12 atun earthquake-transportationplanning_ws2014


Published on

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

12 atun earthquake-transportationplanning_ws2014

  1. 1. 5 marzo 2014 - 12 2014 Workshop Conoscenza e tecnologie appropriate per la sostenibilità e la resilienza in urbanistica Knowledge and Appropriate Technologies for Sustainability and Resilience in Planning Funda Atun, Maria Pia Boni, Annapaola Canevari, Massimo Compagnoni, Luca Marescotti, Maria Mascione, Ouejdane Mejri, Scira Menoni, Floriana Pergalani
  2. 2. LAUREA MAGISTRALE DELLA SCUOLA DI ARCHITETTURA E SOCIETÀ Laboratorio organizzato da Luca Marescotti
  3. 3. 05 Marzo 2014 Funda Atun The transportation system in Istanbul prone to earthquake 1   July  22,  2012   Footer  text  here  
  4. 4. PART    1:  Introduction   to  risk  management    
  5. 5. Definitions   The  hazard  is  the  probability  of  occurrence  of  a  particular  event  within  a   given  time-­‐period/geographic  space     Exp:  Flood,  earthquake,  landslide  etc.    
  6. 6. Definitions   The   vulnerability   term   represents   the   pre-­‐disposition   of   elements   at   risk  to  be  affected,  damaged  or  destroyed  by  an  event     Exp.  Buildings,  infrastructures,  people,  services,  organizations  etc.    
  7. 7. Definitions   •  Capacity  to  bounce  back   •  Capacity  to  face  uncertainties   •  Capacity  to  face  change    
  8. 8. Definitions  
  9. 9. Definition  of  vulnerability  in  social  sciences  (Alwang  et  al.  2001)   “A  household  is  vulnerable  to  loss  of  welfare  due  to   uncertain  events”   “Degree   of   vulnerability   is   dependent   on   the   nature   of   risk  and  household’s  response  capacity  to  risk”   “Vulnerability   is   a   time-­‐dependent   parameter   as   the   risk   and   the   household   characteristics   change   over   time.”   “The   poor   are   more   vulnerable   due   to   their   limited   access   to   resources  and  limited  response  capacities  to  risk”   7  
  10. 10. Definitions   Vulnerability  relates  to  the  consequences   of  the  impact  of  a  natural  force!   In  natural  and  hard  science:   It  dominates  the  engineering  literature  on  the  topic,  where  the   emphasis  in  on  the  assessment  of  hazards  and  their  impacts,   putting  aside  the  role  of  human  systems  in  mediating  outcomes.     Vulnerability  in  this  case  is  defined  as  the  physical  vulnerability  of   the  elements  at  risk!    
  11. 11. Definitions   Vulnerability  relates  to  the  consequences   of  the  impact  of  a  natural  force!   In  social  science:   Human  system  is  at  the  centre.  It  directs  attention  to  the  underlying   structural  factors  that  reduce  the  capacity  of  the  human  system  with  a   range  of  hazards,  rather  than  the  negative  impacts  following  one   specific  hazard      
  12. 12. Definitions   Regional   Local   Single  asset   space – changes in the scale Vulnerability time Past   Present   Accumulation  of   Assessment  of   mistakes,  creation   vulnerabilities   of  vulnerabilities   Future   Preparing  scenarios   to  mitigate  present   vulnerability  
  13. 13. Questions   Changing vulnerability 1)  How is vulnerability changing in an urban environment? Current awareness and preparedness of risk 2) What are the awareness and preparedness of risk at the organizational, tactical and public levels? Effects on the transportation system 3) What are the effects of the outcomes of decisions coming from organizational, tactical and public levels on the transportation system? 4) How to enhance resilience of complex transportation system against disasters?
