-

Öz

Disasters cause great disruption for human, environment and assets. To mitigate or reduce the impact of disasters; hazard, vulnerability, and risk analysis are performed within the risk management activities. Disaster management generally occurs in four successive stages. Damage mitigation and preparedness stages for pre-disaster, response and recovery stages for postdisaster interact with one another. Success in disaster management depends on successfully realization of the activities that are performed in the disaster cycle. Disaster risk management contains activities such as hazard, vulnerability, risk assessment, and analysis. Disaster hazard is a natural or human originated event; vulnerability is the features and situations of a society that cause exposure to the harming impacts of a hazard event. The composition of the disaster hazard and vulnerability expose the risk of disaster. Some disaster hazard such as following the earthquake landslide, floods, and fire can occur together and can trigger each other. Similarly more than one disaster can be seen together and that exposes the multi-hazard risk situations. In order to manage the disaster risks data requirement, hazard and vulnerability analysis must be performed first. Also an integrated approach is required for disaster. For this purpose, in this study data requirement analysis was performed for the analysis of very common disasters in Turkey such as landslides, fire, forest fire, flood and earthquake

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Disaster risk, hazard and vulnerability, data requirement analysis

ÇOKLU AFET RİSK YÖNETİMİNDE TEHLİKE VE ZARAR GÖREBİLİRLİK BELİRLENMESİ İÇİN GEREKSİNİM ANALİZİ

Öz

ÖZET

Afetler, insanlara, insanların sahip olduğu mal varlıklarına ve çevreye büyük çapta yıkıma neden olurlar. Bu yıkımları ortadan kaldırmak veya yıkımların etkilerini azaltmak için yapılacak çalışmalar afet yönetimi çerçevesinde gerçekleştirilir. Afet yönetimi genel anlamda birbirini takip eden dört aşamada gerçekleşmektedir.  Afet gerçekleşmeden önceki dönemde zarar azaltma ve hazırlık, afet gerçekleştikten sonraki dönem için müdahale ve iyileştirme aşamaları etkileşim halindedir. Afet yönetiminin başarılı olması, afet döngüsü içindeki aktivitelerin başarıyla yapılmasına bağlıdır. Afet risk yönetimi, tehlike ve zarar görebilirlik ile risk analiz çalışmaları gibi unsurları içermektedir.

Afet tehlikesi doğal veya insan kökenli bir olay iken, zarar görebilirlik insanların veya malvarlıklarının tehlikelere maruz kalmasına sebep olan çeşitli nitelikleridir. Tehlike ve zarar görebilirliğin bileşimi afet riskini ortaya çıkarmaktadır. Bazı afet tehlikeleri bir arada görülebilmekte-depremi takip eden heyelanlar, yangınlar ve seller gibi- afetler birbirini tetikleyebilmektedir. Buna benzer şekilde bir alanda birden fazla afetin bir arada görülmesi çoklu afet riski durumunu ortaya çıkarmaktadır. Afet risklerinin yönetilebilmesi için öncelikle tehlike, zarar görebilirlik analizleri ve veri gereksinimi analizlerinin yapılması gereklidir. Ayrıca bu afetlere bütüncül bir yaklaşım gerekmektedir. Böylelikle bu çalışmada, Türkiye’de en çok görülen deprem, sel, heyelan, yangın, orman yangını gibi afet türleri için tehlike ve zarar görebilirlik analizine yönelik veri gereksinimi analizleri yapılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Afet riski, tehlike ve zarar görebilirlik, veri gereksinimi analizi

 

ABSTRACT

Disasters cause great disruption for human, environment and assets. To mitigate or reduce the impact of disasters; hazard, vulnerability, and risk analysis are performed within the risk management activities. Disaster management generally occurs in four successive stages. Damage mitigation and preparedness stages for pre-disaster, response and recovery stages for post-disaster interact with one another. Success in disaster management depends on successfully realization of the activities that are performed in the disaster cycle. Disaster risk management contains activities such as hazard, vulnerability, risk assessment, and analysis.

