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

2. Outline of the Presentation
The Core of the Study
A Model on Disaster Resilience of Urban Settlements
A Comparative Case Study of Yalova/TURKEY & Cologne/GERMANY with Reference to Different Approaches towards Disaster Resilience
Overall Assessment & 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 show the economic damages reported by natural disaster & country in the Period of
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. Why are the different approaches proposed?
two dIfferent approaches are proposed for rIsk mItIgatıon of natural dIsasters on urban settlements of developıng countrIes 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
11-15 July 2012, AESOP 2012 Congress, Ankara

9. Importance of Earthquakes in Developing the Disaster Resilience Model
Personal background
Lessons Learned from the earthquakes in Turkey are an important source for designing guidelines on disaster resilience.
Personal experience based on
field studies in the wake of the earthquakes
disaster managment responsibilities on country-wide scale
role in the World Bank Project on the 1999 earthquakes
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
11-15 July 2012, AESOP 2012 Congress, Ankara

10. Basic Features 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. Disaster Resilience Model
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
Priorities with respect to the Developing & Developed Countries
Developing Countries: Decreasing casualties
Developed Countries: Decreasing financial losses
11-15 July 2012, AESOP 2012 Congress, Ankara

12. Dynamism & Interaction in the Model
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: valuable historical features and archeological assets
City of Cologne
11-15 July 2012, AESOP 2012 Congress, Ankara

14. The Main Reasons of A Comparative Case Study on Yalova and Cologne
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.  
Yalova, 2009
SOURCE:
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.  
11-15 July 2012, AESOP 2012 Congress, Ankara

15. Different Features of Two Cities-I
YALOVA
exIStIng features of two cITIEs were analyzed accordIng to:
Geological and Seismic Retrospective View of Cities,
Existing Planning Situation and Disaster Mitigation Activities
Institutional Coping Capacity and Problems.
COLOGNE
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
11-15 July 2012, AESOP 2012 Congress, Ankara

16. Different Features of Two Cities-II
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.
2505 casualties and injuries was recorded in the Eastern Marmara Earthquake on 17 August 1999 with a 7.4 magnitude
Yalova, 1999
SOURCE:
The city historic archive building collapsed on 3rd of March, SOURCE:
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.
11-15 July 2012, AESOP 2012 Congress, Ankara

17. Method of Model Testing on Cologne
Due to time and other limits of the study a questionnaire with a worst case scenario on Cologne is used to find the answers of the checklist.
The questionnaire aimed at assessing local risk perception and coping capacity of Cologne. It was applied for 6 target groups in Cologne:
Academics
Local authorities
Insurance companies
NGOs and citizen organizations
Members of industrial and business sectors
Media
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

18. Test Results of Cologne
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 are also 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 needs to develop effective institutional and public awareness on earthquake risk to support the earthquake resilience.
11-15 July 2012, AESOP 2012 Congress, Ankara

19. Method of 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.
Personal experience in the Ministry of Public Works & Settlement as well as field work in the period of recovery activities of 1999 earthquakes.
Keeping contacts with local authorities in Yalova (UN-ISDR Campaign of Resilient Cities)
11-15 July 2012, AESOP 2012 Congress, Ankara

20. Test Results of Yalova
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 in Yalova 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/Turkey needs well planned processes of construction control, application of relevant spatial planning standards, a more comprehensive disaster insurance system
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 facilitates measuring the physical resilience of an urban settlement in the light of two different sets 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. fInal remarks
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 the light of different priorities.
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
The Ministry of Environment & Urbanization,
Ankara, TURKEY s: