An integrated earthquake vulnerability assessment framework for urban areas

Natural Hazards

Volumn 59, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 917-947

  Duzgun, H S B ^a   Yucemen, M S ^a   Kalaycioglu, H S ^a   Celik, K ^b   Kemec, S ^a   Ertugay, K ^a   Deniz, A ^c  

^a MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

^b ONDOKUZ MAYIS UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

^c Technological Engineering Services Co Ltd   (Turkey)

Author keywords

3D visualization; Accessibility to critical services; Earthquake; GIS; Socio economic vulnerability; Structural fragility

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; EARTHQUAKE; GIS; NEIGHBORHOOD; RISK FACTOR; THREE-DIMENSIONAL MODELING; URBAN AREA; VISUALIZATION; VULNERABILITY;

ESKISEHIR [TURKEY]; TURKEY;

EID: 80053562086     PISSN: 0921030X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11069-011-9808-6     Document Type: Article

References (66)

1. Adapazari Chamber of Industry and Commerce (2000) Adapazari'nda Deprem ve Sonrasi, (Earthquake in Adapazari and after), Adapazari.
2. Akdur R (2001) Afetlere Karsi{dotless} Saǧli{dotless}k Hizmeti Senaryolari{dotless} Yazma: Deprem Orneǧi (Writing up Scenarios of Health Services in Disaster Situations: The Case of Earthquake). http://www. bsm. gov. tr/umke/ftp/afetlerde_saglik_hizmeti_senaryolari. pdf.
3. Alexander D (2000) Confronting catastrophe: new perspectives on natural disasters. Oxford University Press, New York.
4. Badri MA, Mortagy AK, Alsayed CA (1996) A multi-objective model for locating fire stations. Eur J Oper Res 110: 243-260.
5. Bommer J, Spence R, Erdik M, Tabuchi S, Aydi{dotless}noglu N, Booth E, del Re D, Peterken O (2002) Development of an earthquake loss model for Turkish catastrophe insurance. J Seismol 6: 431-446.
6. Boore DM, Joyner WB, Fumal TE (1997) Equations for estimating horizontal response spectra and peak acceleration from Western North American earthquakes: a summary of recent work. Seismol Res Lett 68(1): 128-153.
7. Code (1997) Specifications for structures to be built in Disaster areas. General Directorate of Disaster Affairs, Ministry of Public Works and Settlement, Ankara (in Turkish).
8. Crocker L, Algina J (1986) Introduction to classical and modern test theory. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers, Fort Worth, pp 119-122.
9. Cronbach LJ (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16(3): 297-334.
10. Cummins PR, Laura S, Kong L, Sakate K (2009) Introduction to "tsunami science four years after the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, part I: modelling and hazard assessment. Pure Appl Geophys 165: 1983-1989.
11. Cutter SL (2003) The vulnerability of science and the science of vulnerability. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 93(1): 1-12.
12. Cutter SL, Boruff BJ, Shirley WL (2003) Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Soc Sci Q 84(2): 242-261.
13. Davidson R, Shah HC (1997) A multidisciplinary urban earthquake disaster risk index. Earthq Spectra 13(2): 211-223.
14. Deniz A (2006) Estimation of earthquake insurance premium rates for Turkey. M. Sc. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, METU, Ankara.
15. Deniz A, Yucemen MS (2010) Magnitude conversion problem for the Turkish earthquake data. Nat Hazards. doi: 10. 1007/s11069-010-9531-8.
16. Dowrick DJ (2002) Earthquake risk reduction actions for New Zealand, technical conference of New Zealand sciety of earhquake engineering, Napier.
17. Dowrick DJ (2003) Earthquake risk reduction. Wiley, New York.
18. Erdik M, Demircioglu M, Sesetyan K, Durukal E, Siyahi B (2004) Earthquake hazard in Marmara region, Turkey. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 24: 605-631.
19. Ertugay K, Duzgun HSB (2006) Integrating physical accessibility of emergency establishments into earthquake risk assessment. In: ECI conference: geohazards-technical, economical and social risk evaluation 18-21 June 2006, Lillehammer, Norway. Paper 45.
20. Evans GW, Kantrowitz E (2002) Socioeconomic status and health: the potential role of environmental risk exposure. Annu Rev Public Health 23: 303-331.
