1. bookVolume 17 (2021): Issue 1 (January 2021)
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
2255-8764
First Published
16 Apr 2015
Publication timeframe
1 time per year
Languages
English
access type Open Access

Analysis of Earthquake Park Design Criteria: Cases in Ataşehir and Topkapı Parks, Istanbul

Published Online: 18 Oct 2021
Page range: 88 - 102
Received: 01 May 2021
Accepted: 30 Jun 2021
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
2255-8764
First Published
16 Apr 2015
Publication timeframe
1 time per year
Languages
English
Abstract

Earthquake parks are open spaces where sustenance, shelter and security needs required by people to sustain their daily lives after a disaster may be addressed. In this study, the use of Ataşehir and Topkapı earthquake parks as recreation areas before an earthquake and as a post-disaster park were examined from a space design aspect using on-site observations. Standards required for earthquake parks were determined, such as land location and suitability, transportation, size and function, infrastructure systems, structural and vegetative designs, whereas evaluations of these criteria were conducted at two parks. As a result of this study, it was identified that unlike traditional parks, designing earthquake parks according to site location and suitability, transportation, size and function, infrastructure systems, structural and planting design is important for post-disaster use.

Keywords

1. Jayakody, R. R. J. C., Amaratunga, D., Haigh, R. Plan and design public open spaces incorporating disaster management strategies with sustainable development strategies: a literature synthesis. MATEC Web of Conferences, vol. 229, 2018, 04001. https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/20182290400110.1051/matecconf/201822904001 Search in Google Scholar

2. Tan, P. Y., Jim, C. Y. (Eds.). Greening Cities. Springer Singapore, 2017. 372 p. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4113-610.1007/978-981-10-4113-6 Search in Google Scholar

3. French, E. L., Birchall, S. J., Landman, K., Brown, R. D. Designing public open space to support seismic resilience: A systematic review. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, vol. 34, 2019, pp. 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2018.11.00110.1016/j.ijdrr.2018.11.001 Search in Google Scholar

4. Tidball, K. G., Krasny, M. E., Svendsen, E., Campbell, L., Helphand, K. Stewardship, learning, and memory in disaster resilience. Environmental Education Research, vol. 16, no. 5-6, 2010, pp. 591–609. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2010.50543710.1080/13504622.2010.505437 Search in Google Scholar

5. Nakabayashi, I. Urban planning based on disaster risk assessment. In: Disaster Management in Metropolitan Areas for the 21st Century, Proceedings of the IDNDR Aichi/Nagoya International Conference, 1-4 November, 1994, Nagoya, Japan, UNCRD Proceedings Series, No. 1. Nagoya, Japan: United Nations Centre for Regional Development, pp. 225–239. Search in Google Scholar

6. Wesener, A. Growing resilient cities: Urban community gardens and disaster recovery after the 2010/11 Canterbury/Christchurch earthquakes. In D. Brantz, A. Sharma eds. Urban resilience in a global context: Actors, Narratives and Temporalities, Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag, 2020, pp. 77–101. https://doi.org/10.14361/9783839450185-00510.14361/9783839450185-005 Search in Google Scholar

7. Wei, Y., Jin, L., Xu, M., Pan, S., Xu, Y., Zhang, Y. Instructions for planning emergency shelters and open spaces in China: Lessons from global experiences and expertise. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, vol. 51, 2020, 101813. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.10181310.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101813 Search in Google Scholar

8. Brantz, D., Sharma, A. (Eds.). Urban Resilience in a Global Context: Actors, Narratives, and Temporalities. Bielefeld: transcript Verlag, 2020. 250 p. https://doi.org/10.14361/978383945018510.14361/9783839450185 Search in Google Scholar

9. Allan, P., Bryant, M., Wirsching, C., Garcia, D., Rodriguez, M. T. The influence of urban morphology on the resilience of cities following an earthquake. Journal of Urban Design, vol. 18, no. 2, 2013, pp. 242–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2013.77288110.1080/13574809.2013.772881 Search in Google Scholar