Disaster hazard is a natural or human originated event; vulnerability is the features and situations of a society that cause exposure to the harming impacts of a hazard event. The composition of the disaster hazard and vulnerability expose the risk of disaster. Some disaster hazard such as following the earthquake landslide, floods, and fire can occur together and can trigger each other. Similarly more than one disaster can be seen together and that exposes the multi-hazard risk situations. In order to manage the disaster risks data requirement, hazard and vulnerability analysis must be performed first. Also an integrated approach is required for disaster.  For this purpose, in this study data requirement analysis was performed for the analysis of very common disasters in Turkey such as landslides, fire, forest fire, flood and earthquake.

Keywords: Disaster risk, hazard and vulnerability, data requirement analysis

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Afet riski, tehlike ve zarar görebilirlik, veri gereksinimi analizi

Kaynakça

1. Abella, E. C. ve Van VanWesten, C. J. (2007). Generation of a landslide risk index map for Cuba using spatial multi-criteria evaluation. Landslides, 4(4), 311-325.
2. Adab, H., Kanniah, K. D. ve Solaimani, K. (2013). Modeling forest fire risk in the northeast of Iran using remote sensing and GIS techniques. Natural hazards,65(3), 1723-1743.
3. AFAD (2012). Afet risk yönetimi. 5 Aralık Pazartesi, 2014 tarihinde https://www.afad.gov.tr adresinden alındı
4. Albano, R., Pascale, S., Sdao, F. ve Sole, A. (2013). A GIS Model for Systemic Vulnerability Assessment in Urbanized Areas Supporting the Landslide Risk Management. In Landslide Science Heidelberg. 723-731). SpringerBerlin
5. Amatulli, G., Peréz-Cabello, F. ve de la Riva, J. (2007). Mapping lightning/human-caused wildfires occurrence under ignition point location uncertainty. Ecological modelling, 200(3), 321- 333.
6. Andreescu M. P. ve Frost D. B. (1998). Weather and traffic accidents in Montreal, 10.3354/cr009225. Clim
7. Res.9:225–230. doi:
8. Armaș, I. ve Gavriș, A. (2013). Social vulnerability assessment using spatial multi-criteria analysis (SEVI model) and the Social Vulnerability Index (SoVI model)–a case study for Bucharest, Romania. Natural Hazards and Earth System Science, 13(6), 1481-1499.

