Hazards 2002, October 3-6, Antalya / TURKEY
DISASTER ASSOCIATED ANTISOCIAL AND CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR:
THE RESEARCH EVIDENCE
E. L. Quarantelli
Disaster Research Center
University of Delaware
Newark, Delaware 19716 USA
Fax: 302 831 2091
elqdrc@udel.edu
Appropriate disaster planning cannot be instituted without a correct assumption of problems.
It is widely believed that disasters are characterized by much antisocial and criminal behavior.
In this paper, after examining the research evidence, we reach the following conclusions.
There are sharply differentiated patterns depending on which phase of the disaster cycle is the
focus of attention. Antisocial behavior such as looting is very rare during the crisis period in
the typical disaster occasion, although there is an unanswered question about the universality
of this in all social systems. To the extent that it occurs, looting shows social patterns that are
distinctively different from looting in conflict situations, such as riots and civil disturbances.
However, there are a very few documented anomalous instances that are puzzling and
difficult to explain. Nonviolent criminal behavior is also not extensive in the crisis period. If
it occurs, it is because of a socially supported suspension of particular criminal norms, and is
not viewed as law breaking. In contrast to low rates in the crisis period, there may be a
considerable rise in white-collar crimes in the recovery period. In additional, long enduring
and deeply rooted preimpact criminal behavior and related organizational deviancy, is
probably a factor increasing the negative consequences of disasters. So if there is criminal
behavior associated with disasters, it is not in the preparedness and response phases, but much
more likely in the recovery and mitigation stages. Unless we make distinctions along these
lines, there will be an incorrect perception of the nature, frequency and importance of
antisocial and criminal behavior. Without a correct perception good disaster preparedness
cannot be undertaken.
1
Hazards 2002, October 3-6, Antalya / TURKEY
KOBE RECONSTRUCTION:
COMMUNITY PLANNING AND HOUSING RECOVERY
Jane Preuss
AICP GeoEngineers Inc.
8410 154th Avenue N.E. Redmond, Washington 98052 USA
Phone: 425 861 6058 Fax: 425 861 6050
jpreuss@geoengineers.com
On January 17, 1995 at 5:46 am a Richter magnitude 7.2 earthquake struck the Japanese port
city of Kobe. Over 6,300 people were killed and an estimated 250,000 housing units were
either destroyed or severely damaged. No other industrialized nation has experienced this
magnitude of housing losses. To establish a basis for applying lessons learned, this project
analyzes the Kobe experience of re-housing its earthquake victims in terms that facilitate
comparison with traditional practices in the United States and elsewhere.
The project was a five-year effort to document the evolution from short-term recovery
measures to long-term strategies for community reconstruction with implications for
mitigation and recovery planning. Three basic types of planning processes were applied to
three scales of interest:
 Replanning and replacement of neighborhoods involving changes in spatial layouts of
blocks (Redevelopment projects)
 Replacement of groups of buildings involving changes to the existing parcel and street
layout (Land Readjustment Act)
 Individual buildings or building clusters not necessitating changes in street layout
Two case study projects were investigated at each scale. The six case studies compare and
contrast the influence of the three types of planning processes, which were observed in Kobe
(redevelopment; readjustment; no special review other than underlying zoning). For each case
study two perspectives are explored. One is recovery of lost housing units, including the rate
of construction, location, and type of housing (single family, multi family, townhouse etc.).
The other perspective pertains to the holistic view of the neighborhood, which includes such
variables as the scale, and density of buildings, relationships of structures, streetscape features
(parks, landscaping etc), neighborhood support facilities (medical, recreation, etc) as well as
the role of the planning process including public involvement.
Planning:
Immediately after the earthquake the national government delineated portions of the region
that would be subject to concentrated recovery assistance procedures. This Disaster
Restoration Zone (DRZ) was coterminous with a pre-existing growth management planning
boundary to restrict urban sprawl. Within this DRZ larger projects, utilizing both land
readjustment and redevelopment procedures, were quickly identified; in a number of cases
these projects had been initiated prior to the earthquake. Such projects were both accelerated
and modified. Outside special project areas, but still within DRZ, reconstruction was subject
to normal land-use and zoning requirements.
2
Hazards 2002, October 3-6, Antalya / TURKEY
Post-earthquake planning is not a unique process. Rather, it is an accelerated form of the
normal planning process. A major disaster such as the Kobe earthquake can have positive
planning aspects because it creates “incentives” to accomplish planning objectives that had
already been defined but which the normal planning process had not yet been able to
accomplish. The earthquake created an atmosphere that fostered innovation to ideas
generated through public involvement by community residents. Government responded to the
requests for development of alternative redevelopment concepts by providing professional
planners to assist the communities to reach consensus on the many neighborhood issues.
Decisions included shape and density of building blocks, layout and uses of open spaces and
parks (major parks, pocket parks, greenways, etc.), configuration and dimensions of roadways
(arterials at the perimeter of the neighborhoods, curvilinear streets through the neighborhood
etc.). In addition a volunteer professional network provided invaluable technical assistance
such as lawyers to resolve ownership issues, architects, and others.
Housing:
The housing program covered three types of housing needs. Immediately after the earthquake
shelter were set up in schools, schoolyards and public facilities to accommodate more than
310,000 people. Because of the magnitude of the event it was necessary to also provide
temporary housing. By eight months after the earthquake 43,3000 units temporary housing
were completed. On February 16, 2000 (5 years after the event) the last resident moved from
temporary housing.
Planning for permanent replacement began within a month of the earthquake. The Phoenix
Plan proposed 125,0000 new dwellings within three years. By March 1999 and estimated
295,296 units had been constructed.
Conclusions:
The experience of Kobe emphasizes both the vulnerability of large urban centers and the
“opportunity” for innovation represented by recovery. Recovery and restoration require that
available laws, procedures and methods be rapidly adapted to deal with new situations for
which they may not have been devised. The disaster becomes a test of the adequacy and
flexibility of these procedures.
During the recovery and reconstruction periods many innovations became evident that
demonstrated the flexibility of the regulatory infrastructure. For example the role of the
machizukuri (neighborhood councils) evolved into active vehicles for public participation. In
addition many innovations were introduced into both private and public housing programs,
including units for elderly occupants, “collective housing” for single elderly and handicapped
occupants, joint financing of structures, and construction of community centers in many of the
larger developments.
Acknowledgements:
Funded by the National Science Foundation CMS 9632508
3
Hazards 2002, October 3-6, Antalya / TURKEY
DISASTER PREPAREDNESS TRAINING THROUGH LOCAL TRAINERS:
AN IMPLEMENTATION AND ASSESSMENT IN A PROVINCE OF TURKEY
Bahattin Akşit
Department of Sociology, METU, 06531 Ankara TURKEY
aksit@metu.edu.tr;
Nuray Karancı
Department of Psychology, METU, 06531 Ankara TURKEY
karanci@metu.edu.tr
Meltem Anafarta
Department of Psychology, METU, 06531 Ankara TURKEY
meltema@metu.edu.tr
A model of disaster preparedness training developed during a pilot project in Bursa and used
in five provinces in Marmara region after 1999 Earthquake, was implemented for six months
in Çankırı, a province with high seismic risk, being located to the south of the North
Anatolian Fault Line and also subject to high risk of other disasters such as land slides and
floods. The training of trainers handbook used previously in the Bursa community
participation study and Marmara region was revised and expanded to include earthquakes,
floods and landslides. The brochure that was distributed during the community training was
also similarly revised. Training of local trainers by the researchers took place in December
2001 and January 2002 in three separate groups. A contract was signed with 95 local trainers,
based on a requirement to give training to at least 50 adults from the community by the end of
March 2002. They were each given a trainers handbook, 50 brochures to be distributed to
community members participating in their training groups and 50 short questionnaires tapping
some dimensions of disaster experience and mitigation and preparedness beliefs of those who
will attend their groups. They were asked to administer these short questionnaires at the end
of their group training sessions and then to collect and return them to the present researchers.
The present researchers required the trainers to administer these questionnaires in order to
bring some control over the local trainers, to obtain some statistics on the characteristics of
trainees from the households and communities and also to use these questionnaires as one
method of evaluating the impact of the training in the second phase of the research.
The 95 local trainers gave training to approximately 4000 individuals from households
residing in various neighborhoods of the city centers of central and other districts and some
villages of the Çankırı province. The number of questionnaires that were returned to the
research team was 3645. The proposed paper will present preliminary analyses of these
questionnaires. It is also hoped that in the second phase of the research a more detailed
questionnaire will be given to a follow-up sample and preliminary analyses of those
questionnaires will also be presented.
4
Hazards 2002, October 3-6, Antalya / TURKEY
COMMUNITY EMERGENCY RESPONSE TEAM TRAINING REVISITED
Marla A. Petal
Bosphorus University, Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research Institute
Disaster Preparedness Education Project, Director
AHEP, Bosphorus University, KOERI, Çengelköy, Istanbul 81220 TURKEY
Tel. 90 (216) 308-0511 x345 Fax: 90 (216) 332-9094
mpetal@imagins.com
Community Emergency Response Team training was developed in California almost 20 years
ago and has been adopted widely throughout the U.S. and exported abroad. In the U.S. the
curriculum is taught mostly by professional fire fighters. The context includes a large cadre of
professional responders, extensive history of spontaneous citizen initiative, and a vast
network of American Red Cross volunteers, experienced in mobilizing large-scale logistics
support. Is the CERT curriculum appropriate in countries where similar conditions do not
exist?
Bosphorus University, KOERI, Disaster Preparedness Education Project has piloted and
revised the CERT curriculum, retaining valuable underlying concepts in citizen response, and
localizing it to account for a newly emerging professional disaster response cadre.
The new introductory curriculum, entitled Community Disaster Volunteers I, provides a
baseline for civil defense, police, fire fighters and health service providers, as well as
community-based volunteers in Turkey.
The curriculum includes:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Life-Saving for Mass Casualties - the Three Killers.
Simple Triage and Rapid Treatment.
Building Triage and Light Search and Rescue.
The Role of Community-Based Volunteers in Supporting Heavy Rescue
Incident Command Systems
Dividing the Work, Coordinating, and Communicating
Organizing Neighborhoods for Disaster Response
The curriculum has the advantage of being able to be conveyed in 12 hours to large groups of
50-75 people. Participants will be introduced to a summary of the curriculum and are invited
to join in a discussion and critical assessment of the assumptions and specific content of the
curriculum.
5
Hazards 2002, October 3-6, Antalya / TURKEY
SUMMARY OF ENEA ACTIVITIES ON THE PREVENTION
OF NATURAL HAZARDS AND MITIGATION OF THEIR EFFECTS
AND OVERVIEW ON THE R&D WORK PERFORMED AT ENEA
ON THE INNOVATIVE TECHNIQUES
FOR THE SEISMIC PROTECTION OF STRUCTURES
Alessandro Martelli
Responsible, Section PROT-PREV, ENEA, Via Martiri di Monte Sole, 4
40129 Bologna, ITALY
Chairman, GLIS & ASSISI Foundation Committee
Convenor, TG5 of the EAEE
martelli@bologna.enea.it
Massimo Forni
Responsible, RITA Project, Section PROT-PREV,
ENEA, Via Martiri di Monte Sole, 4, 40129 Bologna, ITALY
Technical Secretary, GLIS
forni@bologna.enea.it
Maurizio Indirli
Responsible, PSICHE Project, Section PROT-PREV,
ENEA, Via Martiri di Monte Sole, 4, 40129 Bologna, ITALY
Technical Secretary, GLIS
indirli@bologna.enea.it
Edi Valpreda
Coordinator, Projects on Soil Defense, Section PROT-PREV,
ENEA, Via Martiri di Monte Sole, 4, 40129 Bologna, ITALY
valpreda@bologna.enea.it
As a result of the recent reorganization of the Italian Agency for New Technology, Energy
and the Environment (ENEA), a specific Section on “Prevention of Natural Hazards and
Mitigation of Their Effects” (PREV) was established in the framework of the new TechnicalScientific Unit on “Protection and Development of the Environment and Territory –
Environmental Technologies” (PROT). The research activities of this Section deal with
various natural hazards: landslides, earthquakes, hydrogeology (such as salification of
freshwaters), plains subsidence, sea level rise and flooding and erosion in the costal areas, as
well as seismic engineering, the latter mainly devoted to the development and application of
innovative anti-seismic systems. The common approach is consistent with those
internationally adopted and the methodologies assessed by ENEA within European
collaborations.