10. Winandari, M. I. R. Public open space for disaster mitigation in Tangerang housing estates. In: IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, vol. 106, 2018, 012021. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/106/1/01202110.1088/1755-1315/106/1/012021 Search in Google Scholar

11. Ishikawa, M. Landscape planning for a safe city. Annals of Geophysics, vol. 45, no. 6, 2002. https://doi.org/10.4401/ag-354410.4401/ag-3544 Search in Google Scholar

12. Nira, R. More Parks Can Lessen the Blow of Earthquakes, 2019 [online]. Texas A & M Today [cited 17.06.2021]. https://today.tamu.edu/2019/08/13/more-parks-can-lessen-the-blow-of-earthquakes/ Search in Google Scholar

13. Koren, D., Rus, K. The potential of open space for enhancing urban seismic resilience: A literature review. Sustainability, vol. 11, no. 21, 2019, 5942. https://doi.org/10.3390/su1121594210.3390/su11215942 Search in Google Scholar

14. Brand, D., Nicholson, H. Public space and recovery: learning from post-earthquake Christchurch. Journal of Urban Design, vol. 21, no. 2, 2016, pp. 159–176. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2015.113323110.1080/13574809.2015.1133231 Search in Google Scholar

15. Chan, J., Dubois, B., Tidball, K. G. Refuges of local resilience: Community gardens in post-Sandy New York City. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, vol. 14, no. 3, 2015, pp. 625–635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2015.06.00510.1016/j.ufug.2015.06.005 Search in Google Scholar

16. Dionisio, M. R., Kingham, S., Banwell, K., Neville, J. Geospatial tools for community engagement in the Christchurch rebuild, New Zealand. Sustainable Cities and Society, vol. 27, 2016, pp. 233–243. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2016.04.00710.1016/j.scs.2016.04.007 Search in Google Scholar

17. Shiozaki, Y., Nishikava, E., Deguchi, T. (Eds.). Büyük Hanshin Depreminden Alınan Dersler. Istanbul: Istanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi Basımevi, 2006, 123 p. Search in Google Scholar

18. Allan, P., Bryant, M. The critical role of open space in earthquake recovery: a case study. In: EN: Proceedings of the 2010 NZSEE Conference, 2010, New Zealand, 2010, pp. 1–10. Search in Google Scholar

19. Coburn, A., Spence, R. Earthquake protection, 2nd edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2002. 424 p. https://doi.org/10.1002/047085518510.1002/0470855185 Search in Google Scholar

20. Sariçam, S. Kentsel Açik-Yeşil Alanlarin Afet Sonrasi İşlevleri. GSI Journals Serie B: Advancements in Business and Economics, vol. 2, no. 1, 2019, pp. 1–15. Search in Google Scholar

21. Mexico City earthquake of 1985 [online]. Britannica [cited 17.06.2021]. https://www.britannica.com/event/Mexico-City-earthquake-of-1985 Search in Google Scholar

22. Nakase, I., Fujimoto, M., Akazawa, H., Mizuno, Y. Park and greenery forms through participation of local residents after Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake (Report). Nature and Human activities, 2000, vol. 5, pp. 41–46. https://www.hitohaku.jp/publication/r-bulletin/Nature%20and%20Human%20Activities%20No.05%202000%20041-046%20optimized.pdf Search in Google Scholar

23. Aksoy, Y., Turan, A., C., Atalay, H. İstanbul Fatih ilçesi yeşil alan yeterliliğinin Marmara depremi öncesi ve sonrası değerleri kullanılarak incelenmesi. Uludağ University Journal of The Faculty of Engineering, vol. 14, no. 2, 2009, 137–150. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/202722 Search in Google Scholar