  14. 14. Problems  are  threefold   1.  Disregarding inter-dependency of components in a system and inter-dependency among systems 2.  Disregarding indirect and multiple hazards 3.  Dealing with social structure as if it is separated from the physical structure
  15. 15. Current  situation  in  Istanbul   Istanbul is the largest city in Turkey, among largest urban agglomerations in Europe and among largest cities in the world with a population of 13 483 052 people (TUIK, 2011). Today Istanbul is the primary city of Turkey by covering 5 512 kilometre square area, by having 18% of Turkey’s population and 23% GDP of Turkey (IMM, 2008). Development plan of Istanbul city region (IMM, 2009)
  16. 16. Part  2:   Earthquake  Hazard  
  17. 17. HAZARD:  Tectonic  plates  in  the  world  
  18. 18. HAZARD:  Map  of  Earthquake  Epicenters  In  The  World   358,214  events  recorded  between  1963  &  1998  
  19. 19. HAZARD:  Fault  lines  in  Turkey    
  20. 20. Earthquake  prone  areas  in  Turkey  
  21. 21. Earthquake  hazard  map  
  22. 22. Microzonation  in  Istanbul  (Eastern  part)  
  23. 23. Historical  Earthquakes   Epicentral  distribution  of  earthquakes  between  1905  &  2001  in  the  Marmara  Region  
  24. 24. Historical  Earthquakes   Major  earthquakes  in  the  Marmara  Region   between  1500-­‐2000     (Source:  Ambrasseys  and  Jackson,  2000)   Location,  Mw,  intensity,  number  of   deaths  and  total  population  data  of   historical  earthquakes  in  1509,  1719,  1766   and  1894  in  Istanbul  
  25. 25. RECENT  EVENTS:  17  August  1999  Marmara/Izmit  Earthquake  
  26. 26. RECENT  EVENTS:  17  August  1999  Marmara/Izmit  Earthquake  
  27. 27. RECENT  EVENTS:  12  November  1999  Duzce  Earthquake   Official Death Tool: 845 Injuries: 4.948 Damaged Housing units: 12.939 Collapsed buildings: 3.395 Umutlu  et  al.  2004,  p.316  
  28. 28. RECENT  EVENTS:  12  November  1999  Duzce  Earthquake   Source:  H.  Sucuoglu  and  Tolga  Yilmaz,  Düzce,  Turkey:  A  City  Hit  by  Two  Major  Earthquakes  in  1999  within  Three  Months  (no  date)    
  29. 29. DAMAGE  :  17  August  &  12  November  1999  Earthquakes   Source:  H.  Sucuoglu  and  Tolga  Yilmaz,  Düzce,  Turkey:  A  City  Hit  by  Two  Major  Earthquakes  in  1999  within  Three  Months  (no  date)    
  30. 30. EARTHQUAKE  SCENARIOS  JICA&IMM  2002   Model A Model C Model B Model D
  32. 32. EARTHQUAKE  SCENARIO  by  Koeri,  2002  
  33. 33. Changes  in  the  system  after  the  1999  Earthquake   1)  New regulations added new duties, guidelines for pre-disaster activities and processes 2)  Shifting responsibility to local authorities increase the efficiency of implementations Intensity map of 1999 Marmara Earthquake (T.C. Ministry, Crises Management, 2000) 3)  The system is very fragmented with highly similar responsibilities that may lead to confusion among institutions
  34. 34. ISTANBUL  MASTER  PLAN,  2009  
  35. 35. ISTANBUL  MASTER  PLAN,  2009  
  36. 36. Part  3:  Vulnerability  
  37. 37. Vulnerability  of  megacity  Istanbul   Rapid  urbanization     Rapid  population  growth     Rapid  economic  changes  
  38. 38. Changing  vulnerability  concept     Retrospective view of vulnerability concept
  39. 39. Changing  vulnerability  concept     Retrospective view of vulnerability concept Early  republican  era  (1923-­‐1950):     •  Istanbul  lost  most  of  its  population     •  Henri  Prost  prepared  the  first  plan  of  Istanbul  between  1937-­‐1951.     •  The  Prost  plan  was  very  effective  on  the  development  of  the  city.   •  The   essence   of   today’s   vulnerabilities:   low   quality   housing   stock   in   the  centre,  illegal  housing  and  scarce  green  spaces.   •  The  plan  was  not  implemented  fully  and  some  parts  of  the  plan  were   changed  in  the  following  years.     •  Some   of   the   green   spaces   that   connected   the   separated   parts   became   fragmented   and   converted   into   hotel   and   commercial   activities,  a  stadium  and  roads.     •  For  achieving  the  aims  of  the  plan,  major  part  of  the  old  housing  stock  had  to  be  demolished   during  the  implementation  process.  The  remained  old  housing  stock  became  the  houses  of  low-­‐ income   newcomers   to   the   city.   Demolishing   existing   housing   stock   and   not   providing   sufficient   houses  created  housing  problem  in  the  following  years.     •  The  location  of  industry  suggested  by  the  plan  became  a  part  of  the  centre  as  the  city  enlarged   beyond  the  former  districts  by  the  Fifties  with  increasing  rate  of  migration  from  rural  to  urban   areas.  
