Open and Green Areas as a Gathering Area the Case of Küçükçekmece, Istanbul

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1748839/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Open and Green Areas as a Gathering Area the Case of Küçükçekmece, Istanbul

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1748839/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Gathering areas are needed for protected against possible risks that may arise during and after the earthquake. Green areas, which have an important role in the organic bond to be established between the ecological, physical, and economic functions before the earthquake, and human health and living space, assume the function of gathering areas after earthquakes and other possible disasters. The research aims to calculate, plan and create sufficient green areas that can be used after a possible earthquake taking into account the risk and disaster management approach. A competency assessment of gathering areas at the level of neighborhoods was made with the proposal of a norm of 2 m2 per capita. As a result of the evaluation, it was observed that norm deficit (area deficit) did not occur in the gathering areas in the neighborhood of Atakent, Beşyol, Fatih, Halkalı Merkez, Istasyon, Söğütlüçeşme, Tevfikbey and Yeşilova.

Earthquake

open areas

green areas

gathering areas

Istanbul

Küçükçekmece

Küçükçekmece district, which is selected as a research area, is located on the west side of Istanbul Province; it has a location on the Catalca peninsula. Earthquake risk is higher on the European side of Istanbul due to geological features and unskilled construction. Küçükçekmece district is one of the most crowded districts of Istanbul. Küçükçekmece was selected as one of the districts with high earthquake risk by JICA and IBB (2002) as a research area. To meet the green area requirement of the District before the earthquake and to bring the district, which is a residential area, closer to the standards of modern green use, and in the green areas of the District; This research was carried out to serve the planning of the gathering areas to be used as [Emergency Officer (ADG)] and to create open areas that can transport people to the open and green areas to be used as gathering areas and to move them away from the dangerous earthquake zone during the earthquake. Determining the areas to be used for post-disaster gathering in the research is a primary target. The research aims to make an inquiry about how sufficient the potential gathering areas are in the context of creating safe areas within the scope of the stated goal, to identify the insufficiencies and suggestions that exist in the context of access to safe areas in our cities. For this purpose, selection criteria to be used in determining the gathering areas were determined.

The gathering areas of Küçükçekmece district were evaluated according to their location within the settlement, existing usage status, accessibility, connection with road axes, diversity (multi-functionality), ownership, and area size standards.

Search strategy and selection criteria

A literature study was conducted to create the theoretical part of the research. The data of the research area between 1990 and 2000 were obtained from the Ph.D. Thesis titled "Investigation of the Green Area Status of the City of Istanbul" by Aksoy in 2001. The situation between 2000 and 2007 was obtained from Küçükçekmece District Green Corridor Project. The existing green areas of the district have been identified on-site. Küçükçekmece Municipality Park and Gardens Directorate data were used. Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality Web page Interactive Map data was used.

In the study, satellite images of 21 districts of Küçükçekmece district were obtained from the Google Earth Program. 1/1000 scale Base Maps and 1/5000 scale Master Plans were used. 1/25000 scale European Side Micro Zoning Study Slope Map, Geology Map, Groundwater Depth Map, Liquefaction Hazard Map, Landslide Hazard Map, Flooding and Flooding maps prepared by Istanbul municipality Department of Earthquake Risk Management and Urban Improvement in 2007 were used. The data showing the distribution of active green areas belonging to the research area and the population data of Küçükçekmece district based on neighborhoods were determined as non-graphic data to determine the green areas per capita. The main materials of the research consist of quantitative data on Küçükçekmece Active green areas. When we look at the functional distribution of the green areas of Küçükçekmece; park areas constitute all active green areas. Park areas are classified as a pocket, small, neighborhood, and district parks according to their area sizes. The methodology of the research is based on examining the quantitative data obtained for the active green areas of Küçükçekmece District within the frame of spatial sufficiency in terms of size and per capita values.

As a result of the research, it has been revealed that active green areas show an unbalanced distribution at the district level in terms of spatial sufficiency possibilities and are insufficient in terms of spatial standards. In the research, geographical information system (GIS) was used to minimize errors.

Open Spaces and Green Areas Risk Analysis and Management of Küçükçekmece District

Open spaces and green areas need a special risk assessment and management methods because of their physical functions, psychological functions, economic and ecological functions as well as the functions of creating safe and accessible evacuation areas when earthquakes and other possible disasters are involved (Selitsaniotisa and Nikolaoua, 2009).

For this reason, the open and green areas existing in the Küçükçekmece district were evaluated and their sufficiency and needs were determined, and suggestions were made to meet the needs and reduce risks.

While doing this work;

• Types of areas to be considered as open and green areas are determined in Küçükçekmece district.

• The distribution of green areas has been made in terms of determining open and green areas at the level of neighborhoods.

• The sufficiency of open and green areas has been determined.

Determination of Types of Areas to be Considered as Open Area and Green Area

While the existence and distribution of open and green areas in Küçükçekmece district are examined; parking areas, open car parks, mosques, hospitals, and school gardens are evaluated within the scope of open area and active green area.