With regard to hazard analysis, quantitative assessments first of the susceptibility, then of the
specific expected losses are performed for each single hazard; finally, appropriate
comparisons within GIs allow for integrated risk evaluations. The adopted tools range from
broad-scale on-site survey to remote sensing and GI analysis techniques. Studies have been
performed for the development of innovative methodologies for the integrated analysis of
6
Hazards 2002, October 3-6, Antalya / TURKEY
each single hazard kind, definition of guidelines for evaluating the susceptibility and risk
level, and development of country level analyses applicable to the different kinds of
catastrophic events. Many of these activities have been carried out in the framework of
institutional agreements between ENEA and the Italian Ministry of the Environment, as well
as projects funded by the European Commission.
With regard to the work in progress on innovative anti-seismic techniques, it is noted that
ENEA has been leading the Italian R&D in this field since 1988, taking advantage of its
coordination of the Italian Working Group on Seismic Isolation (Gruppo di Lavoro
Isolamento Sismico – GLIS), which was funded in 1989, and its promotion of and active
participation in several projects on this topic funded by the European Commission. In 2001,
ENEA was also entrusted of the coordination of Task Group 5 on Seismic Isolation of
Structures (TG5) of the European Association for Earthquake Engineering (EAEE). Finally, at
the conclusion of the 7th International Seminar on Seismic Isolation, Passive Energy
Dissipation and Active Control of Vibrations of Structures, held at Assisi (Italy) on October
2-5, 2001, the first author of this paper was appointed as the Chairman of the Foundation
Committee of the Anti-Seismic Systems International Society (ASSIS).
Nowadays, most modern techniques for the passive control of seismic vibrations - namely
seismic isolation (SI), passive energy dissipation (ED), provisional hydraulic coupling (HC)
by means of shock transmitters and systems formed by shape memory alloy (SMA) devices are considered to be already fully mature technologies of providing a mitigation of seismic
damage for civil structures and equipment and have proven to be reliable and cost-effective
for many structures such as bridges and viaducts, civil buildings, cultural heritage and critical
facilities. With regard to the ED systems, several types of devices were recently developed
and optimized, like viscous, elastic-plastic, viscoelastic and electromagnetic systems.
There are already approximately 2,000 applications of SI, ED, HC and SMA's in various
countries, which concern not only new constructions but also several retrofits of existing
important structures, including cultural heritage, as initially judged necessary especially after
the Loma Prieta (1989), Northridge (1994) and Kobe (1995) earthquakes and more recently,
after those which struck Italy in 1997-98 and later Greece, Taiwan, Turkey, Central America
and India. In Italy, the number applications, completed or in progress, is not negligible for all
the aforesaid systems and for both new and existing constructions (in spite of a quite
complicated approval process of the structures provided with such systems): retrofits include
some very important structures which had been damaged by the 1997-98 Marche and Umbria
earthquakes, such as, for instance the Upper Basilica of St. Francis at Assisi.
It is worthwhile stressing that the design and behavior experience concerning the large civil
buildings and bridges and viaducts provided with SI, ED and HC (for which the applications
of such modern anti-seismic systems are the most numerous) is extremely important for
widely extending the use of these techniques to other extremely important application fields,
like not only the cultural heritage, but also regular apartment buildings and industrial
facilities, including the nuclear plants and other high risk facilities (e.g. some chemical
plants). In fact, the applications in these fields are not very numerous, yet, although some
applications to high-risk facilities are quite important and several new projects are in a rather
advanced development stage: ENEA and GLIS are devoting great efforts towards these
objectives.
7
Hazards 2002, October 3-6, Antalya / TURKEY
The paper will consist of two parts: the first will be a short overview of all the activities which
are in progress in the PREV Section of ENEA, while the second will specifically deal with the
work in progress for the development and application of the anti-seismic systems. Specific
separate papers proposed to this Symposium will provide more details on the other previously
mentioned topics.
8
Hazards 2002, October 3-6, Antalya / TURKEY
INTER-ORGANIZATIONAL COORDINATION IN EXTREME EVENTS:
THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ATTACK, 11 SEPTEMBER 2001
Louise K. Comfort
University of Pittsburgh, Graduate School of Public & International Affairs
3E30 Wesley W. Posvar Hall, Pittsburgh, PA 15260 USA
Phone: 412-648-7606 Fax: 412-648-2605
lkc@pitt.edu
Naim Kapucu
University of Pittsburgh
3E30 Wesley W. Posvar Hall #449, Pittsburgh, PA 15260 USA
Phone: 412-361-8047 Fax: 412-648-2605
kapucu@pitt.edu
Policy problem:
This paper addresses the problem of inter-organizational coordination in response to extreme
events. Extreme events require coordinated action among multiple actors across many
jurisdictions under conditions of urgent stress, heavy demand, and tight time constraints. The
problem is sociotechnical in that the capacity for inter-organizational coordination depends
upon the technical structure and performance of the information systems that support decision
making among the participating organizations. Interactions among human managers,
computers, and organizations under suddenly altered conditions of operation are complex, and
not well understood. This paper will analyze the interactions among public, private and
nonprofit organizations that evolved in response to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks,
examining the relationships among organizations in terms of timely access information and
type of supporting information infrastructure.
Theoretical background:
The theoretical framework for this paper draws on the emerging field of complex adaptive
systems. The underlying assumption is that a response system composed of multiple agencies
and jurisdictions will be able to adapt more appropriately to threats in a given region than
separate, uncoordinated efforts by agencies acting independently to meet the same challenges.
Adaptive systems depend upon an information infrastructure that has sufficient structure to
hold and exchange information, but sufficient flexibility to adapt to the changing conditions.
Data collection and methods:
Organizational analysis techniques will be used to identify the major organizations that
participated in the response system, transactions performed by the organizations, and
specifically the interactions between public, private and nonprofit organizations in response
operations. This analysis will produce a record of interactions among organizations, using
documentary reports from three major federal agencies involved in the response. The New
York Times accounts will be used to corroborate and extend agency records. With this record
of interactions, we examine organizational strategies of action under different conditions of
access to information, number of organizations involved in response operation, and time
available for response.
9
Hazards 2002, October 3-6, Antalya / TURKEY
This study will utilize data collected under NSF Grant #CMS0139309, for which L. Comfort
served as a senior researcher. Data from three primary resources will be used in this analysis:
findings from the NSF study, content analysis from news reports in The New York Times,
(9/12/01 - 10/08/01), situation reports from the Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Health and Human Services, and briefings from the US Army Corps of Engineers. Findings
from this analysis may be used to inform decisions regarding the allocation of resources, time
and attention to increase the capacity for inter-organizational coordination between public,
private and nonprofit organizations in extreme events.
10
Hazards 2002, October 3-6, Antalya / TURKEY
A MAP OF RECOVERY:
A SURVEY OF THE STAGES MOST DISASTER SURVIVORS ENDURE
Susanna M. Hoffman
PO Box 119 216 E. Galena
Telluride, CO 81435 USA
Phone/Fax: (970) 728-1004
shoffman@rmi.net
Given the rising numbers of people affected by disaster and concomitant increased
vulnerability, there exists a critical need to synthesize knowledge of disasters. This paper
attempts to develop a paradigm of one aspect of catastrophe, the aftermath and recovery
survivors endure. All disaster victims everywhere seem largely to experience certain
universals. While at first they experience a time of terror, isolation, and deconstruction of
their social world, at the same moment they undergo a time of cohesion, purpose, and
community. At first they are soldered in a turbulent, transient unity. They travel a certain
"time line" in recovery. Yet, in due time they experience dissension and division.
I an attempt to delineate the nature of the disaster aftermath, the paper reviews an vast array
of topics: the effects of disaster on social organization, the emergence of hegemony and
power, segmentary opposition, return of ceremony, shifts in time and space use, rise of new
codes of morality, ideology, and explanation, framing of identity, safety and risk, conflicts
between victims and outsider, place attachment, enshrinement of the past and mummification,
cultural conservatism and the process of culture change. Brought up is the key question of
whether disasters reveal "core" culture, that is deeply enduring elements of the society, and
whether the behavioral discourse of survivors manifests such essentials of their society and
culture, or whether the disaster responses are localized or transient. While the states of
disaster recovery are remarkably similar no matter where or what disaster people experience,
ultimately a people’s response to disaster nonetheless pivots on the crucial elements of their
many social identities and their negotiation of the issue of changes that disaster present. A
synthesis of the stages of disaster that most survivors both advance disaster research and
serves to aid future disaster victim and worker.
11
Hazards 2002, October 3-6, Antalya / TURKEY
A TALE OF VULNERABILITY:
THE MARMARA EARTHQUAKE AND THE TOWN OF ADAPAZARI
Engin Yıldırım
Sakarya University, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences.
Sakarya Üniversitesi İİBF, Esentepe Kampüsü
54040 ADAPAZARI / TURKEY
Phone: (0264) 346 03 33 (four lines)/153 (ext.)
Fax: (0264) 346 03 32
yildirim@sakarya.edu.tr
The Marmara earthquake is usually considered a turning point in Turkish society and
sometimes considered “the first modern earthquake in Turkey” (Mitchell 1999; Karanci and
Aksit 2000; Ozerdem et al. 2000, Yavuz 2000). The devastating earthquake that struck the
most densely populated and industrialized area of Turkey on August 17, 1999 was one of the
most damaging natural disasters in the 20th century, claiming more than 17.000 lives and
injuring more than 40.000 people.
Our aim is to explore construction of vulnerability and recovery process in Adapazarı, one of
the most affected communities in the earthquake. What makes this community interesting is
that it went through four major earthquakes in the last century. Furthermore, the town has a
population coming from different ethnic backgrounds, which includes Turks as well as
Georgians, Circassians, Bosnians, Albanians and Kurds. The town has also witnessed a
transition of its economy from agriculture to industry in the last three decades. As a result, it
has seen increases in its population from 95.000 in 1970 to 350.000 in 1998, putting extra
demands on the provision of housing and land. Last but not the least, the town has historically
been one of the strongholds of Islamist parties in Western Turkey. Considering that there were
debates on secularism and religion, which relied on the earthquake as symbolic background, it
is interesting to investigate victims’ interpretation of the calamity.
The use and distribution of economic resources, distribution of social and political power,
attachment to place, traditions are all embedded in disasters. It is within this context that the
research examines factors (e.g. class and ethnicity) that are believed to influence on social
variation with respect to vulnerability prior to the earthquake within a rapidly urbanizing and
industrializing conservative community. Then, we explore social and political implications of
recovery and related community change in the aftermath of the earthquake. We suggest that
powerful local groups’ (e.g. industrialists, merchants, shop keepers and land owners) interests
have, to a great extent, been shaping the recovery process.
