Türkiye'de Deprem Riski ile İlişkili Olarak Bölgesel Yığılma ve Eşitsizlikler

Öz

Bu çalışma, bölgesel kalkınma politikalarının ve bölgesel farklılıkların, yerleşim yerlerinin deprem riski altındaki kırılganlığı üzerindeki rolünü araştırmaktadır. Ekonomik yatırımların ve dolayısıyla nüfusun belli bir bölgede yoğunlaşması değer yığılması (DY) olarak adlandırılmaktadır. Türkiye'de DY süreci 1980'lerden sonra liberalleşme ve açık ticaret (ihracata dayalı büyüme) politikasının bir sonucu olarak hızlanmış ve başta kıyı bölgeleri olmak üzere ülkede son derece eşitsiz bir kalkınmaya yol açmıştır. Araştırma bulguları, en gelişmiş ilçelerin çoğunun en riskli bölgede, en az gelişmiş ilçelerin ise daha az riskli bölgelerde yer aldığını göstermiştir. 2008-2022 yılları arasında Türkiye'nin toplam nüfusu 13,8 milyon kişi artmış ve bunun 8,6 milyonu (%63) 1. derece deprem kuşağında yer seçmiştir. 1986-2022 yılları arasındaki dönem incelendiğinde, en gelişmiş ilçelerin %73'ü ve kalkınmada öncelikli yörelerin %55'i 1. derece deprem kuşağında yer almaktadır. Sonuçlar, DY'nın sismik risklerle (pozitif) ilişkili olduğunu ortaya koymakta ve bu da Türkiye'de bölgesel kalkınma stratejilerinin tersine çevrilmesi gerektiğini göstermektedir. Dirençli bir yerleşim modeli elde etmek için hükümet, etkili bölgesel planlama politikaları, devlet teşvikleri ve yatırım teşvikleri benimseyerek; DY’nin riskli alanlarda gerçekleşmesini engelleyerek risk azaltımını sağlayabilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• bölgesel farklılıklar
• sismik riskler
• Türkiye

Regional Agglomeration and Disparities in Relation to Earthquake Risks in Türkiye

Öz

This study investigates the roles of regional development policies and regional disparities in relation to the vulnerability of settlements under earthquake risks. The concentration of economic investments and hence population in a specific region is called value agglomeration (VA). VA process in Türkiye has been accelerated after the 1980s as an outcome of liberalization and open trade (export-oriented growth) policy and resulted in extremely uneven development especially in coastal areas of the country Research findings showed that the majority of most developed districts are located in the riskiest zone, while least developed ones are located in less risky zones. Between 2008 and 2022, Türkiye's total population increased by 13.8 million people, and 8.6 million (63%) of this resided in the 1st-degree seismic belt. When the period between 1986-2022 is examined, 73% of the most developed districts and 55% of the priority regions for development are located in the 1st-degree seismic belt. Results reveal that VA is (positively) correlated with seismic risks, which implies a need for reversing regional development strategies in Türkiye. To achieve a resilient settlement pattern, the government may achieve risk mitigation by preventing VA from taking place in risky areas by adopting effective regional planning policies, government incentives, and investment promotion.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• regional disparities
• seismic risks
• Türkiye