Open Area and Active Green Area Distribution of Küçükçekmece District

An inventory has been made to evaluate the sufficiency of the open and active green areas in the Küçükçekmece district. As of 2019, the total amount of green areas at the district level is 1,252,581 m². This figure constitutes the total of active green areas. In the group of active green areas at the district level, children's playgrounds and sports areas are not available and they are located in the park areas 2019 Park areas consist of pocket, small, neighborhood, and district parks.

When the distribution of the active green area types in Küçükçekmece at the neighborhood level, it is seen that the most active green area is in the Fatih neighborhood (450051 m²) and the Atakent neighborhood (390291 m²). When we approach the subject in terms of the amount of green area per capita, it is seen that 1.6 m² of active green area per capita has fallen throughout the district. The maximum amount of active green areas per capita is seen in Fatih (42.3 m² / person), Atakent (4.1 m² / person), and Halkalı Center (2.2 m² / person) neighborhoods.

It was revealed that 10 m² / person active green area norm was caught in Fatih district and there was no norm gap. Other neighborhoods, on the other hand, are unable to meet the green area norms per capita with the current active green area distribution.

Evaluation of Adequacy Status of Open Space and Active Green Areas of Küçükçekmece District

Open area distribution in Küçükçekmece district is handled as building gardens and open car parks. The sufficiency of open spaces at the level of neighborhoods has been determined according to the 2 m² / person open area norm. The distribution of existing active green areas is considered as park areas. Because there are no separate children's playgrounds and sports areas in Küçükçekmece district. There are children's playgrounds and sports areas within the park areas. According to the norm of 10 m² / person active green area, table 8 was created by evaluating the adequacy of green areas.

As a result of the evaluation made according to the proposal open area norm (2 m² / person), it is seen that there is no inadequacy in terms of open areas in Beşyol, Fatih, Halkalı Merkez, and Istasyon neighborhoods. As a result of the collective evaluation made in terms of open space and active green areas, it is seen that Fatih district has sufficient area.

Areas where the availability of open areas and active green areas are seen as a very serious problem; Inönü (788.241), Kanarya (774.414), Atakent (664.717), Mehmet Akif (612.827), Halkali Center (606.174), Cumhuriyet (545.564) and Ataturk (485.526) neighborhoods (Table 1).

Table 1. Assessment of the Sufficiency Status of Open Areas and Green Areas Needed at the Level of Neighborhoods

Neighborhood	Population	Building gardens (m²)	Open Car Parks (m²)	Existing Open Areas (m²)	Existing Active Green Areas (m²)	Total of Existing Open and Active Green Areas (m²)	Active Green Areas Norm (10 m²/person)	Heard of Needed Active Green Areas (m²)	Suggestion Open Space Norm (2 m²/person)	Heard of Needed Open Spaces (m²)	Heard of Needed open and active green areas (m²)
Atakent	95636	92624	-	92624	390291	482915	10	566069	2	98648	664717
Atatürk	42171	14749	-	14749	5777	20526	10	415933	2	69593	485526
Beşyol	3890	12368	-	12368	3992	16360	10	34908	2	-	34908
Cennet	29892	24490	-	24490	10559	35049	10	288361	2	35294	323655
Cumhuriyet	50786	14153	5507	19660	44208	63868	10	463652	2	81912	545564
Fatih	10643	11868	9829	21697	450051	471748	10	-------	2	-	-
Fevzi Çakmak	25124	11660	537	12197	4680	16877	10	246560	2	38051	284611
Gültepe	30160	41558	8947	50505	5097	55602	10	296503	2	9815	306318
Halkalı Merkez	77648	1066477	13098	1079575	170306	1249881	10	606174	2	-	606174
İnönü	72454	41981	1504	43485	37722	81207	10	686818	2	101423	788241
İstasyon	39092	137940	-	137940	51111	189051	10	339809	2	-	339809
Kanarya	67914	35002	2313	37315	3239	40554	10	675901	2	98513	774414
Kartaltepe	12426	3831	-	3831	8276	12107	10	115984	2	21021	137005
Kemalpaşa	14256	19229	2977	22206	1111	23317	10	141449	2	6306	147755
Mehmet Akif	52258	10648	-	10648	3621	14269	10	518959	2	93868	612827
Söğütlü Çeşme	32744	65293	-	65293	31525	96818	10	295915	2	195	296110
Sultan Murat	14052	-	-	-	-	-	10	140520	2	28104	168624
Tevfik Bey	36408	41015	14220	55235	15776	71011	10	348304	2	17581	365885
Yarımburgaz	9867	5534	-	5534	1800	7334	10	96870	2	14200	111070
Yeni Mahalle	19831	13432	-	13432	8248	21680	10	190062	2	26230	216292
Yeşilova	33064	9835	1085	10920	5191	16111	10	325449	2	55208	380657
Küçükçekmece Total	770316	1673687	60017	1733704	1252581	2986285	10	6450579	2	-	6450579

Evaluation of open space and green area for gathering areas after possible Earthquake Disaster

Gathering Areas

Escape and gathering areas are very important for people who are affected by earthquakes and other possible disasters (Anhorn and Khazai, 2015). Gathering areas are safe areas that people need to reach urgently during and after earthquakes and other possible disasters, without any risk of earthquakes and other possible disasters (Zhu et al., 2016). The gathering areas are are savior spaces as using emergency access, aerial access, storage and distribution of rescue materials, and rescuing places with their use as a temporary tent area for shelter (Aman and Aytaç, 2018)

According to AFAD (2018), gathering areas are sheltered areas such as the park where those affected by the disaster will be gathered. Green areas, which have an important role in the organic bond to be established between the ecological, physical, and economic functions before the earthquake, and human health and living space, assume the function of gathering areas after earthquakes and other possible disasters (Aksoy et al., 2009). Open areas and green areas after disasters are places where life starts again with another expression where emergency needs, especially security, are met, interventions can be made, and urban services are shifted (Kırçın et al., 2017).