9. Ayalew, L. ve Yamagishi, H. (2005). The application of GIS-based logistic regression for landslide susceptibility mapping in the Kakuda– Yahiko Mountains, Central Japan. Geomorphology 65, 15–31.
10. Aydınoğlu, A. Ç. (2009). Türkiye için Coğrafi Veri Değişim Modelinin Geliştirilmesi. DoktoraTezi, KTÜ Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Trabzon.
11. Bednarik, M., Yilmaz, I. ve Marschalko, M. (2012). Landslide hazard and risk assessment: a case study from the Hlohovec–Sered landslide area in south-west Slovakia. Natural hazards, 64(1), 547-575.
12. Bhatt, B. P., Awasthi, K. D., Heyojoo, B. P., Silwal, T. ve Kafle, G. (2013). Using Geographic Information System and Analytical Hierarchy Process in Landslide Hazard Zonation. Applied Ecology and Environmental Sciences, 1(2), 14-22.
13. Boore, D. M. (2004) Can site response be predicted. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 8(Special Issue 1):1–41.
14. Brodsky, H. ve A. S. Hakkert (1988). Risk of a road accident in rainy weather. Accident Analysis & Prevention 20(3): 161-176.
15. Bühler, M., de Torres Curth, M. ve Garibaldi, L. A. (2013). Demography and socioeconomic vulnerability influence fire occurrence in Bariloche (Argentina). Landscape and Urban Planning, 110, 64-73.
16. Cardona, O. D., Van Aalst, M. K., Birkmann, J., Fordham, M., McGregor, G., Perez, R. ve Sinh, B. T. (2012). Determinants of risk: exposure and vulnerability. Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation, 65- 108.
17. Chen, K., Blong, R. ve Jacobson, C. (2003). Towards an integrated approach to natural hazards risk assessment using GIS: with reference to bushfires. Environmental Management, 31(4), 0546-0560.
18. Chuvieco, E., Salas, F. J., Carvacho, L. ve Rodriguez-Silva, F. (1999). Integrated fire risk mapping.In. Remote Sensing of Large Wildfires (pp. 61-100).Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
19. Cutter, S. L., Boruff, B. J. ve Shirley, W. L. (2003). Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Social science quarterly, 84(2), 242- 261.
20. Cutter, S. L. Mitchell, J. T. ve S., S. M. (2000). Revealing the vulnerability of people and places: A case study of Georgetown County, South Carolina. Annals of the Association of American Geographers (90(4)), 713-737.
21. Çan, T., Duman, T. Y., Olgun, Ş., Çörekçioğlu, Ş., Karakaya Gülmez, F., Elmacı, H., Hamzaçebi, S. ve Emre, Ö. (2013). Türkiye Heyelan Veri Tabanı. TMMOB Coğrafi Bilgi Sistemleri Kongresi 2013.
22. Çelebi, M. (1999). Topographical and geological amplification: case studies and engineering implications. StructSaf 10:199–217.
23. Çevik, E. ve Topal, T. (2003). GIS-based landslide susceptibility mapping for a problematic segment of the natural gas pipeline, Hendek (Turkey). Environmental Geology, 44, 949-962.
24. Dai, F.C., Lee, C.F., Li, J., Xu, Z.W., 2001. Assessment of landslide susceptibility on the natural terrain of Lantau Island, Hong Kong. Environ. Geol. 43 (3), 381–391.
25. Dang, N. M., Babel, M. S. ve Luong, H. T. (2011). Evaluation of food risk parameters in the Day River flood diversion area, Red River delta, Vietnam. Natural hazards, 56(1), 169-194.
26. Demir, E. (2011). Determining approaches for the management of emergency services by Geographic Information Systems: Fire Case. Master Thesis. Istanbul Technical University, Geomatics Engineering. Istanbul.
27. Dewan, A. M. (2013). Vulnerability and Risk Assessment.In Floods in a Megacity (pp. 139-177). Springer Netherlands.
28. Dickson, E., Baker, J. L., Hoornweg, D., & Tiwari, A. (2012). Urban risk assessments. Washington: The World Bank.
29. Driss, M., Benabdeli, K., Saint-Gerand, T. ve Hamadouche, M. A. (2014). Traffic safety prediction model for identifying spatial degrees of exposure to the risk of road accidents based on fuzzy logic approach. Geocarto International, (ahead-of-print), 1-15.
