Safe City Evaluation in Disasters: Implementation Of The Score Card

Year 2021, Volume: 12 Issue: 2, 642 - 664, 29.05.2021

Melikşah Turan , Ekrem Cengiz

Abstract

Disasters can damage the safety and well-being of people and communities.A good understanding of the current situation is essential in preventing or mitigating the negative effects of disasters, as well as strengthening the response of at-risk communities to adverse impacts. It is aimed to make a rating by obtaining a resilience score with the resilient city assessment, which reveals the preparedness of cities for disasters. In this context, Safe City Assessment Scorecard in Disasters, which was prepared with 10 factors, 33 sub-factors and 100 indicator values, was applied in order to guide community resilience development activities. According to the data collection technique, it is in the category of documentary research and according to the nature of the data used in the research, it is in the category of research based on secondary data. The criterion sampling method was used in our study, which is a quantitative research type. The data were evaluated for 2 cities with shared metropolitan status and their names were coded as A and B. In order to measure the resilience level of cities, a normalized score was obtained in accordance with objective criteria and the scores were evaluated by leveling.

Keywords

Disaster Management, Resilience, Safe City, Urban Risk, Score Card

Afetlerde Güvenli Şehir Değerlendirmesi: Puan Kart Uygulaması

Abstract

Afetler insanların ve toplulukların güvenlik ve refahlarının zarar görmesine neden olabilirler. Afetlerin olumsuz etkilerinin önlenmesinde veya azaltılmasında, ayrıca risk altındaki toplulukların olumsuz etkilere tepkisini güçlendirmede temel olarak mevcut durumun iyi anlaşılması gerekmektedir. Şehirlerin afetlere hazırlığını ortaya koyan dirençli şehir değerlendirilmesi ile dirençlilik puanı elde edilerek derecelendirme yapılması amaçlanmaktadır. Bu kapsamda çalışmada toplum direncini geliştirme faaliyetlerine rehberlik etmek için 10 faktör, 33 alt faktör ve 100 gösterge değeri ile oluşturulmuş hazırlanmış Afetlerde Güvenli Şehir Değerlendirme Puan Kartı uygulanmıştır. Veri toplama tekniğine göre dökümantasyonel, araştırmada kullanılan verinin özelliğine göre de ikincil veriye dayalı araştırma kategorisinde yer almaktadır. Nicel araştırma türünde olan çalışmamızda ölçüt örnekleme yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Verileri paylaşılmış büyükşehir statüsündeki 2 şehir için değerlendirilmiş olup isimleri A ve B şeklinde kodlanmıştır. Şehirlerin dirençlilik seviyesini ölçmek için nesnel kriterler doğrultusunda normalize edilmiş bir puan elde edilip puanlar seviyelendirilerek değerlendirilmiştir.