  40. 40. Changing  vulnerability  concept     Rapid  development  by  the  50s  (1950-­‐1980):     •  Macro-­‐form  of  the  city  dispersed  in  the  same  direction  of  the  CBD   (Central  Business  District).     •  Old  residential  areas  became  the  central  districts,  surrounded  by   residential  buildings.     •  By  the  establishment  of  the  first  bridge  in  1973  and  the  second  in   1988,  the  city  had  completed  decentralization  process,  as  car   ownership  was  rapidly  increasing.     •  The  expansion  occurred  not  only  in  the  European  part,  but  also  in   the  Asian  part  along  the  Kadıköy  –  Kartal  axes.   •  After  the  50s  central  government  left  the  regionalization  policies2   and  focused  on  the  economic  improvement  of  the  Istanbul  region.   As  a  result,  the  city  itself  and  the  Marmara  Region  developed   rapidly  and  Istanbul  became  the  heart  of  the  economy  in  Turkey.     Retrospective view of vulnerability concept
  41. 41. Changing  vulnerability  concept     Retrospective view of vulnerability concept Globalization  trends  (1980  –  1996):     This  period  started  in  the  80s  with  globalization  trends  in  the  national   economy.   By   the   80s   industry   moved   to   Kocaeli   and  Adapazarı   in   the   eastern   part   and   to   Küçükçekmece   in   the   western   part   of   the   Istanbul   region,  which  are  the  areas  prone  to  earthquake  hazard  more  than  the   other  parts  of  the  city.  As  a  result  of  these  trends,  the  city  has  became   more   vulnerable   to   hazards,   because   of   the   low   quality   dwellings,   increased   density   and   the   industrial   production   in   between   residential   areas.   After   the   80s,   the   proportion   of   Istanbul   in   the   Turkey’s   total   population  increased  immensely  (Table  7.1).  In  1980,  the  percentage  of   Istanbul’s   population   with   respect   to   the   entire   population   was   6.2%,   and   this   number   increased   to   11.7%   in   1990.  The   number   of   buildings   grew   accordingly.   29.8%   of   all   buildings   in   Istanbul   was   constructed   between   1980   and   1989   and   this   trend   continued   in   the   next   ten-­‐year   period  between  1990-­‐2000  with  32.5%.  
  42. 42. Changing  vulnerability  concept     Globalization   trends   (1996   –   present):   The   number   of   buildings   constructed   in   different   periods   helps   to   know   the   number   of   vulnerable   buildings   approximately,   because   Istanbul   became   a   first   level   earthquake   zone   in   1996.   Before   it   was   classified   as   a   second   level   earthquake   zone   and   therefore   building   codes   were   less   restrictive.  With  the  changes  of  the  building  codes  in  1997,  the  newly   constructed   buildings   became   more   resistant.   According   to   the   previously  given  numbers,  482.763  buildings  were  constructed  before   1990.  Therefore,   more   than   half   of   the   built   stock   was   built   according   to  a  less  stringent  building  code.   Retrospective view of vulnerability concept The   1/100   000   development   plan   of   Istanbul   was   approved   in   2009   by   the   Istanbul   Metropolitan   Municipality.  The  plan  decentralizes  the  increasing  population  to  the  North  in  the  Western  part   of   Istanbul   by   opening   new   housing   areas   and   commits   the   third   airport   near   to   Black   Sea.   Having  the  natural  resources,  water  reserves,  agricultural  areas  and  forests  in  the  North,  which   are  crucial  for  sustainability  of  the  city,  forces  to  look  for  other  options.    
