Ebru ALARSLAN The Ministry of Environment & Urbanization , Ankara, TURKEY

1. Yalova Different Approaches to Disaster Resilience of Urban Settlements of Developing and Developed Countries: A Comparative Case Study on Yalovavs Cologne Ebru ALARSLAN The Ministry of Environment & Urbanization, Ankara, TURKEY Cologne 11-15 July 2012, AESOP 2012 Congress, Ankara

2. Outline of the Presentation • TheCore of theStudy • A Model on DisasterResilience of Urban Settlements • A Comparative Case Study of Yalova/TURKEY & Cologne/GERMANY with Reference to Different Approaches towards Disaster Resilience • OverallAssessment & Final Remarks 11-15 July 2012, AESOP 2012 Congress, Ankara

3. ORIGIN of the study: HYPOTHESIS As urban settlements are particularly vulnerable to various types of disasters, new strategies and concepts are needed to enhance disaster resilience of urban settlements. 11-15 July 2012, AESOP 2012 Congress, Ankara

4. INCREASING NUMBERS OF DISASTERS • In last twenty years, natural disasters with devastating effects on human settlements have proliferated • The figures of the United Nations International Secretary of Disaster Reduction (see also http://www.unisdr.org) show the economic damages reported by natural disaster & country in the Period of 1991-2005 11-15 July 2012, AESOP 2012 Congress, Ankara

5. INCREASING URBAN POPULATION According to the United Nations’ figures, the share of the world’s population in urban settlements has risen to 50% from 30% since the 1950s and this share is expected to increase to 60% in 2030. Source: The United Nations; 2008 11-15 July 2012, AESOP 2012 Congress, Ankara

6. WHY ARE URBAN SETTLEMENTS VULNERABLE TO DISASTERS? • Increasing rate of population in and around metropolitan areas, degrading environmental quality, global heating. By the year 2000, half the world’s population will live in urban areas, crowded into 3% of the earth’s surface (Domeisen & Palm, 1996) • In addition to the density of population, urban settlements are especially prone to high risks of natural disasters due to the density of construction and accumulation of investments • While urban settlements exploit natural resources , they cause the degradation of environmental quality • They are the core area of economic and cultural activities as well as significant cross-roads of transportation routes, technologies, and other modern networks 11-15 July 2012, AESOP 2012 Congress, Ankara

7. RISK IN URBAN SETTLEMENTS • Urban settlements are at risk of natural disasters • The risk is high due to their density of population, construction, and accumulation of investment. 11-15 July 2012, AESOP 2012 Congress, Ankara

8. Whyarethedifferentapproachesproposed? 11-15 July 2012, AESOP 2012 Congress, Ankara two dIfferent approaches are proposed for rIskmItIgatıon of natural dIsasters on urban settlements of developıngcountrIes and developed countrIes, respectIvely. Different urbanization trends in terms of population increase, agglomeration, squatters, etc. Different vulnerabilities in disasters with regard to financial, technical, and organizational features Different priorities in disaster mitigation: casualties vs. financial losses

9. ImportanceofEarthquakes in DevelopingtheDisasterResilience Model 11-15 July 2012, AESOP 2012 Congress, Ankara lImIts of the study Despite of many common features, each natural disaster has its own particularities The method and the model can serve to all natural disasters with relevant modifications Due to resource limits for the study, model testing part focuses only on earthquakes Personal background • Lessons Learned from the 1999 earthquakes in Turkey are an important source for designing guidelines on disaster resilience. • Personal experience based on • field studies in the wake of the 1999 earthquakes • disaster managment responsibilities on country-wide scale • role in the World Bank Project on the 1999 earthquakes

10. BasicFeatures of the Model • This model is aimed at maintaining physical resilience of urban settlements rather than strengthening social, political, administrative, etc. structures. However, since an urban settlement is a space in which multi-dimensional functions interact, other relevant issues are also taken into consideration to support the physical resilience of urban settlements. • The model is designed as a checklist of actions rather than as a detailed and comprehensive guidebook. • The questions and standards of the check list refers local authorities and other relevant local actors. • This model is flexible enough to be modified for an urban settlement with different features in terms of geographic, demographic, administrative, and social aspects. The variables used in the model and the checklist will be open to be updated to changing conditions of urban settlements over time. 11-15 July 2012, AESOP 2012 Congress, Ankara