24. BBC NEWS, 2019 [cited 17.06.2021]. https://www.bbc.com/turkce/haberler-turkiye-49935494 Search in Google Scholar

25. Ogawa, N. Disascape to Preemptive Landscape: Resilient Parks for Earthquake Disaster Management. University of Georgia, Athens, GA. Master Thesis, 2014. Search in Google Scholar

26. León, J., March, A. Urban morphology as a tool for supporting tsunami rapid resilience: A case study of Talcahuano, Chile. Habitat international, vol. 43, 2014, pp. 250–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2014.04.00610.1016/j.habitatint.2014.04.006 Search in Google Scholar

27. The Sphere Project. Humanitarian Charter and Minumum Standarts in Humanitarian Response, 2011 [online 17.05.2021]. https://www.unhcr.org/50b491b09.pdf https://doi.org/10.3362/978190817620210.3362/9781908176202 Search in Google Scholar

28. Akdur, R. Afetlere Hazırlık ve Afet Yönetimi. S. Esin, T. Oğuzhan, K. Kaya, T. Ergüder, 2001 [cited 17.05.2021]. https://www.recepakdur.com/media/1295/09-akdur-r-afetlere-hazirlik-ve-afet-yo-netimi-sayfa-1-38.pdf Search in Google Scholar

29. Xu, J., Yin, X., Chen, D., An, Y., Nie, G. Multi-criteria location model of earthquake evacuation shelters to aid in urban planning. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, vol. 20, 2016, pp. 51–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2016.10.00910.1016/j.ijdrr.2016.10.009 Search in Google Scholar

30. Vanvactor, J. D. Strategic health care logistics planning in emergency management. Disaster Prevention and Management, vol. 21, no. 3, 2012, pp. 299–309. https://doi.org/10.1108/0965356121123448010.1108/09653561211234480 Search in Google Scholar

31. Koçan, N., Sürün, S. 1. Derece Deprem Kuşağında Yer Alan Balıkesir-Burhaniye Kenti İçin Deprem Parkı Önerisi. Nevşehir Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi, vol. 9, 2020, pp. 14–31. https://doi.org/10.17100/nevbiltek.68133610.17100/nevbiltek.681336 Search in Google Scholar

32. Nedjati, A., Vizvari, B., Izbirak, G. Post-earthquake response by small UAV helicopters. Natural Hazards, vol. 80, 2016, pp. 1669–1688. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-015-2046-610.1007/s11069-015-2046-6 Search in Google Scholar

33. Mazereeuw, M., Yarina, E. Emergency preparedness hub: Designing decentralized systems for disaster resilience. Journal of Architectural Education, vol. 71, no. 1, 2017, pp. 65–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/10464883.2017.126092810.1080/10464883.2017.1260928 Search in Google Scholar

34. Çelik, A., Ender, E. Design Principles of Earthquake Park. In R. Efe, I. Cürebal, A. Gad, B. Tóth eds. Environmental Sustainability and Landscape Management. Sofia: St. Kliment Ohridski University Press, 2016, pp. 735–741. Search in Google Scholar

35. Masuda, N. Disaster refuge and relief urban park system in Japan. Landscape Architecture Frontiers, vol. 2, no. 4, 2014, pp. 52–60. Search in Google Scholar

36. Önal, S. Kent Parklarda Kullanılan Donatıların Standartlara Uygunluğunun Belirlenmesi: Ankara Örneği. Antropoloji, vol. 38, 2019, pp. 54–64. https://doi.org/10.33613/antropolojidergisi.63341110.33613/antropolojidergisi.633411 Search in Google Scholar

37. Mumcu, S., Yilmaz, S. Seating furniture in open spaces and their contribution to the social life. In R. Efe, I. Cürebal, A. Gad, B. Tóth eds. Environmental Sustainability and Landscape Management. Sofia: St. Kliment Ohridski University Press, 2016, pp. 169–187. Search in Google Scholar

