Provincial-level analysis of land use changes following the 2023 Kahramanmaraş earthquakes using sentinel-2 land use/land cover time series data

Abstract

Natural disasters significantly impact human settlements and land use. The February 6, 2023, Kahramanmaraş earthquakes caused extensive changes in land use and land cover (LULC) across 11 provinces in Turkey. This study analyzes these changes using Sentinel-2 LULC time series data from 2022 to 2023. The study area includes Adana, Adıyaman, Diyarbakır, Gaziantep, Hatay, Kahramanmaraş, Kilis, Malatya, Osmaniye, Şanlıurfa, and Elazığ. LULC classifications—agriculture, settlement, bare ground, trees, and water—were analyzed using ArcGIS to assess annual change rates. Results indicate that settlements expanded, especially in Hatay, Gaziantep, and Osmaniye (3-4%), due to post-earthquake reconstruction. Agricultural land increased in Şanlıurfa and Kilis but declined in Elazığ and Adıyaman. Bare ground areas decreased, suggesting erosion control and afforestation efforts. Small increases in water bodies were observed, indicating potential environmental benefits. These findings highlight the importance of sustainable land management and post-disaster planning to mitigate future risks.

Keywords

• Disaster Management
• GIS
• LULC
• Remote Sensing
• Sentinel-2

Sentinel-2 arazi kullanımı/arazi örtüsü zaman serisi verileri kullanılarak 2023 Kahramanmaraş depremleri sonrası arazi kullanımındaki değişimlerin il düzeyinde analizi

Öz

Doğal afetler, insan yerleşimleri ve arazi kullanımı üzerinde önemli değişimlere yol açmaktadır. 6 Şubat 2023 Kahramanmaraş depremleri, Türkiye’deki 11 ilde arazi kullanımı ve arazi örtüsünde (LULC) büyük değişimlere neden olmuştur. Bu çalışmada, Sentinel-2 LULC zaman serisi verileri kullanılarak 2022-2023 yılları arasındaki değişimler analiz edilmiştir. Çalışma alanı Adana, Adıyaman, Diyarbakır, Gaziantep, Hatay, Kahramanmaraş, Kilis, Malatya, Osmaniye, Şanlıurfa ve Elazığ illerini kapsamaktadır. Tarım, yerleşim, çıplak arazi, ağaçlık alanlar ve su kaynakları gibi LULC sınıfları ArcGIS yazılımı kullanılarak yıllık değişim oranları açısından değerlendirilmiştir. Sonuçlar, yerleşim alanlarının genişlediğini, özellikle Hatay, Gaziantep ve Osmaniye’de %3-4 oranında arttığını ve bunun yeniden yapılandırma sürecinden kaynaklandığını göstermektedir. Tarım arazileri, Şanlıurfa ve Kilis’te artarken, Elazığ ve Adıyaman’da azalmıştır. Çıplak arazi alanlarının azalması, erozyon kontrolü ve ağaçlandırma çalışmalarına işaret etmektedir. Su kaynaklarındaki küçük artışlar, çevresel sürdürülebilirlik açısından olumlu bir gelişme olarak değerlendirilmiştir. Bu bulgular, sürdürülebilir arazi yönetimi ve afet sonrası planlamanın önemini vurgulamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Afet Yönetimi
• CBS
• AÖAK
• Uzaktan Algılama
• Sentinel-2

