A COOPERATIVE GAME THEORETICAL MODEL IN TEMPORARY HOUSING FOR POST‐DISASTER SITUATIONS

Öz

Turkey is among the countries that are especially vulnerable to natural disasters. Throughout history, many disasters have occurred in the geography where Turkey is located. Turkey is known that a country that is connects the continents and cultures. It is provide also interactions between several tectonic plates that including the Eurasian, African, and Arabian plates through the Anatolian plate. Interactions among the plates compose active seismic region that encompasses most of Turkey.  As a result of this high seismicity region, earthquake has been significant natural disaster for Turkey. Numerous buildings collapse and have damage after the severe earthquakes and the victims need to shelter to provide their needs. In this process, temporary housing is using to solve this shelter needs hence temporary housing needing urgent attention. But there is a problem about number of temporary housing demand because it is not possible to say a certain number about temporary housing needed.  In this study, game theory is used to solve this problem. Our study shows that cooperative interval game theory help us to define a fair cost allocation between private organizations for supporting the housing problem by using facility location games under uncertainty.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Temporary Housing,Earthquake,Cooperative Game Theory,Uncertainty

AFET SONRASI GEÇİCİ KONUTLAR İÇİN BİR KOOPERATİF OYUN TEORİSİ MODELİ

Öz

Türkiye, özellikle doğal afetlere karşı savunmasız olan ülkeler arasındadır. Tarih boyunca, Türkiye'nin bulunduğu coğrafyada birçok felaket meydana gelmiştir. Türkiye, kıtaları ve kültürleri birbirine bağlayan bir ülke olduğu biliniyor. Anadolu levhası üzerinden Avrasya, Afrika ve Arap levhalarını da içeren birçok tektonik levha arasında etkileşimler sağlar. Plakalar arasındaki etkileşimler, Türkiye'nin çoğunu kapsayan aktif sismik bölgeyi oluşturmaktadır. Bu yüksek deprem bölgelerinin bir sonucu olarak, Türkiye için deprem önemli bir doğal afet olmuştur. Çok sayıda bina, şiddetli depremlerin ardından çökmekte ve zarar görmektedir ve mağdurların ihtiyaçlarını karşılamak için barınmaları gerekmektedir. Bu süreçte geçici barınak, bu barınak ihtiyacını çözmek için kullanıyor, bu nedenle geçici dikkat gerektiren geçici konutlar. Ancak geçici konut talebinin sayısı konusunda bir sorun var çünkü ihtiyaç duyulan geçici konutlar hakkında belirli bir rakam söylemek mümkün değil. Bu çalışmada, bu problemi çözmek için oyun teorisi kullanılmıştır. Çalışmamız, kooperatif aralıklı oyun teorisinin belirsizlik altında tesis yeri oyunlarını kullanarak konut sorununu desteklemek için özel kuruluşlar arasında adil bir maliyet tahsisi tanımlamamıza yardımcı olduğunu göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Geçici Konut,Deprem,Kooperatif Oyun Teorisi,Belirsizlik

Kaynakça

1. Limoncu, S., & Celebioglu, B. (2006). Post-disaster sustainable housing system in Turkey. In I-Rec 2006 International Conference on Post-Disaster Reconstruction:'Meeting Stakeholder Interests
2. Güneş, O. (2015). Turkey's grand challenge: Disaster-proof building inventory within 20 years. Case Studies in Construction Materials, 2, 18-34.
3. Erdogan E., Dilaver Z. and Benzer N., Sustainable building design in Duzce case with reference to earthquake resistant building design, African Journal of Agricultural Research Vol. 4 (10), pp.982-990, October, 2009.
4. Tuna, S.C and Altun, S, (2014). Simulation of Ground Motions for the City of Izmir, 15 WCEE, Lisboa,2012.
5. Moberg K, Seismic Hazard of the Izmir Region, Turkey, Based on a Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment and Stochastic Ground Motion Simulations, Master of Science Thesis, Department of Earth Science University of Bergen, 2015.
6. Unal, S., Celebioglu, S., and Ozmen, B. (2014). Seismic hazard assessment of Turkey by statistical approaches. Turkish Journal of Earth Sciences, 23(3), 350-360.
7. 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.
8. Chang SE (2010) Urban disaster recovery: a measurement framework and its application to the 1995 Kobe earthquake. Disasters 34:303–327

9. Ganapati, N. E. (2013). Measuring the processes and outcomes of post-disaster housing recovery: Lessons from Golcuk, Turkey. Natural hazards, 65(3), 1783-1799.
10. Ganapati, N. E., & Ganapati, S. (2008). Enabling participatory planning after disasters: A case study of the World Bank's housing reconstruction in Turkey. Journal of the American Planning Association, 75(1), 41-59.
11. Johnson, C. (2002, May). What’s the big deal about temporary housing? Planning considerations for temporary accommodation after disasters: Example of the 1999 Turkish earthquakes. In 2002 TIEMS disaster management conference. Waterloo.
12. Johnson, C. (2007). Impacts of prefabricated temporary housing after disasters: 1999 earthquakes in Turkey. Habitat International, 31(1), 36-52.
13. Félix, D., Branco, J. M., & Feio, A. (2013). Temporary housing after disasters: A state of the art survey. Habitat International, 40, 136-141.
14. Chalinder, Andrew. (1998). Temporary Human Settlement Planning for Displaced Populations in Emergencies. Good Practice Review. London: Overseas Development Institute.
15. Tijs, S. H. (2003). Introduction to game theory. SIAM Hindustan Book Agency, India.
16. Alparslan Gök S.Z., Branzei R., Tijs S., (2009). Convex interval games. Journal of Applied Mathematics and Decision Sciences, Vol. 2009, Art- icle ID 342089, 14 pages, DOI: 10.1115/2009/342089.
17. Alparslan Gök, S. Z. (2014). On the interval Shapley value. Optimization, 63(5), 747-755.
18. Shapley, L. S. (1953). Stochastic games. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 39(10), 1095-1100.
19. Palancı, O., Alparslan Gök, S. Z. , & Weber, G. W. (2015). An axiomatization of the interval Shapley value and on some interval solution concepts. Contributions to Game Theory and Management, 8(0), 243-251.
20. van den Brink R., Funaki Y., (2009). Axiomatizations of a Class of Equal Surplus Sharing Solutions for TU-Games, Theory and Decision, 67(3), 303-340.
21. Palanci, O., & Alparslan Gök, S. Z. (2017). Facility Location Situations and Related Games in Cooperation. In Spatial Interaction Models (pp. 247-260). Springer, Cham.
22. Mallozzi, L. (2011). Cooperative games in facility location situations with regional fixed costs. Optimization Letters, 5(1), 173-181.
23. Goemans, M. X., & Skutella, M. (2004). Cooperative facility location games. Journal of Algorithms, 50(2), 194-214.
24. Özden, A. T. (2005). Evaluation and comparison of post-disaster housing in Turkey; lessons from Ikitelli and Senirkent. In Conference Proceedings (pp. 561-571).