Site Selection Criteria for Gathering Areas

Within the scope of the research (JICA & IBB, 2002; FEMA, 2007; UNHCR, 2007; The Sphere Project, 2011; Shelter Center, 2012; AFAD, 2015) all the criteria determined by the study were examined. As a result of the examinations, it was seen that most of the planning works for the placement of emergency shelter areas were carried out according to the standards set by organizations such as The Sphere Project, UNDRO, UN OCHA. The locations of the gathering areas that will be needed immediately and after earthquakes and other disasters must be selected in line with particular criteria. For this reason, all the criteria in the studies conducted have been analyzed taking into account.

Within the scope of the research, it was aimed to determine the planning criteria of the gathering areas and to determine the gathering areas spatially by evaluating the existing open and active green areas in the 21 neighborhood of the Küçükçekmece district of Istanbul

Urban Risks

While creating the gathering areas planning criteria; Urban risks (geological-geotechnical structure, technical infrastructure, proximity to hazardous uses, risks arising from urban fabric and building stock) should be taken into account. While determining the planning criteria for the gathering of the areas; urban risks (geological-geotechnical structure, technical infrastructure status, proximity to hazardous uses, risks arising from urban fabric and building stock) should be taken into account (AFAD, 2006).

Micro zoning, geological survey, or geological-geotechnical survey studies are carried out to prevent possible risks and minimize losses for places with high-risk rates in an earthquake and other possible disaster situations. The "Settlement Conformity Assessment" studies that emerge as a result of the synthesis of the studies conducted are guiding the plan decisions and constitute an important database in the formation of the location selection criteria of the gathering areas (Mersin et al., 2009; Durgun, 2007). The areas chosen as the gathering area should be places that do not have risk in terms of ground (Mersin et al., 2009).

If the active green areas and open areas in the coastal areas are applied to the filling areas, these areas are not preferred for the gathering area due to the weak ground structure. It is also the places that are not suitable for use as a gathering area in the fault line area. Technical infrastructure such as natural gas, water network, and high voltage lines constitutes great sources of danger for the building and its immediate surroundings in an earthquake and other possible disaster situations (Şekerci, 2011). The fact that the open area and green areas on the technical infrastructure areas are not planned as a gathering area is necessary because of the high-risk rate that may arise during and after the earthquake (Toprak et al., 2005). Such facilities may cause explosions in the event of an earthquake and other possible disasters, leading to other risks (JICA, 2002).

Therefore, risk reduction methods and tools should be recommended for all situations, considering all possible risk groups. Such areas, which have an explosion hazard during and after an earthquake and other possible disasters and are therefore unsafe, should not be preferred in the selection of the assembly areas. Depending on the density of building stocks in the city and the possibility of a collapse in the event of an earthquake, differences arise in determining the needs of open and green area. How safe an area depends not only on the nature of the uses in its immediate environment but also on its structural features. The gathering areas should be at a distance of 350 m from the damaged building units depending on the density of building stock and the possibility of demolition (Balamir, 2007).

Considering the urban risks to be created on open areas and green areas in connection with the earthquake, each open and green area should not be considered as a safe gathering area.

Standards in Determining the Gathering Areas

Five factors are taken into account when establishing the criteria for determining the gathering areas (Aksoy et al., 2009; JICA, 2002; Tarabanis and Tsionas, 1999):

Accessibility

The distance to the building areas should be taken into consideration in the selection of the location of the gathering areas. The maximum walking distance that each individual can easily reach as the distance from the building islands to the assembly areas should be 500 m / 15 minutes (0-500 m walking distance) and less. As well as the diversity and adequacy of the gathering areas, comfortable access of the public to these areas is also very important. Walking distance from the house to the gathering areas is accepted as 15 minutes or less. The reason that the walking distance is 15 minutes or less is that this distance refers to the minimum distance as a mental and physical limit (Çınar et al., 2018; Aksoy et al., 2009).

Connection with Road Axle

Connections of the gathering areas with road axles should be established and the continuity of the gathering areas should be ensured. Connections of the gathering areas with the main arteries should be established (taking into account the roads at risk of closure) and their continuity with other gathering areas should be ensured. Open and green areas are used for temporary health services, food distribution, storage of future relief materials, and other technical equipment as gathering areas during or after an earthquake. For this reason, open and green areas, which have very important roles in ensuring the continuation of vital activities after the earthquake, should be provided with the main transportation network and barriers to prevent access to these areas should not be allowed (İDMP, 2003).

