Evaluation of Socio-Economic Fragility Index against Disasters: Example Turkey Provinces

Abstract

Objective: SFI (Socio-Economic Fragility Index) is represented by indicators of poverty, human insecurity, addiction, illiteracy, social inequality, unemployment, inflation, dependency, debt and environmental degradation. This index reflects the relative weaknesses or deterioration conditions that exacerbate the direct effects caused by disasters or hazardous events.

Methods: The study is a semi-quantitative study and the index calculation method is used by weighting from a number of subindicators.The study covers the period of 2015-2017. Turkey has been applied to all provinces.

Results: When the index averages of the provinces were examined for the 2015-2017 period, the first four provinces with the highest index value were Şırnak,Batman, Siirt and Mardin. In addition, no province was included in the low index category while 26 provinces were in the high category. The remaining 55 provinces were in the middle level. Accordingly, 32% of our provinces were in the high index category, while 68% were in the middle index category.

Conclusion: It is observed that provinces with high SFI values are generally concentrated in the East and Southeast regions. Additionally it is remarkable that provinces with high index values generally have problems such as unemployment, income inequality, dependence on agricultural growth, deprivation of basic health facilities and under-5 malnutrition.The studies to be carried out in the recommended areas for the provinces will help to reduce the socio-economic vulnerability of the provinces against disasters.

Keywords

• Disaster
• Risk
• Vulnerability
• Socio-Economic Fragility

Afetlere Karşı Sosyo-Ekonomik Kırılganlık Endeksinin Değerlendirilmesi: Türkiye İlleri Örneği

Abstract

Amaç: SEKE (Sosyo-Ekonomik Kırılganlık Endeksi) yoksulluk, insan güvensizliği,bağımlılık, eğitimsizlik, sosyal eşitsizlik, işsizlik, enflasyon, bağımlılık, borç ve çevresel bozulma göstergeleri ile temsil edilmektedir. Bu Endeks, afetlerin veya tehlikeli olayların neden olduğu doğrudan etkileri daha da kötüleştiren göreceli  zayıflıkları veya bozulma koşullarını yansıtmaktadır.

Yöntem: Çalışma yarı
kantitatif bir çalışmadır ve endeks hesaplama yöntemi bir dizi alt göstergeden ağırlıklandırılarak kullanılmaktadır. Çalışma 2015-2017 dönemlerini kapsamaktadır ve Türkiye’nin tüm illerine uygulanmıştır.

Bulgular: 2015-2017 döneminde illerin endeks ortalamaları incelendiğinde, endeks değeri en yüksek ilk dört il Şırnak,Batman, Siirt ve Mardin’dir. Buna ek olarak, 26 il yüksek kategoride iken, düşük endeks kategorisine hiçbir il dahil edilmemiştir. Kalan 55 il orta düzeydeydi.Buna göre illerimizin% 32’si yüksek endeks kategorisinde, %68’i orta endeks kategorisindeydi.

Sonuç: SEKE değeri yüksek olan illerin genel olarak Doğu ve Güneydoğu bölgesinde yoğunlaştığı görülmektedir. Ayrıca endeks değeri yüksek olan illerde genellikle işsizlik, gelir eşitsizliği, tarımsal büyümeye bağımlılık, temel sağlık imkânlarından yoksun olma ve 5-yaş altı yetersiz beslenme gibi sorunlar olduğu dikkat çekicidir. İller için önerilen alanlarda yapılacak çalışmalar, illerin afetlere karşı sosyo-ekonomik savunmasızlığının azaltılmasına yardımcı olacaktır.

Keywords

• Afet
• Risk
• Savunmasızlık
• Sosyo-Ekonomik Kırılganlık

References

1. ADB (Asian Development Bank).Economic and Fiscal Impacts of Disaster in the Pacific. Philippines: Asian Development Bank Publishing; 2008.
2. OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development). States of Fragility 2016: Under Stating Violence.Paris: OECD Publishing; 2016.
3. IDMC (Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre). Global Estimates 2014:People Displaced by Disasters. Geneva: Imprimerie Harder; 2014.
4. Boer J. Resilience and the Fragile City.International Journal of Security & Development. 2015;4:1-7.
5. Tipson FS. Natural Disasters as Threats to Peace. Washington: United States Institute of Peace; 2013.
6. Tezer A, Okay N, Kadioğlu M.Standardization of Multi-Hazard Based Risk Mitigation in Spatial Planning.Turkey Geological Congress; 2017 April 10-14; Ankara.
7. GAC (Global Agenda Councils). The Role of the Private sector in Fragile State:Catalyzing Investment for Security and Development. World Economic Forum.Switzerland: GAC; 2014.
8. TEPAV (Economic Policy Research Foundation of Turkey). Natural disasters.Barriers to Development: World Bank Independent Evaluation Group Report.Ankara: Economic Policy Research Institute; 2005.

