Journals / Journal of International Health Sciences and Management / 2021 / Cilt: 7 - Sayı: 13

The Assessment of Turkey’s Lack of Resilience to Disasters and Hazards with IDB Indicator System

Pages
61–72
Publication Date
2021-04-30
DOI
—
🏛️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)

As a result, it was seen that our provinces had deficiencies regarding lack of resilience, especially the average and expected schooling years, per capita national income, insurance rates of buildings and houses and the number of hospital beds.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In recent years, resilience has emerged as a guiding principle for urban development and disaster risk management.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Although the study covers 2015-2017 periods, it was applied to all provinces of our country.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:As a result, it was seen that our provinces had deficiencies regarding lack of resilience, especially the average and expected schooling years, per capita national income, insurance rates of buildings and houses and the number of hospital beds.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2015-2017 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Disaster · Dİsaster Management · Risk

Abstract

In recent years, resilience has emerged as a guiding principle for urban development and disaster risk management. The aim of this study, human development, economic recovery and the factors that influence to reach a high level of security at every level, Turkey is to determine the level of resistance against disasters at the national and international areas of the province. The study was prepared with a semi-numerical method and the scope of the study was all provinces of our country. Although the study covers 2015-2017 periods, it was applied to all provinces of our country. LRI (Lack of Resilience Index) consists of 8 sub-factors and the index value is between 0 and 1. Classification of index values was done according to international standards as follows; between 0-0.20 as low, between 0.20-0.40 as medium, between 0.40-0.80 as high and between 0,80-1,00 as very high. Ağrı (0.71), Şırnak (0.66), Muş (0.66) and Hakkâri (0.65) provinces were the first four provinces with the highest value according to the 2015-2017 average value of LRI and Isparta (0.38), Bolu (0.38), Izmir (0.36) and Ankara (0.32) were the lowest. Moreover, while 93.83% of our provinces were in the high index category, it was seen that 6.17% is in the middle index category and we had no provinces in the low index category. As a result, it was seen that our provinces had deficiencies regarding lack of resilience, especially the average and expected schooling years, per capita national income, insurance rates of buildings and houses and the number of hospital beds.

🔖

Cite This Article

YAPRAK, Ü., ŞAHİNÖZ, T., ŞAHİNÖZ, S. (2021). The Assessment of Turkey’s Lack of Resilience to Disasters and Hazards with IDB Indicator System. Journal of International Health Sciences and Management, Cilt: 7 - Sayı: 13, 61–72. https://ajindex.com/articles/777384

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (2)

  1. Adger,W.N., (2000). Social and ecological resilience: are they related. Progress in Human Geography 24, 3: 347-364. AFAD (Disaster and Emergency Management), (2018). Afete Dirençli Toplum: Uygulama örnekleri (Disaster Resistant Society: Application examples). Ankara: AFAD Publications. AFAD (Disaster and Emergency Management), (2018). Disaster Resistant Society: Application examples. Ankara:
  2. AFAD Publications. Beccari, B., (2016). A Comparative Analysis of Disaster Risk, Vulnerability and Resilience Composite Indicators. San Francisco: Public Library of Science (PLOS) Currents Disasters. BID (Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo), (2010a). Indicadores de Riesgo de Desastre y de Gestión de Riesgos (Argentina). Washington: Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo. BID (Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo), (2010b). Indicadores de Riesgo de Desastre y de Gestión de Riesgos (Bolivia). Washington: Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo. BID (Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo), (2010c). Indicadores de Riesgo de Desastre y de Gestión de Riesgos (Costa Rica). Washington: Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo. BID (Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo), (2010d). Indicadores de Riesgo de Desastre y de Gestión de Riesgos (Ecuador). Washington: Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo. BID (Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo), (2010e). Indicadores de Riesgo de Desastre y de Gestión de Riesgos (República Domicana). Washington: Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo. BID (Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo), (2015a). Indicadores de Riesgo de Desastre y de Gestión de Riesgos (Chile). Washington: Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo. BID (Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo), (2015b). Indicadores de Riesgo de Desastre y de Gestión de Riesgos (México). Washington: Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo. BID (Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo), (2015c). Indicadores de Riesgo de Desastre y de Gestión de Riesgos (Nicaragua). Washington: Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo. BID (Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo), (2015d). Indicadores de Riesgo de Desastre y de Gestión de Riesgos (Panamá). Washington: Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo. BID (Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo), (2015e). Indicadores de Riesgo de Desastre y de Gestión de Riesgos (Perú). Washington: Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo. Birkmann, J., Cardona, O.D., Carreno, M.L., Barbat, A.H., Pelling, M., Schneiderbauer, S., Kienberger, S., Kelier, M., Alexander, D., Zeil, P. and Welle, T., (2013). Framing vulnerability, risk and societal respon