SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Türk Deprem Araştırma Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 8 Sayı: 2

Building Resilient Cities: A Comparative Analysis of the Earthquake Resilience Index of Türkiye's 81 Provinces within the Framework of Landscape Architecture

Dayanıklı Şehirler İnşa Etmek: Peyzaj Mimarlığı Bağlamında Türkiye’nin 81 İlinin Deprem Dayanıklılık Endeksinin Karşılaştırılması

Arzu Altuntaş(SIIRT UNIVERSITY)0000-0003-1258-3875
Pages
203–212
Publication Date
2026-08-31
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

A k-means clustering of the results identified four distinct risk typologies, the most significant among these being defined as "Metropolitan Brittle Resilience" and "Eastern Chronic Vulnerability." The LSRI functions as an innovative analytical tool for policymakers and landscape architects, offering a quantitative framework for assessing Provincial Disaster Risk Reduction Plans (İRAPs).

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This research aimed at the development and application of the Landscape-Seismic Resilience Index (LSRI) to conduct a comparative statistical analysis of all 81 Turkish provinces.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The results constitute the statistically-driven resilience ranking of the 81 provinces.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:A k-means clustering of the results identified four distinct risk typologies, the most significant among these being defined as "Metropolitan Brittle Resilience" and "Eastern Chronic Vulnerability." The LSRI functions as an innovative analytical tool for policymakers and landscape architects, offering a quantitative framework for assessing Provincial Disaster Risk Reduction Plans (İRAPs).
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Peyzaj Mimarlığı · Kentsel dayanıklılık · Çok Kriterli Karar Analizi (ÇKKA)

Abstract

This research aimed at the development and application of the Landscape-Seismic Resilience Index (LSRI) to conduct a comparative statistical analysis of all 81 Turkish provinces. The methodology utilized a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) framework, combining the CRITIC (Criterion Importance Through Intercriteria Correlation) method, which derives the relative importance of criteria based on their statistical properties, with the TOPSIS (Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution) method. Seven core indicators, categorized under the criteria of Seismic Hazard, Landscape Vulnerability, and Socio-Economic Vulnerability, were assessed. The results constitute the statistically-driven resilience ranking of the 81 provinces. A k-means clustering of the results identified four distinct risk typologies, the most significant among these being defined as "Metropolitan Brittle Resilience" and "Eastern Chronic Vulnerability." The LSRI functions as an innovative analytical tool for policymakers and landscape architects, offering a quantitative framework for assessing Provincial Disaster Risk Reduction Plans (İRAPs).

Özet

Bu araştırmada, Türkiye’nin 81 ilinin karşılaştırmalı istatistiksel analizini yapmak için Peyzaj-Sismik Dayanıklılık Endeksi'nin (LSRI) geliştirilmesi ve uygulanması amaçlanmıştır. Yöntemde, kriterlerin göreceli önemini istatistiksel özelliklerine göre türeten CRITIC (Kriterler Arası Korelasyon Yoluyla Kriter Önemi) yöntemi ile TOPSIS (İdeal Çözüme Benzerliğe Göre Sıralama Tercihi Tekniği) yöntemini birleştiren bir Çok Kriterli Karar Analizi (ÇKKA) kullanılmıştır. Sismik Tehlike, Peyzaj Kırılganlığı ve Sosyo-Ekonomik Kırılganlık kriterlerinde toplanan yedi temel gösterge değerlendirilmiştir. Sonuçlar, 81 ilin istatistik temelli dayanıklılık sıralamasını oluşturmaktadır. Sonuçların k-ortalamalar kümelemesi, dört farklı risk tipolojisi belirlemektedir. Bunların en önemlileri, "Metropoliten Kırılgan Dayanıklılık" ve "Doğu Kronik Kırılganlığı" olarak tanımlanmıştır. LSRI, politika yapıcılarla peyzaj mimarları için yenilikçi bir analitik araç olarak işlev görmekte ve İl Afet Risk Azaltma Planlarını (İRAP'lar) değerlendirmek için nicel bir çerçeve sunmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Altuntaş, A. (2026). Building Resilient Cities: A Comparative Analysis of the Earthquake Resilience Index of Türkiye's 81 Provinces within the Framework of Landscape Architecture. Türk Deprem Araştırma Dergisi, Cilt: 8 Sayı: 2, 203–212. https://doi.org/10.46464/tdad.1832803

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (37)