21. FEMA-NIBS (1999) HAZUS: user's manual and technical manuals, vol 1-4. Federal emergency Management Agency and Institute of Building Sciences, Washington, DC.
22. GDDA-ERD (2004) Internet page of the Earthquake Research Department of Turkey, General Directorate of Disaster Affairs, Ministry of Public Works and Settlement, Ankara. TURKNET, http://sismo. deprem. gov. tr/VERITABANI/turknetkatalog. php.
23. Gulkan P, Kalkan E (2002) Attenuation modeling of recent earthquakes in Turkey. J Seismol 6: 397-409.
24. Hewitt K (1997) Regions of risk: a geographical Introduction to Disasters. Logman, Harlow.
25. ISC (2004a) Internet page of the Earthquake Research Department of Turkey. General Directorate of Disaster Affairs, Ministry of Public Works and Settlement, Ankara. ISC Based, http://sismo. deprem. gov. tr/VERITABANI/isckatalog. php.
26. ISC (2004b) Internet page of the International Seismological Centre, International Seismological Centre, Thatcham, United Kingdom. On-line Bulletin, http://www. isc. ac. uk/Bull.
27. Izmit Kent Kurultayi (2000) Kocaeli Deprem Sonrasi{dotless} Demografik, Ekonomik ve Sosyal Durumu, Arastirma Dizisi, (Demographic, Economic and Social Conditions After Kocaeli (in Marmara Region) Earthquake), Izmit Kent Kurultayi{dotless}-Yerel Gundem 21, Kocaeli.
28. Kakhandiki A, Shah H (1998) Understanding time variation of risk crucial implications for megacities worldwide. Appl Geogr 18(1): 47-53.
29. Karaman H, Sahin M, Elnashai S (2008) Earthquake loss assessment features of Meaviz-Istanbul (Hazturk). J Earthq Eng 12(S2): 175-186.
30. Kasapoglu A, Ecevit M (2001) Depremin Sosyolojik Arasti{dotless}rmasi, (Sociological Research of Earthquake), Sosyoloji Dernegi Yayi{dotless}nlari, no. 6, Ankara.
31. Kemec S, Duzgun HSB (2006a) Use of 3D visualisation in natural disaster risk assessment for urban areas. In: Abdulrahman A, Zlatanova S, Coors V (eds) Lecture notes in geoinformation and cartography series, innovations in 3D geo information systems. Springer, New York, pp 557-566.
32. Kemec S, Duzgun HSB (2006b) 3-D visualisation of urban earthquake risk, ECI conference: geohazards-technical, economical and social risk evaluation 18-21 June 2006, Lillehammer, Norway.
33. King SA, Kiremidjian AS (1994) Regionak seismic hazard and risk analysis through geographic information systems. The John A. blume earthquake center report no: 111. Blume Center, Standford California.
34. Kocyigit A (2005) Personal communication. Department of Geological Engineering, METU, Ankara.
35. KOERI (2004) Internet page of the Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research Institute. Bogazici University, Istanbul, Catalogue, http://www. koeri. boun. edu. tr/sismo/veri_bank/mainw. htm.
36. Kolbe TH, Gröger G, Plümer L (2005) CityGML-interoperable access to 3D city models. In: Oosterom PJM, Zlatanova S, Fendel EM (eds) Proceedings of the international symposium on geo-information for disaster management on 21-23 March 2005 in Delft. Springer, Berlin.
37. Kuntay O (1990) Erisilebilirlik kesin bir oncelik planlama dergisi. J Chamb City Plan 90: 1-7.
38. Makri M-C, Folkesson C (1999) Accessibility measures for analyses of land use and travelling with geographical information systems. Department of Technology and Society, Lund Institute of Technology, Lund University & Department of Spatial Planning, University of Karlskrona/Ronneby, Sweden.
39. Marincioni F (2007) Information technologies and the sharing of disaster knowledge: the critical role of professional culture. Disasters 31(4): 459-476. Blackwell Publishing, USA.
40. Martin D, Higgs G (1997) The visualization of socio-economic GIS data using virtual reality tools. Trans GIS 1(4): 255.
41. Mileti DS (1999) Disasters by design: a reassessment of natural hazatds in the United States. Joseph Henry Press, Washington, DC.
42. Morales ALM (2002) Urban disaster management: a case study of earthquake risk assessment in Cartago, Costa Rica, ITC Publication Series, no. 96, international institute for geo-information science and earth observation (ITC), Enschede, The Netherlands.
43. Mourouse P, Brun B (2006) Presentation of risk-EU project. Bull Earthq Eng 4: 323-339.
44. Musson RMW (2000) Intensity-based seismic risk assessment. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 20: 353-360.