38. Yücel, G. Earthquake and evacuation area assessment for Istanbul Avcılar district. Disaster Science and Engineering, vol. 4, no. 2, 2018, pp. 65–79. Search in Google Scholar

39. Dönmez, Y. Investigation of Active Green Spaces within the Criterion of Earthquake Park Concept: Case Study of Safranbolu City. In R. Efe, I. Cürebal, A. Gad, B. Tóth eds. Environmental Sustainability and Landscape Management. Sofia: St. Kliment Ohridski University Press, 2016, pp. 585–591. Search in Google Scholar

40. Okuyama, M. Recovery from Earthquake for Children (in Japanese), 2021 [online]. Child research net [cited 17.06.2021]. http://www.blog.crn.or.jp/lab/06/15.html Search in Google Scholar

41. Kinoshita, I., Woolley, H. Children’s play environment after a disaster: The great East Japan earthquake. Children, vol. 2, no. 1, 2015, pp. 39–62. https://doi.org/10.3390/children201003910.3390/children2010039 Search in Google Scholar

42. Fire Resistant Plants for Chelan/Douglas County Washington. Master Gardener Program, 2017 [cited 17.06.2021]. https://s3.wp.wsu.edu/uploads/sites/2086/2018/01/fireresistantplants2017.pdf Search in Google Scholar

43. Çoban, M., Sözbilir, M., Göktaş, Y. Deprem deneyimini yaşamış kişilerin deprem öncesi hazırlık algılarının belirlenmesi: Bir durum çalışması. Doğu Coğrafya Dergisi, vol. 22, no. 37, 2017, pp. 113–134. https://doi.org/10.17295/ataunidcd.28172110.17295/ataunidcd.281721 Search in Google Scholar

44. Özkir, A. Kent Parkları Yönetim Modelinin Geliştirilmesi. Ankara Üniversitesi. Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Peyzaj Mimarlığı Anabilim Dalı, Doctoral Thesis, 2007. https://dspace.ankara.edu.tr/xmlui/handle/20.500.12575/34072 Search in Google Scholar

45. Deniz Gezmiş Parkı, 2021 [online]. Ladin [cited 17.06.2021]. http://www.ladin.gen.tr/project/deniz-gezmis-parki Search in Google Scholar

46. IBB, 2021 [online, cited: 17.06.2021]. https://www.ibb.istanbul/News/Detail/37124 Search in Google Scholar

47. Kurt Konakoğlu, S. S., Çelik, K. T. Afet ve Acil Durum Toplanma Alanı Olarak Belirlenen Parkların Deprem Parkı Olabilirliklerinin Amasya Kenti Örneğinde Değerlendirilmesi. International Social Sciences Studies Journal, vol. 7, no. 81, 2021, pp. 1740–1755. https://doi.org/10.26449/sssj.309210.26449/sssj.3092 Search in Google Scholar

48. Villagra-Islas, P., Alves, S. Open space and their attributes, uses and restorative qualities in an earthquake emergency scenario: The case of Concepción, Chile. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, vol. 19, 2016, pp. 56–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2016.06.01710.1016/j.ufug.2016.06.017 Search in Google Scholar

49. Buldurur, M. A., Kurucu, H. İstanbul’da Afet Yönetimi ve Acil Ulaşım Yollarının Değerlendirmesi. Planlama Dergisi, vol. 25, no. 1, 2015, pp. 21–31. https://doi.org/10.5505/planlama.2015.4796510.5505/planlama.2015.47965 Search in Google Scholar

50. Bryant, M., Allan, P. Open space innovation in earthquake affected cities. In Earthquake Affected Cities, Approaches to Disaster Management - Examining the Implications of Hazards, Emergencies and Disasters, John Tiefenbacher, IntechOpen, 2013. https://doi.org/10.5772/5546510.5772/55465 Search in Google Scholar

Recommended articles from Trend MD

Plan your remote conference with Sciendo