong, K., Tsou, J. Y., & Zhang, Y. (2021). A GIS-based system for spatial-temporal availability evaluation of the open spaces used as emergency shelters: The Case of Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 10(2), 63. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi10020063