Kaynakça

1. ADB (2008). Managing Asian Cities: Sustainable and inclusive urban solutions. Manila.
2. Ager, P., Eriksson, K., Hansen, C. W., ve Lonstrup, L. (2020). How the 1906 San Francisco earthquake shaped economic activity in the American West. Explorations in Economic History, 77, 101342.
3. Alcanatar-Ayala, I. (2002). Geomorphology, natural hazards, vulnerability and prevention of natural disasters in developing countries. Geomorphology, 4, 107-124.
4. Ando, M., ve F. Kimura (2012). How did the Japanese Exports Respond to Two Crises in the International Production Networks? The Global Financial Crisis and the Great East Japan Earthquake. Asian Economic Journal, 26(3), 261-287.
5. Baba, H., Adachi, I., Takabayashi, H., Nagatomo, N., Nakasone, S., Matsumoto, H., & Shimano, T. (2013). Introductory study on Disaster Risk Assessment and Area Business Continuity Planning in industry-agglomerate areas in the ASEAN. IDRiM Journal, 3(2), 184-1
6. Balamir, M. (2007). Afet politikası, risk ve planlama. TMMOB Afet Sempozyumu Bildiri Kitabı, 31-43.
7. Balica, S.F., Douben, N., ve Wright, N. G. (2009). Flood vulnerability indices at varying spatial scales. Water science and Technology, 60(10), 2571-2580.
8. Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., Davis, I. ve Wisner, B. (1994). At Risk. Natural Hazards, People's Vulnerability, and Disasters, Routledge, London.