Research methods include analysis of documentary sources (mainly official reports, local
newspapers and other related publications); semi-structured interviews with key informants,
life histories; non-participant observation and focus groups. We also plan to document actions
of a number of organizations including relief agencies, central and local government
departments and NGOs.
12
Hazards 2002, October 3-6, Antalya / TURKEY
References:
Karancı, N. and B. Aksit (2000), “Building disaster resistant communities: lessons learned
from past earthquakes in Turkey and suggestions for the future”, in International Journal of
Mass Emergency and Disaster, vol. 18, no. 3, pp: 403-416.
Mitchell, William A. (1999), “Was the Izmit earthquake of August 17, 1999, just another
earthquake in Turkey?”in National Hazards Observer, vol. 12, no. 2, Nov. 1999;
http://www.colorado.edu/hazards/o/novo99/novo99a.htm#izmit
Ozerdem, A. and S. Barakat, (2000), ‘After the Marmara Earthquake: Lessons for avoiding
short cuts to disasters’, Third World Quarterly, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 425-440.
Yavuz, H. (2000) “Turkey’s fault lines and the crisis of Kemalism”, in Current History,
January 2000.
13
Hazards 2002, October 3-6, Antalya / TURKEY
EARTHQUAKES IN TURKEY:
MOVING FROM VULNERABILITY TO RESILIENCY
IN THE NEW MILLENNIUM OF DISASTER MITIGATION
William A. Mitchell
Director, Center for International Education
Baylor University P. O. Box 7012
76798 Waco, TX. USA
Phone: 254 710 2618 Fax: 254 710 2690
Home: 254 662 3866
bill_Mitchell@baylor.edu
The World Disasters Report by the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent
Societies demonstrates that natural disasters are increasing in both frequency and devastation.
Munasinghe and Clarke, Rubin and Torry, argue that rapid urbanization and poverty in
developing countries contribute to poor quality housing and extreme crowding in more and
more mega-cities. Research by Blaikie, Cannon, Davis, and Wisner, Danieli, Rodley and
Weisath, Mitchell, and Tobin and Montz indicates that a new assessment of natural hazard
mitigation in developing countries is long overdue. The need for more research in developing
countries was also identified by Mileti’s recent government sponsored reassessment of natural
hazards in the United States.
According to natural hazard experts, lack of planning to address mitigation and sustainable
development in earthquake prone countries will likely result in tens of thousands of people
who now live in unplanned mega-cities and shantytowns, to unnecessarily experience the
tragedy and trauma of devastating earthquake disasters. In many cities, including Istanbul,
super-disasters are highly likely. Additionally, due to many reasons that justify mitigation,
smaller cities, towns, and villages in developing societies are at risk. This paper addresses the
urgent problem of earthquake mitigation in Turkey. It identifies a comprehensive approach to
address hazard mitigation (lowering risk and reducing the effects of disasters) in Turkey by
using a holistic model that incorporates conflicting needs of the society along with needs of
the state. The concept of sustainability is incorporated in Turkey’s move toward mitigation.
Upon completion of this ongoing research, it will address the hazard mitigation literature;
define hazard mitigation in Turkey; call for a mitigation vision for Turkey and developing
countries; analyze root causes of the problem (justify need for mitigation); introduce
numerous works to reveal that human and material losses from natural hazards are increasing,
that limited progress toward reducing risk or mitigating for future events is evident, and that
mitigation and sustainable development, starting with the planning process through
completion of construction project (s), are solely lacking. Mileti and others have appropriately
referred to this problem as “disasters by design.” It will describe the human and environment
of Turkey’s seismic history, culture and economy; present the results of non- or ineffective
disaster mitigation; compares, analyze and assess lessons learned from Turkey’s seven recent
earthquake disasters (Gediz, Lice, Erzurum, Erzincan, Dinar, İzmit, and Düzce); set the stage
for a national mitigation strategy guided by the fact that human beings--not earthquakes, not
God--cause human fatalities and damages; identify specific multi-disciplinary improvements
needed in preparedness and emergency response; call for mitigation in the planning stage of
14
Hazards 2002, October 3-6, Antalya / TURKEY
development; demonstrate that Istanbul follows the economic and political path of least
resistance and must make changes now for future events; interprets the new concept in
international relations called “quake diplomacy; ” argues for involving the public as active
collaborates with the state in a national sustainable mitigation effort; demonstrates that
disasters do not have to undermine development; and concludes that mitigation can and must
work for Turkey and developing countries, that it can strengthen a state’s social, economic
and environmental resiliency. While earthquakes are uncontrollable and cannot be prevented,
their impacts can be reduced by a combination of social and technological changes to mitigate
their material and human damages.
This research is a call for most developing countries to stop doing “business as usual” and to
be proactive in mitigation implementation in hazardous regions. Developing countries can
follow the Turkish model and finally do something to stop the pattern of disproportionate
casualties and economic losses.
Earthquakes can cause devastating damage and injuries, yet many people at risk frequently
neglect to prepare for them. This extends to some governments as well. Poor people may not
be able to afford the costs, but most governments, including many in developing countries can
invest in mitigation efforts. Action now can prevent thousands of fatalities in Turkey alone
and serve as a model for other developing and developed states.
Bibliography:
Berke, Philip R. and Timothy Beatley. Planning for Earthquakes: Risk, Politics, and
Policy. Baltimore: John Hopkins UP, 1992.
Blaikie, Piers, Terry Cannon, Ian Davis, and Ben Wisner. At Risk: Natural Hazards,
People’s Vulnerability, and Disasters. London: Routledge, 1994.
Danieli, Yali, Nigel S. Rodley, and Lars Weisath, Ed. International Responses to Traumatic
Stress. Amityville, N.Y.: Baywood Publishing, 1996.
Geipel, Robert. Disaster and Reconstruction. London: George Allen & Unwin, 1982.
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. World Disasters Report
1999. Geneva, Switzerland. http://www.ifrc.org/pubs/wdr/ January 5, 2000
Kolars, John and William A. Mitchell, The Euphrates River and the Southeast Anatolia
Development Project.” Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois UP, 1991.
Mileti, Dennis S. Disasters by Design: A Reassessment of Natural Hazards in the
United States. Washington, D.C.: John Henry Press, 1999.
Mitchell, William A. “Emergency Response and Social Impacts: The August 17, 1999
Earthquake in Western Turkey”. Preliminary Reports from the Kocaeli (Izmit) Earthquake
Of August 17, 1999. Buffalo: MCEER, September 1999.
Mitchell, William A. The Lice Earthquake in Southeastern Turkey: A Geography of the
Disaster.Colorado Springs, CO: USAF Academy, January 1977.
15
Hazards 2002, October 3-6, Antalya / TURKEY
Mitchell, William A. The Geographical Review. “Reconstruction after Disaster: the
Gediz Earthquake of 1970”. July 1976.
Mitchell, William A. Report on the Socio-Economic Impact of the Erzincan, Turkey
Earthquake on March 13, 1992. Colorado: Natural Hazards Research and
Applications at the University of Colorado, 1993.
Mitchell, William A. Organizational Response for the Rural Victims: The Erzurum-Kars
Earthquake (October 30, 1983). Colorado Springs,CO: Office of Instruction for Geography,
USAF Academy, April 1985.
Mitchell, William A. “Partial Recovery and Reconstruction after Disaster: The Lice Case.”
Mass Emergencies. Volume 2, 1977. Pp.
William A. Mitchell “Social Impacts and Emergency Response”. Earthquake Spectra
Erzurum Earthquake, March 13, 1992. Oakland: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute,
July 1993.
Mitchell, William A. “Reconstruction after Disaster: The Gediz Earthquake of 1970.”
Geographical Review. July 1976.
Mitchell, William A. Report on the Socioeconomic Impact of the Erzincan, Turkey
Earthquake Of March 13, 1992, Quick Response Number 57. Boulder, Colorado:Natural
Hazards Research and Applications Center at the University of Colorado, 1993.
Mitchell, William A. “Was the Izmit Earthquake of August 17, 1999 Just Another Earthquake
in Turkey?” Natural Hazards Observer. Boulder, CO: Natural Hazards Research and
Applications Center at the University of Colorado, November 1999.
Mitchell, William A. Response to a Damaging Earthquake in an Environment of Political
Turmoil (Dinar, Turkey, October 1, 1995), Quick Response Research Report QR83.
Boulder, Colorado: Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center at the
University of Colorado, 1996. Also in Turkish: “Politik Istikrarsizlik Ortaminda Yikici Bir
Depremi Karsilayis” Mulkiyeliler Birligi Dergisi (Political Science Journal). Ankara: Vol.21,
No. 197.
Mitchell, William A. and Hussien Fawaz. “Earthquake Vulnerability and Disaster Prevention
in Turkey.” Association of American Geographers’ Annual Meeting Abstracts AAG’s 93 rd
Annual Meeting. Ft. Worth, TX, April 1-5, 1997.
Mitchell, William A. and William J. Weida “Earthquakes in Turkey: Reconstruction
Problems, Damage Prediction, and Recovery Forecasting for Earthen Structures.”
Proceedings, National Science Foundation Workshop on Construction of Earthen Buildings in
Seismic Zones. Albuquerque, New Mexico: University of New Mexico, September 1981. Pp
313-325.
Munasinghe, Mohan and Caroline Clarke, Ed. Disaster Prevention for Sustainable
Development. Washington, D.C.: International Bank for Reconstruction
And Development/World Bank, 1995.
16
Hazards 2002, October 3-6, Antalya / TURKEY
National Science Foundation. Exploratory Research Related to the 1999 Earthquakes in
Turkey and Taiwan. NSF 00-32. http://www.nsf.gov January 20, 2000
Rubin, Claire B. Earthquake Mitigation: A Bibliography. Boulder,Colorado: Natural Hazards
Research and Applications Information Center at the University of Colorado, 1992.
Tobin, Graham A. and Burrell E. Montz. Natural Hazards: Explanation and
Integration. New York: Guilford Press, 1997
Torry, William I. Urban Earthquake Hazard in Developing Countries: Squatter Settlements
and the Outlook for Turkey. Netherlands: Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company. 1980.
17
Hazards 2002, October 3-6, Antalya / TURKEY
THE MARMARA EARTHQUAKE AS A REFLEXIVE RISK
Leiv Bjelland
leivbjel@online.no
Engin Yıldırım
Sakarya Universitesi ,İİBF Esentepe Kampüsü
54040 ADAPAZARI – TURKEY
Phone: (0264) 346 03 33
yildirim@sakarya.edu.tr
The subject of the paper is knowledge production and controversies within the Turkish
disaster management system, and the interpretation of these controversies. It seems as if
dissent impedes cooperation among different actors. The paper is based on semi-structured
interviews with Turkish disaster-NGOs. The proposition is put forth that controversies can be
reinterpreted as a normal state-of-affairs if the earthquake risk in the Marmara region is
understood in a different way than the dominating frame of reference for natural disasters.
It is uncontroversial to claim that the Marmara earthquake was not merely a natural disaster,
i.e. an asocial event. Both the response to the quake in Turkey, and general views on natural
disaster found in disaster studies, point to the importance of a social vulnerability both prior to
and after disaster. Consequently, there is a political dimension to the Marmara earthquake as
to other disasters. The social aspects of the Marmara earthquake are, however, not
unambiguous. There was no clear correlation between poverty and vulnerability. Although
vulnerability theory does not equate vulnerability and power, the analysis of social root causes
are in general more pinpointed when such a correlation are found.