Diversity

When the gathering areas are analyzed according to the criteria of diversity (multifunctionality); active green areas (children's playgrounds, sports fields, park areas- pocket parks, small parks, neighborhood parks, district parks, city parks), building gardens (school gardens, mosque and hospital gardens) that make up the diversity open and green areas; empty spaces and open car parks can be suggested as gathering areas.

Ownership

Public lands should be primarily preferred. The private (private) properties of empty spaces and open car parks can be preferred by taking into account the accessibility and availability, along with the continuity and area size created by road axes and other gathering areas. Structures such as public schools and mosques can also be used as a gathering area if they are seismically sufficient (JICA, 2002).

Size

In the JICA (2002) report, it has been suggested that the places expressed as “Pre-Evacuation Area” should be in each neighborhood unit with a minimum gross minimum of 1.5 m2 / person. In their studies, it has been proposed to determine the net usable area per capita in the gathering areas on a building island basis and at least 2 m2 (Tarabanis and Tsionas, 1999; Aksoy et al., 2009).

Creation of Gathering Areas in Küçükçekmece District

Planning Criteria of Gathering Areas

Six factors were taken into account while creating planning criteria for Küçükçekmece district gathering areas.

Diversity

When the gathering areas of Küçükçekmece district are examined according to the diversity criteria; The open spaces and green areas that make up the diversity are active green areas (parking areas), building gardens (hospital, school, mosque gardens), and open car parks. The most diverse neighborhoods are Fatih, Halkalı Merkez, İnönü, İstasyon, and Kanarya districts (Table 2).

Tablo 2. Adequacy Assessment of Gathering Areas at Neighborhood Level


Neighborhood	Type	Number	Population	Area (m²)	m²/Person	Norm	Norm gap (m²/person)
Atakent	Pocket park	5	95636	12077	0,1	2	1,9
	Small park	9		108059	1,1	2	0,9
	Neighborhood park	2		57500	0,6	2	1,4
	District park	2		212655	2,2	2	-
	School garden	10		92624	1,0	2	1,0
	Total	28		482915	5,0	2	-
Beşyol	Pocket park	2	3890	3992	1	2	1
	School garden	2		12368	3,2	2	-
	Total	4		16360	4,2	2	-
Cennet	Pocket park	4	29892	10559	0,4	2	1,6
	Mosque garden	2		8194	0,3	2	1,7
	Hospital garden	1		1195	0,04	2	1,96
	School garden	3		15101	0,5	2	1,5
	Total	16		35048	1,2	2	0,8
Cumhuriyet	Pocket park	2	50786	5145	0,1	2	1,9
	Small park	1		15350	0,3	2	1,7
	Neighborhood Park	1		23713	0,5	2	1,5
	Mosque garden	1		1822	0,04	2	1,96
	School garden	3		12331	0,2	2	1,8
	Open car park	3		5.507	0,1	2	1,9
	Total	11		63868	1,3	2	0,7
Fatih	Pocket park	2	10643	5171	0,5	2	1,5
	Small park	1		5646	0,5	2	1,5
	District park	3		439234	41,3	2	-
	Mosque garden	2		2201	0,2	2	1,8
	School garden	2		9134	0,9	2	1,1
	Hospital garden	1		533	0,05	2	1,95
	Open car park	5		9829	0,9	2	1,1
	Total	16		471748	44,3	2	-
Fevzi Çakmak	Pocket park	2	25124	4680	0,2	2	1,8
	Mosque garden	1		1156	0,05	2	1,95
	School garden	1		10504	0,4	2	1,6
	Open car park	1		537	0,02	2	1,98
	Total	5		16877	0,7	2	1,3
Gültepe	Pocket park	4	30160	5097	0,2	2	1,8
	Mosque garden	1		5535	0,2	2	1,8
	School garden	6		36023	1,2	2	0,8
	Open car park	2		8.947	0,3	2	1,7
	Total	13		55594	1,8	2	0,2
Halkalı Merkez	Pocket park	12	77648	22297	0,3	2	1,7
	Small park	3		27733	0,4	2	1,6
	School garden	2		67110	0,9	2	1,1
	Neighborhood park	1		53166	0,7	2	1,3
	Mosque garden	3		14236	0,2	2	1,8
	Hospital garden	1		1185	0,02	2	1,98
	School garden	10		1052241	13,6	2	-
	Open car park	4		13.098	0,2	2	1,8
	Total	36		1251066	16,11	2	-
Atatürk	Pocket park	4	42171	5777	0,1	2	1,9
	Mosque garden	2		4465	0,1	2	1,9
	Hospital garden	1		1440	0,03	2	1,97
	School garden	1		8844	0,2	2	1,8
	Total	8		20526	0,5	2	1,5
Mehmet Akif	Pocket park	3	52258	3621	0,07	2	1,93
	Mosque garden	2		1986	0,03	2	1,97
	School garden	2		8662	0,2	2	1,8
	Total	7		14269	0,3	2	1,7
İnönü	Pocket park	16	72454	31884	0,4	2	1,6
	Small park	1		5838	0,08	2	1,92
	Mosque garden	2		4582	0,06	2	1,94
	Hospital garden	2		5373	0,07	2	1,93
	School garden	7		32026	0,4	2	1,6
	Open car park	1		1504	0,02	2	1,98
	Total	29		81207	1,1	2	0,9
İstasyon	Pocket park	4	39092	12249	0,3	2	1,7
	Small park	3		38862	1,0	2	1
	Mosque garden	3		12604	0,3	2	1,7
	Hospital garden	1		82813	2,1	2
	School garden	4		42523	1,1	2	0,9
	Total	15		189051	4,8	2	-
Kanarya	Pocket park	2	67914	3239	0,04	2	1,96
	Mosque garden	2		10343	0,2	2	1,8
	Hospital garden	2		690	0,01	2	1,99
	School garden	4		23969	0,4	2	1,6
	Open car park	2		2.313	0,03	2	1,97
	Total	12		40554	0,6	2	1,4
Kartaltepe	Pocket park	1	12426	210	0,02	2	1,98
	Small park	1		8066	0,6	2	1,4
	School garden	1		3831	0,3	2	1,7
	Total	3		12107	1,0	2	1,1
Kemalpaşa	Pocket park	1	14256	1111	0,07	2	1,93
	School garden	2		19229	1,3	2	0,7
	Open car park	2		2.977	0,2	2	1,8
	Total	5		23317	1,6	2	0,4
Söğütlü Çeşme	Pocket park	2	32744	6174	0,2	2	1,8
	Small park	2		25351	0,8	2	1,2
	Mosque garden	3		5518	0,2	2	1,8
	School garden	4		59775	1,8	2	0,2
	Total	11		96818	3,0	2	-
Tevfik Bey	Pocket park	12	36408	15776	0,4	2	1,6
	Mosque garden	3		3702	0,1	2	1,9
	School garden	6		37313	1,0	2	1,0
	Open car park	4		14.220	0,4	2	1,6
	Total	25		71018	2,0	2	-
Yarımburgaz	Pocket park	1	9867	1800	0,2	2	1,8
	School garden	2		5534	0,6	2	1,4
	Total	3		7334	0,7	2	1,3
Yeni Mahalle	Pocket park	6	19831	8248	0,4	2	1,6
	Mosque garden	2		3474	0,2	2	1,8
	Hospital garden	1		738	0,03	2	1,97
	School garden	2		9220	0,5	2	1,5
	Total	11		21680	1,1	2	0,9
Yeşilova	Pocket park	2	33064	5191	0,2	2	1,8
	Mosque garden	2		2940	0,09	2	1,91
	School garden	1		6895	0,2	2	1,8
	Open car park	2		1.085	0,03	2	1,97
	Total	7		16111	0,5	2	1,5
TOTAL		259	770316	2987468	3,9	2	-