9. Blake, E.S. ve Zelinsky D.A. (2018). National Hurricane Center Tropical Cyclone Report: Hurricane Harvey. www.nhc.noaa.gov/data/tcr/AL092017_Harvey.pdf
10. Bleakley, H. ve Lin, J. (2012). Portage and path dependence. Q. J. Econ. 127(2), 587-644.
11. Bleakley, H. ve Lin, J. (2015). History and the sizes of cities. American Economic Review, 105(5), 558-563.
12. Boustan, L.P., Kahn, M.E., ve Rhode, P.W. (2012). Moving to higher ground: migration response to natural disasters in the early twentieth century. Am. Econ. Rev. 102(3), 238–244.
13. Boustan, L.P., Kahn, M.E., Rhode, P.W., ve Yanguas, M.L. (2017). The Effect of Natural Disasters on Economic Activity in Us Counties: A Century of Data. NBER Working Paper 23410.
14. Burton, I., Kates, R. W., ve White, G. F. (1993). The Environment as Hazard, Oxford University Press, New York.
15. CRED (Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters) ve UNISDR (United Nations International Office for Disaster Risk Reduction) (2015). The human cost of natural disasters: A global perspective, United Nations, Geneva, Switzerland.
16. Davis, D.R. ve Weinstein, D.E. (2002). Bones, bombs, and breakpoints: the geography of economic activity. American Economic Review, 92(5), 1269–1289.
17. De Leon, V., ve Carlos, J. (2006). Vulnerability: A conceptional and methodological review, UNU-EHS.
18. Dilley, M., R.S. Chen, U. Deichmann, A.L. Lerner-Lam, M. Arnold, J. Agwe, P. Buys, O. Kjekstad, B. Lyon, ve G. Yetman (2005). Natural disaster hotspots: A global risk analysis, Disaster Risk Management Series No. 5-34423, The World Bank, Washington DC.
19. Dobbs, R., Manyika, J., ve Roxburgh, C. (2011). Urban world, mapping the economic power of cities, McKinsey and Company.
20. Fluchter, W. (2003). Tokyo before the next earthquake: agglomeration-related risks, town planning and disaster prevention. The Town Planning Review, 74(2), 213-238.
21. Genç, F. N. (2007). Türkiye’de kentleşme ve doğal afet riskleri ile ilişkisi. TMMOB Afet Sempozyumu Bildiri Kitabı, 349-358.
22. Gencer, E.A. (2013). Natural disasters, urban vulnerability, and risk management: A theoretical overview. The interplay between urban development, vulnerability, and risk management: a case study of the Istanbul metropolitan area, E. A. Gencer (der.), ss.7-43, Springer, New York.
23. Gu, D. (2019). Exposure and vulnerability to natural disasters for world's cities, United Nations, Department of Economics and Social Affairs, Population Division, Technical Paper No. 4.
24. Hewitt, K. (1997). Regions of risk. A geographical introduction to disasters, Harlow, Addison Wesley Longman.
25. Hochrainer, S., ve Mechler, R. (2011). Natural disaster risk in Asian megacities: A case for risk pooling? Cities, 28(1), 53-61.
26. Hornbeck, R., ve Naidu, S. (2014). When the levee breaks: black migration and economic development in the American South. Am. Econ. Rev. 104(3), 963-990.
27. Hornbeck, R. (2012). The enduring impact of the American dust bowl: short-and long-run adjustments to environmental catastrophe. Am. Econ. Rev. 102(4), 1477-1507.
28. J.P. Morgan (2011): Global Data Watch. Economic Research, November 11th, 2011. http://www.adr.com/Home/LoadPDF?CMSID=2c3de19feb2943fd982284c56c16b176
29. Komori, D., S. Nakamura, M. Kiguchi, A. Nishijima, D. Yamazaki, S. Suzuki, ve T. Oki (2012). Characteristics of the 2011 Chao Phraya River flood in Central Thailand. Hydrological Research Letters, 6(0): 41-46
30. Krugman, P. (1991). Increasing returns and economic geography. J. Polit. Econ. 99(3), 483-499.
31. Lall, S. V., ve Deichmann, U. (2012). Density and disasters: economics of urban hazard risk. The World Bank Research Observer, 27(1), 74-105.
32. Mechler, R. (2004). Natural disaster risk management and financing disaster losses in developing countries, Verlag für Versicherungswirtschaft, Karlsruhe.
33. METI (2010). White Paper on International Economy and Trade 2010, Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, Japan. http://www.meti.go.jp/english/report/data/gIT2010maine.html
34. Moretti, E. (1999). Social networks and migrations: Italy 1876–1913. Int. Migr. Rev. 33(3), 640-657.
35. Özgen, L. (2007). Afet kayıplarının azaltılmasında kentleşme ve yapılaşma kararlarının rolü. TMMOB Afet Sempozyumu Bildiri Kitabı, 375-385.
36. Şanlı, N., Varol, F.N., Kılıç, S.E., ve Güney, M.E. (2021). Planlama kapsamında kentsel risklerin tespiti ve derecelendirilmesine yönelik iki çalışma: Kocaeli örneği. İdealkent, 12(32), 415-440.
37. TBMM (2023). Meclis Deprem Araştırma Komisyonu Raporu, Ankara.
38. TMMOB (2023). 6 Şubat 2023 Kahramanmaraş Depremleri Raporu, Ankara.
39. UNDRR (United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction) (2015). Global assessment report 2015, making development sustainable, Geneva, Switzerland.
40. UNDRR (United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction) (2019a). Global assessment report on disaster risk reduction, Geneva, Switzerland.
41. UNDRR (United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction) (2019b). The 2018 annual report, Geneva, Switzerland.
42. UN-HABITAT (United Nations Human Settlements Programme) (2011). Global report on human settlements: Cities and climate change, Earthscan, London.
43. UNISDR (United Nations International Office for Disaster Risk Reduction) (2012). How to make cities more resilient: A handbook for local government leaders, Geneva, Switzerland.
44. United Nations (2018). The world urbanization prospects: The 2018 revision, The United Nations, New York.
45. Van Dijk, M. P. (2007). Economic development: An explanation based on Chinese and Indian cities, ISS, Institute of Social Studies, The Hague, Netherlands.
46. Wegge, S.A. (1998). Chain migration and information networks: evidence from nineteenth-century Hesse-Cassel. J. Econ. Hist. 58(4), 957-986.
47. Weiss, M.A. (2001). Productive cities and metropolitan economic strategy. Paper presented to the United Nations International Forum on Urban Poverty (IFUP). Fourth International Conference, Marrakech, Morocco, 16-19, October.
48. Wenzel, F., Bendimerad, F., ve Sinha, R. (2007). Megacities – Megarisks. Natural Hazards, 42, 481-491.
49. World Bank (2008). World development report 2009: Reshaping economic geography, World Bank, Washington, DC.