11. DisasterResilienceModel 11-15 July 2012, AESOP 2012 Congress, Ankara Priorities with respect to the Developing & Developed Countries Developing Countries: Decreasing casualties Developed Countries: Decreasing financial losses • Risk Definition of a Settlement • Potential Impacts • Vulnerabilities • Worst Case Scenarios 2.Elements of Resilience • Policy Level • Administrative Level • Implementation Level • Legislation and Control • Planning Process • Institutional Organization & Coordination

12. Dynamism & Interactionin theModel 11-15 July 2012, AESOP 2012 Congress, Ankara

13. A Comparative Case Study:Yalova vs Cologne City of Yalova • In terms of urban site: ports and other coastal facilities such as marine transportation, quays, coastal land filling areas • In terms of urban activities: metropolitan activities • In terms of urban attractiveness: touristic and cultural activities • In terms of urban history: valuablehistorical features and archeological assets City of Cologne 11-15 July 2012, AESOP 2012 Congress, Ankara

14. The Main Reasonsof A Comparative Case Study on Yalova and Cologne Yalova, 2009 SOURCE: http://www.yalova.gov.tr/yalova_resimler/ana.htm 11-15 July 2012, AESOP 2012 Congress, Ankara Since Yalova experienced a high intensity earthquakes in 1999, the aforementioned guidelines are updated and detailed in light of local experiences in Yalova. On the other hand, Cologne has not yet experienced a devastating earthquake despite of its high seismic risk. This difference creates an opportunity to test the proposed disaster-resilience model which is enriched by the local experiences of Yalova ultimately. The comparative case study will provide an opportunity to support the proposed method of two different approaches on urban settlements of developing countries and developed countries, respectively. Despite the fact that Turkey is not a developing country, it has similar vulnerable features as in developing countries due to rapidly increasing population and densely constructed urban settlements.

15. YALOVA COLOGNE Different Features ofTwo Cities-I 11-15 July 2012, AESOP 2012 Congress, Ankara exIStIng features of two cITIEs were analyzed accordIngto: Geological and Seismic Retrospective View of Cities, Existing Planning Situation and Disaster Mitigation Activities Institutional Coping Capacity and Problems. rIsk assessment of each cIty was done In the lIght of outputs of the exIStINg features analyses : Risk Factors: seismic risks, institutional coping capacity, and institutional & public awareness Legislation: disaster legislation, spatial planning legislation, and building legislation Recent Approaches and Initiatives

16. Different Features ofTwoCities-II 2505 casualties and 5 937 injuries was recorded in the Eastern Marmara Earthquake on 17 August 1999 with a 7.4 magnitude Yalova, 1999 SOURCE:http://www.yalova.gov.tr/ilafet/resimler.htm The city historic archive building collapsed on 3rd of March, 2009. SOURCE: http://www.bild.de/BILD/news/fotos/2009/Vermischtes/2009/03/2009-03-04-stadtarchiv-koeln-einsturz 11-15 July 2012, AESOP 2012 Congress, Ankara Yalova Yalova is at high risk in terms of earthquake hazards as well as urban vulnerability. The former earthquake risk has been reduced by improvements of the legislation and implementation procedures as well as a rearrangement of responsible institutions. Cologne According to seismic features and background, Cologne is prone to similar seismic risk as Yalova (Fault lines, soil liquefaction and land amplification factors). However, so far, Cologne has been reducing this risk by virtue of better building codes and planning standards as well as more efficient construction quality processes and procedures.