This paper presents an alternative approach to the Marmara earthquake – a model of disaster
that differs both from reductionist notions and from vulnerability theory. We suggest, in other
words, that the problem is structured in a different fashion. The disaster, and the continuous
risk, may in many respects also be seen as from a reflexive modernization perspective, as a
modernization risk. Since shortcomings in knowledge appear to be central in the Turkish
vulnerability condition, an approach that emphasizes knowledge might be useful. It is within
this context that Beck’s “Risk society” approach can be employed. Beck argues that the nature
of risks changes radically in the post-industrial society, due to two simultaneous processes.
First, risks cease to be external as modernization risks originating in new technology emerge.
Second, risk management looses its institutional basis in applied science and governmental
agencies, and becomes a contested arena where also sub-political initiatives participate.
Beck himself denies the continuity between modernization risks and natural disasters, since
“the latter are not based on decisions”. And there are undoubtedly differences between, for
example, Chernobyl and the Marmara earthquake. Still, it may be argued that there are also
several similarities between disasters of different kind and these legitimate the juxtaposition
between the theory of reflexive modernization and the Marmara earthquake.
18
Hazards 2002, October 3-6, Antalya / TURKEY
The possibly most important convergences are:
-
-
-
Hybridization. Already the vulnerability approach justifies the claim that the
Marmara earthquake was a hybrid. Further, there is little doubt that most of the
damages in the earthquake may be labeled “na-tech”. As in all earthquakes, the direct
hazard was not the main cause of damage in the Marmara quake – poor constructions
were.
Sub-politics. A large number of NGOs were active in the aftermath of the earthquake
– and for some time even were assumed to change the political landscape of Turkey.
Much of the optimism about the socio-political impact of the civil society has waned
since the first weeks after the quake. Also the impact on disaster preparedness and
mitigation has been questioned – often by the organizations themselves.
Social construction of risk. To claim that the disaster did not happen would be absurd
and immoral. But it is equally wrong to say there is no construction of facts, no
politics of knowledge, in the risk discourse in Turkey. As we have seen, vulnerability
may be labeled socially produced – and it is, by several of the NGOs engaged in the
region.
Also methods of reducing risk and enhancing preparedness differ among different actors in
the disaster management system. Most of the NGOs we have talked to develop their own
strategies and training programmes and several are doing what constructivist call local
production of knowledge. Sometimes this even leads to overt conflict over how disaster
management should be performed. An example is the conflict between IAHEP and AKUT
about how one should behave during an earthquake. In essence, the controversy concerns the
appropriateness of universal knowledge. At other times, the dissonance concerns the longterm effects of strategies. Here, the link between recovery and development is understood
differently. The disappointment of İzmit Kent Kurultay of the recovery plan for İzmit is an
example. Again, the relative appropriateness of external knowledge over local competence is
questioned.
In all of these samples, the sufficiency of technical management – or instrumental rationality
– is highlighted. The interviews with NGOs, on the other hand, all concern the social
dimension of disaster, where technological management is insufficient. Instrumental
rationality can neither chooses among competing, empirically based knowledge claims, nor
unambiguously draw the line between recovery and development, or which improvements are
necessary and which are not.
If the earthquake is understood as an incident of under-development, controversies must be
interpreted as a deficit of scientific knowledge. But the earthquake risk in the Marmara region
can also be seen as a reflexive risk, involving both a natural and a social dimension, and
political and epistemological challenges as well as management tasks.
19
Hazards 2002, October 3-6, Antalya / TURKEY
LESSONS FROM GERMAN TASKFORCE MISSIONS TO TURKEY:
ENGINEERING ASPECTS
J. Schwarz, C. Ende, J. Habenberger, D. H. Lang and M. Raschke
Bauhaus-University Weimar, Institute of Structural Engineering
Earthquake Damage Analysis Center
Marienstr. 7, D-99421 Weimar, Germany
Phone: +49-3643-584 583 Fax: +49-3643-584 590
schwarz@uni-weimar.de
During the last years, German TaskForce for Earthquakes was requested for investigations
following all more severe earthquakes in Turkey (starting with the Erzincan earthquake in
1992, the last one being the Afyon-Sultandağı earthquake in February 2002). Engineers of the
reconnaissance team mainly concentrated on the investigation of structural damage and its
distribution as part of a more refined macroseismic study (intensity assessment). Furthermore,
extensive strong-motion measurements were carried out, using 10 strong-motion
accelerographs (Kinemetrics Altus K2) of German TaskForce Pool. Particularly, the missions
to Adana/Ceyhan in 1998, to İzmit/Kocaeli and to Düzce/Bolu in 1999 provided a unique
database of recorded aftershocks at sites where building damage occurred.
To gain more insight into the effect of local site conditions, additional studies were directed to
the earthquake affected regions of Adana and Kocaeli in October 2000. Microtremors were
recorded at sites of the previously installed strong-motion accelerographs and locations of
evident concentration or variation of building damage spread over the area of main shaking
effects (see example in Figure 1). The predominant frequencies and amplification potentials at
the recording sites were identified by applying H/V spectral ratio method (Figure 2). On the
basis of H/V-spectra the sites were classified (into soft soil, stiff soil, rock-type conditions)
enabling a subdivision of the recorded strong-motion data.
The data-set is dominated by records on stiff and soft soil. Only a few recordings on rock-type
stations are available. Nevertheless, it has to be emphasized that the data-set is unique due to
its consistent quality and the large percentage of near-field records (Figure 3). Source
parameters were determined by seismologists of German TaskForce (GeoForschungsZentrum
Potsdam). The different data groups were analyzed statistically (Figure 4). Studies were
repeated by implementing available records of the mainshock and stronger aftershocks
provided by KOERI (Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research Institute, Istanbul), see
Figure 3. Attenuation laws for spectral and peak ground acceleration were determined similar
to the approach by Ambraseys et al. (1996). Surprisingly, the recorded data lead to
remarkably lower spectra for the horizontal as well for the vertical components.
It is the main purpose of the paper to sum up the correlation between ground motion, site
conditions and building damage. From the authors’ point of view, the impact of so-called site
effects might be overstressed with respect to the severity of ground shaking. Reasons for the
extent of damage and failure of buildings can be attributed to their exceptionally high
vulnerability. For one typical building type (RC frame) the randomness of performance will
be illustrated.
20
Hazards 2002, October 3-6, Antalya / TURKEY
Figure 1. RC-frame structure in
Gölyaka totally damaged by the 1999
Kocaeli mainshock
Figure 2. Spectral H/V-ratios of microtremors recorded close to the damaged
RC-frame structure in Gölyaka
Figure 3. Data-set of strong-motion
recordings used for statistical investigations (state of elaboration: June 2002)
Figure
4.
Comparison
between
attenuation relations regarding different
subsoil conditions of recording sites
21
Hazards 2002, October 3-6, Antalya / TURKEY
PREPAREDNESS FOR JOINT EARTHQUAKE AND TECHNOLOGICAL
DISASTER FOLLOWING AN EARTHQUAKE:
LESSONS FROM THE TURKEY EARTHQUAKE OF AUGUST 17, 1999
Ana Maria Cruz
PhD Student, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Tulane University, New Orleans, LA 70118, USA
Phone: 504-862-3257, Fax: 504-862-8942
acruz@tulane.edu.
Laura J. Steinberg
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Tulane University, New Orleans, LA 70118 USA
Phone: 504-862-3254, Fax: 504-862-8942
lauras@tulane.edu
Fazilet Vardar-Sukan and Yasin Ersöz
3Science-Technology Center, Ege University, İzmir, TURKEY
biotech@bornova.ege.edu.tr
The Turkey earthquake of August 17, 1999 offered an opportunity to learn about the effects of
large earthquakes on hazardous materials, which are used, processed, or stored at industrial
facilities located in highly populated areas. Through the initial phase of this study it was
possible to determine that multiple and simultaneous hazardous materials releases occurred in
the earthquake affected region; and, that these chemical accidents greatly hindered the
region’s overall emergency response capability.
Through person-to-person interviews of plant managers and engineers at 19 industrial
facilities, as well as a random survey of 400 companies in the affected area, it was possible to
assess the performance of mitigation measures in place at the time of the earthquake, as well
as the capacity of these industrial facilities to respond to the multiple and simultaneous
hazardous materials releases, which ensued following the earthquake.
Similarly, through person-to-person interviews at governmental and nongovernmental
organizations it was possible to identify the problems encountered by these organizations in
trying to respond to the joint earthquake and technological disasters.
The interviews revealed that none of the facilities had addressed the particular problems
associated with preparing for joint earthquake and hazardous materials releases. Because of
concern for chemical accidents, mitigation measures existed at all the factory sites visited,
however, in most cases they were not designed to withstand earthquake forces, nor were they
designed to operate in the total absence of electrical power, water, steam or cooling water;
problems simultaneously brought forth by the earthquake.
The interviews also showed that industry emergency response plans did not particularly
address earthquake scenarios, and more importantly did not specifically address or prepare
workers and managers for the specific problems that exacerbate an emergency situation
22
Hazards 2002, October 3-6, Antalya / TURKEY
during and following an earthquake. The foregoing data collected at the various interviews
also indicated that there was some form of panic among personnel present at the industrial
facilities affected by both the earthquake and the hazmat releases.
The interviews with governmental officials and emergency response personnel indicated that
emergency response by these organizations to the joint disaster was replete with problems.
The region was not prepared for an earthquake of this magnitude, nor was it prepared for
multiple and simultaneous hazardous materials releases. Uncertainty with respect to the
management and possible consequences of hazardous materials releases, combined with the
already precarious situation brought on by the earthquake disaster such as lack of personnel,
damage to lifelines, and loss of communications aggravated organizational capacity to deal
with the situation.
23
Hazards 2002, October 3-6, Antalya / TURKEY
AFTER THE EARTH SHAKES, THE WIND BLOWS, THE WATER RISES:
THE QUESTION OF SOCIO-CULTURAL CHANGE
OR CONTINUITY POST CALAMITY
Susanna M. Hoffman
PO Box 119 216 E. Galena
Telluride, CO 81435 USA
Phone/Fax: (970) 728-1004
shoffman@rmi.net
Disaster research inevitably addresses the issue of change. Disasters disrupt physical, social,
and emotional worlds. They cause loss and bereavement. Reconstruction after any disaster is
fraught with difficulty and ambivalence. Yet, the question of change of continuity concerns all
those involved in the calamity, from survivors to those not harmed, from officials and aid
workers to the scientists studying the event.
Early research in disaster generally promoted the point of view that calamities bring little
social or cultural change. Studies tended to be ahistorical. They looked at disasters within a
short span of time, with narrow topics and an eye to major shifts, rather than viewing
calamities as processes that continue long after initial upheaval that affect almost every arena
of human existence.
Anthropology, through its tradition of long and on-sight field research and emphasis on social
and cultural process, has added new considerations to the question of calamity and sociocultural change. Anthropology brings to the forum issues of magnitude, how those affected
are articulated into larger social wholes, and the matter of long-run developments in such
areas as social organizational, political factions, leadership, ideologies, knowledge and
psychological state. Anthropology asks such questions as, are the changes consequent to
disaster such to transform the implicit character of the culture or society or are they auxiliary
and incidental? What does calamity reveal about what was hidden prior to the event and
expose about vulnerability? As social and cultural change is constantly in operation, does
calamity merely exacerbate change already in process or initiate wholly new innovation?
Calamities inevitably present challenges and cause conflict, exactly the situation that brings
about transformation.
Equally anthropological investigation into disaster must acknowledge cultural continuity, the
fixedness of society and culture and their resistance to change. In some ways small groups
and entire social cultural systems steel against the alterations calamity ushers in and persist in
their prior course. Still, there are many kinds of shifts that alter a society's composition
without threatening continuity.