45. Ordaz M, Aguilar A, and Arboleda J (2003) CRISIS2003, ver. 1. 2. 100, program for computing seismic hazard. Instituto de Ingeniería, UNAM, Mexico.
46. Plattner T (2005) Modeling public risk evaluation of natural hazards: a conceptual approach. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 5: 357-366.
47. Radius (1999) Risk assessment tools for diagnosis of urban areas against seismic disasters report. http://www. geohaz. org/contents/publications/RADIUS_RiskAssessment. pdf.
48. Raper JF (1989) The 3D geoscientific mapping and modeling system: a conceptual design. In: Raper JF (ed) Three dimensional applications in geographical information systems. Taylor and Francis, London, pp 11-20.
49. Servi M (2004) Assessment of vulnerability to earthquake hazards using spatial multicriteria analysis: Odunpazari, Eskisehir case study. M. S. Thesis, Geodetic and Geographic Information Technologies, METU, Ankara.
50. Stafford PJ, Strasser FO, Bommer JJ (2007) Preliminary report on the evaluation of existing loss estimation methodologies, NERIES Project Report.
51. Stepp JC (1973) Analysis of completeness of the earthquake sample in the Puget Sound area. In: Handing ST (ed) Contributions to seismic zoning. NOAA technical report ERL 267-ESL 30, US Department of Commerce.
52. Strasser FO, Bommer JJ, Sesetyan K, Erdik M, Çagnan Z, Irizary J, Goula X, Lucantoni A, Sabetta F, Bal IE, Crowley H, Lindholm C (2008) A comparative study of European earthquake loss estimation tools for scenario in Istanbul. J Earthq 12(S2): 246-256.
53. Synolakis CE, Bernard EN, Titov VV, Kanoglu U, Gonzalez FI (2008) Validation and verification of tsunami numerical models. Pure Appl Geophys 165: 2197-2228.
54. Tucker BE, Trumbull JG, Wyss SJ (1994) Some remarks concerning worldwide urban earthquake hazard and earthquake hazard mitigation. In: Tucker BE, Erdik M (eds) Issues in urban earhquake risk. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 1-10.
55. Turkey Statistics Office (2004) Poverty survey [in Turkish]. News Bull 2006: 27. Available from: http://www. tuik. gov. tr/OncekiHB. do. Accessed 25 Sept 2010.
56. US Department of Health, Human Services, (2002) Communicating in a crisis: risk communication guidelines for public officials. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC.
57. USGS (2004a) Internet page of the United States Geological Survey. U. S. Department of the Interior, Reston, VA. USGS/NEIC (PDE) 1973-Present, available on-line at http://neic. usgs. gov/neis/epic/epic_global. html.
58. USGS (2004b) Internet page of the United States Geological Survey. U. S. Department of the Interior, Reston, VA. Significant Worldwide Earthquakes (2150 B. C.-1994 A. D.), available on-line at http://neic. usgs. gov/neis/epic/epic_global. html.
59. Whitman RV (1973) Damage probability matrices for prototype buildings. R73-57, Department of Civil Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.
60. Yakut A, Kucukcoban S (2005) A scenario based seismic damage estimation for Istanbul. In: International conference on 250th anniversary of the 1755 Lisbon earthquake, CD-ROM paper no 32, Lisbon, Portugal.
61. Yiing-Jenq C, Nicole H, Cheng-Hua L, Shu-Ling T, Long-Shen C, Hong-Jen C (2004) Who is at risk of death in an earthquake? Am J Epidemiol 160(7): 688-695.
62. Yucemen MS (2005) Probabilistic assessment of earthquake insurance rates for Turkey. Nat Hazards 35: 291-313.
63. Yucemen MS, Ozturk NY (2008) Assessment of seismic hazard due to active faults. In: Proceedings, structural reliability and its applications APSSRA'08. The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong, June. pp 253-258.
64. Yucemen MS, Ozcebe G, Pay AC (2004) Prediction of potential damage due to severe earthquakes. Struct Saf 26(3), 349-366.
65. Zlatanova S (2008) SII for emergency response: the 3D challenges. In: Chen J, Jiang J, Nayak S (eds) Proceedings of the XXI ISPRS congress, Part B4-TYC IV, July 2008. Beijing, pp 1631-1637.
66. Zlatanova S, Rahman AA, Pilouk M (2002). 3D GIS: current status and perspectives. In: Proceedings of the joint conference on geo-spatial theory, processing and applications. 8-12 July, Ottawa, Canada.