As the second step of diversity analysis, the suggested gathering areas for each neighborhood unit are discussed in number. The highest gathering areas in terms of numbers are in Halkalı Merkez (36 pieces), İnönü (29 pieces), Atakent (28 pieces), Tevfik Bey (25 pieces), Fatih and Cennet (16 pieces), and İstasyon (15 pieces). While the least number of gathering areas are in Kartaltepe, Yarımburgaz (3), Beşyol (4), Fevzi Çakmak, and Kemalpaşa (5) neighborhoods, there are no gathering areas in Sultan Murat District (Table 3).

Table 3. Numerical Distribution of Gathering Areas at the Level of Neighborhoods

Neighborhood	Number	Population	Area (m²)	m²/person	Norm	Norm gap (m²/person)
Atakent	28	95636	482.915	5,0	2	-
Beşyol	4	3890	16360	4,2	2	-
Cennet	16	29892	35048	1,2	2	0,8
Cumhuriyet	11	50786	63868	1,3	2	0,7
Fatih	16	10643	471748	44,3	2	-
Fevzi Çakmak	5	25124	16877	0,7	2	1,3
Gültepe	13	30160	55594	1,8	2	0,2
Halkalı Merkez	36	77648	1251066	16,11	2	-
Atatürk	8	42171	20526	0,5	2	1,5
Mehmet Akif	7	52258	14269	0,3	2	1,7
İnönü	29	72454	81207	1,1	2	0,9
İstasyon	15	39092	189051	4,8	2	-
Kanarya	12	67914	40554	0,6	2	1,4
Kartaltepe	3	12426	12107	1,0	2	1,0
Kemalpaşa	5	14256	23317	1,6	2	0,4
Söğütlü Çeşme	11	32744	96818	3,0	2	-
Sultan Murat	-	14052	-	-	2	2
Tevfik Bey	25	36408	71018	2	2	-
Yarımburgaz	3	9867	7334	0,7	2	1,3
Yeni Mahalle	11	19831	21680	1,1	2	0,9
Yeşilova	7	33064	16111	0,5	2	1,5
Küçükçekmece	259	770316	2.987.468	3,9	2	-

Adequacy

While conducting the qualification analysis, the norm of 2 m² per person recommended for gathering areas was taken into consideration. When we look at the whole of Küçükçekmece district; Cennet, Cumhuriyet, Fevziçakmak, Gültepe, Atatürk, Mehmet Akif, İnönü, Kanarya, Kartaltepe, Kemalpaşa, Sultan Murat, Yarimburgaz, Yenimahalle and Yeşilova districts where Atakent, Beşyol, Fatih, Halkalı Merkez, İstasyon, Söğütlüçeşme and Tevfikbey districts have the qualification level It is observed that it is insufficient and there is a gap in norms at the neighborhood level (Table 3).