Keywords

Afet Yönetimi, Dirençlilik, Güvenli Şehir, Kentsel Risk, Puan Kart

References

• Albala-Bertrand, J. M. (2003). Urban Disasters and Globalization. A. Kreimer, M. Arnold ve A. Carlin (Der.). Building Safer Cities – The Future of Disaster Risk, Disaster Risk Management Series Bo. 3 içinde (ss. 75-82). Washington DC: The World Bank Publications.
• Bolin, R. ve Stanford, L. (2006). The Northridge Earthquake: Vulnerability and Disaster. London: Routledge.
• Bozza, A., Asprone, D. ve Manfredi, G. (2015). Developing an integrated framework to quantify resilience of urban systems against disasters. Natural Hazards, 78(3), 1729-1748.
• Button, K. (2002). City management and urban environmental indicators. Ecological Economics, 40(2), 217-233.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç-Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö.K., Karadeniz, Ş. ve Demirel, F. (2016). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. (22. Baskı). Ankara: Pegem Yayınları.
• Carter, W. N. (2008). Disaster Management: A Disaster Manager’s Handbook. Mandaluyong City: Asian Development Bank.
• Davies, H. ve Walters, M. (1998). Do all crises have to become disasters? Risk and risk mitigation. Property Management, 16(1), 5-9.
• Drabek, T. E. (2004). Social dimensions of disaster. MD: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Emergency Management Institute, 1996, 2.
• Dickson, E., Baker, J. L., Hoornweg, D. ve Asmita, T. (2012). Urban Risk Assessments: An Approach for Understanding Disaster and Climate Risk in Cities. Urban Development Series. Washington, D.C. : World Bank Group.
• Gaillard, J. C. ve Maceda, E. A. (2009). Participatory three-dimensional mapping for disaster risk reduction. Participatory Learning and Action, 60(1), 109-118.
• Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 4(1), 1-23.
• ICLEI. (2018). The ICLEI Montréal Commitment and Strategic Vision 2018 – 2024. Bonn, Germany. 10 Haziran 2020 tarihinde https://iclei-europe.org/fileadmin/user_upload/About/Governance/documents/The%20ICLEI%20Montreal%20Commitment.pdf adresinden erişildi.
• Incident Management Framework Co-Design Group. (2017). Term Definitions. 14 Eylül 2019 tarihinde https://www.hse.ie/eng/about/qavd/protected-disclosures/incident-management-framework/terms-and-defintions.docx adresinden erişildi.
• Kitchin, R., Lauriault, T. P. ve McArdle, G. (2015). Knowing and governing cities through urban indicators, city benchmarking and real-time dashboards. Regional Studies, Regional Science, 2(1), 6-28.
• Koren, D., Kilar, V. ve Rus, K. (2017). Proposal for holistic assessment of urban system resilience to natural disasters. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 245(6), 062011.
• Kuhlicke, C., Komac, B. ve Zorn, M. (2012). Toward more resilient societies in the field of natural hazards: Caphaz-net’s lessons learnt (ss. 765-781). Leipzig: Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research-UFZ.
• Lettieri, E., Masella, C. ve Radaelli, G. (2009). Disaster management: findings from a systematic review. Disaster Prevention and Management, 18(2), 117-136.
• Mitchell, J. K. (1999). Megacities and natural disasters: A comparative analysis. GeoJournal, 49(2), 137-142.
• Mulligan, M., Steele, W., Rickards, L. ve Fünfgeld, H. (2016). Keywords in planning: what do we mean by ‘community resilience’?. International Planning Studies, 21(4), 348-361.
• OECD. (1976). Science and Technology Indicators. DSTI/SPR/76.43.
• Ostadtaghizadeh, A., Ardalan, A., Paton, D., Jabbari, H. ve Khankeh, H. R. (2015). Community disaster resilience: a systematic review on assessment models and tools. PloS Currents, 7.
• Sanderson, D. (2000). Cities, disasters and livelihoods. Risk Management, 2(4), 49-58.
• Santos-Reyes, J. (2010). Natural hazard resilient cities: the case of a SSMS model. EGU General Assembly, 12, 7397.
• Sawalha, I. H., Shamieh, J. M. ve Meaton, J. (2018). Little details that make a difference: A value-based approach to disaster management. Journal of Business Continuity & Emergency Planning, 12(2), 180-192.
• Shi, Y., Zhai, G., Zhou, S., Lu, Y., Chen, W. ve Liu, H. (2018). How can cities adapt to a multi-disaster environment? Empirical research in Guangzhou (China). International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(11), 2453.
• UNISDR. (2009). UNISDR Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction. Geneva: United Nations Office for Disaster Reduction. 28 Ağustos 2019 tarihinde https://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/publications/7817 adresinden erişildi.
• Walker, B., Holling, C.S., Carpenter, S. R. ve Kinzig, A. (2004). Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 9(2), 5.
• Yamin, F., Rahman, A. ve Huq, S. (2005). Vulnerability, adaptation and climate disasters: A conceptual overview. IDS Bulletin, 36(4), 1-14.