30. Duzgun, H. S. B., Yucemen, M. S., Kalaycioglu, H. S., Celik, K., Kemec, S., Ertugay, K. ve Deniz, A. (2011). An integrated earthquake vulnerability assessment framework for urban areas. Natural hazards, 59(2), 917-947.
31. Ergünay, O. (2007). Türkiye'nin afet profili . TMMOB afet sempozyumu(s. 1-14). Ankara: TMMOB.
32. European Commission. (2007). Armonia (Assessing and Mapping Multiple Risk methodologies and tools in Europe. Aralık 04, 2014 tarihinde Spatial http://ec.europa.eu/research/environment/pdf/publications/fp6 /natural_hazards/armonia.pdf adresinden alındı approaches,
33. Gai, C., Weng, W. ve Yuan, H. (2011, April). GIS-based forest fire risk assessment and mapping. In Computational Sciences and Optimization (CSO), 2011 Fourth International Joint Conference on (pp. 1240-1244). IEEE.
34. Galli, M., Ardizzone, F., Cardinali, M., Guzzetti, F. ve Reichenbach, R., (2008). Comparing landslide inventory maps. Geomorphology 94, 268–289.
35. Golodoniuc, P. ve Cox, S. (2010). Geospatial Information Modelling for Interoperable Data Exchange - Application Schema Modelling: From Concept to Implementation, IEEE Sixth International Conference on e-Science, 102-105.
36. Gökkaya, M. A. (2014). Coğrafi Bilgi Sistemleri (CBS) ve analitik hiyerarşi yöntemi(AHY) ile üretilen deprem tehlike haritalarının duyarlılık analizi.Yüksek lisans tezi. İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü. İstanbul.
37. Hernandez-Leal PA, Arbelo M. ve Gonzalez-Calvo A (2006) Fire risk assessment using satellite data. Adv Space Res 37(4):741– 746. doi:10.1016/
38. Jaiswal RK, Mukherjee S, Raju KD. ve Saxena R. (2002). Forest fire risk zone mapping from satellite imagery and GIS. Int J Appl EarthObsGeoinf4(1):1–10.doi:10.1016/s0303- 2434(02)00006-5
39. Kadıoğlu, M. (2011). Afet yönetimi, beklenilmeyeni beklemek en kötüsünü yönetmek. İstanbul: Marmara Belediyeler Birliği.
40. Kadıoğlu, M., 2008: Sel, Heyelan ve Çığ için Risk Yönetimi; Kadıoğlu, M. ve Özdamar, E., (editörler), “Afet Zararlarını Azaltmanın Temel İlkeleri”; s. 251-276, JICA Türkiye Ofisi Yayınları No: 2, Ankara.
41. Kappes, M. S., Papathoma-Köhle, M. ve Keiler, M. (2012). Assessing physical vulnerability for multi-hazards using an indicator- based methodology. Applied Geography, 32(2), 577-590.
42. Karaman, H. ve Erden, T. (2014). Net earthquake hazard and elements at risk (NEaR) map creation for city of Istanbul via spatial multi- criteria decision analysis. Natural Hazards, 1-25.
43. Karimzadeh, S., Miyajima, M., Hassanzadeh, R., Amiraslanzadeh, R. ve Kamel, B. (2014). A GIS-based seismic hazard, building vulnerability and human loss assessment for the earthquake scenario Engineering, 66, 263-280. Dynamics and Earthquake
44. Keskin, F. (2012). Quantitative flood risk assessment with application in Turkey. Doctoral dissertation. Geodetic and Geographic Information Technologies. Middle East Technical University. Ankara.
45. Le Brun B., Hatzfeld D., Bard PY. ve Bouchon M. (1999). Experimental study of the ground motion on a large scale topographic hill at Kitherion (Greece). J Seismol 3:1–15
46. Lomnitzve W. (2012). Earthquake. In. Wisner, B., Gaillard, J. C., & Kelman, I. (Eds.).(2012). Handbook of hazards and disaster risk reduction.Routledge.
47. Lu, Y., Carter, L. ve Showalter, P. S. (2010). Wildfire Risk Analysis at the Wildland Urban Interface in Travis County, Texas. In Geospatial Techniques in Urban Hazard and Disaster Analysis (pp. 203-227).Springer Netherlands.
48. Martins, V. N., e Silva, D. S. ve Cabral, P. (2012).Social vulnerability assessment to seismic risk using multicriteria analysis: the case study of Vila Franca do Campo (São Miguel Island, Azores, Portugal). Natural hazards, 62(2), 385-404.