It is understood that the gathering areas of Küçükçekmece district are sufficient according to the proposed 2 m² / person norm.

Accessibility

The variety and adequacy of the gathering areas are as important as the easy access of the public to these areas. Walking distance from home to gathering areas has been accepted as 15 minutes or less. The walking distance is 15 minutes or less because it expresses the minimum distance as a mental and physical limit.

Connection with Road Axle

The connection of the gathering areas with the road axles was established and the continuity of the gathering areas was ensured. The location of gathering areas in areas close to road areas with a risk of blockage has been achieved.

Ownership

Public lands have been preferred primarily in the choice of places to be used for gathering areas in Küçükçekmece district. The private (private) owners of the open car parks were preferred considering the accessibility, usability, continuity, and spatial size they create with road axles and other gathering areas.

Size

The gathering areas in the Küçükçekmece district are divided into 4 degrees according to their size (Table 4).

1st-degree gathering areas: 10.000 m² and above

2nd-degree gathering areas: between 5000 - 10.000 m²

3rd-degree gathering areas: between 1000 and 5000 m²

4th-degree gathering areas: between 100 and 1000 m²

Table 4. Distribution of the Gathering Areas by Area Sizes

	1st degree		2nd degree		3rd degree		4th degree		Total
Neighborhood	Area (m2)	Number	Area (m2)	Number	Area (m2)	Number	Area (m2)	Adet	Area (m2)	Number
Atakent	401643	13	64938	9	15732	5	602	1	482915	28
Atatürk	-	-	8844	1	10306	5	1376	2	20526	8
Beşyol	-	-	9620	1	6740	3	-	-	16360	4
Cennet	-	-	19242	3	15806	7	-	-	35048	10
Cumhuriyet	39063	2	7289	1	16743	7	773	1	63868	11
Fatih	439234	3	12530	2	17837	8	2147	3	471748	16
Fevzi Çakmak	10504	1	-	-	5836	3	537	1	16877	5
Gültepe	-	-	36105	5	17750	6	1739	2	55594	13
Halkalı Merkez	1143617	7	74214	11	28455	12	4780	6	1251066	36
İnönü	-	-	28510	5	47934	17	4763	7	81207	29
İstasyon	139846	4	28865	4	19842	6	498	1	189051	15
Kanarya	11648	1	15369	2	11413	5	2124	4	40554	12
Kartaltepe	-	-	8066	1	3831	1	210	1	12107	3
Kemalpaşa	13372	1	5857	1	3781	2	307	1	23317	5
Mehmet Akif	-	-	6462	1	6723	4	1084	2	14269	7
Söğütlüçeşme	72897	4	8745	1	14400	5	776	1	96818	11
Sultan Murat	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Tevfikbey	11394	1	25661	4	30310	13	3653	7	71018	25
Yarımburgaz	-	-	-	-	7334	3	-	-	7334	3
Yeni Mahalle	-	-	6551	1	12142	6	2987	4	21680	11
Yeşilova	-	-	6895	1	7180	3	2036	3	16111	7
Küçükçekmece	2283218	37	373763	54	300103	121	30392	47	2987468	259

During and after earthquakes and other possible disasters, people need gathering areas for up to 72 hours. The first 72 hours of emergency aid to be made by rescuing people represents the critical period. Within the scope of this research, the planning criteria of the gathering areas that people can reach and use urgently in the first 72 hours, which is considered to be the most critical period after earthquakes and other possible disasters, has been developed in the example of Küçükçekmece district. Planning criteria urban risks, building collapse danger, closed area housing, distance to dangerous structures, property, infrastructure, tsunami danger, flood and flooding hazard, geological structure, liquefaction hazard, groundwater level, slope, landslide hazard, accessibility, and proximity to health facilities It was created for Küçükçekmece District under six headings. These six headings consist of diversity, competence, accessibility, connection with road axes, ownership, and areal size. Within the scope of the research, a gathering area plan was created by evaluating the existing open areas and active green areas in 21 neighborhoods of Küçükçekmece District of Istanbul Province.

Küçükçekmece is one of the most crowded districts of Istanbul Province; It was chosen as a research area because it was identified as one of the districts with high earthquake risk in the studies conducted by IBB and JICA (2002). Open area and active green area analysis were performed in the research area and a total of 115 building gardens including 73 school gardens, 31 mosque gardens, 11 hospital gardens, and 26 open car parks; identified as a potential open area. At the same time, a total of 118 park areas, including 87 pocket parks, 20 small parks, 5 neighborhood parks, and 6 district parks, have been identified as potential active green areas. In Küçükçekmece district, 259 gathering areas have been identified as potential areas, including 141 open areas and 118 active green areas.