Each of the above topics will be addressed in the paper, and examples from Turkey, Greece,
and the United States will be cited. Edification about the question of social-cultural change or
continuity can facilitate all persons involved in or affected by a calamity and all those facing
the potential of future catastrophe.
24
Hazards 2002, October 3-6, Antalya / TURKEY
SUPPORT BASIS OF SURVIVORS
OF 17 AUGUST 1999 EARTHQUAKE IN TURKEY
Mehmet Ecevit
Department of Sociology, Middle East Technical University
İnönü Bulvarı, 06531 Ankara / TURKEY
Office Phone: +90-0312-210 5993 Fax: +90-0312-225 15 86
ecevitm@metu.edu.tr
Aytül Kasapoğlu
Department of Sociology, Faculty of Literature, History and Geography
Ankara University
Sihhiye, 06100 Ankara / TURKEY
Office Phone: +90-0312-310 3280 / Ext.1683
Fax: +90-0312-309 5559
kasap@humanity.ankara.edu.tr
This paper aims to present a sociological analysis of social support related to disaster
sociology in general and earthquakes specifically. The analysis is based on field research
conducted a year after the 17 August 1999 East Marmara Earthquake where 18 000 people
died; 50 000 people injured; 5 000 buildings collapsed and 340 000 of them damaged; 14 513
businesses closed; 150 000 people became unemployed; and 129 338 forced to live in
prefabricated houses.
The research focuses on prefabricated cites, assuming that they included most of the
differentiated characteristics originating from the domination of the region by industrial
workers and their socio-economic characteristics. From the 80 prefabricated cites,
disproportionate random sampling technique was used in the selection of 250 household units
arriving to a sample size of 500 people by selecting two people from each household (one
man and one woman).
The research primarily aims to understand the support needs and its relation to the various
social and psychological values and attitudes. In the interview schedule, respondents were
asked to provide basic information about background variables such as gender, age,
education, ownership of home, and employment and security status.
Regarding psychological changes, the degree of cigarette smoking, drinking alcohol,
sleeplessness, heart palpitation, worries about the future, unjust world, and anger variables are
measured based upon the answers of the respondents to questions relevant to these indicators
before and after the earthquake.
Emotional, informational and tangible support needs and their sources (family, friends and
others) were measured by asking unstructured (open-ended) questions. The most important
single source of support needed was determined by reading respondents a list of possible
support areas as follows: financial, legal, psychological, educational, occupational skill,
religious/spiritual, solidarity, travel, political, scientific work, security of life and property,
social security/insurance, family consultancy, democratization, others.
25
Hazards 2002, October 3-6, Antalya / TURKEY
The disaster survivors were also asked ‘about whom they received and from whom they
would desire primary support’: the state, government, a crisis center, metropolitan
municipality, town municipality, neighborhood governmental representative (headman),
NGOs, countrymen, relatives, friends, neighbors, religious friends, all Turkey, international
help organizations, others, or no one.
After conducting a detailed and careful pilot study, the main study was carried out and the
collected data has been analyzed with the help of SPSS program.
Marginal development of the civil society; high degree of expectations of almost everything
from the state; psychological factors being less influential compared with West and education
being the primary influential factor are some of the important results of this research
Keywords: support needs, earthquake, disasters, civil society, Turkey
26
Hazards 2002, October 3-6, Antalya / TURKEY
NEIGHBORHOOD DISASTER SUPPORT PROJECT (NDSP)
Elvan Cantekin
Following a major earthquake, over 90 percent of earthquake victims are rescued by family
members or neighbors. However, although these spontaneous volunteers are extremely
motivated, they have neither the skills nor the tools required for effective rescue work.
Immediate, non-professional rescue regularly results in injuries to victims and to the
spontaneous volunteers themselves. Based on these facts, a project is developed in Kocaeli
with the partnership of the Kocaeli Governor’ Office, Provincial Civil Defense Directorate,
Municipal Fire Brigade, Kocaeli University, the İzmit City Assembly and Swiss Agency for
Development and Cooperation.
The so-called Neighborhood Disaster Support Project (NDSP) aims to establish an extendable
network of neighborhood-based volunteer organizations which – with appropriate support –
are able to generate effective disaster-response capability of the population and sustain this
capacity over the long-term.
The project has two main lines of action:
1. Neighborhood Disaster Volunteers (NDVs)
Groups of NDVs consisting of about 50 volunteers will be trained 40 hours in basic disaster
response techniques and provided with basic rescue equipment to be employed in the first
aftermath of a disaster. With the arrival of regular disaster teams after the first days of a
disaster, the role of the volunteers will be to assist the professionals.
In each neighborhood involved in the programme, NDVs receive personal and team
equipment. This equipment is kept in Crisis Centers, which are set up in the neighborhood.
2. Neighborhood Disaster Committees (NDCs)
In each neighborhood, a committee is formed under the chairmanship of the Headman
consisting of four persons with specific tasks. The committees shall become an identifiable
focal point for the neighborhood disaster preparedness initiatives. They shall act as an
effective link between the civil society and the structures of the government.
NDSP Vision:
In Turkey, where the majority of the population lives in disaster prone areas, a level-level
disaster response capacity is an indispensable part of national disaster management. With the
active participation of local inhabitants and organizations concerned, the NDS-Project will
establish a network of based-based disaster response groups. Once the effectiveness of the
NDS-model has been demonstrated, it will handed over to an organization capable of
reproducing it in other areas and neighborhoods throughout Turkey.
Project objectives:
1. Implementation: up to 15 community-based Neighborhoods Disaster Societies (NDS) are
established, trained, equipped and operational.
2. Development: an effective and replicable model for building and maintaining neighborhood
based disaster response capacity is demonstrated,
3. Institutionalisation: an institutional set up with the potential to implement, further develop
and replicate the NDSP model on a sustainable basis is formulated and instigated.
27
Hazards 2002, October 3-6, Antalya / TURKEY
A SUCCESSFUL EXAMPLE OF LOCAL CAPACITY BUILDING
FOR DISASTER PREVENTION AND PREPAREDNESS
Ahmet Mete Işıkara
Bosphorus University, Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research Institute
(KOERI)
Esra Sarıoğlu
UNDP Programme Officer
Elvan Cantekin
Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC), Project Manager
Sadun Emrealp
International Union of Local Authorities
Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East Division (IULA-EMME) -Assist. Nat. Coord.
TURKEY
Following the two deathly earthquakes in 1999, it has been widely accepted that the public in
disaster prone localities in Turkey needs to be made aware of possible risks and prepared
accordingly. “Local Capacity Building for Disaster Prevention and Preparedness” project
launched as the outcome of this deliberation. Project is implemented in three pilot disaster
prone cities; Bursa, Çanakkale and Adapazarı. However, the public awareness campaigns are
extended throughout the nation.
Local Capacity Building for Disaster Prevention and Preparedness Project launched in
September 2001 is being conducted by IULA-EMME under the auspices of UNDP-Turkey
and with the financial support of SDC. The project is being coordinated by KOERI. Local
Agenda 21 Secretariats in project provinces host the organizations.
The project consists of two main mutually reinforcing components. The first component aims
to inform and sensitize the public in the three project provinces of the possible risks that they
face in terms of earthquakes, and of the responsibilities that they need to assume in mitigating
the effects of those risks in their localities. The second component of the project pertains to
training of a select number of local people in basic skills and techniques for earthquake
preparedness. This component involves a three-tier training system that starts with training of
central trainers, branched down to training of local trainers and finally community meetings
by local trainers to the public.
At the end of the project
● The public in Bursa, Çanakkale and Sakarya will have been informed of risks and be
prepared for disasters, in particular earthquakes, through public awareness campaigns and
training.
● Disaster preparedness, mitigation, and response component will have been fully
integrated into Local Agenda 21 action plans in the three project provinces.
28
Hazards 2002, October 3-6, Antalya / TURKEY
HAZARDS POLICY AT CROSS-ROADS:
CURRENT STATE OF STRUCTURING MITIGATION EFFORTS IN TURKEY
Murat Balamir
Middle East Technical University, City and Regional Dept. TURKEY
Phone: 00 90 (312) 210 22 37 Fax: 00 90 (312) 210 12 50
balamir@arch.metu.edu.tr
The reformist approach introduced after the 1999 earthquakes by the three-partite coalition
government in Turkey structured an unprecedented disasters policy favoring mitigation tools.
Besides the improvement and consolidation of emergency planning, and capacity building in
search and rescue services, the major building blocks of the new mitigation policy have been
the ‘construction supervision’, ‘compulsory building insurance’, and ‘proficiency in building
professions’, all rapidly enforced by means of Decrees of the Board of Ministers. The
provision of these legal instruments, together with the introduction of new bodies and
organizational changes brought a new policy climate with long-term vision, and attracted
global attention.
Yet putting these mechanisms in action and pioneering their adoption have not been without
problems. Resentments and resistance, misinterpretations and misuse of the new provisions
hindered the full achievement of intended goals. As the dramatic impact of 1999 events fade
away, counter-trends seem to strengthen their positions and express their attitudes more firmly
and explicitly. These could be traced in the regulatory reformulations, necessary since the
Decrees have to receive Parliamentary approval in their conversion into laws as more
permanent devices, as well as in the statements of complacency by the elements of the
conventional system not necessarily appreciative of the changes. Conflicts are less disguised
today between conventional and new bodies, between the formal and informal procedures,
and between the different professional groups involved. Mitigation instruments are
consistently weakened in the draft laws concerning ‘Disasters’, ‘Obligatory Building
Insurance’, and ‘Development’, each prepared by another faction of the coalition. These
seem to ignore each other and the need for an integrated policy. The occasional opportunities
that arose during the past three years for implementing retrofitting and rehabilitation projects
have been either postponed or omitted. In the same manner, propositions concerning
mitigation projects of the World Bank’s MEER program have been seriously delayed.
Despite all reluctance, the National Earthquake Council, a body instituted by the Prime
Ministry in 2000 with twenty independent scientists, has prepared a report on a
comprehensive ‘National Mitigation Strategy’ in April 2002. The report published and
distributed extensively, has generated almost no response yet, mostly due to the current
political turmoil, and propositions envisaged in this report still expect attendance and
discussions in-depth.
Prospects seem to depend at the moment on the results of the elections in early November.
Irrespective of the political stand, formation of a powerful unitary government that could
avoid coalitions will constitute the primary determinant in structuring and enforcing an
integrated mitigation policy. Rather than political ideologies, it is the structure of power in
office that is likely to determine the fate of mitigation enforcement. With a powerful
29
Hazards 2002, October 3-6, Antalya / TURKEY
government, it is more of a possibility that an integrated mitigation system could be put into
operation. Irrespective of the political stand again, a strong government could lead the
upgrading of the land use management and urban planning system, hitherto unattended. Much
remains to be achieved in the area of land use management to complement and constitute a
basis for the mitigation policy. Incorporation of geological and hazard information into
planning procedures, coordination of locational decisions for development, integration of
methods of resource formation, public participation in local land use decisions, public and
private partnerships in development and rehabilitation, and the acquisition of incisive tools
combining physical and financial monitoring will unavoidably be attended in the restructuring
of land use management and urban planning systems.
All such regulation is likely to fuel rehabilitation and mitigation efforts and curb the
tendencies of passive and total dependence on markets, and give rise to processes reverting to
the concept of ‘public benefit’. The efforts for more effective mitigation policy aiming to
reduce potential losses from disasters and ‘avoidance, minimization, and sharing of risks’ will
inevitably clarify the limits of the neo-liberal processes and generate futuristic policy
structures.