49. Marzocchi, W., Mastellone, M.L., Ruocco, A.D, Novelli, P., Romeo, E. ve Gasparini, P. (2009). Principles of multi risk assessment. Interaction amongst natural and man-induced risks. European Commission Directorate General for Research. Brussels.
50. Meroni, F.ve Zonno G. (2000). Seismic risk evaluation. Survey in Geophysics. 21: 257-267, Kluwer Academic Publishers. Netherland.
51. Messner, F. ve Meyer, V. (2006). Flood damage, vulnerability and risk perception–challenges for flood damage research (pp. 149- 167). Springer Netherlands.
52. Morales, M. ve Lorena, A. (2002). Urban disaster management: A case study of earthquake risk assessment in Cartago, Costa Rica. ITC.
53. National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (U.S.), United States. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Geological Survey (U.S.) (2004) 2003 NEHRP recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings and other structures and accompanying commentary and maps.
54. Nastev, M. ve Todorov, N. (2013). HAZUS: A standardized methodology for flood risk assessment in Canada. Canadian Water Resources Journal, 38(3), 223-231.
55. Ng KS, Hung WT, Wong WG. (2002). An algorithm for assessing the risk of traffic accident. JSaf Res. 33:387–410.
56. Nirupama, N. (2013). Disaster Risk Management. In P. Bobrowsky (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Natural Hazards (pp. 164-170): Springer Netherlands.
57. Nisanci, R. (2010). GIS based fire analysis and production of fire-risk maps: The Trabzon experience. Scientific Research and Essays, 5(9), 970-977.
58. Özcan, E. (2006). Sel olayı ve Türkiye. Gazi Eğitim ., Cilt 26, Sayı 1, 36- 50.
59. Özelkan, E. (2008). Uydu görüntüleri kullanarak yangın riski değerlendirilmesi Kaş örneği. Yüksek lisans tezi. İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi Bilişim Enstitüsü. İstanbul.
60. Özkul, B. ve Karaman, E. (2007). Doğal afetler için risk yönetimi. TMMOB afet sempozyumu bildiriler kitabı (s. 251-261). TMMOB.
61. Özmen, S. (2010). İstanbul ili yangın riski analizi ve yangın riski haritalarının oluşturulması. Yüksek lisans tezi.Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
62. Özşahin, E. (2014).Tekirdağ ilinde Coğrafi Bilgi Sistemleri ve analitik hiyerarşi süreci analizi. Humanitas-Uluslararası Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, (03), kullanarak 167-186. heyelan duyarlılık
63. Öztürk, D. (2009). CBS tabanlı çok ölçütlü karar analizi yöntemleri ile sel ve taşkın duyarlılığının belirlenmesi: Güney Marmara havzası örneği. Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü. İstanbul. doktora tezi.Yıldız Teknik
64. Papathoma-Köhle, M., Neuhäuser, B., Ratzinger, K., Wenzel, H. ve Dominey-Howes, D. (2007). Elements at risk as a framework for landslides. Natural Hazards and Earth System Science, 7(6), 765-779. communities to
65. Pelling, M. (2003). The vulnerability of cities natural disasters and social resilience. London: Earthscan Publications.
66. Pitilakis, K., Alexoudi, M., Argyroudis, S., Monge, O. ve Martin, C. (2006). Earthquake risk assessment of lifelines. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 4(4), 365-390.
67. Scheuer, S., Haase, D. ve Meyer, V. (2011). Exploring multicriteria flood vulnerability by integrating economic, social and ecological dimensions of flood risk and coping capacity: from a starting point view towards an end point view of vulnerability. Natural hazards, 58(2), 731-751.
68. Smith, K. (2013). Environmental hazards assessing risk and reducing disaster. Sixth edition. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
69. Singh, K. B. (2008). Handbook of disaster management techniques and guidelines. New Delhi, India: Rajat Publications.