The danger of buildings collapse near assembly areas poses a threat to people. For this reason, it has been evaluated whether the buildings near the gathering areas are in danger of collapse. Particular attention has been paid to the fact that the floor heights of the buildings close to the places chosen as gathering areas are not too high and that they are seismically resistant. If there is a risky situation of the existing building near an open area or green area chosen as the gathering area, strengthening works should be carried out. Building gardens are preferred because they contain a closed area that will provide bioclimatic comfort for people in microclimatic conditions. While determining the gathering areas, the primary selection was made from public lands. In urban renewal and urban transformation projects and implementations, open areas and green areas, which have vital importance in emergency conditions, should be sufficiently close and wide to 'residential' areas, in continuity and should be planned as areas that can be easily accessed and inspected. It should become necessary to evaluate whether the spatial distribution of open spaces and green areas to be used in emergency conditions is sufficient in terms of proximity and width to the areas with high-risk levels and need more in an emergency environment and to eliminate the deficiencies through planning. Comprehensive projects should be carried out and implemented in subjects such as providing the recreational game and sports needs of the public in sufficient amounts, developing the opportunities to benefit from the climate-improving functions of green areas, ensuring the continuity of vehicle traffic, alternative walking and bicycle paths. For these reasons, it is necessary to take a collective approach to the management and management of open spaces and green areas, and to make new regulations on ownership, maintenance and inspection to develop comprehensive service capacities in the system (İDMP, 2003).

To ensure a balanced distribution of green areas in the district of Küçükçekmece, neighborhood-level analyzes have been made. As of 2019, there is an active green area of 1252581 m2 in Küçükçekmece District and there is 1.6 m2 active green area per person. With the amendments made in the regulation dated 1985 of the Ministry of Public Works and Settlement in the Official Gazette dated September 2, 1999, and numbered 23804, an active green area of 10 m2 per person was proposed. The amount of active green areas available per person in the Küçükçekmece district does not comply with the green area standards, or even reach this rate.

The functional distribution of green areas is important in terms of gathering the demands of different age groups. Park areas constitute all of the active green areas of Küçükçekmece district. There are also children's playgrounds and sports areas within the park areas. Independent children's playground and sports areas are not available in Küçükçekmece District. As can be understood from the values stated above in Küçükçekmece District, the functional distribution of the existing active green areas is not in line with the standards in terms of gathering the recreational needs of the age groups. In the district of Küçükçekmece, with the norm proposal of a 2 m2 gathering area per person, the adequacy assessment of the gathering areas at the level of the neighborhoods has been made.

As a result of the evaluation, it was observed that the norm gap (area gap) did not occur in the gathering areas in Atakent, Beşyol, Fatih, Halkalı Merkez, İstasyon, Söğütlüçeşme, Tevfikbey, and Yeşilova districts. 259 gathering areas have been proposed in Küçükçekmece district and they constitute an area of 2.987.468 m2. It is seen that there is no norm deficit (area deficit) at the district level, based on the suggestion of a 2 m2 open area per person.

In the Küçükçekmece district, attention has been paid to the fact that the gathering areas are safe areas against building damage (therefore very small parks among risky residences are not preferred), there are no dangerous facilities around them, and the location of the gathering area is easily noticed by the people living in the neighborhood. In Küçükçekmece district, attention has been paid to ensure easy accessibility to assembly areas where assembly, temporary shelter, and emergency response can be provided after an earthquake and other possible natural disasters.

As a result, we can say that; for green areas, which are a part of urban landscape planning and urban planning, to assume a dominant and decisive function in the urban sense with the use and transformation of green areas before and after the earthquake, green areas should be considered as a design input starting from the planning scale.

Ethical approval: Not applicable.

Consent to participate: I as the sole author declare I have given consent to participate in this article.

Author Contributions

“The author contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection, and analysis were performed by the author. The first draft of the manuscript was written by the author and the author commented on previous versions of the manuscript. The author read and approved the final manuscript.”

Funding

“The author declares that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript.”

Availability of data and materials:

Not Applicable

Consent to publish:

I as the sole author declare I have given consent to publish this article.

Competing Interests

Financial interests:

The author declares they have no financial interests.

“The author has no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.”

Conflict of interest:

There is no conflict of interest.

AFAD. 2015. Directive on Establishment, Management and Operation of Temporary Accommodation Centers.

[https://www.afad.gov.tr/upload/Node/2310/files/Gecici_Barinma_Merkezlerinin_Kurulmasi_Yonetimi_Isletilmesi_Yonerge+1.pdf]

AFAD (2018) Turkey Earthquake Hazard Map

[https://www.afad. gov.tr/upload/Node/26539/files/TDTH.jpg]

Anhorn, J., and Khazaıi B. 2015. Open space suitability analysis for emergency shelter after an earthquake. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences (NHESS), 15, 789-803.

Aksoy, Y. 2001. The Determination of Exciting Green Area Situation Istanbul. Doctoret Thesis, ITU Graduate Scool of Science Engineering and Technology, 2001.

Aksoy, Y., Turan, A. Y., and Atalay, H. 2009. Examination The Sufficiency of Istanbul Fatih District’s Green Area Using Values Before and After Marmara Earthquake. Uludağ University Journal of The Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, 14 (2), 137-150.