30
Hazards 2002, October 3-6, Antalya / TURKEY
PSYCHOSOCIAL IMPACTS OF 1999 MARMARA EARTHQUAKE
ON MUDANYA’S PEOPLE
M. Ersin Kuşdil
Uludağ Üniversitesi, Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi, Psikoloji Bölümü
A.O. Sönmez Kampüsü, Bursa / TURKEY
Phone: + 90 (224) 261 55 45
mekusdil@uludag.edu.tr
Ayda Tekok-Kılıç
Uludağ Üniversitesi, Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi, Psikoloji Bölümü
A.O. Sönmez Kampüsü, Bursa / TURKEY
Phone: + 90 (224) 261 55 45
aydakilic@yahoo.com
Aysel Kayaoğlu
Anadolu Üniversitesi, İletişim Fakültesi, İletişim Eğitimi ve Planlaması Bölümü
Eskişehir / TURKEY
Phone: + 90 (222) 335 05 80
akayaoglu@anadolu.edu.tr
Nermin Çelen
Uludağ Üniversitesi, Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi, Psikoloji Bölümü
A.O. Sönmez Kampüsü, Bursa / TURKEY
Phone: + 90 (224) 261 55 45
ncelen@uludag.edu.tr
Orçun Yorulmaz
Uludağ Üniversitesi, Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi, Psikoloji Bölümü
A.O. Sönmez Kampüsü, Bursa / TURKEY
Phone: + 90 (224) 261 55 45
orcuny@uludag.edu.tr
Pınar Tosun
Boğaziçi Üniversitesi, Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi
Psikoloji Bölümü, Bebek
İstanbul. / TURKEY
Phone: + 90 (212) 358 15 40
pinartosun@hotmail.com
Earthquake as a natural disaster weakens individuals’ beliefs for having control over outer
effects and one’s own life. However, a decrease in the anticipation anxiety may be expected
as the information level increases because increase in information level may provide
individuals with a sense of control over situations to some extent. In Rüstemli and Karancı’s
(1997) study after 1992 Erzincan earthquake, it is revealed that anxiety and fear levels of
earthquake victims and their beliefs for being able to direct their own lives is closely related
with the behavior of making preparations for probable earthquakes in the future. However,
31
Hazards 2002, October 3-6, Antalya / TURKEY
measurements repeated 4.5 years after the earthquake in the same region showed that this
motivation alone does not explain the behavior of preparing for the probable earthquakes.
Participants said that the responsibility of taking measurements against probable damages of
disasters belongs to governmental institutions and authorities rather than themselves.
Therefore, people in the regions with a risk of earthquake do not perceive themselves as the
center of control in probable organizations for earthquake prevention. It is clear that such kind
of expectations pushing individual preparations back may decrease the impact of the
measurements taken by the governmental institutions. However, most of the studies on this
issue were done in the regions where a lot of deaths, injuries, and property loss had occurred
at the earthquakes. Thus, it is difficult to determine the level of the impact of individual
mourning reactions on the results.
For the present study, Mudanya which is a town of Bursa, a city out of the first degree
damaged settlement area; yet affected by the earthquake to a high extent, was selected for data
collection. The relatively low degree of the damages by the earthquake in terms of death,
injury and property loss made it possible for the researchers to examine the fear, anxiety and
psychopathological problems resulting from earthquake experience as independent from
individual mourning reactions. Participants were 258 people (123 female and 133 male, 2
unanswered) living in Mudanya, Bursa. Mean age of the participants was 34.35 (SD= 14.06).
While approximately 40% of the participants were graduated from high school or university, a
small number of people were only literate (% 2). Most of the participants (89.1 %) declared
that they had experienced both earthquakes in 17th of August and 12th of November. The
percentage of participants that had experienced neither of these earthquakes was only 0.8 %.
Analysis of the data revealed that only 5 % of the participants has experienced death or
injuries of their relatives during the 17th of August and 12th of November earthquakes, none
of which was from first degree relatives. Therefore, one of the aims of the study, accessing to
people with experience of the earthquake independent from mourning reaction was achieved.
All items in the questionnaire were categorized under one of six categories of variables,
namely, personal (gender, age, educational level, and income), residential (height, household
ownership, and perceived strength) control-support (perceived control, social support, trust in
authorities) cognitive-behavioral (earthquake expectation, damage expectation, damage
mitigation, preparedness), stress symptoms (Symptom Check List, Derogatis and Cleary,
1977) and the styles of coping with stress (Ways of Coping With Stress Questionnaire,
Folkman and Lazarus, 1985). Results showed that the expectations of a serious earthquake
were less frequently expressed as the age of the participant increased and that males reported
lower levels of damage expectations than did female participants. In general, stress symptoms
(fear/anxiety, somatization, depression, hostility/irritability) were able to predict significant
variance in the variables of earthquake and damage expectations, showing that earthquake
experience had affected the people of Mudanya to an important extent. Meanwhile, as can be
expected, female participants expressed higher levels of stress symptoms than did males.
However, the increases in the levels of stress symptoms did not relate any increases in the
preparedness behaviors of the participants. Ways of coping with stress (especially, the
problem solving/optimism and avoidance) appeared as significant predictors of the variable of
preparedness for earthquake: the probability of preparing for an earthquake increased with the
use of the style of problem solving/optimism whereas the style of avoidance was negatively
related to it.
32
Hazards 2002, October 3-6, Antalya / TURKEY
Regression analyses showed that, when compared to the income level, the educational level of
the participant was far more efficient predictor of the belief for damage mitigation. Yet, none
of these two variables was able to predict significant variance in earthquake expectation,
damage expectation, and preparedness behavior. The most effective variable for preparedness
was the perceived control of the participant: the belief in the possibility of changing the life
course after the earthquake made important contributions to the precautions taken by the
participants. Considering that the one third of the sample (34.4 %) did not report any activity
related to mitigate the effects of a possible earthquake, the importance of preventive programs
focusing on the personal responsibility and control domains becomes apparent.
Keywords: Earthquake, preparedness behavior, psychopathological symptoms, ways of
coping with stress.
33
Hazards 2002, October 3-6, Antalya / TURKEY
NEW DISASTER MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
OF THE TURKISH RED CRESCENT SOCIETY
Oktay Ergünay
Deputy General Directorate of Kızılay TURKEY
Phone: 0 312 245 45 14 Fax: 0 312 245 45 41
ergunay@Kizilay.org
The Turkish Red Crescent Society (Kızılay) was founded as an association on June 11, 1868
under the name of “Society for Helping Sick and Wounded Ottoman Soldiers ”. After the
foundation of the Republic of Turkey in 1923, Kızılay was renamed the “Turkish Red
Crescent Union”, and finally in 1947, it was named “Turkish Red Crescent Society ”.
The activities of the Kızılay between 1868 and 1923 concentrated mainly on victims of war,
mobile hospitals and first aid centers, health epidemics and helping war migrants. Beginning
in 1924 and continuing to the present time Kızılay in mainly involved in disaster related and
health care activities.
Kızılay is an integral and important part of overall disaster management structure in Turkey.
It is represented at national, provincial and sub-provincial level in the crisis or disaster
management committees.
Kızılay consists of two main bodies: 1- Headquarters and 2- Branches
Branches are formed by elections and all elected staff of branches perform their duties
voluntarily. At present, there are 670 branches in provinces and sub-provinces. The General
Directorate is the professional part of Kızılay. It manages the organization within the
framework of the mission, vision, strategies, and policies drawn up by headquarters. There are
2169 professional staff and about 395.000 volunteers in Kızılay.
After lessons to be learned from August 17, 1999 İzmit Bay Earthquake, Kızılay needs to
changes her mission, vision, strategies in related to disaster management, and accepted
restructuring of Kızılay and new disaster management strategies.
The new Disaster Management Strategy of the Kızılay is a strategy that, rather than merely
providing emergency humanitarian assistance for communities impacted by a disaster,
supports and organizes pre-disaster voluntary community involvement, raises public
awareness and consciousness, and prepares the community in advance against disasters to
mitigate disaster losses and that promotes planning and preparedness for an efficient disaster
response operation as stipulated in the “Strategy 2010” document of the International
Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent.
The basic elements of such strategy are the establishment of an earthquake research and
information system for humanitarian assistance, effective execution of disaster planning and
preparedness activities, and, as an essential part of an effective disaster management system,
realization of the activities for delivering accurate information in a correct format to the
appropriate authorities at the earliest in order to facilitate rapid and accurate decisions.
34
Hazards 2002, October 3-6, Antalya / TURKEY
Kızılay within the scope of this new strategy, has established a new disaster planning and
preparedness unit, a new Earthquake Research and Information Center for Humanitarian
Assistance (BİLMER), a new disaster communication system, a new light search and rescue
unit, a new tent production facilities, new psychosocial centers and programs, and also
changed her traditional disaster response and logistic support activities from reactive to the
proactive manner.
Kızılay shall be more efficient in disaster preparedness and response with this strategy and
shall be a society sought by the community for its community-wide training and disaster
planning activities. It shall become a center for cooperation and training within the Federation
and on a regional level.
35
Hazards 2002, October 3-6, Antalya / TURKEY
DISASTER MANAGEMENT STUDIES
AT GENERAL DIRECTORATE OF DISASTER AFFAIRS (GDDA) TURKEY
Murat Nurlu, Kerem Kuterdem, Bülent Özmen,
Ahmet Temiz, Ali Yiğit, Bekir Tüzel and Tarhan Erenbilge
Turkey has suffered from catastrophic natural disasters caused lots of casualties and property
damages since the 20th century. General Directorate of Disaster Affairs is a fundamental
organization has been working on every phase of disaster event with its skillful personnel and
background. The disaster management concept covers the every administrative and legal work
done in order to mitigate and decrease the consequences before and after the disaster happens.
Related with this definition, GDDA plays an important role before (monitoring activities,
disaster-risk determination, etc.), during (removal and collapsing of heavily damaged
buildings that threaten human life and property security) and after (Damage assessment, site
selection, permanent and temporary housing studies etc.) disaster happens.
GDDA has its own seismic observation networks like Earthquake Disaster Prevention
Research Center Network (EDCVE), National Strong Motion Network and Seismological
Network (TURKNET). In addition to earthquake studies GDDA is also entrusted in the
investigation of landslide, rockfall and snow avalanche disasters especially defining the
disaster prone areas. Approval and technical check of microzonation maps of provinces
prepared by universities and private organizations are also the responsibility of GDDA.
Examples to the ongoing projects of GDDA are as follows; Revision of Disaster Law,
Revision of Turkey Earthquake Zoning Map, Determination of Natural Disaster and Risk of
Western Black Sea Region (a Multi Hazard Approach), Microzonation Project of Istanbul
Region, Pilot Microzonation Project for Adapazarı and İzmit Provinces (Joint Project with
DRM).
In this paper two different pre and post disaster activities of GDDA will be explained.
Different methods are being developed and used in order to mitigate the disaster related losses
all around the world. One of them is the pre-disaster facilities where natural disaster potential
of an area is determined and planning phase is implemented accordingly. For this reason a
pilot project is done in Kastamonu and surroundings (North of Turkey) where all kinds of
disaster types (Within the responsibility of GDDA) including earthquake landslide, rockfall
and snow avalanche are studied in detail and necessary outputs are produced to assist both for
disaster management and emergency aid plans of the Kastamonu. During this study
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and Remote Sensing (RS) techniques are used and all
studies are sketched out to be a basis for the future planned disaster information systems. All
previously prepared disaster scenarios are revised according to the outputs of researches,
necessary informations and recommendations are transferred to the decision makers of
Kastamonu. The resultant product of the project is the multi hazard map prepared by using
GIS techniques. An earthquake scenario was prepared for the Kastamonu city including the
collateral hazards like landsling and rockfall for a probable 7.5 magnitude scenario
earthquake. According to the calculations of maximum intensities, 82 deaths, 206 injuries and
1511 heavily damaged buildings are expected after scenario earthquake. Similarly, a landslide
scenario was prepared for İnebolu Province and snow avalanche scenario was prepared for 3
provinces under probable threat of this type of disaster.