70. Sitharam, T. G. ve Anbazhagan, P. (2008). Seismic microzonation: Principles, practices and experiments. EJGE Special Volume Bouquet, 8.
71. Şahin, C. ve Sipahioğlu, Ş. (2002). Doğal afetler ve Türkiye. Ankara: Gündüz.
72. Thouret, J. C., Ettinger, S., Guitton, M., Santoni, O., Magill, C., Martelli, K. ve Arguedas, A. (2014). Assessing physical vulnerability in large cities exposed to flash floods and debris flows: the case of Arequipa (Peru). Natural Hazards, 1-45.
73. Tutsch, M., Haider, W., Beardmore, B., Lertzman, K., Cooper, A. B. ve Walker, R. C. (2010). Estimating the consequences of wildfire for wildfire risk assessment, a case study in the southern Gulf Islands, British Columbia, Canada. Canadian journal of forest research, 40(11), 2104-2114.
74. Tyagunov, S., Grünthal, G., Wahlström, R., Stempniewski, L. ve Zschau, J. (2006). Seismic risk mapping for Germany. Natural Hazards and Earth System Science, 6(4), 573-586.
75. UK/Government. (2014). Multi hazard disaster risk assessment (V2). 6 Aralık 2014 tarihinde https://www.gov.uk/government adresinden alındı.
76. UNISDR. (2009). UNISDR (The United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction) terminolgy on disaster risk reduction. 5 Aralık Pazartesi, 2014 tarihinde http://www.unisdr.org/ adresinden alındı.
77. Uşkay, S. ve Aksu, S. (2002). Ülkemizde Taşkınlar, Nedenleri, Zararları ve Alınması Gereken Önlemler. Türkiye Mühendislik Haberleri, (420-421), 422.
78. Vadrevu, K. P., Eaturu, A. ve Badarinath, K. V. S. (2010). Fire risk evaluation using study. Environmental monitoring and assessment, 166(1-4), multicriteria 223-239. analysis—a case
79. Van Westen, C. J., Alkema, D., Damen, M.C. J., Kerle, N. ve Kingma, N. C. (2011). Multi hazard risk assessment. Distance education course guide book. United Nations University-ITC School on Disaster Geo information Management (UNU-ITC DGIM).
80. Van Westen, C. J., Castellanos, E. ve Kuriakose, S. L. (2008). Spatial data for landslide susceptibility, hazard, and vulnerability assessment: an overview. Engineering geology, 102(3), 112- 131.
81. Vilar, L.; Nieto, H. ve Martin, M.P. (2010). Integration of Lightning- and Human-Caused Wildfire Occurrence Models. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 16: 340–364, Taylor & Francis Group.
82. Wisner, B.; Blaikie, P.; Cannon, T. ve Davis, I. (2004). At risk: natural hazard, people’s vulnerability and disasters, 2nd edn. Routledge, Abingdon
83. Xin, J. ve C. Huang (2013). Fire risk analysis of residential buildings based on scenario clusters and its application in fire risk management. Fire Safety Journal 62, Part A(0): 72-78.
84. Yalcin, A., Reis, S., Aydinoglu, A. C. ve Yomralioglu, T. (2011). A GIS- based comparative study of frequency ratio, analytical hierarchy process, bivariate statistics and logistics regression methods for landslide susceptibility mapping in Trabzon, NE Turkey. Catena, 85(3), 274-287.
85. Yalcin, A. (2008). GIS-based landslide susceptibility mapping using analytical hierarchyprocess and bivariate statistics in Ardesen (Turkey): Comparisons of results and confirmations. Catena 72, 1–12.
86. Zhang, Y. L. ve You, W. J. (2014). Social vulnerability to floods: a case study of Huaihe River Basin. Natural Hazards, 71(3), 2113- 2125.
87. Zhang, Y. (2013). Analysis on Comprehensive Risk Assessment for Urban Fire: The Case of Haikou City. Procedia Engineering, 52, 618- 623.
88. Zhenpeng, L., Baipo, Y. Yifan, Y. (1981). Effect of three-dimensional topography on earthquake ground motion. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 1(1), 56-77. İnternet kaynakları
89. URL-1: www. mgm. gov.tr
90. URL-2: http://arifcagdas.com/adys
91. URL-3:http://www.eu-orchestra.org/TUs/Pilots/en/text/Pilots.pdf 21/11/2014