Aksoy, Y., Aygün, B., Turan, Ç. A., and Bölük, N. 2007. An Evaluation of the Current and Proposed Green Areas Prior to and Post Earthquake Period Within the Auspices of the Risk and Disaster Management Program for the Küçükçekmece. Sub-District, Contractor Istanbul Municipality, Sub-Contractor BİMTAŞ, Project by Bahçeşehir University.

Aman, D. D., and Aytaç, G. 2018. Public Green Space and Disaster Relief The Scope for Effective Policies in Istanbul, Journal of Environmental Protection and Ecology, 19 (3), 1047–1053.

Balamir, M. 2007. Disaster Policy, Risk and Planning, TMMOB Disaster Symposium Book, 31-43, Ankara.

Çınar, A. K., Akgün, Y., and Maral, H. 2018. Analyzing The Planning Criteria for Emergency Assembly Points and Temporary Shelter Areas: Case of İzmir-Karşıyaka. Planlama, 28 (2), 179-200.

Durgun, E. 2007. Disaster Sensitive Planning Approach and Integration of Earth Science Data into the Plan, Chamber of Geological Engineers, File 53, News Bulletin 3.

FEMA. 2007. Emergency Temporary Group Housing Site Selection Guidelines– Minimizing Environmental/Historic/Safety Problems.

[https://www.fema.gov/pdf/plan/ehp/thsiteselection.pdf]

IBB (Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality) (IDMP). 2003. Earthquake Master Plan for Istanbul, Planning and Zoning Department, Ground and Earthquake Investigation Directorate. [http://www.ibb.gov.tr/tr-TR/SubSites/DepremSite/ Documents/%C4%B0DMP_TUR.pdf]

JICA (Japanese International Cooperation Agency) and IBB (Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality). 2002. Republic of Turkey Istanbul Provincial Seismic Micro-zoning Inns of Disaster Prevention / Mitigation Basic Plan Study Final Report Volume V, Istanbul, Turkey.

[http://www.ibb.gov.tr/tr-TR/SubSites/DepremSite/PublishingImages/ JICA-TUR.pdf]

Kahyaoğlu, B. 2016. Tekirdağ Cıty Of Natural Dısasters And Educatıon Plannıng A Study On The Park. Master Thesis, Namık Kemal University Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Tekirdağ.

Kırçın, P. N., Çabuk, S. N., Aksoy, K., and Çabuk, A. 2017. A Research on Increasing the Possibilities of Using Green Areas as a Gathering Area after Disasters in Turkey, 4th International Earthquake Engineering and Seismology Conference, 11-13 October 2017, Anadolu University, Eskişehir.

Mersin, O., and Şahin, N. 2009. Disaster Management in Izmir since 1999. Proceedings of Izmir Disaster Risk Reduction Symposium. (Editors: V. Tecim, C. Tarhan, B. Baradan, E. Kavas), p. 35-49.

UNDRO (United Nations Disater Relief Coordinator). 1979. Natural Disasters and Vulnerability Analysis in Report of Expert Group Gathering, 9-12 July, Geneva: UNDRO.

UNHCR. 2007. Handbook for Emergencies.

[https://www.ifrc.org/PageFiles/95884/D.01.03.%20Handbook%20for%20Emergencies_UNHCR.pdf]

UN OCHA. 2008. Disaster preparedness for effective response: guidance and indicator package for implementing priority five of the Hyogo Framework, United Nations, New York, Geneva.

SHELTER CENTER. 2012. Transitional Shelter Guidelines.

[https://www.iom.int/files/live/sites/iom/files/What-We-Do/docs/Transitional-Shelter-Guidelines.pdf]

Şekerci, H., and Abay, H. A. 2011. Analysis Examples of Earthquake Reliability of Electrical Energy System in the World and in Our Country, Electrical Installation National Congress, TMMOB, Chamber of Electrical Engineers, İzmir.

Toprak, S., Taşkın, F., Koç, A. C., and Vardar, Ş. 2005. Evaluation of Earthquake Performance of Infrastructure Systems with Geographical Information Systems, Kocaeli 2005 Earthquake Symposium Book, p. 1042-1049.

Selitsaniotisa, I., and Nikolaoua, K. 2009. Planning for the upgrading and increasing of urban green in the city of Larissa, Greece, Journal of Environmental Protection and Ecology, 10 (2), 394–400.

Tarabanis, K., and Tsionas, I. 1999. Using Network Analyses For Emergency, Planning İn Case Of Earthquake, Transactions in GIS, 3 (2), 187-197.

The Sphere Project. 2011. Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response.

[http://www.ifrc.org/PageFiles/95530/The-Sphere-Project-Handbook-20111.pdf]

Zhu, C., Wang, Y., Ren, W., Luo, I., Yin, Y., Xie, W., and Liu, W. 2016. The Planning of Green Spaces to Prevent and Avoid Urban Disasters in Dujiangyan, IJSSST 17 (46), 27.1-27.6.

[http://ijssst.info/Vol-17/No-46/paper27.pdf]

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Open and Green Areas as a Gathering Area the Case of Küçükçekmece, Istanbul

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Introduction

Material And Methods

Results

Statements & Declarations

References

Status:

Version 1