  1. AFAD, 2018. Türkiye deprem tehlike haritası, Erişim adresi: https://tdth.afad.gov.tr/TDTH/main.xhtml
  2. AFAD, 2022. Türkiye Afet Risk Azaltma Planı (TARAP) 2022-2030, T.C. İçişleri Bakanlığı Afet ve Acil Durum Yönetimi Başkanlığı (AFAD), Erişim adresi: https://www.afad.gov.tr/kurumlar/afad.gov.tr/e_Kutuphane/Planlar/28032022-TARAP-kitap_V6.pdf
  3. Akkar S., Eroğlu Azak T., Çan T., Çeken U., Demircioğlu M.B., Duman T., Ergintav S., Kadirioğlu F.T., Kalafat D., Kale Ö., Kartal R.F., Kılıç T., Özalp S., Şeşetyan K., Tekin S., Yakut A., Yılmaz M.T., Zülfikar Ö., 2014. Türkiye Sismik Tehlike Haritasının Güncellenmesi, (UDAP- Ç-13-06), Ulusal Deprem Araştırma Programı, Aralık 2014, Ankara.
  4. Akpınar Y., Güngör Karyağdı N., 2025. 6 Şubat 2023 Depremi Sonrasında İnşaat ve Çimento Sektörlerinde Performans Analizi: CRITIC-TOPSIS Yöntemiyle Bir Araştırma. Iğdır Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi(38), 19-38, https://doi.org/10.54600/igdirsosbilder.1435923
  5. Allan P., Bryant M., 2011. Resilience as a framework for urbanism and recovery, Journal of Landscape Architecture, 6(2), 34-45.
  6. Arslan H.M., 2021. CRITIC-GRİ İlişkisel Analiz Hibrit Yöntemi ile Deprem Konteynerlerinin Optimum Yerleştirilmesi, Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 20(78), 536-552, https://doi.org/10.17755/esosder.676997
  7. Atmaca E., Aktaş E., Öztürk H.N., 2023. Evaluated Post-Disaster and Emergency Assembly Areas Using Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Techniques: A Case Study of Turkey, Sustainability, 15(10), 8350, https://doi.org/10.3390/su15108350
  8. Ayataç H., 2021. Accessibility in disaster-resilient cities, Journal of Design for Resilience in Architecture and Planning, 2(3), 295-310, https://doi.org/10.47818/DRArch.2021.v2i3026
  9. Cetin M., Kaya A.Y., Elmastas N., Adiguzel F., Siyavus A.E., Kocan N., 2024. Assessment of emergency gathering points and temporary shelter areas for disaster resilience in Elazıg, Turkey, Natural Hazards 120, 1925-1949, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-023-06271-9
  10. Copernicus Land Monitoring Service 2018. CORINE Land Cover (CLC) 2018, European Environment Agency, https://land.copernicus.eu/en/products/corine-land-cover
  11. Çıplak Z., 2020. Earthquake & popular venues data analysis of Turkey, (Which sector sholuld I invest in which safe city?), Towards Data Science Publish AI, ML & data-science insights to a global community of data professionals, https://towardsdatascience.com/earthquake-popular-venues-data-analysis-of-turkey-28f8d02cb0d/
  12. ÇŞİDB, 2023. Türkiye'de kişi başina düşen ağaçlık yeşil alan miktarı 12,63 metrekare oldu, Erişim adresi: https://csb.gov.tr/turkiyede-kisi-basina-dusen-agaclik-yesil-alan-miktari-12-63-metrekare-oldu-bakanlik-faaliyetleri-39952
  13. Dişkaya F., Emir Ş., 2021. AHP-TOPSIS Bütünleşik Yaklaşımıyla Deprem Riski Tabanlı İstanbul İli Kentsel Dönüşüm Öncelik Sıralaması, Afet ve Risk Dergisi, 4(2), 203-223, https://doi.org/10.35341/afet.983105
  14. Erdoğan S., Terzi F., 2022. GIS-based seismic vulnerability assessment for the Istanbul Historical Peninsula, Journal of Design for Resilience in Architecture and Planning, 3(1), 41-62, https://doi.org/10.47818/DRArch.2022.v3i1043
  15. Erdik M., 2013. Earthquake risk in Turkey, Science, 341(6147), 724-725.
  16. Fu Y., 2023. After the Turkey-Syria earthquakes: Rethinking design on shaky ground. Harvard University Graduate School of Design, https://www.gsd.harvard.edu/2023/03/after-the-turkey-syria-earthquakes-rethinking-design-on-shaky-ground/
  17. Gülgün B., Yazici K., Dursun S., Tahta B.T., 2016. Earthquake park design and some examples from the world and Turkey, Journal of International Environmental Application and Science, 11(2), 159-165.
  18. Hassan I., Alhamrouni I., Azhan N.H., 2023. A CRITIC–TOPSIS Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Approach for Optimum Site Selection for Solar PV Farm, Energies, 16(10), 4245, https://doi.org/10.3390/en16104245