36
Hazards 2002, October 3-6, Antalya / TURKEY
One of the most striking post-disaster activities implemented by GDDA is the rehabilitation
studies of 1999 Marmara Region and Düzce Earthquakes. According to the damage
assessment studies 376685 damaged buildings are determined, 44107 prefabricated houses are
constructed for temporary housing, 1660 ha area is expropriated and the construction of
43146 permanent houses are completed. Approximately 66 million USD is spent for
reinforcement and maintenance of buildings. Total expenditures have reached to 1.4 billion
USD after 1999 Marmara Region and Düzce catastrophic earthquakes.
All those studies show that GDDA is a professional organization working on all types of
disasters in concordance with today’s modern disaster management concepts.
37
Hazards 2002, October 3-6, Antalya / TURKEY
RUSSIAN FEDERAL PROGRAM
ON SEISMIC DISASTER MITIGATION FOR 2002-2010
J. M. Eisenberg
Chairman,
Russian National Committee for Earthquake Engineering
Director
Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Russian State Construction Committee
RUSSIA
Seismic hazard is very high in Russian Federation.
The general area of Russian Federation territory is around 17000000 square km. Earthquakes
of intensity 6 MSK degree and higher are predicted on almost 60% of this area, with
exceedance probability (EP) 1% during 50 years (return period RP=5000 years), on almost
40% of the total area with exceedance probability 10% during 50 years (return period RP500
years).
The most destructive earthquakes 8 and 9 degree MSK intensity, and higher, could occur on
33% of the total Russia area with EP = 1% (RP=5000 years) and on around 10% of the total
Russia territory with EP = 10% during 50 years (RP  500 years).
These data correspond to the newest Russian Seismic Zonation Maps (OCP-97).
The comparison of the corresponding areas on the previous 1978 Seismic Zonation Maps and
the recent OCP-97 maps is given in the Figure 1.
As it is seen in the Table 1 the most seismic hazardous areas in Russia at the new Maps are
many times larger comparing with the older Maps areas. Most structures do not correspond
the current Seismic Codes.
Of the total amount 89 regions of Russian Federation 29 regions are seismic hazardous. In
these regions the measures of the FP will be carried out.
The main directions of the RFP are:
-
-
Scientific research and developing of a new family of Seismic Building Codes and
laws, Seismic zoning and microzoning of Russian Federation territory for Housing,
public buildings industrial, energy, transport objects
Strengthening and reconstruction of existing not seismic resistant enough structures.
The lessons of the recent catastrophic earthquakes in Turkey, Taiwan, Greece, India
and other will be taken into account.
The details of the Program will be given in the presented paper.
38
Hazards 2002, October 3-6, Antalya / TURKEY
60
E, %
12,1
50
40
12,7
13,1
14,7
30
18,4
20
14,55
10
8,8
0
19,2
17,7
10
2,7
2,7
7,1
2,1
ОСР-78
ОСР-97-А
14,4
5,2
ОСР-97-В
ОСР-97-С
Figure 1. The areas of Seismic Intensity at the Maps OCP-97 and OCP-78. A, B, C are maps
of the EP 10%, 5% and 1% EP. VI, VII, VIII and IX- are Intensity Degrees.
(The above-mentioned data have been taken from the Comments to OCP-97 Seismic Zonation
Maps. Edition United Institute Physics of Earth. Russian Academy of Sciences. Moscow.
1999.)
39
Hazards 2002, October 3-6, Antalya / TURKEY
NATURAL HAZARDS ON THE LIVINGSTONE ISLAND
ANTARCTIC SOUTH SHETLANDS
Boyko Ranguelov
Geophysical Institute, Acad G.Boncev str., bl.3, Sofia, BULGARIA
Phone (Fax): (+359-2)-971 46 73
bkr@geophys.bas.bg
The observations of the natural hazardous phenomena have been done during the participation
of the IX National Antarctic campaign – 2000-2001. Many interesting hazardous events
occurred during the 40 days stay in the Bulgarian Antarctic base. Most of the events are
described and some protective measures indicated.
UV radiation: The UV radiation is the most dangerous agent acting on the researchers of the
island environment. A very simple observational device, giving the possibility only to
compare the lightness of soft and hard radiation (UVA and UVB) measured the UV radiation.
Both of them increased during the daytime. In sunny days (not occurring very often) the UV
index is about 10-12. The main source is the ozone hole, which is very clearly expressed
during the summer months. The protection for the eyes is glacier glasses, for the skin –
sunprotectors with high factor (highest than 50-60), for the body and the head – clothes and
hat.
Erosion: The erosion is very deep – deeper than 3-4 meters due to the temperature variations
and freezing and melting water. The erosion generates cracks, rockfalls, cracking sounds.
Listric active faults are expressed due to the extensional geodynamic regime. Real movement
of about 1 mm per 40 days was registered, on a crack related to the visible fault.
Cracks: Cracks are developed in the rocks and the ice. Usually they are oriented to the
cleavage of the stones. The stones are destroyed by slides or by rectangular blocks depending
on the rock types. Cracks in the ice are the second very dangerous phenomenon for the
people. Anybody can fall in them. The protection is by the alpinist equipment and a second
person providing security during the whole track.
Icefalls: Generated by the glaciers with different mechanisms – sliding, falling or block falls,
generating icebergs in the water. They are dangerous directly (if someone is under the falling
ice) or they can generate tsunamis, falling in the water.
Morrenas: Located mainly in the area where the ice is melted during the summer time.
Approximate dimension of the area covered by these stones around the base – 4x1 km. Very
unstable, frequently starting movements by the strong wind blows, these movements may be
very dangerous for the researcher.
Tsunamis: Generated by the icefalls in the South bay. Frequently reach 70-100 cm. One
exceptional case has been registered of about 2 meters high. The total number of registered
tsunamis is 22 for 40 days. The tsunami parameters have been measured by a very simple
equipment [2]. The protection is connected with the noise generated by the icefalls. The travel
time is about 20 minutes. This is enough to go up on the rocks.
40
Hazards 2002, October 3-6, Antalya / TURKEY
Volcanoes and piroclastites: Very near, on an island the active Deception volcano is located
(about 40 miles). During the eruptions, strong winds bring volcanic ash (1-2 mm grains
(called piroclastites), which covers a large area of the Livingstone Isl. (both land and ice
shield). On the Livingstone Isl. itself, a local active volcano is located. Up to now no recent
eruption is reported but a lot of the dated volcanic rocks suggested recent activity. In case of
local eruption, the under ice melting, can generate flooding and sells. The local volcanic
activity can be recognized as warning signal.
Seismic signals: A GVB authonome module (GeoSIG, Swiss equipment) had registered a lot
of seismic signals. They have different origin. Noise signals – generated by wind, wave
braking, cracking process. Seismic signals generated by rockfalls, icefalls, and ice cracking
[2]. Earthquakes have also been expected but up to now a few very doubtful signals of the
local earthquakes have been recognized.
Wind and temperature variations: These are also dangerous phenomena. The strong wind
is able to move a single man. The feeling temperature strongly depends on the wind velocity.
–1-2 degrees can be felt as –20-30C when the wind is strong. The quiet weather increases the
feeling temperature up to +20-25C, and than heated stones started to sound due to the
formation of cracks. The protection measures are proper clothes and stay in the base, waiting
storms to slow down.
Rockfalls: Extremely dangerous phenomena. Due to the strong erosion and the sharp relief,
they are massive bodies (sometimes volumes reach more than 2-3 kilometers), which can start
movements due to the lost stability. The trigger elements can be very small vibrations
generated by strong wind, wave brakes, local cracking, ice falls, human or animal steps, etc.
The sizes of the blocks are in the range of centimeters up to 2-3 meters. The protection is an
increased attention and at least a double people.
Acknowledgments: This study was supported by the contract 24/2002 with NBU.
References:
1. Ranguelov B., Tsunamis generated by icefalls in the Livingstone Island (Antarctic South
Shetlands), Book of Abstracts, NATOARW, 23-26 June 2001, p. 87-91.
2. Ranguelov B., Seismic signals registered on the Livingstone Island (Antarctic South
Shetlands) and some implications for the seismic hazard purposes, Alb. J. of Nat. & Tech.
Sci., 2001(1), p. 131-139.
41
Hazards 2002, October 3-6, Antalya / TURKEY
NATURAL HAZARDS OF BANGLADESH
Badrul Islam and Sultan-Ul-Islam
Department of Geology & Mining, University of Rajshahi
Rajshahi 6205, BANGLADESH
Phone: 1+880 721 750730, Fax: +880 721 750064
badrul@librabd.net / sultan_ul_islam@yahoo.com
Natural hazards, like flood, cyclone and tidal-storm surge causes tremendous loss of life and
property each year and hinder the sustainable development of Bangladesh. Thus, the country
becomes a land of endemic natural disaster to the world community. People live with these
inevitable hazards since prehistoric time and adopted their living and farming habits
accordingly.
Around 230 rivers emerging from surrounding highlands forming a dense criss-crossed
network of the Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna river system. Interestingly, the river system
converges towards the deep trench in the Bay of Bengal, meet together within this small
landmass and form a single conduit to flow into the Bay of Bengal. Due to its spatial tectonogeomorphic position with extreme flat topography, tropical monsoon climate, river system,
drainage congestion, storm-tidal surge and its cultural pattern enormous volume of inflow
losses their momentum, discharge excessively, takes long time to drain into the Bay of
Bengal, overflowing almost evenly and widely and inundate 20%-35% of the country
annually.
The Bay of Bengal is a breeding ground for tropical storm and depression. The storm surges
caused by tropical cyclones have been developed in the southeastern part of the Bay of Bengal
during pre- and post-monsoon periods. Some cyclones turn into severe hurricane. The funnellike configuration the coastal belt converge the tropical cyclones and storm serge towards the
landmass. Extreme shallowness of the water in some near shore areas, the focusing effects of
inlets and estuaries and the absence of shore defense to protect the low lying coastal lands
amplifies the tide and surge at the head of Bay on Bangladesh.
Detailed hazard zonation mapping according to their merit at local as well as regional basis is
suggested to produce database for the management and sustainable development of the
country.
42
Hazards 2002, October 3-6, Antalya / TURKEY
INTEGRATED NATURAL HAZARDS RISK ASSESSMENT
AN AUSTRALIAN EXAMPLE
Russell Blong
Risk Frontiers
Macquarie University, NSW 2109 AUSTRALIA
rblong@els.mq.edu.au
More than a decade ago Risk Frontiers began collecting information in order to address the
following questions:
1.
Which natural hazard in Australia has killed the most people?
2.
Which natural hazard in Australia is the most costly?
3.
Which part of Australia is the most hazardous?
Our research has focused on just nine hazards – floods, tropical cyclones, earthquakes,
tornadoes, hailstorms, other strong wind gusts, landslides, tsunamis, and bushfires.
We have collected data on human deaths and injuries in these hazards spanning the period
since 1788 – the year in which Europeans first settled in Australia. Floods and tropical
cyclones have easily killed the most humans, with bushfires in third place. However, the
ranking change significantly if human deaths in heatwaves are considered. For all of the nine
hazards death rates have declined by about two orders of magnitude in the last 100 years.
Based on the historical evidence, it is also possible to construct a profile of the types of people
that are most likely to be killed in future hazard impacts.