Kaynakça

1. H.E. Huppert and Sparks R.S.J., Extreme natural hazards: Population growth, globalization and environmental change, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 364(1845), 1875–1888, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2006.1803
2.    USGS (United States Geological Survey), Earthquake hazards program: Earthquake map. https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/map/9, Accessed 12 December 2024.
3.    AFAD, Human-induced disasters. Republic of Turkey Ministry of Interior Disaster and Emergency Management Authority, Disaster and Emergency Training Center. https://www.afad.gov.tr/afadem/insan -kaynakli-afetler. Accessed 12 December 2024.
4.    M. Marangoz and Ç. İzci, Doğal afetlerin ekonomik, sosyal ve çevresel etkilerinin 6 Şubat 2023 Kahramanmaraş merkezli depremler bağlamında girişimciler açısından değerlendirilmesi. Sosyal ve Beşeri Bilimler Araştırmaları Dergisi, 24(52), 1-30, 2023.
5.    Türkiye Recovery and Reconstruction Assessment (TERRA), Türkiye earthquakes recovery and reconstruction assessment. Report with the support of the United Nations and the European Union, with select inputs from World Bank staff. https://www.sbb.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/T urkiye-Recovery-and-Reconstruction-Assessment.pdf Accessed 13 January 2025.
6.    İ. Tapan, The impacts of the Kahramanmaraş-centered earthquakes (February 6, 2023) on settlements in the Malatya Plain. Electronic Turkish Studies, 19(3), 2024.
7.    K. Alğın Demir and N. Karataş, Temporal and spatial evaluation of the disaster phenomenon in urban planning: The case of Torbalı district. Turkish Earthquake Research Journal, 6(1), 98–122, 2024. https://doi.org/10.46464/tdad.1405733
8.    F.N. Genç, Türkiye'de doğal afet riskleri ve kentleşme. Proceedings of the TMMOB Disaster Symposium, pp. 381–406, Ankara, Türkiye, Aralık 2007.