9. ReliefWeb. Compounding Risk:Disaster. Fragility and Conflict. New York: ReliefWeb Publising;2015. https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/ClimateChange_DisastersFragilityConflict_EN_2015.pdf. Accessed: 17.07.2019.
10. Dorsch M, Dunz K, Maarek P. Macro shocks and costly political action in non-democracies. Public Choice. 2015;16:381-404.
11. Brinkman HJ, Hendrix CS. Insecurity and violent conflict: Causes. consequences and addressing the challenges. WorldFood Programme. Occasional Paper::2011;24:1-28.
12. Ian C, Hilhorst D. Human Security and Capacity in Fragile States. Wageningen:Wageningen University; 2009.
13. Ünver M, Doğru B. The Determinants of Economic Fragility: Case of the Fragility Five Countries. Akdeniz İ.İ.B.F. Journal.2015;31:1-24.
14. Cardona OD. “A System of Indicators for Disaster Risk Management in the Americas” in Measuring Vulnerability to Hazards of Natural Origin: Towards Disaster Resilient Societies. Tokyo:United Nations University Press; 2006.
15. Cannon T. Vulnerability Analysis.Livelihoods and Disasters Components and variables of vulnerability:modelling and analysis for disaster risk management. IADB/IDEA Program on Indicators for Disaster Risk Management. Manizales: Universidad Nacional de Colombia; 2003.
16. Wisner B. Turning knowledge into timely and appropiate action: Reflections on IADB/IDEA program of disaster risk indicators. Colombia: IADB/IDEA Programa de Indicadores para la Gestión de Riesgos; 2003.
17. Benson C, Clay E. Economic and Financial Impacts of Natural Disasters: an Assessment of Their Effects and Options for Mitigation: Synthesis Report. London:Overseas Development Institute; 2003.
18. Carreño ML, Cardona OD, Barbat AH. Sistema de indicadores para la evaluación de riesgos. Barcelona: Centro Internacional de Métodos Numéricos en Ingenieria; 2005.
19. TÜİK (Turkish Statistical Institute).(2005). Income Distribution and Living Conditions Statistics. http://www. tuik.gov.tr/PreTablo.do?alt_id=1011.Accessed: 12.07.2018.
20. TÜİK (Turkish Statistical Institute).(2005). Employment, Unemployment and Wage Statistics. http://www.tuik.gov.tr/UstMenu.do?metod=temelist.Accesses: 23.07.2018.
21. TÜİK (Turkish Statistical Institute).(2005). Education Statistics-Statistical Tables and Dynamic Query. http:// tuik.gov.tr/PreTablo.do?alt_id=1018.Accessed: 15.08.2018.
22. MEB (T. R. Ministry of Education). (1920).Official Statistics. http://sgb.meb.gov.tr/www/resmiistatistikler/icerik/64. Accessed: 19.08.2018.
23. MINISTRY OF HEALTH. (1920). Statistical Yearbooks. https://www.saglik.gov.tr/TR.11588/istatistik-yilliklari.html. Accessed: 25.08.2018.
24. UNICEF. Child Powerty in Rich Countries.Floransa: Innocenti Report Card No.6,Innocenti Research Center; 2005.
25. Avşar K.Ş. Child Powerty in Turkey. T.R. Prime Ministry Social Assistance and Solidarity General Directorate Social Assistance Expertise Thesis. Ankara:2009.
26. TÜİK (Turkish Statistical Institute).(2005). Labor Force Statistics. http://tuik.gov.tr/PreTablo.do?alt_id=1007. Accessed: 30.08.2018.
27. İŞKUR. (2003). 2015 Statistics Yearbook(Statistics). https://www.iskur.gov.tr/kurumsal-bilgi/istatistikler/.Accessed:16.008.2018.
28. İŞKUR. (2003). 2016 Statistics Yearbook(Statistics). https://www.iskur.gov.tr/kurumsal-bilgi/istatistikler/. Accessed:16.008.2018.
29. İŞKUR. (2003). 2017 Statistics Yearbook(Statistics). https://www.iskur.gov.tr/kurumsal-bilgi/istatistikler/. Accessed:16.008.2018.
30. TÜİK (Turkish Statistical Institute).(2005). Basic Statistics-Income, Life,Consumption and Poverty. http://tuik. gov.tr/UstMenu.do?metod=temelist.Accessed: 03.09.2018.
31. DİE (State Institute of Statistics). (1926).Turkey’s Statistical Yearbook 2004.https://www.ttb.org.tr/kutuphane/ istatistik2006.pdf. Accessed: 04.09.2018.
32. Filiztekin A, Çelik M.A. Regional Income Inequality in Turkey. Megaron Journal.2010;5:116-127.
33. TÜİK (Turkish Statistical Institute).(2005). Consumer price index(TÜFE). http://tuik.gov.tr/UstMenu.do?metod=temelist. Accessed:05.09.2018.
34. T.R. MINISTRY OF TREASURY AND FINANCE. (1923). General Directorate of Accounting and Financial Control- Central Government Budget Statistics by Provinces. https://muhasebat.hmb.gov.tr/iller-itibariyle merkeziyonetim-butce-istatistikleri-2004-2019.Accessed: 12.07.2018.
35. OGM (General Directorate of Forest).(1839). E-Library-Statistical. . https:// www.ogm.gov.tr/ekutuphane/Sayfalar/Istatistikler.aspx. Accessed: 09.09.2018.TÜİK (Turkish Statistical Institute).(2005). Crop Production Statistics-Statistical Tables and Dynamic Query.http://tuik.gov.tr/PreTablo.do?alt_ id=1001. Accessed: 10.09.2018.
36. Cardona OD, Hurtado JE. Holistic Seismic Risk Estimation of a Metropolitan Center.12th World Conference on EarthquakeEngineering. New Zealand: 2000.
37. Kalaycıoğlu S., Rittersberger-Tilic H.,Celik K., Güneş F. Integrated Natural Disaster Risk Assessment: The Socio- Economic Dimension of Earthquake Risk in the Urban Area. Engineering Conferences International, Okinawa: 2006.
38. İBB (The Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality). Survey for the Purpose of Collecting Data on Disaster-Oriented Social Vulnerability Analysis: Final Report 2014. Istanbul: İBB Publishing;2014.