Investigations of the cost of natural hazards since the beginning of the 20th century have
focused just one component – building damage. Using a damage index to allow easy
comparison, hazards can be ranked in declining order of importance – tropical cyclones,
flood, bushfire, gust, hail, earthquake, tornado, landslide, tsunami. While some of these
hazards can be recombined to indicate that thunderstorms are the third most significant hazard
in terms of building damage, nearly 60% of all building damage recorded in the last 100 years
resulted from the impact of tropical cyclones and floods.
NSW and Queensland are easily the most hazardous states, but the data can be further refined
to indicate smaller areas that have produced high damage totals.
A series of maps have been produced to indicate those areas where potential future damage is
likely to be concentrated – if the past forms a worthwhile guide to the future.
43
Hazards 2002, October 3-6, Antalya / TURKEY
SETTING THE STAGE FOR URBAN RISK MITIGATION:
SEISMIC RISKS AND COMPULSORY INSURANCE POLICY ISSUES IN TURKEY
Polat Gülkan
Disaster Management Implementation and Research Center
Middle East Technical University, Ankara 06531 TURKEY
Phone: +90 312 210 2446 Fax: +90 312 210 1193
a03516@rorqual.cc.metu.edu.tr
Turkey is among countries of the world that have long been affected by many natural
disasters, in particular earthquakes and floods. The most recent series of devastating
earthquakes in 1999 have caused loss of lives of thousands and created an enormous financial
burden on the economy, government, industry, insurance sector and public. Rigorous impact
of these disasters led the Government of Turkey to initiate a legal revision to explore a natural
catastrophe risk management strategy including ways of promoting disaster insurance. For
this purpose, various studies financed under loans obtained from the World Bank have been
completed. As a result, the Government of Turkey has decided to introduce a compulsory
earthquake scheme making it mandatory for residences to take out insurance starting from
September 27, 2000. The legal framework of the new scheme has been established by a
decree (No. 587) with power of law for Compulsory Earthquake Insurance. A decree is a fasttrack legal instrument that must be amended and adopted by parliament within a prescribed
time limit.
An operational entity that will be designated with its acronym in Turkish (DASK) has been
created within the Undersecretariat of the Treasury to implement the requirements of the
decree. Already, 2.5 million home owners have purchased this insurance, making DASK in
effect the second largest disaster insurance undertaker in the world. This article argues that
providing earthquake disaster insurance is not in itself an adequate instrument for disaster
mitigation. Other instruments must complement it. Among these, planning and building
construction supervision regulations, quality assurance instruments such as certification in
technical services, and professional liability insurance are cited. The article aims to present a
general view of the Compulsory Earthquake Insurance scheme and its current financial
implications.
44
Hazards 2002, October 3-6, Antalya / TURKEY
PROBABILISTIC ASSESSMENT OF EARTHQUAKE INSURANCE PREMIUMS
M. Semih Yücemen
Department of Civil Engineering and Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Middle East Technical University, 06531 Ankara, TURKEY
Phone: +90-312-2102459 Fax: +90-312-2101193
yucemen@metu.edu.tr
A probabilistic model is presented to obtain a realistic estimate of earthquake insurance
premiums. The model integrates the information on seismic hazard and the information on
expected earthquake damage on engineering facilities in a systematic way, yielding to
estimates of earthquake insurance premiums.
The quantification of the future earthquake threat is achieved by making use of the seismic
hazard analysis (SHA) techniques. Due to the uncertainties involved, the damage that may
occur during future earthquakes has to be treated in a probabilistic manner. For this purpose
damage probability matrices (DPM) are constructed from observational and estimated data.
As input, the model requires the quantification of seismic hazard at a given seismic zone, and
the DPM corresponding to the type of structure to be insured against earthquake damage.
The SHA model used in this study incorporates the uncertainties associated with the
attenuation equation and the seismicity parameters. Although intensity is not a reliable and
objective measure of the severity of ground shaking, it is used in this study, mainly because of
the historical records of past earthquake activity are in terms of modified Mercalli intensity
(MMI), and the available local attenuation relationships in Turkey are based on MMI.
A DPM expresses what will happen to buildings, designed according to some particular set of
requirements, during earthquakes of various intensities. An element of this matrix, P(DS, I),
gives the probability that a particular damage state (DS) occurs when the structure under
consideration is subjected to an earthquake of intensity, I. The identification of damage states
is achieved in two steps: (i) the qualitative description of the degree of structural and nonstructural damage by words, and (ii) the quantification of the damage described by words in
terms of the damage ratio (DR), which is defined as the ratio of the cost of repairing the
earthquake damage to the replacement cost of the building. In the present study only DPM’s
for conventional reinforced concrete frame buildings are considered, and the corresponding
matrices are constructed from observational and estimated data. Damage assessment reports
of recent earthquakes in Turkey are also analyzed for complementing the existing empirical
DPM’s at higher intensity levels.
In order to demonstrate the application of the proposed probabilistic method, earthquake
insurance premiums are computed for reinforced concrete buildings constructed in four
different seismic zones of Turkey. The resulting premiums are compared with the premiums
currently charged by the insurance companies. The premium rates are observed to be sensitive
to the assumptions on seismic hazard and damage probability matrices and to increase
significantly with increasing violation of the code requirements.
Keywords: Seismic hazard, earthquake engineering, earthquake insurance, and damage
probability matrix, risk premium.
45
Hazards 2002, October 3-6, Antalya / TURKEY
RISK ASSESSMENT: SHELTER CONDITIONS OF THE RURAL POOR
IN SOUTH AFRICA AFTER THE 2000 FLOOD DISASTER
Richard Ballard and Masingita Khandlhela
Physical damage to housing structures or shelter resulting in homelessness is one of the many
legacies of the 2000 flood disaster in South Africa. The collapse of housing structures to
ground leading to loss of lives was one of the most horrifying cruelty evidenced during the
disaster. According to the 1996 census, within South Africa, more than 1,6 million
households live in traditional dwellings constructed from vulnerable traditional materials such
as mud and soils. A major problem relating to these indigenous earth construction is its
vulnerability to damage from exposure to extreme weather, as witnessed during the 2000
floods, when approximately 45 000 traditional houses were destroyed or rendered
uninhabitable by storms and floods in four provinces of South Africa. The collapse of mud
houses is however a daily occurrence in rural areas especially during the rainy season. These
dwellings are unsafe and have become important elements of risk. An asset loss analysis done
after the disaster in two villages of the Limpopo Province, showed higher incidences of
dwelling loss. Dwellings were lost in many cases because of poor housing conditions rather
than as result of location, that is, being located in the path of floodwaters. Where relief was
not provided or did not reach people on time, out of desperation, people continued living in
these deplorable and extremely risky conditions as an adaptation mechanism. To date, relief
efforts by the government to house those rural flood victims have failed. The victims continue
to adjust to the shelter crisis. Many of them replenishing or reconstructing the same housing
structures that will make them equally vulnerable to disasters in future. The way forward to
responding to these shelter conditions by the government is still not clear. This paper
therefore questions the appropriateness of the disaster management approach and attempt to
identify existing gaps with regard to risk assessment and shelter, an important aspect of
mitigating risk for the creation of disaster resistant communities.
46
Hazards 2002, October 3-6, Antalya / TURKEY
STATISTICAL POINT OF VIEW FOR EARTHQUAKE RISK
B. Burçak Başbuğ and Henry P. Wynn
The Risk Initiative and Statistical Consultancy Unit
Department of Statistics, University of Warwick,
Coventry, CV4 7AL UNITED KINGDOM
Phone: +44 – (0) 2476 524553 Fax: +44 – (0) 2476 524532
B.Basbug@warwick.ac.uk / H.P.Wynn@warwick.ac.uk
Turkey is one of the most earthquake-prone countries. The most frequent earthquakes
occurred in the North Anatolian Fault line, if we look through the history of the Turkish
earthquakes. After the devastating Marmara (Kocaeli) and Bolu (Düzce) earthquakes of 1999,
earthquake studies have gained increased importance in Turkey. There are a number of
reports from government, international and private sector organizations on both the
engineering and the socio-economic impacts of these earthquakes. In this paper, we tried to
introduce some statistical aspects of the earthquake studies. The available data on the number
of death, damage, population and magnitude for Turkish earthquakes; and the significant
earthquakes in the world between 1905-2002 suggest interesting power-law relations.
Moreover, simulation techniques, extreme value theory, the idea of confidence intervals,
insurance/ reinsurance and economics models should have in the application to the case of
Turkey. The following chart shows outline of the proposed analysis.
EXTREME
EVENTS
EXTREME
VALUES
data
EXTREME
EFFECT
shock
failure
ECONOMIC,
INSURANCE
MODELS
POWER
LAWS
The following is an example of the power-law relations that was found between the number of
deaths, population and magnitude after running some regression analysis:
d   m1.978 p( 1.11)
Where d  = the number of deaths, m =magnitude and p  = the population
47
Hazards 2002, October 3-6, Antalya / TURKEY
Scatter plot of magnitude vs. years for Turkish earthquake data
Scatter plot of death vs. years for Turkish earthquake data
11
8
7
7
logdeath
Magnitude
9
5
3
6
1
-1
5
1900
1920
1940
1960
1980
1900
2000
1920
1940
1960
1980
2000
years
years
Figure 1: Scatter plots for the relation between magnitude and the number of deaths by years
for Turkish earthquake data
48
Hazards 2002, October 3-6, Antalya / TURKEY
QUANTIFICATION OF UNCERTAINTIES IN HAZARD AND RISK ASSESSMENTS
G. Grünthal and R. Wahlström
GeoForschungsZentrum Potsdam, Telegrafenberg
Section: Recent Stress Field and Seismic Hazard
D-14473 Potsdam, GERMANY
Phone: +49-331-2881120 Fax: +49-311-2881127
ggrue@gfz-potsdam.de, rutger@gfz-potsdam.de
Assessments of natural hazard and risk become more and more important in decision making
processes connected with the need to improve the reliability of such probabilistic
assignments. Such a requirement is inevitably linked to the problem of the uncertainty of
model assumptions needed in hazard assessments and with the problem of the randomness of
discrete or continuous variables used as impact parameters. The natural randomness in a
process is the aleatory variability. The scientific uncertainty in the model of a process due to
limited data and knowledge is the epistemic uncertainty. The full consideration of these
variabilities and uncertainties results not only in mean values of the respective hazard
parameter but also in its fractiles in form of the median of the hazard assessments and each
requested percentage of the standard deviation. The variabilities and uncertainties in the
process of hazard assessments are represented by the use of the logic tree technique.
Applications will be presented for seismic hazard assessments for Fennoscandia and for the
Rhine Graben area in Germany. The partly large range of the aleatory variability and
epistemic uncertainty of certain input parameters is demonstrated with the effects of standard
deviations of the resulting seismic hazard curves (Figure). The full consideration of all
uncertainties and variabilities of the basic data for hazard or risk assessment provides new
insights into the matter. The quantification of the reliability may result in modified use of
such information. Sensitivity studies of the different input parameters yield valuable
conclusions which of the used basic information needs improvement to increase the overall
statements of such probabilistic approaches. Uncertainty studies are also necessary when
different types of natural hazard or risk assessments are compared quantitatively in form of a
synopsis. Only with information on the standard deviations such different figures can be
related. This issue is exemplified by a quantitative comparison of earthquake and flood hazard
and risk.
49
Hazards 2002, October 3-6, Antalya / TURKEY
Seismic hazard fractile curves at a given site. PGA is the peak ground acceleration and P is
the annual rate of occurrence. Depicted are the median (F0.50), plus and minus one standard
deviation (F0.84, F0.16) and plus and minus half a standard deviation (F0.63, F0.37) curves.
50