9.    K.A.M. Al-Zangana, Determining land use and land cover changes using GIS and remote sensing: The case of Kalar region. Master Thesis, Aksaray University, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Aksaray, Turkey, 2017. https://acikerisim.aksaray.edu. tr/xmlui/handle/20.500.12451/1958.
10. A. Bag, A. Sharma, and S. Pal, Studying urbanization pattern in Sambalpur City during 1992-2042 using CA-ANN, and Markov-Chain model. International Journal of Engineering and Geosciences, 9(3), 356-367, 2024.
11. E.D. Ashaolu, J.F. Olorunfemi and I.P. Ifabiyi, Assessing the spatio-temporal pattern of land use and land cover changes in Osun drainage basin, Nigeria. Journal of Environmental Geography, 12(1-2), 41-50, 2019.
12. U.E. Msovu, D.M. Mulungu, J.K. Nobert and H. Mahoo, Land use/cover change and their impacts on streamflow in Kikuletwa Catchment of Pangani River Basin, Tanzania. Tanzania Journal of Engineering and Technology, 38(2), 171-192, 2019.
13. M. Kamaraj and S. Rangarajan, Predicting the future land use and land cover changes for Bhavani basin, Tamil Nadu, India, using QGIS MOLUSCE plugin. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(57), 86337-86348, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-17904-6
14. G. Balamurugan and M.J.D.A. Aravind, Land use land cover changes in pre-and post-earthquake affected area using Geoinformatics–Western Coast of Gujarat, India. Disaster Advances, 8(4), 1–14, 2015.
15. O. Satir, S. Kemec, O. Yeler et al., Simulating the impact of natural disasters on urban development in a sample of earthquake. Natural Hazards, 116, 3839–3855, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-023-05838-w
16. E. Purswani, B. Pathak, D. Kumar, and S. Verma, Land-use change as a disturbance regime. In: Environmental Concerns and Sustainable Development: Volume 2: Biodiversity, Soil and Waste Management,127–144, 2020. https://doi.org/10.10 07/978-981-13-6358-0_6
17. Y.H. Mir, S. Mir, M.A. Ganie, J.A. Bhat, A.M. Shah, M. Mushtaq, and I. Irshad, Overview of land use and land cover change and its impacts on natural resources. In: Ecologically Mediated Development: Promoting Biodiversity Conservation and Food Security, pp. 101–130, Springer Nature Singapore, Singapore, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-96-2413-3_5
18. E. Garedew, Land-use and land-cover dynamics and rural livelihood perspectives, in the semi-arid areas of Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia. Doctoral Thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, No. 2010:7, 2010.
19. S. Yousafzai, R. Saeed, G. Rahman, and S. Farish, Spatio-temporal assessment of land use dynamics and urbanization: Linking with environmental aspects and DPSIR framework approach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(54), 81337–81350, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-21393-6
20. B. Rimal, L. Zhang, D. Fu, R. Kunwar, and Y. Zhai, Monitoring urban growth and the Nepal earthquake 2015 for sustainability of Kathmandu Valley, Nepal. Land, 6(2), 42, 2017. https://doi.org/10.3390/land6020 042
21. M.F. Iqbal and I.A. Khan, Spatiotemporal land use land cover change analysis and erosion risk mapping of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, Pakistan. The Egyptian Journal of Remote Sensing and Space Science, 17(2), 209–229, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrs.2014.09. 004P .
22. Cui, Y.M. Lin and C. Chen, Destruction of vegetation due to geo-hazards and its environmental impacts in the Wenchuan earthquake areas. Ecological Engineering, 44, 61–69, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.ecoleng.2012.03.012
23. B. Nath, Z. Niu and R.P. Singh, Land use and land cover changes, and environment and risk evaluation of Dujiangyan city (SW China) using remote sensing and GIS techniques Sustainability, 10, 4631, 2018. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10124631
24. G. Balamurugan and M. Aravind, Land use land cover changes in pre-and post-earthquake affected area using geoinformatics–Western coast of Gujarat, India. Disaster Advances, 2015.
25. C. Zhong, C. Li, P. Gao and H. Li, Discovering vegetation recovery and landslide activities in the Wenchuan earthquake area with Landsat imagery. Sensors. 21(15), 5243, 2021. https://doi.org/10. 3390/s21155243
26. J. Kang, Z. Wang, H. Cheng, J. Wang and X. Liu, Remote sensing land use evolution in earthquake-stricken regions of Wenchuan County, China. Sustainability, 14(15), 9721, 2022. https://doi.org/10. 3390/su14159721
27. M. Taftsoglou, S. Valkaniotis, G. Papathanassiou and E. Karantanellis, Satellite imagery for rapid detection of liquefaction surface manifestations: The case study of Türkiye–Syria 2023 earthquakes. Remote Sensing, 15(17),4190, 2023. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15174190
28. O. Aksu and A. Karlıkanovaıte-Balıkcı, Earthquakes in Kahramanmaraş; Assessment of affected areas and recommendations for settlement regeneration. The Eurasia Proceedings of Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics, 26, 404–415, 2023. https://doi.org/10.55549/epstem.1411039
29. N. Civelek, M. İnalpulat and L. Genç, Evaluation of earthquake impacts on land use and land cover (LU/LC) using Google Earth Engine (GEE), Sentinel-2 imageries, and machine learning: Case study of Antakya. Journal of Anatolian Environmental and Animal Sciences, 8(4), 642–650, 2023. https://doi.org/ 10.35229/jaes.1349826
30. European Space Agency (ESA), Sentinel-2: ESA's optical high-resolution mission for land monitoring. European Space Agency. https://www.esa.int, Accessed 17 December 2024.
31. ESRI, Living atlas of the world. ArcGIS Online. https://livingatlas.arcgis.com, Accessed 14 December 2024.
32. G.N. Vivekananda, R. Swathi and A.V.L.N. Sujith, Retracted article: Multi-temporal image analysis for LULC classification and change detection. European Journal of Remote Sensing, 54(sup2), 189–199, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1080/22797254.2020.1771215
33. C. Aydöner and D. Maktav, The role of the integration of remote sensing and GIS in land use/land cover analysis after an earthquake. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 30(7), 1697–1717, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1080/01431160802642289
34. M. Ishihara and T. Tadono, Land cover changes induced by the Great East Japan Earthquake in 2011. Scientific Reports, 7, 45769, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep45769
35. J. Kang, Z. Wang, H. Cheng, J. Wang, and X. Liu, Remote sensing land use evolution in earthquake-stricken regions of Wenchuan County, China. Sustainability, 14(15), 9721, 2022. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159721
36. E. Sabırsız and M. Şöhret, 6 Şubat depremlerinin Türkiye ekonomisi üzerindeki makroekonomik, sosyal ve çevresel etkileri. Akademik Yaklaşımlar Dergisi, 15(1-Deprem Özel Sayısı), 571–597, 2023. https://doi.org/10.54688/ayd.1390984