  43. 43. VULNERABILITY:  Retrospective  view  of  80  years  of  vulnerability   • Focus  is  on  the  economic  Development     •   Rapid  increasing  rate  of  Urbanization     •   Increasing  rate  of  immigration  from   rural  to  urban     •   Moving  to  peripheries   •   Deterioration  of  old  housing  supply   •   Increasing  housing  need   • İllegal  housing  supply   • Establishing  industry  in  and  around  the   centre     •   Decreasing  urban  quality  
  44. 44. VULNERABILITY:  Retrospective  view  of  80  years  of  vulnerability   • Development  through  the   lakes  in  the  Western  part,  and   through  Izmit  in  the  Eastern   part  of  the  city.       •   The  meaning  of  the  squatter   houses  had  changed  from   shelter  to  a  property  which  can   be  sold  and  rented  by  the   squatter  amnesty  law.       •   First  interaction  between   scientific  community  and   governmental  units      
  45. 45. Changing  vulnerability  concept    
  46. 46. Part  4:   Current  awareness  and   preparedness  of  earthquake  risk    
  47. 47. Agents  and  environment   A Scheme of cognitive interactions between two agents and their environment (Janssen 2005, p.4) A Scheme of cognitive interactions between two agents and the altered environment after occurrence of a disaster. (Schema modified after Janssen 2005, p.4)
  48. 48. Agents  and  environment   Agent Typology and Environment Public, Operational (Organizational +Tactical) and Spatial Scales
  49. 49. What  is  the  awareness  and  preparedness  of  risk  at  the  organizational,   tactical  and  public  levels?   Step  1     Questionnaire with people from the organizational level Step  2   Questionnaire with people from the tactical level Step  3   Questionnaire with public
  50. 50. Interviews  with  the  people  from  the  organizational  level   Step   1     •  The system has improved in the last 14 years, however, it has not been tested yet as a big event has not occurred in Istanbul in the last 14 years after 1999 Izmit earthquake. http://www.guvenliyasam.org/   •  Education programmes are not sector specific. They are focusing on search and rescue activities. •  “We do everything we can do to inform public,” such as campaigns in the TV, in newspapers and billboards. Registered  members:        55.000  people     Population  of  Istanbul:  12.000.000  people   %0.4  of  the  total  population  of  Istanbul  
  51. 51. Interviews  with  people  from  the  tactical  level   Step   2   •  There are no emergency management training programs for everyone working in the transportation system. •  A small group of people is trained about search and rescue in every municipality. First-­‐degree  disaster-­‐emergency  road.    No  parking  along  the  road     •  Preparing disaster management plans is an obligation for municipalities, however, very few of them have their plan ready. •  Even if some has prepared the plans, there are some problems in the implementation phase. Kadikoy  District  Disaster  Management  Plan    
  52. 52. Interviews  with  public     Part  1:  Perception  and  awareness  of  risk  condition  and  risk  of  earthquake   Step   3                 Whether  people  experienced  1999  Marmara   earthquake  (Source:  author) Do  you  think  that  the  building  that  you  live  in  is   resistant  to  an  earthquake?   Whether  people  knew  that  Istanbul  is  located  in  an  earthquake  prone   area  before  the  occurrence  of  Marmara  earthquake   Was  the  building  checked  against  seismic  risk?  
  53. 53. Interviews  with  public   Part  2:  Awareness  of  information  programmes  and  access  of  information   Step   3     The   1999 Marmara Earthquake is a milestone in the disaster risk management in Turkey. One of the changes after the earthquake is the increasing number of information campaigns prepared both   by governmental and volunteers organizations. Although they have had extensive participation in number, the percentage of participants in these activities is less than 0.04% of the total population   of Istanbul (according to the 2011 data). The main reasons are       • People do not know the existence of such kind of activities • People know, but they ignore • People know, they do not ignore but they have other priorities • People know, but they do not believe of those activities may be successful According to the results of the survey, 85% of them have information on mitigation works against earthquake and information related programmes, but none of them have been actively involved in any kind of activities related with earthquake mitigation. They mainly encounter with information on TV and newspapers. However, most of them change the channel and do not listen or read news related with earthquake hazard.
  54. 54. Interviews  with  public   Part  3:  Population’s  individual  preparedness   Insurance holders Home  is  strengthened  against  earthquake Step   3     Libraries,  wardrobes  wallmounted   Having  an  emergency  kit  at  home  
  55. 55. Interviews  with  public   Describing  behaviour  patterns  of  the  users  of  transportation  system  in  case  of  an   Step   emergency   3     During an emergency, people behave instantly. Thinking and planning before an emergency could increase the probability of taking the right decision during an emergency. Trust  in  Istanbul  Metropolitan  Municipality   Trust in authorities is another important factor to forecast behaviour pattern of public. If trust is high, most probable people follow the orders given by the authorities. The results of the survey show that trust in authorities is very low in Istanbul. People trust local authorities and head of neighbourhood more than Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality and government. Moreover, almost 90% of the respondents do not trust the media Trust in media
  56. 56. Interviews  with  public   Describing  behaviour  patterns  of  the  users  of  transportation  system  in  case  of  an   Step   emergency   3     Knowing where to go, if it is needed to leave the city Having   a   place   to   meet   arranged   early   with   the   family   members  in  case  of  not  being  together  during  an  earthquake   An  evacuation  plan  must  consider  not  only  people  who  do   not  able  to  move  due  to  physical  or  mental  reasons.  More   than  half  of  the  respondents  do  not  know  where  evacuate   to.  As  an  evacuation  mode  most  of  the  respondents  prefer   to   use   their   own   cars   or   their   neighbour   cars.   When   considering   the   high   percentage   of   car   ownership   in   Istanbul,   it   is   very   clear   that   traffic   congestion   and   fuel   shortage  could  be  main  concerns  in  case  of  an  emergency.   Preferred transportation mode for evacuation
  57. 57. Interviews  with  public:  General  Results   Step   3       •  Although public awareness of risk is very high, their preparedness level is   very low.     •  Public knows about the campaigns, saw them in the media. But majority of   them ignored this information.   •  People are strongly fatalistic. •  Trust in official information providers is quite low.
