Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Analysis of Earthquake Park Design Criteria: Cases in Ataşehir and Topkapı Parks, Istanbul Cover

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

Open Access
|Oct 2021

References

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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.
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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/
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 17. Shiozaki, Y., Nishikava, E., Deguchi, T. (Eds.). Büyük Hanshin Depreminden Alınan Dersler. Istanbul: Istanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi Basımevi, 2006, 123 p.
  18. 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.
  19. 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
  20. 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.
  21. 21. Mexico City earthquake of 1985 [online]. Britannica [cited 17.06.2021]. https://www.britannica.com/event/Mexico-City-earthquake-of-1985
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. 24. BBC NEWS, 2019 [cited 17.06.2021]. https://www.bbc.com/turkce/haberler-turkiye-49935494
  25. 25. Ogawa, N. Disascape to Preemptive Landscape: Resilient Parks for Earthquake Disaster Management. University of Georgia, Athens, GA. Master Thesis, 2014.
  26. 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
  27. 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
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. 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
  31. 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
  32. 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
  33. 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
  34. 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.
  35. 35. Masuda, N. Disaster refuge and relief urban park system in Japan. Landscape Architecture Frontiers, vol. 2, no. 4, 2014, pp. 52–60.
  36. 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
  37. 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.
  38. 38. Yücel, G. Earthquake and evacuation area assessment for Istanbul Avcılar district. Disaster Science and Engineering, vol. 4, no. 2, 2018, pp. 65–79.
  39. 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.
  40. 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
  41. 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
  42. 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
  43. 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
  44. 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
  45. 45. Deniz Gezmiş Parkı, 2021 [online]. Ladin [cited 17.06.2021]. http://www.ladin.gen.tr/project/deniz-gezmis-parki
  46. 46. IBB, 2021 [online, cited: 17.06.2021]. https://www.ibb.istanbul/News/Detail/37124
  47. 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
  48. 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
  49. 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
  50. 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
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/aup-2021-0009 | Journal eISSN: 2255-8764 | Journal ISSN: 1691-4333
Language: English
Page range: 88 - 102
Submitted on: May 1, 2021
Accepted on: Jun 30, 2021
Published on: Oct 18, 2021
Published by: Riga Technical University
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 issue per year

© 2021 Gökçen Firdevs Yücel Caymaz, Hümeyra Komar, published by Riga Technical University
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.