  19. Heitasari D.N., Adi T.W., 2023. Selecting supplier with Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS): A case study at PT.
  20. Işık E., Harirchian E., 2022. A comparative probabilistic seismic hazard analysis for Eastern Turkey (Bitlis) based on updated hazard map and its effect on regular RC structures, Buildings, 12(10), 1573, https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12101573
  21. Jena R., Pradhan R., 2020. Integrated ANN-Cross-Validation and AHP-TOPSIS Model to İmprove Earthquake Risk Assessment, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 50: 1-16, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101723
  22. Kırlangıçoğlu C., 2021. A GIS Based Comparison of Statistical Methods for Identifying Quality of Life Index in The Provinces of Turkey, Sakarya University Journal of Science, 25(2), 571-583, https://doi.org/10.16984/saufenbilder.867361
  23. KRDAE, 2017. 1900 – 2013 Yılları Arası, Türkiye ve Çevresi Sismik Aktivite, Erişim adresi: http://www.koeri.boun.edu.tr/sismo/2/deprem-verileri/depremsellik-haritalari/turkiye4/
  24. Nyimbili P.H., Erden T., Karaman H., 2018. Integration of GIS, AHP and TOPSIS for earthquake hazard analysis, Natural Hazards, 92, 1523-1546 (2018), https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-018-3262-7
  25. Okutan A.E., Çavuş G., 2012. Deprem sonrası ortaya çıkabilecek orman yangınları; peyzaj mimarlığı alanında alınabilecek pasif önlemler [Forest fires that may occur after an earthquake; passive measures to be taken in the field of landscape architecture], Düzce Üniversitesi Ormancılık Fakültesi Ormancılık Dergisi, 8(1), 19-33.
  26. Popescu C.R.G., 2024. Turkey's urban planning in disaster management: Sustainability and seismic resilience, 3rd International Conference on Sustainable Cities and Urban Landscapes, Kyrenia, TRNC.
  27. Samsunlu A., Beler Baykal B., Aksoy Y., Dudu Allar A., 2014. Population agglomerations and its implication in developing countries: a survey of green areas in the Turkish megacity İstanbul, International Journal of Electronics Mechanical and Mechatronics Engineering, 4(1), 713-724.
  28. SBB, 2023. Türkiye earthquakes recovery and reconstruction assessment, 219p, Erişim adresi: https://www.sbb.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Turkiye-Recovery-and-Reconstruction-Assessment.pdf
  29. Şengezer B., Koç E., 2005. A critical analysis of earthquakes and urban planning in Turkey, Disasters, 29(2), 171-194.
  30. TÜBİTAK Genç Bilim, 2025. Türkiye’de Son Yüzyılda Gerçekleşen Büyük Depremler, Erişim adersi: https://bilimgenc.tubitak.gov.tr/turkiyede-son-yuzyilda-gerceklesen-buyuk-depremler
  31. TÜİK, 2023. Gross domestic product by provinces, 2022 (Publication No. 53575). TUIK, Erişim adresi: https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Gross-Domestic-Product-by-Provinces-2022-53575&dil=2
  32. TÜİK, 2024. The results of address based population registration system, 2023 (Publication No. 49684), TUIK, Erişim adresi: https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=The-Results-of-Address-Based-Population-Registration-System-2023-49684&dil=2
  33. Türer Başkaya F.A., 2023. Afete duyarlı peyzaj planlaması, depremler ve Türkiye, PEYZAJ - Eğitim, Bilim, Kültür ve Sanat Dergisi, 5(1), 55-62, https://doi.org/10.53784/peyzaj.1316459
  34. Tzeng G.H., Huang J.J., 2011. Multiple attribute decision making: Methods and applications, CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group.
  35. UNDRR, 2015. Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction 2015-2030. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR).
  36. World Bank, 2021. Probabilistic seismic risk analysis for Turkey, World Bank Group, Erişim adersi: https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/099005506072224115/pdf/P1774790026e770410bb16067fc05f5a490.pdf
  37. Yavuz Kumlu K.B., Tüdeş Ş., 2018. Determination of earthquake-risky areas in Yalova city center (Marmara region, Turkey) using GIS-based multicriteria decision-making techniques (AHP and TOPSIS), Natural Hazards, 112, 1939-1964.