  58. 58. Part  5:  Transportation  system   prone  to  earthquake  risk  
  59. 59. Why  transportation  system   Strongly  interdependent  
  60. 60. Why  transportation  system   Strongly  interdependent   Changing importance and function of transportation system according to the disaster phase Título  del  gráfico   6   5   4   3   2   1   0   Category  1   Category  2   Series  1   Category  3   Series  2   Series  3   Category  4  
  61. 61. Why  transportation  system   Requiring long repair times Long-term economic impacts because of long restoration times in comparison with other lifelines
  62. 62. Examples:  2005  Hurricane  Katrina     Not  organizing  the  evacuation  plan  according  to  needs  of   vulnerable  population     Not  being  able  to  understand  and  address  reasons  that   discourage  people  from  evacuating     Not  providing  free  transportation  for  non-­‐drivers     Not  prioritizing  traffic  by  providing  public  transportation   modes  during  evacuation     Not  being  able  to  see  the  volume  of  the  traffic.  Due  to  traffic   jam  in  the  entrance  of  the  city  people  got  stuck  long  hours   on  the  road  and  emergency  personnel  and  carriages  with   emergency  equipment  could  not  enter  the  city     Fuel  Shortage  
  63. 63. Examples:  1995  Kobe  Earthquake   The  collapsed  Hanshin  express  way,  which  connects   Kobe  and  Osaka  cities,  made  a  tap  effect  on  traffic.     Due  to  traffic  jam  rescue  activities  were  delayed     Helicopters  were  used  as  a  solution  to  traffic  jam.   However,  noise  of  the  helicopters  hampered  search  and   rescue  teams  who  were  trying  to  hear  possible  voices   coming  from  the  debris.     Ports  were  destroyed  and  reconstruction  of  the  ports   took  several  months.  Due  to  competition  between  ports,   other  ports  in  the  region  gained  importance.    
  64. 64. Problems  are  threefold   1.  Disregarding inter-dependency of components in a system and inter-dependency among systems 2.  Disregarding indirect and multiple hazards 3.  Dealing with social structure as if it is separated from the physical structure
  65. 65. What are the effects of the outcomes of decisions coming from Step   3     organizational, tactical and public levels on the transportation system?
  66. 66. Emergency  road  network  in  case  of  a  major  event  
  67. 67. Accessibility  /  What  if  the  system  fails?  
  68. 68. Accessibility  /  What  if  the  system  fails?  
  69. 69. Conclusion   How to enhance resilience of complex transportation system against disasters? •  Failures or incidents during an emergency are emergent phenomena. •  Outcome of actions, which are defined in the plan by regulations, could be different than anticipated due to constantly changing environment during disasters. •  Disaster management related plans have to be supported by development plans. Otherwise provided solutions could be short-lived. •  Flexible systems could be better than too much order in terms of providing resilience.
  70. 70. Conclusion   How to enhance resilience of complex transportation system against disasters? Flexibility in structural system §  Providing flexible transportation system structure §  Using the advantages of having diverse transportation modes Flexibility in operational system (which includes organizational and tactical parts) §  Disaster risk management plans have to be supported by development plans §  Disaster risk management plans shall expect that the system can fail §  The number of knowledgeable staff has to be increased systematically §  Organizational differences among organizations involved in disaster risk management have to be considered in the plans. §  The emergency plan should consider a contingency plan in case of scarcity of resources. §  All kind of plans have to prepared by considering local characteristics Flexibility in public •  For achieving effective public understanding on the issue, drills must include participants from the public as well. •  If the information is clear to public, they can be easily organized and adapt themselves to the changing situation.
  71. 71. funda.atun@polimi.it