17. Methodof Model Testing on Cologne www.uni-koeln.de/index.e.html • The outputs of the questionnaire were supported by the information from “The Analysis of Existing Urban Structure”. 11-15 July 2012, AESOP 2012 Congress, Ankara • Due to time andotherlimitsofthestudy a questionnairewith a worstcasescenario on Cologne isusedto find theanswersofthe checklist. • The questionnaireaimedatassessinglocalriskperceptionandcopingcapacityof Cologne. It was appliedfor 6 targetgroups in Cologne: • Academics • Localauthorities • Insurancecompanies • NGOsandcitizenorganizations • Members of industrial and business sectors • Media

18. Test Resultsof Cologne 11-15 July 2012, AESOP 2012 Congress, Ankara Cologne has not yet experienced any severe earthquake. In this respect, Cologne has the advantage of being able to prepare many worst case scenarios involving earthquakes and generate effective solutions before it faces with a severe earthquake. Many projects and programs leading to earthquake resilience are inevitable for Cologne when earthquake hazard and vulnerability analyses will be prepared. An earthquake micro zoning map and a risk mitigation plan arealso necessary. In terms of building and infrastructure qualities, the existing standards, procedures and potential studies as well as earthquake insurances should be reviewed and synthesized into an integrated process. Institutional capacity and organization should include not only disaster preparedness and response but also disaster mitigation and recovery activities and programs. Cologne needsto develop effective institutional and public awareness on earthquake risktosupportthe earthquake resilience.

19. Methodof Model Testing on Yalova • The model building part mainly relies on lessons learned from the 1999 earthquakes in Turkey while the details are enriched by the case study of Yalova. • Personalexperience in theMinistry of Public Works & Settlement as well as fieldwork in theperiod of recoveryactivities of 1999 earthquakes. • Keepingcontactswithlocalauthorities in Yalova (UN-ISDR Campaign of ResilientCities) 11-15 July 2012, AESOP 2012 Congress, Ankara

20. In Turkey, in light of the lessons learned, many initiatives and ongoing studies on legislation, institution-building, insurance, and quality control look promising for disaster resilient settlements. • There are some threats regarding these initiatives due to instable institutional structure, budgetary constraints, lack of public awareness as well as inadequate organization and coordination. • The risk inYalova can be reduced by building awareness of hazards as well as designing and building of all infrastructure and superstructure with a view to decreasing vulnerability. • Yalova/Turkeyneedswell planned processes of construction control, application of relevant spatial planning standards, a more comprehensive disaster insurance system Test Results of Yalova 11-15 July 2012, AESOP 2012 Congress, Ankara

21. Overall Assessment • The whole study initiated by a hyphothesis(as urban settlements are particularly vulnerable to various types of disasters, new strategies and concepts are needed to enhance disaster resilience of urban settlements) concluded by a disaster resilience model for urban settlements. • The proposed model facilitatesmeasuring the physical resilience of an urban settlementin thelight oftwodifferentsets of recommendations. • The success of the model depends on the willingness and openness of the relevant authorities to apply it. • AN INTERESTING FINDING: Institutions and the public at large tend to similarly underrate disaster risks when they exceed their coping capacity and when they do not appear to create a challenge. Thus, an urban settlement in a developing country and another urban settlement in a developed country may experience the similar vulnerability due to underrating disaster risks. 11-15 July 2012, AESOP 2012 Congress, Ankara

22. fInalremarks • The proposed model offers policies supported by relevant instruments for short-, medium-, and long-term applications as well as strategies, tactics, principles, criteria, standards, and responsible institutions in charge with respect to administrative and legislation issues to advance disaster resilience of urban settlements in physical terms • All developed and developing countries that are willing to apply this model can follow the similar steps in thelight of differentpriorities. • Local authorities are the main actors that consider the key questions and recommended tasks in the model. They should organize relevant working groups and build necessary infrastructure to implement the recommendations of the model. • In the future, with respect to further implementation of the model, a “twin cities” or “sister cities” approach may well be suitable. Urban settlements already advanced in applying the model can be volunteer to provide guidance to cities just starting. 11-15 July 2012, AESOP 2012 Congress, Ankara

23. THANKS FOR YOUR INTEREST &WELCOME YOUR COMMENTS

24. CONTACT & FURTHER QUESTIONS Dr. Ing. Ebru Alarslan TheMinistry of Environment & Urbanization, Ankara, TURKEY e-mails: ebrua@csb.gov.tr ebrualarslan@yahoo.com